Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza
Christ or Chaos ^ | 15th July 2004 | Dr Thomas Droleskey

Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena

Catholics exhibit fidelity to the Tradition of Holy Mother Church in many ways. Each of us has a distinctive, unrepeatable immortal soul that has personal characteristics of its own not shared by anyone else. Not even identical twins are the same in every respect. This plurality of souls in the Mystical Bride of Christ is reflected in the many different communities of men and women religious that have developed over the Church’s history. Each community has its own charism and mission. Ideally, each community of men and women religious should be totally faithful to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith and expressed and protected in the authentic Tradition of the Church. The means of expressing this fidelity, however, will vary from community to community.

What is true of communities of men and women religious is true also of us all, including our priests. Some priests have the patience of Saint Francis de Sales or Saint John Bosco, meek and mild, able to handle the rough seas that beset Holy Mother Church and/or themselves personally with perfect equanimity. Other priests have had the bluntness of St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio, mincing no words in their sermons about the necessity of rooting out sin and the possibility of going to Hell for all eternity. Both St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio were devoted to their role as an alter Christus in the confessional, using that hospital of Divine Mercy to administer the infinite merits of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood to bring sacramental absolution to those to whom they had preached in blunt terms.

In addition to fidelity, though, there are different ways of expressing courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings. Some Catholics stood up quite directly to the unjust and illicit dictates of the English Parliament, which had been passed at the urging of King Henry VIII, at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England. Others kept their silence for as long as was possible, as was the case with Saint Thomas More, who discharged his mind publicly only after he had been found guilty on the basis of perjured testimony of denying the supremacy of the king as the head of the Church in England. Some priests in the Elizabethan period, such as St. Edmund Campion, almost dared officials to arrest them as they went to different locales to offer Holy Mass or as they took groups to the Tower of London. Other priests went quietly from house to house to offer the Traditional Mass underground as both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in England used every sort of pressure imaginable to convince holdout “Romans” to go over to Protestantism and worship in the precusor liturgy of our own Novus Ordo Missae. Still other newly ordained priests came over from France, knowing that they might be able to offer only one Mass in England before they were arrested and executed.

The same thing occurred in France 255 years after the arrest and execution of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More. Some priests simply stood up to the agents of the French Revolution. Others, such as Blessed Father William Chaminade, donned disguises as they went from place to place, much as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro did in Mexico prior to his execution at the hands of the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico on November 23, 1927. Ignatius Cardinal Kung, then the Bishop of Shanghai, China, was hauled before a dog-track stadium in his see city in 1956 before thousands of spectators. The Red Chinese authorities expected him to denounce the pope and thus to save himself from arrest. The brave bishop exclaimed the same thing as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro, “Long live Christ the King,” and was hauled off to spend over thirty years in prison before being released. Oh, yes, there are so many ways for priests to demonstrate their fidelity and courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings.

Well, many bishops and priests who are faithful to the fullness of the Church’s authentic Tradition have been subjected to a unspeakable form of persecution in the past thirty-five to forty years: treachery from within the highest quarters of the Church herself. Men who have held fast to that which was believed always, everywhere and by everyone prior for over 1,900 years found themselves termed as “disobedient,” “schismatic,” “heretical,” and “disloyal” for their resisting novelties that bore no resemblance to Catholicism and a great deal of resemblance to the very things that were fomented by Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, things for which Catholics half a millennium ago shed their blood rather than accept. Many priests who have tried to remain faithful to Tradition within the framework of a diocesan or archdiocesan structure have been sent to psychiatric hospitals or penalized by being removed from their pastorates or by being denied pastorates altogether. Others, though, have faced more severe penalties.

Angelus Press, which is run by the Society of Saint Pius X, put out a book earlier this year, Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?, which discussed the stories of seventeen priests who had decided to offer only the Traditional Latin Mass and to never again offer the Novus Ordo Missae. One of those priests is my good friend, Father Stephen Zigrang, who offered the Traditional Latin Mass in his [now] former parish of Saint Andrew Church in Channelview, Texas, on June 28-29, 2003, telling his parishioners that he would never again offer the new Mass.

