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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 901-902 next last
To: ultima ratio

The dead don't count as far as perceptions on earth of a crisis in the Church.

My point is that most of the Church does not consider there to be a crisis.


261 posted on 07/16/2004 11:31:20 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
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.

Yes, it is simply the cause and effect that I was disputing. Fr. Zigrang did not become a wandering priest and then was disciplined. He was disciplined first (for saying the Latin Mass) and then when his normal canonical position was taken away, he was forced to find another situation.

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.

Here then is the precise situation that I was describing in a previous post. If an officer commands a soldier to kill innocent civilians, he must refuse to obey immediately. He cannot obey an intrinsically wrong order and then worry about the consequences later.

So the question comes down to this, "Should Fr. Zigrang have followed the order to cease offering the Latin Mass, or was he required in conscience to refuse this order?" He decided that he was required in conscience to refuse the order, because to obey the order would be to make oneself complicit in the deaths of many innocent souls.

As it turned out, Fr. Zigrang only said the Latin Mass once in his parish, because the bishop responded with such lightning speed. When a pederast is sodomizing young parishioners, bishops seem to require years or in some cases even decades to respond. But when a priest commits the unpardonable sin of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he is locked out of his rectory the very same day.

262 posted on 07/16/2004 11:32:57 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | 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.

And yet Christ the good shepard would leave the ninety-nine sheep for the sake of the one, or in this case the .1%.

263 posted on 07/16/2004 11:36:09 AM PDT by TradicalRC (From big government conservatives, good Lord deliver us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
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.

Maybe he just doesn't feel like it? I don't think there are too many golfers there.

He already hears confessions from 8:30a-9a, says Low Mass from 9a-10a, talks to parishoners after Mass, hears confessions from 11a-11:30a, says High Mass from 11:30a-1p, says benediction and has adoration and talks to parishoners from 1p-2p. When you consider he also says his Breviary in there and has his own personal prayer time and needs to have lunch after 2p and take care of other things like Baptisms or visits to the sick, its a pretty long day already without needing to prepare for another Mass somewhere in between or later on.

And who knows if the Bishop would grant permission when Saturday evening is perfectly legitimate? Really, the only practical alternative would be 7a or 5p on Sunday. Most people don't want to be up at 7 on a weekend, and want to be with their families in the afternoon.

264 posted on 07/16/2004 11:37:20 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
65 million registered Catholics (and probably 15 million more fallen away/non-practicing).

The 65 million number is everyone who identifies themself as being "Catholic" when given a choice on a Gallup survey or some such thing. This is the biggest possible number with no qualifications required. The vast majority of those 65 million are not practicing Catholics. At most only half set foot inside a church during the course of a year, and only 20% show up on any given Sunday.

265 posted on 07/16/2004 11:37:36 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Most people don't want to be up at 7 on a weekend, and want to be with their families in the afternoon.

Life is so rough, having to go to Mass once a week.

266 posted on 07/16/2004 11:41:22 AM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
He was disciplined first (for saying the Latin Mass) and then when his normal canonical position was taken away, he was forced to find another situation.

That's not true. He ws not forced to do anything. He chose to continue to disobey the Bishop to do what he perceived as his new calling. The Pastor of my wife's childhood parish is under some mysterious discipline by the Bishop of Pittsburgh right now. He was told to move out of the rectory and into the seminary and not to say Mass anymore or any other sacraments since he was suspended. He has done so. He is also fighting for his canonical rights in a canonical lawsuit. He hasn't run off with the SSPX or anyone else, but has been obedient and followed the law to defend himself.

As it turned out, Fr. Zigrang only said the Latin Mass once in his parish, because the bishop responded with such lightning speed. When a pederast is sodomizing young parishioners, bishops seem to require years or in some cases even decades to respond. But when a priest commits the unpardonable sin of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he is locked out of his rectory the very same day.

I agree with your perception of this perversion of real problems in the Church.

267 posted on 07/16/2004 11:41:30 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Please don't get suspended over this thread. It's not worth it.
268 posted on 07/16/2004 11:43:13 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Your point is irrelevant. Since when do numbers count in spiritual matters? There is a crisis--do we need to take a poll to realize this?


