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.
The sacrament of marriage conferred by the SSPX as I said in my other post is illergaulr, but valid. Those who have been married by an SSPX priest but returns to t he diocean structure do not need to get re married, but only need to get their marriage regularized.
Canon 1108: "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest...."
SSPXr's are NOT validly married.
As to Hawaii: it's been explained thoroughly elsewhere on FR. Basically, Ratzinger overturned a judicial decision of the Bp of Hawaii which was made in grave error.
HOWEVER, this decision was particular; that is, it did not limit the general excommunication of SSPX priests/Bishops, or of laity who "display an attachment to SSPX."
Can you document the presumptive validity of SSPX marriages? I understand 'regularization,' but that process may also include a de-facto re-marriage either explicit or implicit.
Don't mis-read the posts of those who "bash" SSPXr's.
I'm as sympathetic as anyone to those who seek a rational and integrated spirituality, catechesis, and a liturgy which is reverent, respectful, and displays the elements of 'sacred time, sacred space, sacred language, and sacred music.'
But please recall that those who DEFEND SSPX positions are not the same as those who simply show up for their Masses because their Diocese has nothing but odious N.O. perversions available.
Those who DEFEND sspx are, in fact, schismatics and excommunicandi. IOW, they are no different from Lutherans, except they utilize a particularly disingenuous line: that they 'are Catholic.'
There is a difference between posters on this very thread; some, like you, are sympathetic to SSPX laity; others, who need not be mentioned, are actively promoting their form of schism.
"ur, you are quite simply out of your depth on this one, and don't know what you are talking about."
You went to India once to do some charity work and consider yourself an expert on the Hindu religion? I don't think so.
I admit I know nothing about Hinduism per se. But I did do a google search, there is plenty out there on aarti, including the definition I gave which defines aarti as a hymn to a Hindu god. It's not my definition, I got it from a Hindu site--it's the Hindus who say it's part of the Hindu faith, not I. I also posted the links of several sites that deal with the issue.
Besides, the Pope has done worse than accept a blessing from a Hindu woman. He's allowed heathen Aztec dances--just before the Consecration at a papal Mass. He's prayed with animists, poured out libations to the Great Thumb in the Togo forest, and participated in liturgies of other religions, including praying with rabbis for the coming of the Messiah in a Jewish synagogue--and you know they weren't praying for the Second Coming.
I pray the "Church" will return to God.
There's a difference between inculturation and syncretism. It is one thing to incorporate into Christianity a non-religious cultural element, it's another to accept a religious element per se. In the case of the Pantheon, Christianity was wholly substituted for Pagan worship. Only the building was retained, a religiously neutral artifact. So too with the sites of springs or the dates of feasts, all were religiously neutral. But a PRAYER or HYMN to a false god IS religious--it is syncretic and heretical.
"The Pope likes the UN because he's not sold on GWB's 'preventive strikes' concept. There's a good reason for that: 'preventive strikes' are hard to square with the Just War theory. You may recall that theory--it has to do with morality in war"
Twenty-five million people were rescued from a thirty-year long reign of terror--with very little loss of civilian life. It is ridiculous to interpret this as something immoral. Had Saddam not been a known tyrant, a man who fed people into a giant shredder, a man who tortured children before their parents, a man who cut out tongues and cut off hands, a man who forced husbands to watch wives being raped, a man who used poison gas on scores of thousands of Iraqis, a man who invaded neighboring countries, a man who for twelve years made a mockery of the terms of his surrender following the First Gulf War--then maybe the Pope would have a point in his opposition.
As it is, the just-war principle that a threat must be imminent before a country may act preventively is no longer realistic in the nuclear age. One miscalculation on our part could well cause the loss of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. This is especially true when a madman like Saddam opposes us. As Bush insists, we may not have found weapons of mass destruction--but we found the capacity to produce them, and produce them quickly should the time have proved propitious.
More slanderous crap from you. Those who marry in an SSPX ceremony have certainty of the Church's blessings provided by canon law by means of supplied jurisdiction. Your posts have a spitefulness that speaks volumes.
There is no need to regularize anything. They are valid marriages.
Nonsense. No one married at Campos before the recent accord had to get a marriage "regularized." They are perfectly valid, period.
Have you never heard of supplied jurisdiction? Read up and learn something.
With this, and your concluding graph, you simply place more distance between yourself and the Church.
Bush played the war right up to the edge and it is still not very clear how Iraq 'attacked us' first.
While I give Bush the benefit of the doubt, your belief that the USA is the World's Cop is arrogant, puerile, and hubristic in the extreme.
Prove it.
The following is the official SSPX response to scurrilous accusations such as yours:
___________________________________________________
DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION OF THIS SUPPLIED JURISDICTION
1. can. 20 (1917 Code; also can. 19 in 1983 Code) says that if the law does not 'foresee a certain case, the case must be solved according to the norms "a legibus latis in similibus; generalibus juris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis; jurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae; communi constantique doctorum sententia" ' [taken from laws given in similar cases, from the general principles of law applied with the mildness proper to Canon Law, from the manner and the custom of handling similar cases in the Roman Curia, and from the common and accepted teaching of doctors]. (As Wernz and Vidal say : "jus ergo suppletorium est jus applicandum in particularibus casibus, cum circa illud non habeatur in codice prescriptum quod peculiari illi casui sit applicandum" n. 180). [therefore to supplement the law the law is to be applied in particular cases, when the rule to be applied in an extraordinary case is not found in the law]
2. Application — three things occur:
a) parallel place ie. the "analogia legalis" [analogy of law] (Wernz-Vidal n. 181): "per quam juris dispositio pro aliis casibus applicatur simili de quo lex non disponit" [through which the disposition of the law for other cases is applied in a similar way concerning what the law does not dispose]. Here the parallel place is the case when it is impossible to have recourse to the local bishop for the dispensation of a diriment impediment of ecclesiastical law: "in danger of death" or "quando omnia sunt parata ad nuptias" [when all is prepared for the wedding] the parish priest or confessor can dispense (can. 1044 -1045). This means the Church gives them supplied jurisdiction ad casum [for particular cases].