As I reported extensively at this time last year, Father Zigrang was placed on a sixty day leave-of-absence by the Bishop of Galveston-Houston, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, and told to seek psychological counseling, preferably from Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. Father Zigrang took his two month leave of absence, making a retreat at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, in early August of last year, returning to the Houston area to take up residence in the Society’s Queen of Angels Chapel in Dickinson, Texas. Bishop Fiorenza met with Father Zigrang in early September, seeming at the time to let him stay for a year with the Society while the diocese continued to pay his health insurance premiums. Within days of that early September meeting, however, Fiorenza was threatening to suspend Father Zigrang by the beginning of October if he did not vacate Queen of Angels and return to a diocesan assignment.

October of 2003 came and went. Father Zigrang heard no word from Bishop Fiorenza or the chancery office until he received the following letter, dated Jun 10, 2004:

Dear Father Zigrang:

Once more I appeal to you to cease your association with the Society of St. Pius X and return to your responsibilities as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston

Your continued association with a schismatic group which has severed communion with the Holy Father is confusing and a scandal to many of Christ’s faithful. You are well aware that without appropriate jurisdiction the marriages witnessed and confessions heard by the priests of the St. Society of St. Paul X are invalid and people are being lead to believe otherwise. You are also aware that the Holy See has asked the faithful not to attend Masses celebrated in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X.

I plead with you to return by July 1, 2004, to the presbyterate of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston and receive a priestly assignment from me. This letter serves as a penal precept (c. 1319) and is a final canonical warning (c. 1347.1). If I do not hear from you by June 30, 2004, I will impose a just penalty for disobeying a legitimate precept (c. 1371.2). The just penalty may include suspension (c. 133.1), nn 1-2: prohibition of all acts of the power of orders and governance.

I offer this final warning after consultation with the Holy See and will proceed to impose a penalty if you persist in disobedience to a legitimate precept. It is my fervent hope and constant prayer that you not remain out of union with the Holy Father.

Fraternally in Christ,

Joseph A. Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston

Reverend R. Troy Gately, Vice Chancellor

Overlooking Bishop Fiorenza’s John Kerry-like gaffe in terming the Society of Saint Pius X the “St. Society of St. Paul X,” the letter reproduced above makes the erroneous assertion that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism and that they are not in communion with the Holy Father. A series of articles in The Remnant has dealt with this very issue at great length. Fiorenza’s contentions that the marriages witnessed and the confessions heard by the Society of Saint Pius X are invalid also flies in the face of the fact that the Holy See “regularized” the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, without demanding the convalidation of the marriages their priests had witnesses nor asking that confessions be re-heard. The glaring inconsistency of the canonical rhetoric of Vatican functionaries and their actual practices continues to be lost on Bishop Fiorenza.

Father Zigrang did not respond to Bishop Fiorenza’s June 10 letter. He received another letter, dated July 2, 2004, the contents of which are so explosive as to contain implications for the state of the Church far beyond the case of Father Zigrang and far beyond the boundaries of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston:

Dear Father Zigrang:

With great sadness I inform you that, effective immediately, you are suspended from the celebration of all sacraments, the exercise of governance and all rights attached to the office of pastor (Canon 1333.1, nn 1-2-3).

This action is taken after appropriate canonical warnings (canon 1347) and failure to obey my specific directive that you cease the affiliation with the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and accept an assignment to serve as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston (Canon 1371.2).

I want to repeat what I have said to you in person and in the written canonical warnings, that I prayerfully urge you to not break communion with the Holy Father and cease to be associated with the schism which rejects the liciety of the Novus Ordo Mass, often affirmed by Pope John Paul II. This schism also calls into question the teachings of the Second Vatican Council regarding ecumenism and the enduring validity of the Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel.

Your return to full union with the Church and to the acceptance of an assignment to priestly ministry in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston will be joyfully received as an answer to prayer. May the Holy Spirit lead and guide you to renew the promise of obedience you made on the day of your ordination.

Fraternally in Christ,

Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza Bishop of Galveston-Houston

Reverend Monsignor Frank H. Rossi Chancellor

cc: His Eminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Commissio Ecclesia Dei

Bishop Fiorenza’s July 2, 2004, letter is riddled with errors.

