Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

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

[ultima ratio]

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren--that is, for the Prostestants "

--Paul VI cited by L'Osservatore Romano 19 March 1965.

I rest my case.

[ultima ratio]

Here is what Hoyos said: "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."

The cardinal is simply lying about the character of the conflict which was the result of a few priests only having written a letter to Ecclesia Dei. The reaction to the letter was prompt--within weeks. And this was despite the fact that the great majority of the priests were opposed to the liberal position and sided with Bisig.

The truth was the decision was IMPOSED on the fraternity. No amount of doubletalk can change the unvarnished truth--that Bisig was fired and a new superior general imposed on the Fraternity who was hand-picked by the modernists in Rome. And this had dire consequences a few years later when Rome pursued negotiations with the SSPX.

[gbcdoj]

Paul VI cited by L'Osservatore Romano 19 March 1965.

Interesting. TiA cites that same quote, from the same issue, as from Fr. Bugnini.

11. To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible to extol the so-called "community" Mass in such a way as to detract from Masses that are celebrated privately; or to concentrate on the notion of sacramental sign as if the symbolism—which no one will deny is certainly present in the Most Blessed Eucharist—fully expressed and exhausted the manner of Christ's presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than "transignification," or "transfinalization" as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.

27. It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day." [Cf. Council of Trent, Teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, c. I.] (Paul VI, "Mysterium Fidei" Sept. 3 1965)

[GirlShortstop]

I rest my case.

And you do so with a mistake, or even worse, a lie...   WOW.

[ultima ratio]

The decree of excommunication is a legalism only. It is morally a nullity. This is why the SSPX can move forward with equanimity. It knows there is no real truth behind the accusations. Here are the words of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin."

Notice that the encyclopedia does not include a latae sententiae in this explanation PRECISELY because it is an internal matter--in foro interno--which no one on earth may interpret except the individual in the forum of his own conscience. But if the Pope's motu proprio is interpreted as a legitimate judicial sentence--as you are claiming--then the explanation would apply, i.e., the excommunication produces no effect and may be ignored without sin.

[ultima ratio]

I got the quote from another site and erred. I accept the correction. But it still is valid--even more so, since Bugnini concocted the Mass. And the Pope read the newspapers I presume. He knew what was in the Mass and what Bugnini intended.

[Dominick]

A fly:
of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ

That is precisely what the Motu Proprio stated this excommunication is, Latenae Sententiae. It wasn't proclaimed it was observed, and confirmed. No ruling is needed for a notorious sinner. John Kerry has been given no trial or condemnation, but we all agree he is is guilty of helping to procure Abortion, and rendered an automatic excommunication.

Of course, this applies to any excommunication, of either type. It does not apply to the SSPX, because this isn't an internal matter, it is a public matter, and of the first order. If we were talking about someone who secretly did such a thing, or was accused of a secret of that type, but innocent, it would be a nullity.

Nothing about this is internal to an individual, it was publicly done. Fellay acknowledges the excommunication, and you don't?

[ultima ratio]

I am glad you supplied the link. It even more fully proves the point I was making, though I erred in attributing the quote to Paul VI and not Bugnini himself:

_________________________________________________________

The makers of the New Mass definitively wanted to favor Protestantism


There is the false notion many Catholics have that the New Order Mass is just a simple translation of the traditional Latin rite, with a few small changes here and there. This is not true. It is a re-write, and quite substantial one, undertaken by a commission set up by Paul VI to implement the Council’s teaching on the liturgy.(3)

The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants.

Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (4)


A clear design to destroy the Traditional Mass


The designers of the New Mass have boasted endlessly on the novelty and revolutionary nature of their creation, and you can find many examples. I will only site one: Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated: “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." (5)

The critics have said essentially the same thing. Again, I will just cite one. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes, wrote that "the Novus Ordo Missae .... represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in the Council of Trent,” and that there are “implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” (6)

Based on these testimonies, as well as on the fact that the religious authorities have imposed that this New Mass be said everywhere, is it any wonder that so many Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence?


Endnotes

3) The ambiguous language of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the official document of Vatican II that deals with liturgy, is set out in Atila S. Guimarães’ In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, pp. 229-31.

4) L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

5) Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.

6) Modern History Sourcebook: The Ottaviani Intervention, 1969, online edition.

[gbcdoj]

The Ottaviani Intervention was written before the GIRM was fixed - and the SCDF judged that even then "The work Short Critical Study… contains many statements which are superficial, exaggerated, inexact, impassioned and false."

Again, ultima, you are simply unable to get past the clear words of the Missal:

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.

[ultima ratio]

You are talking gobbledegook. Either the pope is commenting on a latae sententiae and merely giving an opinion about what it meant--which is my view--or he is judicially declaring a sentence of excommunication--which is your view. If he is commenting on a latae sententiae--then it is a matter "in formo interno"--literally, in the internal forum of the individual involved and CANNOT be known by anybody else.

You are trying to say at one and the same time it is a public matter but it is also a latae sententiae decree--which is ridiculous. Of course the consecrations were a public matter--but the MOTIVE for the consecrations resided in the hearts of the individuals involved. It is the motive for the action that matters, not the fact of it. If the motive was to protect the faith and avoid harm to souls, there could be no penalty according to Canon Law.

It was the public act alone which the Pope attempted--wrongly--to interpret. He judged the consecrations took place in order to deny his papacy; he judged wrongly and falsely. You won't concede this because you are reluctant to admit the Pope has erred. Nevertheless, those he accused were innocent of what he charged and certainly might in good conscience ignore such false accusations of excommunication or schism.

