Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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, 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.

Unfortunately, you forgot to mention the part where the tour guides and the cannibals have an "understanding".

Cannibals == Satan and his minions, not people.
Tourists == all mankind (people-kind ... whatever)
Those who run == Schismatics, of all stripes.

Men were made to be with God, even the most satanic satanist abortion provider cross-dressing pedophile. Obviously the SSAPCP falls far short as we all do. What makes me as bad as him is my sin is as much an affront as is his/hers/its. Where we differ is that I pray for forgiveness and that "with the help of your Grace" that I may do better.

Many of us work for the Devil, willingly or unwillingly, I know I have screwed up a lot of people. So in your saying some tour guides supply the cannibals with fresh meat is correct, but, don't assume that means the Bishops that are liberal and only those people alone.

I need not make a list of the enemies of the Church, from the left and the right. We know they are there, I don't think anyone can dialog with the Devil, however, the idiot Priest in that picture, or those people at that Mass who looked like they were all drunk, are not the Devil.

Argue with them, shout at them. Don't leave them to the Cannibals. If nobody is left to speak up, they will imagine they are unopposed until it is too late.

Is this why Jesus spoke so as to make sure that the least of his little ones could understand what the wise of this world could not? Give me a break. If councils and popes are going to teach, they need to speak clearly. It is one of the first principles of good teaching and it is necessary if doctrines are to be accepted as binding. But this is not what modernists do--they obscure, converting what has always been believed to something different by speaking in ambiguities. The Pope in an encyclical talks about "man" being the "path the Church must take". Not Jesus, but "man". This is a new Teilhardian-sounding doctrine. It has nothing to do with Jesus as the Way, nor with anything ever taught before by the Church. Yet he doesn't clarify, he doesn't explain who this generic "man" is. Apparently he means everybody, animists, Buddhists, whoever. But he doesn't elaborate or define anything precisely. He just offers our altars to everybody and prays with animists to make his point. If somebody like the Archbishop complains--he somehow has been too stupid or evil to understand this new, but unspecified Tradition!

The Pope talks about the Council's having been in continuity with Tradition. But he admits that this is so hard to imagine, given the revolutionary nature of what has followed, that experts must find ways to show that this is really so. This in itself makes a mockery of Tradition which is something transmitted by the Church through time into the present. If there has been any doctrinal change, the change must spring out of what has already been believed in the past and must be recognized as belonging to it; the present doctrine can never be in flagrant opposition to its own past teachings. Yet the Pope goes around pushing his exaggerated ecumenism in exactly the ways condemned by previous pontiffs and in ways that would have scandalized the Church from its earliest days going back to the apostles. He doesn't explain this so-called development of his. Instead he uses the idea of development itself to give cover to what are actually novelties. Every now and then he will throw a sop to the faithful by means of an orthodox encyclical. But his behavior counters much of what he writes.

In fact, what he does is simply pull rank. He is making claims for the Church's "living Magisterium" precisely because it opposes the Magisterium of the past. In effect he is saying authority can do whatever it wants to do and require the faithful to believe whatever it wants them to believe. He is saying it can throw over inherited traditions and invent new ones--all in the name of an unspecified doctrinal "development" that is too difficult to understand except by the experts--all modernists, of course. To which true Catholics should respond, "Like hell it can!" The pope and councils can no more invent a new Tradition than make pigs fly. They can only inherit Tradition--it is something already there, handed-down for their protection. The Pope, moreover, is as bound to Tradition as the rest of us simply because Tradition is the Church's own history of faith. It is by definition never new, but derived from the apostles. But the Pope says just the opposite! He is claiming the revolution is traditional by virtue of his own authority. This is sheer nonsense. It makes him Lord of the faith itself, not its servant and guardian. It is his duty to guard the treasury of faith, not wreck it and build it anew.

In effect he is saying authority can do whatever it wants to do and require the faithful to believe whatever it wants them to believe. He is saying it can throw over inherited traditions and invent new ones

No, ultima, he isn't. That's just your distorted understanding. Again: we are talking about religious liberty here - where is the contradiction? It doesn't exist - Msgr. Lefebvre misunderstood the previous texts and ignored Pius XII's teaching in "Ci Riesce":

Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer.

