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.

You have never answered my arguments, but instead continually disseminate falsehoods. This being the case, I am forced to once again spell out the deception and the injustice perpetrated against Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. Here are the facts.

OK lefts look at them.

1. In all the years since Vatican II, neither Paul VI nor John Paul II had allowed a single traditionalist priest to be consecrated.

...

2. The Archbishop was 82 years old and failing in health.

...

3. Meanwhile the Church was imploding. Scandals were erupting everywhere.

...

4. Negotiations ensued between the Archbishop and Rome.

...

5. The Archbishop pushed for a definite date--and got none. He finally got tired of vague promises and came to the conclusion Rome was playing a waiting game--waiting for him to die in order to take over the movement and destroy it.

The consecration of Priests and the installation of Bishops are to be done with the goal of propagating the Faith. Surly there was more than one other Bishop who could continue this work. No, this argument falls flat on the point that LeFebvre was not the only Bishop, and other Bishops were there and ready. He was not the last Bishop around who was like himself. There were others, and there could have been others behind him.

He had been ordaining Priests, and this is not a disputed fact, nor is that a cause for excommunication. Installing Bishops without a mandate from the Pope is cause and has been applied.

You left out that on the eve of the Installation, the Pope sent a car for a private audience to try a last ditch effort to bring this to a reasonable end. The Pope gave a direct warning, and yet, was giving the Archbishop a way out of the mess without losing any face. Lefebvre never got in the car to talk in Rome. His pride must have got the better of him.

6. Four traditionalist priests were consecrated as bishops.

...

7. But there was also another canon that supported the Archbishop as well. It was a canon which stated that even if an individual WERE MISTAKEN ABOUT A STATE OF NECESSITY, as long as his belief was sincere, there could be no penalty.

...

8. The Pope chose to ignore all this as well as his own canons.

...

Lets look at this last one, the Pope didn't ignore the Canon, he correctly said that this didn't apply, it there was indeed an emergency, what better and more honorable way to solve the problem than a direct face-to-face meeting with the Pope. I could agree with emergency if there was no way to talk to Rome, or no way to get permission back. I would then expect the Archbishop to go directly to Rome in obedience and explain the reasoning. Once again, pride prevented this.

9. In fact, the Canon Law decree was latae sententiae--that is to say, it was automatic and was totally dependent on the internal dispositions of the individuals involved.

...

10. Those who defend the Pope, do so on grounds of the Archbishop's disobedience. But disobedience is not inherently evil--it is not always and everywhere wrong.

Both these arguments are circular. He can't know anyone's mind, only what they admitted, the SSPX admitted they had committed the act. How can the Pope say the abortionist or genocidal maniac didn't have good reason, how can he know those people's minds as well? Indeed, every schismatic had a good reason.

Greek Orthodox: Filioque is a heresy!
Martin Luther: Indulgences for Sale
Henry VIII: I must have a male heir!
????????: Non Serviam

Perhaps the whole of the Protestant Schism is over!

Yay!

11. St. Thomas Aquinas says something similar. Popes do not have a mandate to harm the Church. Nor may they impose a sentency of "schism" where it does not exist.

Changing the Mass in of itself is not an act of harm. Lets say the Pope decided to kill those who disagreed with him, no wait that already happened in the middle ages, let say the Pope had decided to keep a concubine, no wait, that actually happened too. Bring up the crime and I bet a Pope sometime has done it. Even if you only consider Alexander Vi, even if you discount a lot that he was accused of, he was definitely capable of Evil.

There I could say I would resist that Pope of the House of Borgia in all matters that conflicted with Law. he can't rewrite the Ten Commandments, and even if he tried, why would the Holy Spirit let him?

Changing the Mass is hardly an act of Evil, and even at that a Indult is available, but only if you can say the Novus Ordo is a Mass as valid as Tridentine. The Pope may say who is and in not in union with them. In fact it is his job to make those declarations, and his alone.

12. Had the Pope wanted to prove the Archbishop culpable, he had recourse to a papal tribunal which would have had the right to call witnesses, to include evidence, and which would have allowed the accused the right to defend himself.

