Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

Christ or Chaos ^ | 15th July 2004 | Dr Thomas Droleskey

[Hermann the Cherusker]

But Fr. Z realizes it's the captain and officers who are wrecking it, and he's decided as a member of the crew not to be complicit in the wreckage. Obedience should never be blind, and should never be posited in violation of the faith itself. That is the bottom line. It's clear Fr. Z understood that he could no longer in good conscience say the Novus Ordo, that he saw clearly it was in violation of Trent, that its false theology was wrecking the Church itself, and that it was a real and present danger to the souls in his care. In such a situation he was obliged to do what was morally right, regardless of the bishop's command.

Fr. Zigrang's correct course of action if he could not agree with his Bishop and could not get him to do as he wished would have been to resign his office and retire from active ministry in the diocese. That is not what transpired. Fr. Zigrang simply went off and did his own thing like so many episcopi and sacerdotali vagantes before him.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Why do you and gbcdoj cut and paste so much--as if that gives what you say some weight?

Truth cannot be supressed and the words of the Church shoudlbe heard in such matters rather than the opinions of men.

Two can play that game. For every one of your citations, I could name two.

By all means please do so.

[BlackElk]

You are cheering on the peril of eternal damnation of a man who was apparently a fine priest until he fell hopelessly in love with his own opinions. Fiorenza is no good but he, like your schism, will pass away soon enough. If and when you again become Catholic, let us know.

[rogator]

"Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, "This is valid forever."

In what other documents did he say this?

[BlackElk]

One is led by the Vicar of Christ on Earth and the other (SSPX) is led by a cesspool of defiant and disobedient schismatics bent on destruction of Holy Mother the Church. The Roman Catholic Church wins. It was in all the bibles.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In this case, yes. Eternal salvation is at stake here. Blind obedience to a corrupt, non-Catholic, pedophile supporter bishop is not likely to get one to Heaven.

Why not just go and shoot such a man and be done with it then?

Or does the end only justify *some* means, not *any* means?

[ultima ratio]

You argue incorrectly since Canon Law explicitly prohibits retroactive legislation to cover a present exigency. Besides, if this had been done, it would have been pronounced openly. In fact, the entire issue was ignored and the marriages and confessions simply accepted as valid. This would be in keeping with the Church's own tradition of interpreting the laws on supplied jurisdiction extremely liberally, always in favor of the faithful.

[ultima ratio]

"What did the pope say????"

The Pope mis-spoke. He does this often, you know, not being God.

[BlackElk]

Which theory and fantasy conveniently places ultima ratio in the jusdgment seat as to his ecclesiastical superiors. The seat is shared with every other presumptuous Tom, Marcel and Harriet and thigs get very confusing as they spin off personal schisms from the collective schism but never mind.

[ultima ratio]

No, he had a canonical right to say the ancient Mass. That right has never been officially abrogated.

[ultima ratio]

I do--but it's time-consuming. What I was referring to is the fact that both you and gbcdoj seem not too secure in your own understanding and have need to post these ponderous texts which impede the flow of these threads and bog it down in minutiae. They sound official enough--but often raise only more speculative argument. For instance, the continual posting of Ecclesia Dei only invites the posting of the pertinent canons of Canon Law on the state of necessity exemption which the Pope's letter makes no reference to. And so it goes.

[ultima ratio]

Stupid response.

[ultima ratio]

"Which theory and fantasy conveniently places ultima ratio in the jusdgment seat as to his ecclesiastical superiors."

Wrong. I have popes and councils and saints of the Catholic Church behind me, going back 2000 years. This is the error most of you make who oppose the SSPX--you pretend it is acting on its own, that no doctrines were ever taught before Vatican II. But it is CATHOLIC doctrine that we must disobey the commands of superiors if they would harm the faith and do injury to souls. St. Thomas taught this. St. Robert Bellarmine taught this. St. Paul taught this to the Galatians--telling them that even IF AN ANGEL CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN and told them to believe something new, they were to ignore it and stick to the doctrines he taught them. That is the most basic of Catholic teachings--that TRADITION is what must be followed, not doctrinal novelties, even when pushed by the Vicar of Christ. The job of the Pope is to protect what he has been given, not to wreck it and start all over.