You continuously attribute errors condemned by the Council and the post-conciliar teaching to the Magisterium, absurdly claiming that the Pope truly supports them even as he condemns them with the "sop" of an "orthodox encyclical".

Remember, Msgr. Lefebvre began his campaign of defiance under Paul VI, who never held an Assisi event - the catholic doctrine on religious liberty is what he was opposed to - that and communion in the hand. And hence the seminarians were taught to entirely reject Vatican II which "derives from heresy and ends in heresy" - how could the Pope allow such a thing?

The Pope in an encyclical talks about "man" being the "path the Church must take". Not Jesus, but "man". This is a new Teilhardian-sounding doctrine. It has nothing to do with Jesus as the Way, nor with anything ever taught before by the Church.

You simply don't understand the Pope.

THE REDEEMER OF MAN, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history ... The Church wishes to serve this single end: that each person may be able to find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with each person the path of life, with the power of the truth about man and the world that is contained in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption and with the power of the love that is radiated by that truth ... Jesus Christ is the chief way for the Church. (John Paul II, "Redemptor Hominis")

What about "man"?

... this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption.

All he is saying is that the Church exists for "this single end: that each person may be able to find Christ".

Here is the famous Declaration that got the Archbishop in so much trouble with the Vatican. There is not a line of it which isn't true. If anything, it is prophetic.

___________________________________________________________

Declaration

We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds as well as in the acts of the dicasteries, then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church.

It is impossible to profoundly modify the Lex Orandi without modifying the Lex Credendi. To the New Mass there corresponds the new catechism, the new priesthood, the new seminaries, the new universities, the "Charismatic" Church, Pentecostalism: all of them opposed to orthodoxy and the never-changing Magisterium.

This reformation, deriving as it does from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.

It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.

That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.

That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church, until such time as the true light of tradition dissipates the gloom which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.

Doing this, with the grace of God, the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Pius X, we are certain that we are being faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all of Peter's successors, and of being the Fideles Dispensatores Mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi In Spiritu Sancto.

†Marcel Lefebvre

Where did it say anywhere that the Archbishop was BOUND to believe the decree about religious liberty?

The "Nota Praevia", LG 25 on the ordinary magisterium, and the "Professio Fidei" of 1989. Interestingly, Msgr. Lefebvre rejected the aforementioned Professio - he said a clause had to be added to allow for private judgment "as long as this teaching is in conformity with tradition". Of course, such a clause was in no way in conformity with tradition - just take a look at St. Pius X's "Praestantia Scripturae", or his Allocution of 18 Sept. 1912.

The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. (Preceeding Note to Lumen Gentium)

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. (Lumen Gentium 25)

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. (CDF, 1989 "Professio Fidei")

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions. (St. Pius X, "Praestantia Scripturae")

If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement. (St. Pius X, Allocution given on 18 September 1912.)

When did that become a universally binding dogma of the Church?

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (St. Pius X, "Lamentabili sane")

The men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Bl. Pius IX, "Tuas libenter")

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors)

There is not a line of it which isn't true.

Ridiculous. Even Msgr. Lefebvre tried to retract his statements when he was called to Rome, admitting they were an "exaggeration".

This reformation, deriving as it does from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.

The "reformation" is of course the council - all the documents must be rejected. This is not a Catholic attitude and it is what got Msgr. Lefebvre in trouble with the Pope - not the Mass.

Cardinal Garrone: But you write: "The whole Council". You do not accuse the Council of simply being a little tendentious, but of being fundamentally orientated in a modernist and protestant direction. What impression can a seminarian reading your "manifesto" draw from it? It will be the source of the orientations which will inform his conscience. Will this young man be formed in the Catholic Church? I say no! He will not be a Catholic but a sectarian. He will follow Mgr Lefebvre and not the Pope.

The idea that the whole council is erroneous is of course ridiculous, and contrary to the catholic truth concerning the divine assistance granted to the Church.