First, The Society of Saint Pius X does not reject the liciety of the Novus Ordo Missae. Its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, criticized the nature of the Novus Ordo and pointed out its inherent harm. That is far different from saying that the Novus Ordo is always and in all instances invalid. Is Bishop Fiorenza claiming that any criticism of the Novus Ordo and efforts to demonstrate how it is a radical departure from Tradition are schismatic acts? Is Father Romano Thommasi, for example, to be taken to task for writing scholarly articles, based on the very minutes of the Consilium, about how Archbishop Annibale Bugnini lied about the true origin of the some constituent elements of the Novus Ordo?

Second, the Society is not, as noted above, in schism, at least not as that phrase was defined by the First Vatican Council. The Society recognizes that the See of Peter is occupied at present by Pope John Paul II. Its priests pray for the Holy Father and for the local bishop in the Canon of the Mass. The Society can be said to be disobedient to the Holy Father’s unjust edicts and commands. The Society of Saint Pius X is not in schism.

Third, Bishop Fiorenza seems to be stating that ecumenism is a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church from which no Catholic may legitimately dissent. If this is his contention, it is he who is grave error. Ecumenism is a pastoral novelty that was specifically condemned by every Pope prior to 1958. Pope Pius XI did so with particular eloquence in Mortalium Animos in 1928. Novelties that are not consonant with the authentic Tradition of the Church bind no one under penalty of sin, no less binds a priest under penalty of canonical suspension. A rejection of ecumenism constitutes in no way a schismatic act.

Fourth, Bishop Fiorenza’s assertion that the “Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel” is enduringly valid is itself heretical. No human being can be saved by a belief in the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded in its entirety when the curtain was torn in two in the Temple on Good Friday at the moment Our Lord had breathed His last on the Holy Cross. It is a fundamental act of fidelity to the truths of the Holy Faith to resist and to denounce the heretical contention, made in person by Bishop Fiorenza to Father Zigrang last year, that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant. Were the Apostles, including the first pope, Saint Peter, wrong to try to convert the Jews? Was Our Lord joking when He said that a person had no life in him if he did not eat of His Body and drink of His Blood?

Fifth, Bishop Fiorenza has failed repeatedly to take into account Father Zigrang’s aboslute rights under Quo Primum to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition without any episcopal approval:

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us.

We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force–notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemoial prescription–except, however, if of more than two hundred years’ standing. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission., statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

It is apparently the case that Bishop Fiorenza received a “green light,” if you will, to act against Father Zigrang from Dario Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, who is both the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and the President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, to whom a copy of the July 2, 2004, suspension letter was sent. Father Zigrang surmises that Bishop Fiorenza brought up the issue of his case during the bishops’ ad limina apostolorum visit in Rome recently. Father believes that Cardinal Hoyos wants to send a signal to priests who might be tempted to follow his lead that Rome will let bishops crack down on them without mercy and without so much as an acknowledgment that Quo Primum actually means what it says. Whether or not the specific “schismatic” acts Father Zigrang is alleged to have committed by being associated with the Society of Saint Pius X at Queen of Angels Church in Dickinson, Texas, were outlined to Cardinal Hoyos by Bishop Fiorenza remains to be seen.

Naturally, the grounds on which Bishop Fiorenza suspended Father Zigrang are beyond the sublime. As my dear wife Sharon noted, “Doesn’t Bishop Fiorenza have a better canon lawyer on his staff than the one who advised him on the grounds of suspending Father Zigrang.” Indeed.

The very fact that Fiorenza could make these incredible claims and believes that he has a good chance of prevailing in Rome speaks volumes about the state of the Church in her human elements at present. Will Rome let the bishops govern unjustly and make erroneous assertions about “schism” as well as heretical claims (that a priest must accept that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant and that ecumenism is a matter of de fide doctrine) with its full assent and approval? Will Rome countenance the same sort of misuse of power by local bishops upon traditional priests in the Twenty-first Century that was visited upon “Romans” by the civil state and the Anglican “church” in England from 1534 to 1729? The answers to these questions are probably self-evident. Putting them down in black and white, though, might help priests who are looking to Rome for some canonical protection for the Traditional Latin Mass to come to realize that they wait in vain for help from the Holy See, where the Vicar of Christ occupies himself at present with the writing of a book about existentialism!