When the facts of the case and an admission is clearly made, no tribunal is made. If he had presented himself asking for a hearing, what would be heard? He admitted the facts of the case, and indeed the emergency is well know to the Pope, if he agreed he would have been able to act. The Pope has done a lot in acting on the objections posed by the SSPX, and continues to talk.

13. Another belief by those who disagree with the SSPX is that the Pope "imposed" an excommunication or declaration of schism on the SSPX. But he did no such thing. He only gave his opinion about what he believed happened automatically as a result of the consecrations.

...

14. Others claim the Pope is the Supreme Legislator in the Church and may decide what he wants on the matter. But this is only partially true. He is supreme only in the legal, not the moral, sense. He can LEGALLY declare something, but he cannot effect it as a reality unless the individuals were actually guilty.

...

If he does such an unjust thing, such a decaration would be a nullity.

Most of the time these are carried out with no fort her action.No action is needed because this is a complete act, one needing no ratification, but instead he did ratify it, in a legal document. It violated no canon law, he simply denied that there was an actual emergency, and even if Lefebvre thought there was an emergency, why would he not express it to the Pope the night before?

Nope, this is a valid charge. If goes beyond this one act of disobedience, the See says the SSPX sows a schismatic mentality, one of resisting otherwise lawful orders, and also denigrates otherwise licit Sacraments. I agree the Priests would not say such a stupid and untrue thing, but among the faithful this is openly said. I have heard it from SSPX people here, and in my town.

The SSPX looms closer to reunion with Rome, but many faithful are finding more in common with sedavacanists. Like I said before, some will return and some are lost.

1. All the traditional bishops were old and failing. None had seminaries.

2. You can't ordain priests without bishops. They were dying out. None since the Council were being consecrated--not a single one. That was the whole point. The Traditional Mass was being starved to death by modernist Rome.

3. Lefebvre was not looking for a way out of the mess. He was looking to preserve the ancient faith from destruction at the hands of those in the revolution who thought they knew better than all the preconciliar popes and councils and saints put together.

4. The Archbishop tried the negotiation route--it was futile. There was absolutely no trust left between him and Rome. The Pope had just organized Assisi--to the great scandal of all traditional Catholics. It appeared things were going from bad to worse, yet even so, because he revered the papacy, he tried to negotiate. But it was absolutely one-sided and went on pointlessly without the Pope budging an inch or committing himself to anything in writing. The Pope only reacted after the consecrations--with an outburst of anger which was the motu proprio.

5. The act was committed, yes. But the Pope wasn't judging that. He was judging motivations when he decided the bishops were excommunicated and in schism. They could only have been truly excommunicated if they never actually feared a state of necessity. But they did fear such a state and had stated this openly for years! And they could only be in schism if they acted to deny the Pope's legitimacy--but they did not act for that reason! They acted to protect the faith! You are excusing the Pope for trying to do what was impossible--judge the interior motives of others. He assumed they were disobedient because they wanted to deny his papacy--he totally discounted the real motive, which was to protect Catholic Tradition.

6. It was indeed harmful to the Church to attempt to destroy the ancient Mass. You may not think so--the Pope obviously did not think so--but traditional Catholics profoundly believe this, and nothing will ever shake their conviction. For over a thousand years the ancient Mass had been the crown jewel of the Catholic faith--and now it was being scheduled for execution. Even worse, the evidence was everywhere that the introduction of the New Mass and the suppression of the Old Missal had done immense injury to the Church. This is all beyond dispute. But even if the Archbishop were wrong about this, even if the new Mass were not the protestantizing, Trent-defying liturgy he supposed--he nevertheless believed this sincerely--and therefore could not have been culpable under canon law. Under Canon Law it is what he believed when he acted that mattered, not what the Pope or anyone else imagined to have been his motive.

7. Of course the Motu Proprio is a nullity as far as condemning the SSPX goes. Why? Because it is superceded in authority by the Pope's own Canon Law which allowed for the SSPX to disobey if they feared a state of necessity existed. Canon Law has priority over the Pope's own whim in a letter. Not only this, but Divine Law itself demands that the Pontiff concede this point out of justice.

None since the Council were being consecrated--not a single one. That was the whole point. The Traditional Mass was being starved to death by modernist Rome.

So - only the SSPX is traditional. All others are modernist heretics. Thus - the SSPX is the Church. This is quite foolish.