b) Practice (jurisprudence) of the Roman Curia: an answer from the Commission for the interpretation of the Code of July 29 1942 (AAS 34, 241) allows the extension of the dispositions of can. 1045 to the case of urgent necessity where there is "periculum in mora" [danger to morals] (cf. Can. 81)
c) Epikeia and the opinion of doctors concerning canon 1043 sq., but which also applies elsewhere: (Cappello, Tractatus de Sacramentis III ii. 199: "Si finis legis cesset contrarie pro communitate, ie si damnum commune inde sequatur, lex non urget, quia merito censetur suspendi ex benigna mentis legislatoris interpretatione" [If the object of the law remains in a way contrary to the community, that is if a damage would commonly follow from it, the law does not oblige, because it is thought to have ceased out of the kindly interpretation of the mind of the legislator].) This is the case of being obliged to have recourse to modernist tribunals. But if the obligation of recurring to modernist tribunals ceases, the obligation of recurring to some tribunal remains.
3. By joining all these elements we can infer that our canonical commission in the actual case of impossibility of having recourse to the official tribunals, has the power to judge matrimonial cases (we can say that the Holy See, if it were not as modernist as the tribunals, would give us this jurisdiction).
It is graver to dispense from a diriment impediment (which change the condition of the person who from incapable becomes capable of contracting marriage) than it is to declare a marriage invalid (which does not change the condition of the person, but merely states a fact existing from the beginning). It is only a declarative power of jurisdiction. So if supplied jurisdiction is given to us to dispense, a fortiori it is given to us to judge.
4. The institution of marriage tribunals in the orb of Tradition is especially justified by the fact that:
a) their authority will be more easily accepted than a private opinion,
b) thus it will not be necessary to reject doubtful or contrary private opinions,
c) many judges and instances are necessary in order to proceed prudently and according to the spirit and letter of the law,
d) in the present case of necessity, a priest receives supplied jurisdiction for what a priest can normally do by himself and not for what he cannot normally do. But judging matrimonial cases is not normally done by a priest but by the bishop or the authorities he has delegated.
In all this the rule "in as much as and no more than" applies: The Church supplies jurisdiction in favour of the faithful in as much as it is necessary and no more than is necessary.
IV EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF JUDGING MATRIMONIAL CASES by the canonical commission and the priests designated by it
As we have said our jurisdiction is supplied. Here are its properties:
a) It is not habitual, but only ad casum per modum actus [for individual cases and means of action]. Consequently we do not have standing tribunals, nor are their members named ad universas causas [for every reason], but on the contrary each time ad hoc, appointed by the canonical commission, even if for practical reasons and because experienced and competent persons are needed, the judges and defender of the bond are always the same.
b) The jurisdiction is not territorial but personal.
c) It depends on the necessity of the faithful ie., it lasts as long as the state of common necessity lasts, even if, per impossibile [through impossible circumstances], an official tribunal judging according to traditional norms could be found.
d) It is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and the obligation the faithful have of receiving a judgement. Therefore we have the power and the duty of handing down true sentences having potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our sentences are therefore binding. The proximate reason is that we must be able to tell the faithful what they must follow, quod debent servare. [what they must obey]
Our sentences are not mere private opinions because such an opinion do not suffice when the common good is at stake; and the common good is at stake in every case where the matrimonial bond is discussed. To resolve the doubt authority in the external forum is necessary.
e) This jurisdiction does not usurp any of the powers the Pope has of divine right. It is true that our sentences in the third instance replace the sentences of the Roman Rota which acts in the Pope’s name as third instance tribunals. But this is not an usurpation of divine right of the Pope because the fact that this third instance is reserved to the Pope is of ecclesiastical law.
f) Finally our sentences like all our acts of supplied jurisdiction and the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and 1991 etc., will ultimately need to be confirmed by the Holy See:
"With this, and your concluding graph, you simply place more distance between yourself and the Church."
Oh, so now the Pope is infallible on American foreign policy as well? We should all agree with the UN, the most corrupt institution on earth, the one that siphoned off three-quarters of the billions directed to the Iraqi people and kicked-back most of it so Saddam could build his palaces and buy more guns--the one that puts Sudan and Lybia in charge of its Human Rights Commission? Yeah, sure. More papal wisdom--of the kind we've grown accustomed to.
As for playing the world's cop, millions of people right now in Sudan wish we did. They are being killed and enslaved with impunity because people like you tie our hands and cry "foul!" every time we posit actions to rescue millions of the oppressed--the same people who have done nothing for the millions dying of AIDS in Africa, but who now are clamoring to be put in charge of the billions we have authorized to be spent to alleviate suffering in Africa. What hypocrisy!
It's becoming a lot easier to ignore your grotesque Straw Man constructions--this time about Papal infallibility on foreign policy.
Maybe I'll get more than a 500-year deal on this watch.
As to my position on military ventures: let's make it simple. YOU join the Army and rescue the world--but don't you DARE take my children along for the ride.
While you're in BCT, by the way, think a little more deeply on the topic of Losing the Vietnam War. You might actually understand the wisdom of the Founders: 'no foreign entanglements.'
Then again, you might not. You certainly haven't learned much about validity of attempted SSPX marriages, have you?
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.