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.
For the record:
At some point, a priest is going to take the USCCB and the Vatican into the courts either here or at the World Court for violation of human rights by violation of its own internal process etc.
You cheerlead a priest bringing the World Court into the Church's business.
Where is Rome's sanction for this?
We are in a complete and utter state of emergency and you must be in never never land or burying your head in the sand. The Church supplies jurisdiction. Was Athanasius illigal and wrong because he went into other Bishops diocese when he was kicked out of his own and disobeyed the Pope? 80 percent of the bishops had apostatized and the Pope Liberious signed the semi Arian Creed and excommunicated Athansius see last section.
This is what Count Capponi of the Roman Rota said who had defended the Hawaii Five whom you would have probably said were excommunicated because they asked SSPX Bishop Williamson who did not have jurisdiction either to come and confirm their children. So what who cares about the apostate Bishops who have there jurisdiction! God will judge them- in the meantime Canon law and divine law say that we have the right to any Valid Rite in the Catholic Church. Trent declared it anathema to say otherwise. Take it up with Trent and Pius VI who said that although the Church has the right to change how the sacraments are dispensed it doesn’t have the right to create a New Rite newer than 200 years old. This is found in Trent Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:""If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."
Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema. (Trent Twenty-Second Session) Seems like most NO Masses fail on those two points alone- not to mention the hootenany dances and go hug a tree songs and the “I myself am the bread of Life.”
For current crisis This is what Count Capponi a canon lawyer in the Roman Rota said: “When asked why I believe the crisis we now face is worse than Arianism, I give these reasons: (a) The principle vehicle of the faith, the liturgy, was untouched by the Arian crisis; (b) whereas the Arian crisis was precipitated and sustained by the intervention of secular power, the post
Vatican II crisis comes from within the Church and is therefore more difficult to fight; (c) in the fourth century, Pope Liberius finally signed the excommunication of St. Athanasius under duress—in the twentieth century Pope Paul VI was admittedly taken in and hoodwinked by
his misguided optimism, but there was no duress; (d) the present crisis is not only one of faith but of morals as well. In addition, today not only one dogma, albeit a very important one, is denied as with Arianism, but all dogmas, be it even the existence of a personal God!
see www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/CRIFAITH.HTM - 30k
There is some controversy as to whether Liberius did excommunicate Athanasius but in fact he did and wrongly so.Cardinal Newman said, in "Arians of the Fourth Century" in note 13 of Apendix V " A.D. 357-8. And Liberius. "The tragedy was not ended in the lapse of Hosius, but in the evil which befell Liberius, the Roman Pontiff, it became far more dreadful and mournful, considering that he was Bishop of so great a city, and of the whole Catholic Church, and that he had so bravely resisted Constantius two years previously. There is nothing, whether in the historians and holy fathers, or in his own letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that Liberius communicated with the Arians, and confirmed the sentence passed by them against Athanasius; but he is not at all on that account to be called a heretic." Baron. Ann. 357, 38-45. Athanasius says: "Liberius, after he had been {449} in banishment for two years, gave way, and from fear of threatened death was induced to subscribe. Arian. Hist. § 41. St. Jerome says: "Liberius, tædio victus exilii, et in hæreticam pravitatem subscribens, Romam quasi victor intraverat." CChron. ed. Val. p. 797 " note said "9. A.D. 353. The Council of Arles. The Pope sent to it {448} several Bishops as legates. The Fathers of the Council, including the Pope's legate, Vincent, subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, was nearly the only one who stood up for the Nicene faith and for Athanasius. He was accordingly banished into Phrygia, where he died.
see http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/note5.html
It is time for people to get there heads out of the sand and see the writing on the wall. Yes a lot of “evil is befalling” the Church today to use Cardinal Newman’s words whom the liberals like to distort to say he would have liked all of this "democratic liberal" garbage going on in the Church.
Here is a few more Newman quotes for you.