[Dominick]

It is a indisputed act, that carries an excommunication. The Pope mearly let it ride, and it is in effect, Fellay says in so many words, he is excommunicated. If he admits it, that carries more worth than your arguement.

A public act, and public statements, need not have anything else done to make an excommunication stick. Adding that it can only be an internal matter is an innovation.

[ultima ratio]

No, you are the one in denial. You imagine the word "sacrifice" sprinkled throughout with only the most glancing and tenuous recognition of the concept of Propitiation, can compensate for the deficiencies of the whole. There can be no sense of this without a fulsome acknowledgement of our sin and the punishment due to it, nor of our need for expiation--all of which has been suppressed and diminished. The emphasis is on the opposite: on celebration of salvation, with ourselves at the center of our focus. The Communion is the climax of the new Mass, not the Immolation on the altar.

[gbcdoj]

The emphasis is on the opposite: on celebration of salvation, with ourselves at the center of our focus.

Believe what you will, but that simply isn't true.

[ultima ratio]

No. The Pope did more than announce the latae sententiae. He not only ignored the exonerating evidence that precluded any penalty, but he interpreted the act as schismatic. That was a double falsehood, invented by him, having no basis in the evidence nor in the consecrations themselves. It was a gratuitous slam against the SSPX, designed to punish. But it was false. The bottom line is that excommunications and schisms only matter if they are real. If they are false, then the innocent party may ignore them--as the SSPX does. It KNOWS it is neither excommunicated nor in schism, no matter how much the Pope misinterpreted its motives.

[ultima ratio]

You are illogical and all over the place. Stick to the issue. Here is what the encyclopedia says: "Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty." It goes on to say such an unjust decree may be ignored since it has no effect.

The Pope's motu proprio is just such an unjust declaration and may be ignored--and is. You don't like this attitude. But the truth is the truth. It is clear that the Archbishop saw Traditional Catholicism being wrecked by modernism. It is also clear the Pope did not seem to mind. It was the Archbishop who acted to protect Tradition and preserve the faith--something the Pope himself ought to have done, but didn't.

[CatherineSiena]

Fr. Josef Bisig was not "fired" by Cardinal Castrillon ... Father Bisig had reached the end of his term of office...

Sorry gbcdoj, I agree with many of your points, but the statement you cited above that Fr. Bisig was not removed and had naturally reached the end of his term, is at best, sophistry (although it is the spin Fr. Devillers unfortunately repeats). I am in personal contact with Fr. Bisig and other fraternity priests (and was so in late 1999, early 2000), and can attest that Fr. Bisig was removed and replaced against his wishes and those of a majority of priests. The mechanism was couched under the enforcement of term limits and a necessitated extraordinary superior general appointment, but this does not change the reality of what happened.

Fr. Bisig was considered too traditional to head the FSSP, so he was removed on a technicality. The Vatican did not trust the FSSP to choose a superior general liberal enough for them, so they appointed one. One does not need to read very far between the lines of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' own words to discern the actual story: http://www.unavoce.org/Cardinal_Hoyos_Castrillon_letter.htm

[Dominick]

Fellay admits he is excommunicated.

There is nothing you can say to deny this admission. The Pope comments and confirms the sentence, and no trial is needed.

The facts are clear. The admission is final.

[gbcdoj]

CS, if you've got information from Fr. Bisig on this then I will defer to you - the argumentation in this portion of the press release does seem rather sophistical.

[gbcdoj]

Notice that the encyclopedia does not include a latae sententiae in this explanation PRECISELY because it is an internal matter--in foro interno--which no one on earth may interpret except the individual in the forum of his own conscience.

The 1983 Code contains provisions for ecclesiastical authority to declare a latae sententiae excommunication has been occured. Do you accept these provisions?

Can. 1331 §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1° to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies of public worship; ...

§2 If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:
1° proposing to act in defiance of the provision of §1, n. 1 is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary

Can. 1342 §1 Whenever there are just reasons against the use of a judicial procedure, a penalty can be imposed or declared by means of an extra-judicial decree; in every case, penal remedies and penances may be applied by a decree.

Another important criticism I received concerns the question of the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Congregation for Bishops. A couple of well-versed canonists pointed out something crucial which I neglected to include in my thesis, and which probably led to an incorrect inference on the part of many readers: once the competent authority in the Church, in this case the Congregation for Bishops, has publicly declared a latae sententiae (automatic) penalty to have been incurred, the persons named in that declaration are bound to submit to the public effects of the penalty.

They are not free to simply ignore the penalty, alleging reasons why it does not apply to them. They may be sincerely convinced that the penalty was not incurred automatically. They may be convinced that the declaration was invalid. They may even be able to prove their case. But they cannot simply assert this, and then act as though there had been no declaration of excommunication. They must prove their case in an administrative recourse. If they choose not to lodge a recourse, then the matter rests as established by the competent Church authority. They are excommunicated. (Fr. Gerald Murray, Letter, Latin Mass Summer 1996)

And what does whole paragraph on unjust excommunication say?

An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

So - unjust excommunications in the external forum DO bind, even if they are only declared (as having been incurred) and not imposed! See what it says "or declared by judicial sentence". It is a latae sentiatae which is declared, and a ferendae sententiae which is imposed.

[Dominick]

What I read was:
Apart from that, do not forget that the Rite reformed by Pope Paul VI the common Rite of the Church. It is not your task to alter this state of things, or so to speak about this Rite, as if it were of lesser value; but rather to aid the Faithful who have an attachment to the old Rite better to find themselves once more in the Church.

...

Nevertheless, you must not assign a priority to the form of the Liturgy, in which you have the privilege to celebrate.

This implies that some in the FSSP were saying the Novus Ordo was a less preferred Mass.

Is this true?