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.

"however, a simple sentence, even said by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the magisterium; know that all statements assume different degrees of autwe hority. 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."

Funny how suddenly not everything is a magisterial teaching when it suits the Vatican to draw back from the brink. In Ecclesia Dei the Pope is insisting on the "Living Magisterium" as cover for his novelties. --Yet here is one of his cardinals, when called on it, suddenly making it clear that all statements "assume different levels of authority." In other words, the Pope now and then gets it wrong. Fine. At least this is honest. But what is this except what has been argued by the SSPX all along--that not everything the Pope says and does is authoritative, especially the motu proprio? You only agree to this when it suits you, when you want to wriggle out of an embarrassment like Assisi. But you can't. Why? Because had any other prelate on the face of the earth done what he did, it would not really matter. But the Pope, by his very act, made Assisi a huge issue. It spoke volumes about his lack of traditional sensibilities. It is not every day a Roman Pontiff defies the entire history of his Church and the First Commandment itself to push his agenda. The attempt by Hoyos to dismiss this is futile--it speaks for itself and is at the heart of the present war between the revolution and Tradition. We are right to ask ourselves--which man lacks the true Catholic sensibility--a man like the Archbishop who followed the ancient ways and teachings--or a Pope who worships with witchdoctors?

The Nova Praevia says JUST THE OPPOSITE. It makes NOTHING binding

Binding on the Church - that is, irreformable and hence infallible. Non-infallible teaching is also binding - the contrary is a condemned proposition of the Syllabuses of Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X.

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.

The Pope is not trying to impose syncretism and indifferentism on the Church. Even if we are to grant the Assisi events as examples of these errors, they were not imposed on the Church but merely the Pope's private actions.

But in discussing the council - syncretism and indifferentism are not taught in its documents.

You are engaging in gobbledegook. Sentence fragments do not communicate meanings. If binding means something is irreformable and infallible, how can their opposite-- fallible statements--be binding? You're playing with language. You've got mutually exclusive terms here!

As for the Pope's imposing syncretism and indifferentism on his Church--don't make me laugh! Whatever the Pope does of this sort, with this level of publicity and preparation, with this amount of dedication and energy, is highly important and significant. It has been profoundly influential--and we see this throughout the Church in every local diocese. Once the Rubicon has been crossed, everything is changed.

This is what is so insidious about modernism. It simply dismisses ancient tradition and introduces new practices without any doctrinal declarations that might prove embarrassing to the faithful. The Pope doesn't SAY he's changing doctrine and opposing his predecessors--he just DOES it. He doesn't say he doesn't care about the dogmas which distinguish Catholics from other Christians, he just behaves as if these do not matter and gives the okay to anything that might undermine them in practice. This has been very destructive of the Catholic faith.

gives the okay to anything that might undermine them in practice

To "anything"? What about the prohibition of communicatio in sacris with Protestants? If he was really such an evil modernist, why would he care?

Precisely because the Church's unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93
92 Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 908; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 702; Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Ecumenical Directory, 25 March 1993, 122-125, 129-131: AAS 85 (1993), 1086-1089; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Ad Exsequendam, 18 May 2001: AAS 93 (2001), 786.
93 “Divine law forbids any common worship which would damage the unity of the Church, or involve formal acceptance of falsehood or the danger of deviation in the faith, of scandal, or of indifferentism”: Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 26. (John Paul II, "Ecclesia de Eucharistia")

How can they be? They are subject to error. They are subject therefore to dispute. They cannot therefore be irreformable by definition, and therefore they cannot bind.

But St. Pius X disagreed - I don't see how you can get around this:

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. (Motu proprio "Praestantia scripturae")

The fallible decisions of the Biblical Commission (with an authority far less than that of the Ecumenical Council) are binding: "all are bound in conscience".

C'mon, we all know how this game is played by now. The Pope writes a totally orthodox encyclical--then ignores his own pronouncements by acculturated Masses and all kinds of liturgical abuses. He himself gave Communion to the Blairs at a private audience--to Tony who was not even Catholic, and his wife, who was a well-known pro-abortion activist. What was that all about? So it's a matter of not watching what he writes--watch what he does! He hasn't moved a pinky to stop the kinds of abuses that go on routinely in the name of ecumenism in every diocese in the world. And he even participates in the liturgies of other religions--as when he visited England back in the 80s and participated in Anglican worship ceremonies.

UR - Yes, and so do I reject the Council--not for what it says, but for how it's been interpreted.