"If either the Pope or the Queen (of England) demanded of me an absolute obedience, he or she would be transgressing the laws of human nature and human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither." Cardinal Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace, the Duke of Norfolk (This was the last book he personally wrote and published and certainly is the fruit of his mature thought.)
"Pope is not inspired; he has not an inherent gift of divine knowledge. When he speaks ex cathedra, he may say little or much, but he is simply protected from saying what is untrue. I know you will find flatterers and partisans such as those whom St. Francis de Sales calls the Pope lackeys, who say much more than this, but they may enjoy their own opinions, they cannot bind the faith of Catholics." Cardinal Newman, letter quoted by B. Ward in her biography.
"It is no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century." said Cardinal Newman
www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html - 74k from "A Brief Defence of Traditionalism" p.4 Seattle Catholic 21 Dec. 2001
We are living in the worst time in Church history and this calls for extraordinary measures to combat heresy and restore liturgical sanity. This means reinstituting the Old Latin Mass which is probably the oldest liturgy and saying NO to the NO Mass which because of its protestantized heteropraxis in prayer and practice which is dragging souls down the wrong road to which they will not recover unless they are warned about this experimental folly! St. Athanasius pray for us!!!
Rome's representative, Michael Fitzgerald, in October 2003.
That is, of course, your usual spin. But you are wrong, and, yes, incredibly dead wrong.
Peter and his successors supply all jurisdiction.
From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone ... No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
For the SSPX, there can be no state of emergency in any case, since they were offered jurisdiction by the Apostolic See.
Was Athanasius illigal and wrong because he went into other Bishops diocese when he was kicked out of his own and disobeyed the Pope?
St. Athanasius didn't disobey the Pope.
Pope Liberious signed the semi Arian Creed and excommunicated Athansius see last section
No, he didn't.
Take it up with Trent and Pius VI who said that although the Church has the right to change how the sacraments are dispensed it doesn’t have the right to create a New Rite newer than 200 years old
How exactly does the Church create a New Rite more than 200 years old?
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Pius XII, "Mediator Dei" 58)
"It is no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century."
True, but the Church has condemned the following:
1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"--heretical. (Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei", DZ 1501)
Bp. Gasser said at Vatican I:
Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.
Well, I'll let folks judge for themselves. This is, after all, your post:
At some point, a priest is going to take the USCCB and the Vatican into the courts either here or at the World Court for violation of human rights by violation of its own internal process etc.
That would be this?
But Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue which has responsibility for such matters, told The Universe that the fears were unfounded and he reassured devotees that Fatima would definitely remain a place of prayer centred on Our Lady.“There is no question of the Fatima sanctuary becoming an inter-faith pilgrimage centre,” said the English-born archbishop. “This is a place of prayer centred on Our Lady, and everyone is welcome.” (CWNews: "Rome scotches Fatima multifaith rumours")
On second thought, this action was not surprising. Fiorenza was probably getting pressure from other bishops to make an example out of Zigrang to deter other priests from instruction by SSPX. The traditional movement is growing. The bishops can no longer ignore it. Something must be done to stop it.
I don't know where you are, but we don't recognize the authority of the World Court in the United States, nor does a United States court have jurisdiction over the inner workings of the Catholic Church.
I second that gbcdoj...
and the Pope did not sign any semi - Arian decree... I should know... ambiguous, yes... but not semi Arian.
No, that would be untrue. That is not my post. That is your editing of my post and placing it in your usual context of spin and bait.
You succeed with some people some of the time through these tactics -- largely because they take seriously your claims to be Roman Catholic and a deacon of the Church. But as I have told you I do not believe I would regard you as a Roman Catholic were we ever to dig deeper in discussions about the Faith of Holy Mother Church. My intuition tells me from your posts, your conduct, your treatment of other posters, that it is unlikely that you hold the same Roman Catholic faith that I share with many faithful Catholics on FreeRepublic.
I am certain you have a faith, a mission, and zeal. But my observations thus far tell me your faith is alien to what I know as the Roman Catholic faith, your mission is at odds with the vocation of deacons, and your zeal raises more questions about your real motives than answers.
You tell him Irish (you and I are on the same boat)- we are the fighting Irish and "we are mad as Hell and we are not going to take it anymore" to quote "Network". I can not remember the actor's name who said it, maybe you can help me out sinkspur- he won an academy award. Was it Albert Finney?
Anyway we are not going to get our "dogs" to do our dirty work! We will do it ourselves. God bless you both and lets pray that sinkspur gets "illuminated". I noticed that same little discrepancy you brought up Irish and its real hypocritical of them if all roads lead to heaven- just not the Traditionally Catholic one! Gee maybe that should have been a line from "Screw Tape Proposes a Toast.
You have an extremely exaggerated sense of the importance of your movement. The Eastern Orthodox "traditional" movement has hundreds of millions of members and has lasted a thousand years. In a like manner, the Oriental Orthodox, who reject the "pseudo-synod" of Chalcedon, continue to preserve their "tradition" in far greater numbers than the SSPX, and have done so for 1500 years. The Catholic Church is threatened by neither.
Or rather this criterion may stand in need of more exact definition. For the universality which carries weight here is, as Vincent of Lerins says, that "of the true disciples, the true adorers, of Christ", or, to use the Gospel image, of the true sheep of Christ. Will they be recognizable by some sign distinguishing the true faithful from the false? Undoubtedly they will, granted that Christ confided His sheep to Peter, that He set Peter over His Church, and commanded him to confirm his brethren in the faith. The true faithful will be found amongst the faithful gathered round Peter; the true universality will be that of which Peter is the centre; where Peter is, there will be the Church.[1117] The criterion of universality will then attain that strictness which the progress of our time makes desirable. And thus the argument from universality taken as a sign of apostolicity will receive its final touch from the Gospel prophecies concerning Peter; the quod ubique, quod ab omnibus is given its last precision by the quod ab Ecclesia romana. In this way the via apostolicitatis leads into the via primatus. And we may see a sign of it in the fact that St. Augustine, who had so often appealed to the universality of the true faith against the heretics, was himself, after St. Ambrose's example, expressly to invoke the authority of Rome against the Pelagians: the resolutions of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, he says, "have been sent on to the Apostolic See. Decisions have come from thence. The cause is ended. May it please God to end the error."[1118]1117 "It was to Peter that Christ said: Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. Where therefore Peter is, there is the Church: where the Church is, there is no death but eternal life. That is why He added: And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Blessed Peter, against whom the gates of hell have not prevailed, for whom the gates of heaven are not closed, but who, on the contrary, has destroyed the antechambers of hell and opened the heavens! Standing on the earth he opens heaven and shuts hell" (St. Ambrose, Enarr. in Psalm., XL, 30; P. L. XIV, col. 1082 ).
1118 Sermo CXXXI, 10. (Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate)
It doesn't matter if I am sending this via satellite from Vega. Recognition of jurisdiction has nothing to do with my post.
Father Zigrang was disobedient... and therefore should have been made an example of.
Posts that BTW don't happen to break any of the posting rules that have been in place in the 6 years that I've been here. I'm wondering if we have rules anymore.
Never mind his disturbing private FReepmails, this supposed deacon of the Catholic church has caused more trouble and has been in the middle of more problems in this forum than any other poster I know of. What kind of a "deacon" uses private information given in confidence as a weapon against another Catholic as sinkspur did against Brain (polycarpIV).
God forbid this person is who he says he is. He actaully touches the Eucharist before it's put in people's mouths.
Let Fr. Z join the SSPX. That is where the true Church is since the Holy See is no longer fully Catholic.
What about all the fags, heretics, apostates, leftists and worshippers of false Gods? What are they.... obedient?
You people are not simply foolish, you've lost your minds and your souls.
Either that or you're just simply liars with an agenda.
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.