There will be further updates on this matter as events warrant. Father Zigrang is weighing his options as to how to respond to the allegations contained in Bishop Fiorenza’s letter of suspension, understanding that the answers provided by the Holy See will have implications of obviously tremendous gravity. Given the intellectual dishonesty that exists in Rome at present, Father Zigrang’s case may only be decided on the technical grounds of “obedience” to his bishop, ignoring all of the other issues, including the rights of all priests under Quo Primum offer the Traditional Latin Mass without approval and their rights to never be forced to offer Holy Mass according to any other form.

To force Rome to act on what it might otherwise avoid, perhaps it might be wise for someone to bring a canonical denunciation of Bishop Fiorenza for his contentions about ecumenism and the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant, spelling out in chapter and verse how these things have been condemned in the history of the Church. Then again, Fiorenza could “defend” himself by simply pointing to the Pope himself, which is precisely why this matter has such grave implications. This matter is certain to be explored in great detail in the weeks and months ahead by competent canonists and by theologians who understand the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Father Zigrang noted the following in an e-mail to me dated July 14, 2004:

I examined canon 1371.2 (the canon that the Bishop says warrants my suspension), checking a good commentary, the disobedience of an Ordinary's legitimate precept may warrant a just penalty but not weighty enough to warrant a censure (e.g. suspension). I think this point may have been missed by the Bishop's hired canon lawyer, when the Bishop was weighing his options about what to do with one of his wayward priests. As I said to you before, the Bishop has a history of not suspending priests, even those who commit crimes beyond mere disobedience. Although lately I've been told he recently suspended a priest who attempted marriage with one of his parishioners. This was done about the time my suspension was in the works.

Our Lady, Queen of the Angels, pray for Father Zigrang.

Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for all priests in Father Zigrang’s situation so that they will be aided by their seeking refuge in you in their time of persecution and trial.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; crisis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 901-902 next last
To: Pyro7480

I checked out the Mater Ecclesiae web site. Why does that parish have a Saturday afternoon "anticipated Mass"?


241 posted on 07/16/2004 11:04:03 AM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; Pyro7480; sinkspur; gbcdoj; BlackElk; ultima ratio; sandyeggo

Max, it should be kept in perspective that the entire Traditionalist "crisis" is something perceived to exist only in the mind of 4 legitimate Bishops out of about 3000 circa 1970 (Blaise Kurz, Marcel Lefbvre, Ngo Dinh Thuc, Castro de Mayer), ~1000 priests (out of 400,000 in 1970), and ~1,000,000 of the faithful (out of 1 billion). Really even today, add up the number of legitimate traditionalist priests (SSPX, FSSP, SSPV, IMRI, ICK, independents, etc. - the total is probably about 1000 and certainly less than 2000) and give them each 1000 parishoners/followers on average, and the situation is hardly any different from 30 years ago.

The rest of the Catholic world (say about 99.9% of it) is not even aware there is a controversy about these topics that Traditionalists feel are so important.

And of that 0.1% that thinks there is a big problem and controversy, perhaps 25-50% are still formal members of a regular Catholic parish.

In perspective, we are talking about an inifinitessimally small number of people even being aware of some of the issues being raised. It hardly compares to the Arian crisis in that regard.


242 posted on 07/16/2004 11:04:09 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

"Being nasty."

I've seen a lot of far nastier stuff without anybody getting suspended for it.


243 posted on 07/16/2004 11:04:25 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: dsc
no one in management will condescend to discuss that with me...

Not true. I told you I was not here when that incident occurred, and that I had not been able to determine exactly what happened, or why. So it's not true that no one "condescended to discuss with [you]...", although it is true that I wasn't able to answer your question.

And considering that we now have another poster suspended for...I'm not sure for what, except that he displeased Sinkspur...

Again, not true. The suspension was for ignoring both a private and a public warning to desist, and continuing to flame. Further, there was a general warning in Post #175.

The person "displeased" is me.