Where dogma was concerned, it was evident that not only was the Cardinal totally orthodox and traditional, but that he was an outstanding theologian ... He was totally orthodox, and as it did not trouble him, he could not see any reason why it should trouble anyone, providing that it was celebrated reverently and without abuses. He told me with great satisfaction how a group of German tourists had attempted to receive Communion in the hand when assisting at his Mass in St. Peter's Basilica a few days before. He had made them all kneel down and receive Communion on the tongue ... There is not the least doubt that Cardinal Seper was a devout and totally orthodox Catholic. He was a dedicated servant of the Church and did his duty courageously and dispassionately, condemning error whenever he saw it and witnessing to the Truth. (Michael Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. 3, XXII)

But it was absolutely one-sided and went on pointlessly without the Pope budging an inch or committing himself to anything in writing.

The Protocol was a commitment. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who backed out, insisting that the Pope ordain all three of his chosen bishops. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to submit candidates to Rome, even though he admitted privately that there were many traditionalists whom Rome would accept as bishop. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who couldn't wait 45 days until August 15th for his bishop.

One sign that was taken very seriously by the Society was Rome's harsh mistreatment recently of the Indult fraternity, FSSP. The minute a dispute arose over a minor liturgical matter, Rome came down hard on the superior general, firing him and several priest theologians who taught at the Fraternity's seminary, then appointing as superior someone more congenial to Rome, someone more accepting of the Novus Ordo. In other words, tradition is kept on a very tight leash and this won't change as long as modernism retains its grip.

Fr. Josef Bisig was not "fired" by Cardinal Castrillon, and to suggest that he was dismissed from his post is to sully the reputation of the Fraternity’s founding Superior General. Father Bisig had reached the end of his term of office, and had said more than once that he was content not to be re-elected. One of the very purposes for which the General Chapter had come together was to elect a Superior General. Thus, to claim that "Hoyos fired Bisig, disallowing his or anyone else’s canonical election" would logically mean that the Cardinal also fired every other Fraternity member.
Rome has no "new" policy towards the Fraternity of St. Peter: back in 1988, Cardinal Mayer told Fr. Bisig that Rome would not forbid its members to use the revised liturgical books, and always rejected any attempts to put into the Constitutions the word "exclusive" or anything which implied an exclusivism meaning that Fraternity members could not use the revised texts. The Fraternity has always made it clear that it has, "by papal charter", the privilege of using the 1962 books (and no others) in its sacramental ministry, but such a privilege is something which cannot take away or replace the right given to all Catholic priests of using the books revised by Pope Paul VI.
"Hundreds of thousands of laymen … must soon contend with traditionalist parishes that will … become dual-rite". This alarmingly apocalyptic image has no foundation whatsoever in fact and indeed flies in the face of what Cardinal Castrillon wrote in his letter about the future of the Fraternity. The Cardinal, whilst admitting that he cannot bind the Fraternity to only the 1962 rite, goes further than any previous President of the Commission in limiting the possibilities of a Fraternity priest using the new rite (and remember, the right to use it is not the same as wanting to use it, let alone actually using it—a nuance somewhat lost in this dramatic editorial), and in encouraging us to continue to use the 1962 books, and actually justifying our continued use in his letter...
Since so much of these attacks focuses upon assassinating the character of the new Superior General of the Fraternity, Fr. Arnaud Devillers, we decided to get his viewpoint on certain allegations made against him in this periodical:
Were you appointed by Rome, as Mr. McCaffrey alleges, on the understanding that you would move the Fraternity towards the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI, or because you were pro-concelebration?
There was not, and never has been any such an understanding. I told the Cardinal, when the question of my appointment was raised, that I did not concelebrate and had no intention of doing so. This was never an issue.
Do you intend to tell Rome, as The Latin Mass speculates, that we need Communion in the hand, vernacular readings, the 1965 rite, or Mass facing the people in our apostolates?
Of course not – this is nothing more than gratuitous speculation, without any foundation in fact. I have no intention of proposing any of these things to Rome, or of seeking to impose them in any of our apostolates.

Statement by the North American District Headquarters of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter Regarding Misleading Reports in the Media

Because it is superceded in authority by the Pope's own Canon Law which allowed for the SSPX to disobey if they feared a state of necessity existed. Canon Law has priority over the Pope's own whim in a letter.