If, on the contrary, there is question of teachings proposed without this universality and this constancy, of solutions of recent problems not yet generalized by the Church, in which she does not intend fully to engage her prudential authority, then we shall say that the magisterium proposes them only in a fallible manner.[801] If there is infallible assistance here, it is infallible only in the improper sense, and that means that the magisterium is assisted, not for each determinate case, singillatim, divisive, but for the generality of cases, in commune, collective. It is certain, for example, that the decisions of the Biblical Commission, taken as a whole, defend the authentic meaning of the Bible and its divine character, with assured prudence. (Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate)

If he himself conformed to the Magisterium of the past--why should there have been any conflict between himself and the Archbishop?

Because the Archbishop didn't understand previous teaching. The most obvious example is religious liberty - he misinterprets Quanta Cura and ignores Pius XII. Collegiality is another - he rejected it even though it's in conformity with the previous magisterium.

Again, the Assisi event was a private action of the Pope - not an act of the Magisterium.

It is true that one notes differences of opinion and theological formation among the prelates of the Church; however, a simple sentence, even said by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the magisterium; we know that all statements assume different degrees of authority. It is always possible to criticize this type of statement, as well as a style of governing. The criticism, however, demands an authentic understanding of the thinking of the other person, and should presuppose that he also possess the Catholic faith. If one raises inconsistencies, the criticism, made with humility and charity, becomes a service rendered with great respect and in a spirit of sincere collaboration. (Cardinal Hoyos, Letter to Bishop Fellay)

The Nova Praevia says JUST THE OPPOSITE. It makes NOTHING binding because nothing anywhere in the Council was formally declared as such! Do you even understand the things you are posting? Here is a comment from Ferrara and Woods on this, from a footnote on page 88 of The Great Facade, explaining the reason for this Nota:

"The most famous example [of the Pope acting decisively to prevent the Second Vatican Council from promulgating outright errors as Catholic doctrine] is Pope Paul's intervention forcing the Council to include the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, which correct's LG's [Lumen Gentium's] erroneous suggestion that when the Pope exercised his supreme authority he does so only as head of the apostolic college, wherein the supreme authority resides. Paul was alerted to this problem by a group of conservative Council Fathers, who finally persuaded him of LG's destructive potential: 'Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.' Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 232."

In fact, Pope Paul insisted that nothing be defined as binding without specifically so stating--and nothing ever was. How then can JPII excoriate the Archbishop for anything he believed contrary to the views of the Council?This is especially blameworthy, given the Pope's own history of casually tolerating even the most openly heretical opinions expressed by more liberal bishops. It is a double standard that is disgraceful and which will disgrace his memory for many centuries to come.

As for the citations of which you speak--these must be taken with a grain of salt. Why? BECAUSE NO POPE MAY DEMAND OBEDIENCE TO NOVEL DOCTRINES WHICH OPPOSE THE TEACHING MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED. The preconciliar popes warned against the heresies of indifferentism and syncretism, for instance. Nothing JPII says can undo their doctrinal condemnations of precisely what he is trying to impose throughout his Church, even to the point of suppressing what is unique to Catholicism. Either he or they are wrong--and it cannot be they! --They have the entire history of the Church for twenty centuries on their side!

"Because the Archbishop didn't understand previous teaching."

Give me a break. You hang everything on Religious Liberty as if that explains the break between the SSPX and Rome. One can easily counter with the fact that the Pope did not understand Trent--or the Syllabus of Errors, for that matter. It was the whole idea of revolution which Lefebvre opposed, beginning with a Liturgy which deliberately subverted Catholic dogmas and ending with Assisi which flagrantly affirmed the most radical and heretical form of indifferentism and syncretism ever experienced within the walls of the Catholic Church.

And when you couple all this with the breakdown in discipline on the part of this Pontiff, a breakdown which selectively punished the Archbishop's for his adherence to the ancient faith, yet tolerated every other clerical blasphemy and desecration and corruption humanly conceivable, then you see there is some need for us to draw back and reconsider just how much we owe the Pontiff himself and how much we owe to the Catholic faith. Because the two are at times irreconcilable and no man can serve two masters. Either we must follow the Pope and his revolution--or we must follow the traditional faith.

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.