269 posted on 07/16/2004 11:44:28 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

No actually, closer to 80 million are self-identified Catholics (27% of the population by survey). 65 million is the tally of parish registrations.

About 25% of the 65 million show up for Mass on Sunday. Most of the 65 million are involved with the Church at some point in order to obtain Baptism and First Communion and entrance into the Catholic School system and a funeral Mass. Only about 25% of the 65 million rarely attend Church (wedding and funeral Catholics). Another 25% are Christmas and Easter types. Another 25% are irregular attendees (roughly once per month or so, which gives the 30% typical attendance of most dioceses 25% regular + 5% irregular).

These categories have always been around, its just the numbers in each that have shifted.


270 posted on 07/16/2004 11:46:49 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Or perhaps there isn't a crisis because only a very small number of people think so. Perhaps the perceived crisis is just life and its follies.


271 posted on 07/16/2004 11:48:07 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: broadsword; sinkspur; Siobhan; BlackElk; ultima ratio; narses; maximillian; NYer; Salvation; ...
I think if we all prayed to the Father and asked Him to have the Holy Ghost give us the mind of the Church His Son established on earth,we might come to a better place.

I know no one puts much stock in anecdotal experiences but I can't help but say that as a mother there is little that makes me more sad than when my children bicker and wrangle with each other over whose "opinion" should prevail.

In this case Father Zigrang made a decision not to honor the bishop's request but to comply with only the parts that he chose. The bishop,who's person I have never respected,but who by the position he holds had the authority to give the order he gave,should have been obeyed.

Father Zigrang kind of lost my sympathy early on,when he went to the retreat house he wanted to go to in place of where he was asked to go. It really seemed like he was playing games to me,kind of boundary testing,like teen-agers do. When He came back and visited the bishop with his priest friends from SSPX,I believe,I could see he was deep into a teen-age,"nobody's going to tell me what to do" mode. I really thought it was a very inappropriate "in your face" defiant act. What a tragedy for SSPX and Father Zigrang and many others,who engage in dialogue that can go nowhere,given the givens.

272 posted on 07/16/2004 11:58:13 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: dsc; Polycarp IV
Yeah, dsc. Stick around. It's not worth it. As usual, one special guy causes the problem and others pay for it. Don't be one of those who pay. YOU are not one of the immune.
273 posted on 07/16/2004 12:01:58 PM PDT by MaceFist (A communist is a liberal who KNOWS what he is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Or perhaps there isn't a crisis because only a very small number of people think so. Perhaps the perceived crisis is just life and its follies.

I'm honestly not trying to be flip here but are you some sort of idiot/savant or something? You know like those guys that can do complicated calculus problems off the top of their heads but can't tie their shoes.

The only reason why I ask this is in such a way is I'm wondering how a seemingly well read and intelligent person can come up with such an absurd statement as that above.

Humor me and tell me you were just kidding.

274 posted on 07/16/2004 12:05:34 PM PDT by AAABEST (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: saradippity

Your sympathy is selective. Fr. Z was tormented in conscience. His was a moral decision, totally permissible and canonical--obedience had nothing to do with it.


275 posted on 07/16/2004 12:06:20 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
It really seemed like he was playing games to me,kind of boundary testing,like teen-agers do.

I would expect any teenager who's parent was an apostate criminal who covered up for child abusers to do the same. Why should such a person be obeyed in the first place?

276 posted on 07/16/2004 12:08:26 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Just curious, what is wrong with the picture you posted?


277 posted on 07/16/2004 12:10:00 PM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

"Or perhaps there isn't a crisis because only a very small number of people think so. Perhaps the perceived crisis is just life and its follies."

Or perhaps the moon is made of green cheese.


278 posted on 07/16/2004 12:10:44 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

(notice that little golden Buddha on the altar behind the priest? Mebbe that's it? ;-)


279 posted on 07/16/2004 12:12:17 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

OMG! I completely missed it. Thanks.


280 posted on 07/16/2004 12:17:36 PM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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