No, it's "superseded" by your mistaken understanding of Canon Law. There was no ignorance, since Msgr. Lefebvre had been informed concerning the non-existence of the "state of necessity" (a concession which is granted by the Pope for extraordinary situations - not for disobeying him by performing schismatic acts).

1. "So - only the SSPX is traditional. All others are modernist heretics. Thus - the SSPX is the Church. This is quite foolish."

Not at all. Most bishops today are modernists to one extent or another, and so support the modernist heresy. This is why it is accurate to say only traditionalist bishops are fully Catholic. That is to say, only those bishops who hold onto the authentic faith transmitted to them through the apostles. All others, to one extent or another support novelties which have already been condemned by preconciliar popes--most especially the syncretic and indifferentist policies of the present Pontiff. They subscribe to the bogus pan-religious "civilization of love" preached by JPII, or at the very least an interchurch "unity through difference" that subverts the uniqueness of the Catholic faith. And they support the Novus Ordo which is the vehicle for undermining that faith.

2. "The Protocol was a commitment. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who backed out, insisting that the Pope ordain all three of his chosen bishops. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to submit candidates to Rome, even though he admitted privately that there were many traditionalists whom Rome would accept as bishop. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who couldn't wait 45 days until August 15th for his bishop."

There never was a fixed August 15th date. You snatched this out of a letter by the Archbishop, and did so out of context. The whole import of the letter was to underscore the runaround Rome was giving him by neither fixing the date nor finding any of his candidates acceptable. In fact, the draft letter, written by Ratzinger's own secretary for the Archbishop to sign, makes no mention of any date nor any name--nor even if any consecration would be allowed at all. But the quarrel in the end was not about dates or names. The quarrel was about the faith itself, and whether the Archbishop could trust Rome not to sabotage Traditional Catholicism in the name of its newly-minted conciliar religion. Here is Lefebvre in his own words:

"'And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?' Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. 'That I might recognize my errors' means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!

"That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.

"This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: 'We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.' This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.

"It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call 'Operation Survival,' operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed 'Operation Suicide.' There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church."

So the issue is joined. It is a question of whether the Pope is Lord of Catholic Tradition, or whether he is merely its servant. Put another way, whether a pope may invent his own religion, or whether he must be subject to Catholic Tradition like all others in the Church.

3. "Fr. Josef Bisig was not 'fired' by Cardinal Castrillon, and to suggest that he was dismissed from his post is to sully the reputation of the Fraternity’s founding Superior General. Father Bisig had reached the end of his term of office, and had said more than once that he was content not to be re-elected. One of the very purposes for which the General Chapter had come together was to elect a Superior General. Thus, to claim that 'Hoyos fired Bisig, disallowing his or anyone else’s canonical election' would logically mean that the Cardinal also fired every other Fraternity member."

This is a flat-out lie--sheer damage control put out by the new superior, hand-picked by Rome and a man who was out of sync with the majority of priests in his own Fraternity. Bisig was elected legally--then fired! Here is Cardinal Hoyos in his own words in the letter that gave him the ax:

"The first decision is of nature legal: Your constitutions, which were approved 'AD experimentum', leave open the question of the number of years that a General Superior is to fill. It seems reasonable to limit that to two 6 year, each one, i.e. with a maximum of 12 years, in harmony with the majority of the others religious institutes....two 6 year mandates each one, following itself. This papal commission thanks Father Bisig, which fulfilled these functions during 12 years, for all that it did for what he did for the Fraternity, which owes him, during the period of beginning of its history, its consolidation and its extension in several countries, which is the fruit of its extreme zeal, and of its requirement of personal and collective sanctification.

"The second decision is as folows: You know that in 1991, Cardinal Innocenti, who was then president of this papal Commission, had named General Father Bisig as Superior, for one 3 year additional period, in spite of a vote of the general Chapter which deviated some. The situation of conflict in your institute currently requires a similar intervention from higher authority, in proportion to the danger when an election is with source of divisions even major [ones]. This is why, I name Supérieur General of Fraternity, Father Arnaud Devillers, for one 6 year mandate. Father Devillers filled the requirements, and knows your fraternity intimately. He has long experience as the person in charge for the district of North America, that he founded, and which has [existed?] in several American dioceses, always maintained good co-operation with the local bishops.