[Maximilian]

You can argue all you want about emergencies, but eventually, an authority will determine what the emergency is.

This is a basic misunderstanding of the concept of "emergency." By definition, the "authority" does not determine that an emergency exists, or else it wouldn't be an emergency.

As a comparison, just the other day some other poster was saying that you can't disobey orders in the army until someone in authority says you can. But he finally agreed that this was wrong -- the authority is NEVER going to tell you to disobey orders, but sometimes you must anyway. For example, if a soldier is give an order to kill innocent civilians, he MUST disobey the order, and he must do so immediately. He cannot wait for some other authority to declare an emergency situation.

Didn't the Nuremberg trials establish the principle that "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse? One MUST disobey any orders that are intrinsically immoral, and one cannot wait around for confirmation.

I can't go around telling women to have Abortions because it is an emergency of one sort or another. I can't walk down the street with a bunch of burly men, dragging them into Church for an emergency.

These are preposterous examples. Abortion, for example, is always wrong. No emergency could ever justify it. There is never an emergency situation that makes an abortion okay. But there are emergency situations that arise rather frequently that make it necessary for us to disobey lawful superiors.

blaming the ills of the Church on Mass reforms when more serious plans are afoot to destroy the Church plays into the enemies hands.

If it is true that the New Mass represents the destruction of the traditional Catholic Mass, then it is impossible for there to exist "more serious plans." Nothing could be "more serious" than the destruction of the Catholic Mass. No event in heaven or earth, not even the destruction of the earth itself, could be "more serious" than the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice by which God becomes present to man. So it can never be a question of "more serious issues"; it can only be a question of whether it is true that the New Mass represents the destruction of the Catholic Mass. Some may answer "Yes" and some may anser "No," but that is the only "serious" question. As evidence for the "Yes" position, take a look at this photo. And please don't pretend that this is unusual. There are hundreds of photos like this or even worse that pop up every single week:

[broadsword]

I wonder why the Texas D-CON struggles so insidiously to shut down all conservative voices? Never mind. I really don't wonder. Do we ALL get his extremely weird and threatening emails? Every time I get one, (or read some of his posts) I want to spray Lysol in my eyes... just to be sure.

[sinkspur]

From the Religion Moderator:

This thread is yet another example of insult, personal attack, name-calling and all other kinds of flaming being passed off as "debate". Any more of it on this thread will cause this thread to disappear. Any more from those individuals who have already been warned via FReepmail, or who are being warned now, will result in sanctions against them. There is no need to respond; this post is not part of the discussion. Thank you.

[broadsword]

Engage in personal attacks, get your posts pulled, BEST. Those have always been the rules, and still are. (Insert Satanic laughter here)... Especially when I have goaded and goaded and baited and goaded you into anger, folish mortal! Be silenced, Catholic scum! I will drag your pathetic soul to hellllllll! (and then in a maudlin fake human voice) Certainly. As were his toward me. We both got out of control on that thread. I regret that it happened, but I didn't start the war. (Satanic laughter again) Silence you foolish mortal! Let your vile truths be dragged by the Mods down into the black pit of oblivionnnnnn! AaaaahhhhhhhhHaHaHaHaHaaaaaaaaaa!

[Pyro7480]

(Backs away slowly) I wouldn't insinuate such a thing.... you'll get this thread pulled.

[broadsword]

Those are my words excerpted and mishandled by you over the course of several posts where you accuse me of things that are simply not true. Your tactics are in overdrive and are manifestly exposed.

Yes, he clearly twisted your words. Well... twisted is as twisted does. 8o)

[Religion Moderator]

I warned you privately via FReepmail to knock it off. Now the warning is public. Knock it off.

Next will be a free vacation.