244 posted on 07/16/2004 11:07:56 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II

I don't know what that is about.


245 posted on 07/16/2004 11:08:29 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: broadsword

I don't think Lysol-in-oculos is a useful treatment, particularly when self-administered.


246 posted on 07/16/2004 11:09:34 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Brilliant posts.


247 posted on 07/16/2004 11:10:18 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Did Somerville join SSPX?

Haley certainly did not.

Are you attempting to compare their actions with flat-out schism?


248 posted on 07/16/2004 11:11:51 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The Roman Catholic Church wins. It was in all the bibles.

So were the parts about the mass apostasy and the many being deceived while the few will walk the straight and narrow.

249 posted on 07/16/2004 11:12:47 AM PDT by TradicalRC (From big government conservatives, good Lord deliver us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Herman is a smart and excellent poster, but the law he cites is totally inapplicable to Society priests as it pertains to and regulates parish priests, not all priests.

All legitimate priests are either parochial or religious - either they are affiliated with a parish through a diocese, or they are part of a religious order with a prelate superior.

Priests such as Fr. Wickens are not in some different situation. He, for example, is simply under punishment by his Bishop and has chosen to ignore the canonical sanctions imposed on him by his Bishop and continue saying Mass off in his own venue and church.

There are people married on boats

For this to happen, it must be done by your Pastor or with his blessing for another to do so and in such a location. I got married outside my parish and had my children baptized elsewhere. Each time I had to go and visit the rectory and get letters from my Pastor stating that I was a member in good standing of my parish (Holy Trinity in Boston for my wedding, Corpus Christi in New York and St. Cecilia in Philadelphia for the Baptisms) and take those letters to the priest and Church where I wanted to have the sacrament performed, which happened to be in Pittsburgh.

Incidentally the "mass anywhere" concept (which is inherent throughout canon) is how the society is able to perform valid masses.

The problem with Masses is not the issue of validity but of passing off the Mass as something approved by the Catholic Church to occur publicly to which the faithful can legitimately make donations. Mass anywhere refers to private Masses. The Society is correct in calling their churches chapels and shying away from anything smacking of parochialism, since they are not parishes by private chapels set up without permission of the ordinary for mass to occur in them.

If any of the society sacraments were not valid you'd hear people in authority screaming bloody murder

The society goes to great lengths to stretch Canon Law in these situations. See their writings on "common error" and "the state of necessity".

Also, if I may be permitted a very uneducated guess I would venture that many of these kinds of laws - such as the one Herman posted - were addressing issues during times when intra-parish politics were quite intense.

They mostly had to do with regulating a chaotic and uncanonical medieval situation where people and priests shopped their services to avoid canonical discipline or contract clandestine marriages. The laws restated the traiditonal practices dating back to Apsotlic times of doing nothing without the blessing of the Bishop of the place.

250 posted on 07/16/2004 11:17:01 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

"Not true. I told you I was not here when that incident occurred"

It is true that you replied, thank you very much, but you could not discuss it since you weren't here. Of the people who are able to discuss it, no one has condescended to discuss this rank injustice with me.

"Again, not true. The suspension was for ignoring both a private and a public warning to desist, and continuing to flame."

Flame? I've seen far worse things directed at other posters without anybody thinking it flaming.


251 posted on 07/16/2004 11:17:37 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
The rest of the Catholic world (say about 99.9% of it) is not even aware there is a controversy about these topics that Traditionalists feel are so important.

1. This is irrelevant to the point of whether there actually is a crisis or not. The objective reality of a crisis does not depend on some percentage of recognition. The Titanic had a big hole and was doomed to sink at a time when 99% of the passengers were not aware that they were facing a major "crisis."

2. Even so, I dispute your analysis of the percentage who see a crisis. First of all, virtually all Catholics who are paying the least bit of attention recognize that there is a serious crisis, even if they take various positions of reaction to the crisis. Does anyone still read "Everything is fine" magazines like Catholic Digest? But every single Catholic publication that has a pulse and a brainwave writes about nothing else, even if they disagree about the correct solution to the problem.