"His first task will be to restore the peace of your Fraternity, while working to preserve your common spirituality, like reinforcing your spirit of family."

So, despite the fact that Father Bisig was duly elected, and despite the fact that the constitution of the FSSP put no limit on the number of terms he might serve, Hoyos decided UNILATERALLY to impose a two-term limit on Bisig and sacked him outright. Then, instead of calling for a new election, he HAND-PICKED his successor.

Now you understand why Rome is not trusted by SSPX. Even the excuse made that Bisig was not "deposed" but that his "term expired" is a lie--a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened. If the case was as presented by Rome, why was not another election held? The truth was that Bisig was too traditional and so were most of the priests of the fraternity; whereas Devillers was more liberal and more malleable. So he was imposed on the fraternity.

4. "No, it's 'superseded' by your mistaken understanding of Canon Law. There was no ignorance, since Msgr. Lefebvre had been informed concerning the non-existence of the 'state of necessity'"

Do you think the Pope's telling the Archbishop that there was no emergency would have alleviated his fears, given that the Pope was actively pursuing the very agenda that alarmed him?

Here is what the canon says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4°).

Clearly Lefebvre had such a great fear. The fact that the Pope said it did not exist could not in any way alleviate it. Why? Because the Pope himself was the cause of this fear, especially when the Archbishop considered his bizarre behavior at Assisi. In truth, the fact that the Pope did not see any crisis in the Church and proceeded blithely along as if all were well even as the walls of the Church were everywhere crumbling around him, only added to the Archbishop's fears! It made the consecrations even more imperative!

And they support the Novus Ordo which is the vehicle for undermining that faith.

Continuously you make this ridiculous assertion. Somehow a Mass which is totally unacceptable to Protestants - a rite which reaffirms the sacrificial nature of the Mass, is somehow a "vehicle for undermining" the faith, instrincally evil and sacrilegious. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter remains, no matter how much you deny it:

Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. (ICEL Eucharistic Prayer III)

What about the bishops of Eastern Rite Churches? Do they support the Novus Ordo too?

There never was a fixed August 15th date. You snatched this out of a letter by the Archbishop, and did so out of context.

It's from his interview in "Fideliter", and it's quite clear what happened. After Msgr. Lefebvre's letter withdrawing his acceptance, Cardinal Ratzinger assured him that he could have a consecration on August 15th and asked him for new candidates.

That is when, after signing the protocol, which paved the way for an agreement, I sat down and thought. The accumulation of distrust and reticence impelled me to demand the nomination of a bishop for the 30th of June from amongst the three dossiers which I had left in Rome on the 5th of May. Either that, or I would go ahead and consecrate. Faced with such a choice, Cardinal Ratzinger said, "If that's how it is, the protocol is over. It's finished, and there is no more protocol. You are breaking off relations." It's he who said it, not I.
On the 20th of May, I wrote to the Holy Father, telling him that I had signed the protocol but that I was insistent upon having bishops, and bishops on the 30th of June.
But in fact there was no way of coming to an agreement. While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican.

In fact, the draft letter, written by Ratzinger's own secretary for the Archbishop to sign, makes no mention of any date nor any name--nor even if any consecration would be allowed at all.

The draft letter is clear that there would be a consecration, and soon.

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future?

The "I leave to" was simply to prevent Msgr. Lefebvre from rushing off and immediately consecrating someone like Fr. Willamson as his bishop.

I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors

A total misrepresentation of the letter.

Most Holy Father, it is this good of the Church that I have pursued in all conscience in the sight of God during these past years through much suffering. However, I know that even in good faith, one can make mistakes. Therefore, I humbly ask you to forgive all that in my behavior or that of the Society may have hurt the Vicar or Christ or the Church, and on my part, I forgive from the depth of my heart what I had to suffer.

We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands

So Msgr. Lefebvre cannot abide being under the authority of the Apostolic See. Here is the schism for you.

If the case was as presented by Rome, why was not another election held?

Exactly for the reason stated in your quote.

The conflict-ridden situation of your Fraternity presently demands a similar intervention of superior authority, in view of the danger that an election could become the source of even more profound divisions.

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.