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