Take the neo-Catholic publications like First Things, Crisis (ironic title, eh?), Catholic Answers, New Oxford Review, and so forth. Although they all support the "loyal to the magisterium position," they all take the current situation of crisis very seriously. And of course you can get your weekly dose of crisis from The Wanderer.

Then you have a range of traditionalist publications like Latin Mass, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Angelus, and so forth. You might dismiss them as an unimportant fringe, but the reality is that they have a vastly disproportionate impact. All of the ideas, all of the research, all of the life and fire of today's Catholic Church are coming from the traditional wing that you dismiss rather cavalierly. But when the latest edition of Latin Mass magazine arrives in Rome, it is not dismissed so lightly.

252 posted on 07/16/2004 11:18:33 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

For a diocesean priest to go off to work with the SSPX without the blessing of his Bishop is for him to become a "wandering priest", since he is acting without canonical power and outside the diocesean structure.

The punishment for saying Latin masses was for direct disobedience to an order from his ecclesiastic superior, when said superior had already been very lenient to the extent that he felt he could at that time in indulging his desire to say the Latin Mass.

Perhaps, had Fr. Zigrang obeyed his Bishop, he would have gained enough trust in time to receive a situation like Mater Ecclesiae or St. Boniface. He didn't have such patience, and we'll never know what the Bishop might have done, only how he did respond to Fr.'s disobedience.


253 posted on 07/16/2004 11:21:41 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Shame on you dsc, didn't you read Animal Farm?


254 posted on 07/16/2004 11:23:46 AM PDT by TradicalRC (From big government conservatives, good Lord deliver us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; Maximilian

Your calculations are wrong. You need to factor in the previous two thousand years of traditional councils and popes and bishops and faithful. Why do you only include the living in your numbers--don't you believe in the Communion of Saints? And since when do numbers matter anyway, since a few righteous individuals would outweigh in legitimacy a host of the unrighteous--as was the case during the Arian heresy.


255 posted on 07/16/2004 11:24:05 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: dsc
I've seen far worse things directed at other posters without anybody thinking it flaming.

Unfortunately, the bulk of my time has been taken up in other areas of this forum, at least up until now. I now have the time to look around and see what is being said away from the Protestant side of the board.

I don't moderate by degrees; i.e., this violation is truly egregious, so some action will be taken, but this violation is only bad, so no action will be taken. And especially, when I ask someone to stop doing something, I expect to be heard.

If you were treated unfairly in the past, I apologize. But that has nothing to do with today and what's been done on this thread. I wasn't here before; I am here now.

Please drop it.

256 posted on 07/16/2004 11:24:31 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
I checked out the Mater Ecclesiae web site. Why does that parish have a Saturday afternoon "anticipated Mass"?

Because a Priest can't say three Masses on Sunday without special permission of the Bishop. The other two Masses on Sunday are at seating capacity, so a third Mass of obligation was needed.

257 posted on 07/16/2004 11:24:54 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Does anyone still read "Everything is fine" magazines like Catholic Digest? But every single Catholic publication that has a pulse and a brainwave writes about nothing else, even if they disagree about the correct solution to the problem.

The number of readers of all Catholic periodicals aside from diocesean publications is probably no more than a few hundred thousand in this country with 65 million registered Catholics (and probably 15 million more fallen away/non-practicing). The circulation of the periodicals you site is usually in the 5000-30000 range.

258 posted on 07/16/2004 11:29:40 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
...we are not faced with individual personal defections but with widespread institutional apostasy and heresy, then if that were the case, then quietly working within the system is just as clearly not the right answer.

This is why conservatives lose. We think in either-or terms when we should do both. Work within the Church to bring her back to her true roots and work without to maintain that pure objective. The left does it all the time, that is why they are so successful.

259 posted on 07/16/2004 11:30:11 AM PDT by TradicalRC (From big government conservatives, good Lord deliver us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Because a Priest can't say three Masses on Sunday without special permission of the Bishop. The other two Masses on Sunday are at seating capacity, so a third Mass of obligation was needed.

Why can't he get the permission? He appears to have a good relationship with the bishop.

I suspect it's to appease the golfers with morning tee times and others who simply like to get it over with.

260 posted on 07/16/2004 11:30:31 AM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 901-902 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson