Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

Christ or Chaos ^ | 15th July 2004 | Dr Thomas Droleskey

[sinkspur]

When you discount the "Catholics" who don't attend Mass weekly (84% in Boston), the "Catholics" who dissent from the Church's teaching about the Real Presence (80% of weekly Mass-attending Catholics), you end up with very few Catholics in America...probably less than 3 million

Got sources for these stats?

I didn't think so.

[ultima ratio]

No civil or criminal court would deliberately declare someone guilty without permitting the accused a hearing. Nor would they deliberately ignore canons cited by the accused as justification for the violation. They would at least permit the inclusion of objective evidence which might exonerate the accused.

But in the Pope we have someone who is not only the judge and the jury and the whole damn court, but in this particular case he's also the plaintiff as well. He's all three at once--the one who claims he has been wronged, the one who weighs the evidence, and the one who makes the judgment. The SSPX, on the other hand, has only the truth on its side. It is denied even the right to plead its case.

So how has the Pope behaved regaring the Society, given all his godlike powers? Did he lean over backwards to be fair, especially since he was himself personally involved in the conflict? Not on your life. He judged the SSPX guilty without any acknowledgment whatsoever of the canons it had cited in its own defense. In other words, he dismissed their defense out of hand. Not that it mattered--since they were innocent anyhow in the eyes of Heaven. But it certainly looked bad to anyone with a modicum of fair-mindedness--which would not include yourself, of course.

[gbcdoj]

the "Catholics" who dissent from the Church's teaching about the Real Presence (80% of weekly Mass-attending Catholics)

You've got this way off. The 80% statistic is actually about 66% according to the poll, and that's from everyone who identifies himself as Catholic. Sinkspur has also posted polls showing that many who answered incorrectly simply didn't understand the terminology used in the phone survey, but accept the real presence - Trent's exact definition isn't often used in catechesis anymore, and even Vatican II never used the term "transubstantiation".

[sinkspur]

I'll post the polls again, but the idea of conducting a phone poll with arcane theological definitions, all four of which resemble each other closely, is simply ridiculous.

In other polls, when the questions are clarified, 80% of Catholics actually believe that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.

[ninenot]

UR, every single day you show a complete and assiduous attachment to SSPX. Under the judgment rubrics of Can. 915, you are a schismatic.

[ninenot]

the full approval of the pontiff

Which, of course, YOU can document. Look in AAS--I'm sure there's a note there...

[ultima ratio]

You know, this is the same argument used by Martin Luther in his attempt to return to what he believed was a more primitive rite. The first thing he did was dump the Offertory. He hated the concept of liturgical sacrifice.

Your claim that there wasn't an Offertory the first thousand years, moreover, is pointless. First of all, we don't know this. The only proof for what you claim is the fragment by Justin Martyr--and there is no evidence that liturgy was typical. On the other hand, there's loads and loads of proof the liturgy was intended from the outset as a sacrifice. Not only this, but it is also evident that the Church saw a need to spell things out more fully as the ages wore on and as the actual experience of the Crucifixion of Christ became a dimmer and dimmer memory. There is no reason at all to accept that the more primitive rite is somehow superior to what had evolved under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

Besides, it's known that the sacrificial structure of the Mass appeared early in the Church and had been patterned after the Jewish sacrifices of the Temple--which obviously antedated even Justin Martyr. This structure would have included an Offertory (oblation), a Consecration (immolation), and a Communion (consummation). What is most important about a proper Offertory is that it sets the stage for what follows and makes clear what's happening--a propitiatory sacrifice of a Victim, Jesus, offered to the Father in expiation for our sins.

The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, only offers bread and wine to the Father in a before-meal blessing, and says nothing whatsoever about propitiation. In fact, it does just the opposite. It offers the bread which will become "the Bread of life" for us and then the wine which will become "our spiritual drink." In other words--the focus is primarily on ourselves, not on the Victim offered to the Father.

[ultima ratio]

Horse manure.

[ultima ratio]

Where? Site the text. I know that Obedience was big with the Jebs, but blind obedience was never taught by Ignatius--it's certainly not in his Spiritual Exercises nor in anything I've ever heard of in connection with his Order. It would be self-evidently wrong. You can't ever obey a command to do evil, for instance. This is too obvious for mention.

[gbcdoj]

From the Spiritual Exercises:

First Rule. The first: All judgment laid aside, we ought to have our mind ready and prompt to obey, in all, the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our holy Mother the Church Hierarchical.

Ninth Rule. Finally, to praise all precepts of the Church, keeping the mind prompt to find reasons in their defence and in no manner against them.

Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.

[Grey Ghost II]

UR, every single day you show a complete and assiduous attachment to SSPX. Under the judgment rubrics of Can. 915, you are a schismatic.

For the record, ultima ratio had publicly stated on Free Republic that he disagrees with many of the SSPX priests with respect to their position on the war in Iraq. He has also expressed disagreement with some of the opinions held by Bishop Williamson.

Nineot, your post was disingenuous.

[gbcdoj]

5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement.   Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

[ultima ratio]

Oh, we've remained Catholic all right. In fact, we're now the only really true Catholics. I say this because we've actually simply stayed put--never moving an inch from a single article of faith or practice of the true faith--whereas the rest of you obediently donned your blinders to follow the conciliar popes and their semi-religious fantasies--to exactly where you are right now, chin-deep in deep doo-doo. Meanwhile the Pontiff is busy either writing poetry or trying to figure out which among his cardinals is at least potentially Catholic and which is out-and-out apostate. It ain't too easy to tell these days, since he's dumped all previous guidelines. It's now a matter of his putting his wet finger up in the air to figure out which way the wind is blowing. Not that you notice any of this, wearing your blinders--but at least your other senses are operative. That bad stench you smell is just the bishops stewing in their multiple corruptions. And that sound you hear are the walls of the conciliar Church collapsing. Good luck with the new religion.

[gbcdoj]

The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, only offers bread and wine to the Father in a before-meal blessing, and says nothing whatsoever about propitiation. In fact, it does just the opposite. It offers the bread which will become "the Bread of life" for us and then the wine which will become "our spiritual drink." In other words--the focus is primarily on ourselves, not on the Victim offered to the Father.

ultima, but what about the Prayer over the Gifts? Isn't that part of the Offertory too? I can cite quite a few texts from those prayers which express propitiation. For instance:

Propitius, Domine, quaesumus, haec dona sanctifica, et, hostiae spiritalis oblatione suscepta, nosmetipsos tibi perfice munus aeternum. (18th Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Ecclesiae tuae, Domine, munera placatus assume,
quae et misericors offerenda tribuisti,
et in nostrae salutis potenter efficis transire mysterium. (19th Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Benedictionem nobis, Domine, conferat salutarem
sacra semper oblatio,
ut, quod agit mysterio, virtute perficiat. (22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Concede nobis, misericors Deus,
ut haec nostra oblatio tibi sit accepta,
et per ea nobis fons omnis benedictionis aperiatur. (26th Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Sacrificiis praesentibus, Domine,
quaesumus, intende placatus,
ut quod passionis Filii tui mysterio gerimus,
pio consequamur affectu. (32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Hostiam tibi placationis offerimus, Domine,
suppliciter deprecantes,
ut, Deiparae virginis beatique Ioseph interveniente suffragio,
familias nostras in tua gratia firmiter et pace constituas. (Holy Family)

"We offer to thee this sacrifice of appeasement". Sounds propitiatory to me!

[ultima ratio]

"First Rule. The first: All judgment laid aside, we ought to have our mind ready and prompt to obey, in all, the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our holy Mother the Church Hierarchical."

Not a word about blind obedience. OF COURSE we should have minds "ready and prompt to obey" the Church's hierarchy. But this speaks only to our disposition and does not include our actual judgment, which should be based on doing God's will and avoiding evil. We should have minds ready and prompt to obey--but we MUST NEVER actually obey an evil command, even if demanded by a superior. God's will that we do good and avoid evil should always be paramount.

[gbcdoj]

Not a word about blind obedience. OF COURSE we should have minds "ready and prompt to obey" the Church's hierarchy. But this speaks only to our disposition and does not include our actual judgment, which should be based on doing God's will and avoiding evil.

He says "All judgment laid aside".

[ultima ratio]

I've already proven a thousand times the motu proprio is wrong--and violates the Pope's own canon law. It is manifestly unjust, period. I have no doubt at all about this. The Pope's argument simply is not credible. It denies the evidence and accuses innocent men of denying his papacy when in fact they acted to protect the Traditional faith from destruction. Besides, he's stepped away from his extreme view since. He now acknowledges Catholics may attend SSPX Masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation. I've posted the letter from his commission stating this many times--but you, like your buddies who like to toss around the "schism" charge, seem to enjoy being spiteful more than being truthful.

[ultima ratio]

You guys are really Pharisees if you believe this means if the rector ordered a Jebbie scholastic to poison the housekeeper, he must do so. Give me a break. A little common sense is always assumed.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"Rule 1: Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgements of one's own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy Mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy."

-St. Ignatius of Loyola, "Rules for Thinking with the Church"

"Rule 13: That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

-St. Ignatius of Loyola, "Rules for Thinking with the Church"

Shall I also start quoting his famed "Letter on Obedience"?

[gbcdoj]

I've already proven a thousand times the motu proprio is wrong--and violates the Pope's own canon law. It is manifestly unjust, period.

But, ultima, it doesn't. Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't be ignorant of the lack of a state of necessity, since he was informed by the Congregation for Clergy and the Pope that the impending consecrations would incur excommunication. Consecrating bishops for a "state of necessity" is strictly when the Pope's approval can be assumed, at least tacitly, as in the case of St. Eusebius of Samosata. But when a bishop deliberately consecrates a bishop who will lack apostolic succession (as Msgr. Lefebvre did), that act is schismatic, because it is the creation of a non-Catholic bishop. Here is your own leader Bp. Tissier de Mallerais:

... would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?

Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body.

Besides, he's stepped away from his extreme view since. He now acknowledges Catholics may attend SSPX Masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

That's a letter from Msgr. Perl. It states "in the strict sense". But it doesn't retract the judgment of schism. In fact, when Msgr. Perl released the letter, he prefaced it with:

Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.