This is how I read the above and apply it to a hypothetical: "I reject the belief that THE HOLY EUCHARIST is JESUS CHRIST because the Catholic man standing next to me, who has read all that Saint Augustine wrote including:

It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so"

whispered to me "I know we didn't adore the Eucharist properly... that's not Jesus on the altar!"

gbcdoj:  Wouldn't it make more sense to accept the Council according to what it means, and not distortions made by those who never read the documents?

Yes gbcdoj, PERFECT sense.

gbcdoj:  I fail to see how the ravings of heretics affect the meaning of the conciliar texts.    LOL at the flair insertion  :-)

ur:   No, it makes no sense to interpret the council "according to what it means" because its meanings are ambiguous. They are not clear. Interpretations are left to the so-called "experts", most of whom are modernists with an agenda.

I see above gbddoj, that not only are there apparent stumbling blocks with interpretation, but there's a stumbling block on WHO is experiencing the problem. It may be the right time for music.

interpreting Vatican II, we're talking about the Vatican apparatus and the Pope.

Since you're being very specific about a high profile individual, [or individuals], you will have NO problem then supporting your assertions with linked documentation from them, will you?

Why do you suppose the Church has been plunged in chaos? Do you think this happened because the man standing next to you chose not to believe something that had always been believed?

Your assessment and identification of the problems in our day, as "chaos" is sad. Since you asked: Satan, the Fall, not enough prayer... "THY will be done"... and not enough sacrifice [offering up our pain and hurt!] to Our Redeeming Lord. I'm going to jet for there's much to do today. Pax et bonum!

You are forgetting several things, at the very least, if you think it is just a matter of opinion.

1. My opinion and cultural taste is that the Novus Ordo Mass, while normative in our sorry times is a very low rent set of rubrics and that the Tridentine (especially if said in a manageable 1/2 hour or so but to each his own) is the magnificent Mass of our ancestors with far more satisfying (but no more valid) rubrics. Each, whether you agree or not is perfectly valid and, when authorized, licit.

2. It is not just opinion, it is also an acquired but obvious matter of personal cultural taste and preference.

3. Anyone or group like SSPX who denies the very validity of the Novus Ordo Mass effectively repudiates the pope and the papacy and is essentially sede vacantist unless and until the group gets its way.

4. No bishop, including the late Marcel or his lineal successors in SSPX has any business whatsoever choosing and consecrating his own bishops in direct defiance of and disobedience to the reigning Vicar of Christ on Earth regardless of the concocted rationalizations of his sect.

5. If and when we ever have a pope of whom the schismatics might approve, just how do they expect such a pope to be obeyed when they have spent 15 years to date raising defiance, disobedience and vilification of the pope to a high art form.

6. The schism has published its opinion that Novus Ordo Masses, each and every one, are INVALID.

7. Fr. Zigrang, like Marcel and the Econe 4 before him took vows of obedience. He did not take vows of saying ONLY Tridentine Masses. Nor did they. He disobeyed his admittedly execrable bishop but he disobeyed his bishop's perfectly moral order as to where Zigrang will serve and apparently the liturgy of his public Masses. No amount of hissy fits by SSPX is going to convert that violation of their endless self-obsession with their own opinions and tastes into an immoral order. We are a Church. We are His Church. We are not an anarchy. License is NOT freedom.

8. "which he could not withhold from his parishioners even at the cost of his life." What drama queen tripe! If you do not think it is drama queen tripe, then answer the following two questions which should display your beliefs: A. At the Novus Ordo Mass, is the bread and wine transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (assuming appropriate bread and wine which Fr. Zigrang can certainly assure)?

B. Does the Novus Ordo Mass convey to the participants in the pews the same graces as are conveyed by the Tridentine Mass.

C. If the answer to either of the foregoing questions is no, why not?

Fr. Haley was not tried by Bishop Loverde nor even in the Diocese of Arlington. I read his civil depositions here and Haley seems like a persuasive and good priest. Note that despite his treatment he remains in communion with the pope.

Fr. Haley was ecclesiastically tried at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia (Justin Rigali's Archdiocese and well away from Loverde's turf) and the judge was my bishop, Thomas Doran, who also serves on the Signatura, the Vatican's highest court. I certainly hope that the evidence justified acquittal and that he will be acquitted. I will trust my bishop's decision (not yet rendered) in any event unless and until it is overturned on appeal. I suspect that you will judge the matter by the results which is what is wrong with our secular court system.

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.