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.

This is the Pope in his own words.

pg 11 see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/John_Paul_2_tribute_files/John_Paul_II_tribute.pdf

“[Jews are] the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God . . . . the present-day people of the Covenant concluded with Moses”[Pope John Paul II, "Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany" Nov 17, 1980]•

Now this is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 8:13 "Now in saying 'a new Covenant,' he has made obsolete the former one;s and that which is obsolete and has grown old is near its end." and see Denzinger 712 “[partners] in a covenant of eternal love that was never revoked”[Miami, Sep 11, 1987]•

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”
--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla :Le Centurion, 1980, 376 total pages by Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, p. 220. Malinski interviewed him in 1963. {There is so much diversity that there is no real unity- the only unity is in tongues of nonsense.}

Pope wonders if he should have been stricter see www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24& art_id=qw1084714561570B211&set_id=1 - 42k Gee I guess with everything falling apart and perverted priest sexually molesting priest (we are not speaking of the good priests just the perverts) he must be right on that issue.

"Father Wojtyla to the Angelicum inRome to do his doctoral dissertation on the mystical theology of St. John of the Cross. Theforemost expert on this topic was the renowned D o m i n i c a n t h e o l o g i a n R e g i n a l d Garrigou-Lagrange, who supervised Wojtyla'swork. Although Wojtyla learned much fromGarrigou-Lagrange, a biographer notes thePolish priest was "disturbed" by Garrigou-Lagrange's opposition to the worker-priestexperiment, and to the New Theology thatsupported it. Tad Szulc, Pope John Paul II", The Biography, NewYork, Simon & Schuster, 1995, p. 155. Father Wojtyla wrote articles that appearedin the "socialist-inclined" Catholic publicationTygodnik Powszechny, a newspaper thatregularly infuriated Poland's Primate, CardinalStefan Wyszynski. (see Jonathan Kwitny, Man of the Century, The Life andTimes of John Paul II, New York, Henry Holt andCompany, 1997, p. 158.) The Primate's humor worsened when an Archbishop went behind his back to have Wojtyla appointed bishop. WhenWyszynski later called Wojtyla "an opportunist,"it was not a compliment.(See Ibid., p. 162) Poland's new bishop continued writing articles, and even poetry, and acquired a reputation as a progressive. His most notablewriting accomplishment was the book Love And Responsibility, a primer and apologia for naturalfamily planning that was translated into English
The book contained a foreword by Wojtyla's friend, Father
Henri de Lubac, a Jesuit neo-modernist whose theology was condemnedby Pius XII in Humani Generis.The two met again at the Second VaticanCouncil. De Lubac had been rehabilitated by Pope John XXIII, a rehabilitation that did not involve De Lubac modifying his neo-modernism.De Lubac and Bishop Wojtyla collaborated on the Council document Gaudium et Spes, adocument repeatedly cited by Pope John Paul II. Recalling this experience, the Pope remarked:"I am particularly indebted to Father Yves Congar(5) and to Father Henri de Lubac. I still remember today the words with which the latter encouraged me to persevere in the lineof thought that I had
taken up during thediscussion ... From that moment on I enjoyed a special friendship with Father deLubac.(6) The Pope does not elaborate on the line ofthought De Lubac encouraged him on, but it is known that De Lubac's theology tended to supernaturalize the natural, and that he laid stresson two precepts. First, that by His incarnation,Christ united Himself with every man. Second,that Revelation is "anthropocentric," that isman-centered: it consists of God "revealing man to himself". Karol Wojtyla has also stressedthese precepts, both
before and after becomingPope John Paul II. Each precept can beunderstood in a traditional sense. Each preceptcan also be understood according to the thesis of universal salvation, whereby the union of Christwith every man is not merely a material union buta formal, supernatural one. In thisunderstanding, God "revealing man to himself"means man realizing that he innately possesses a supernatural union of sanctifying grace withChrist, and is therefore already
"saved".In 1976 Cardinal Wojtyla gave a series of Lenten conferences to Paul VI and members ofthe Roman Curia. He stressed Gaudium et Spes,and the two precepts noted above. Theconferences were later published as a book, Sign of Contradiction.(7) Another theologian condemned by Pius XII, and rehabilitated by John XXIII without having to forsake his censured ideas.6. His Holiness John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Alfred A. Knopf, Publisher, 1994, p. 159. So indebted was Bishop W ojtyla that upon becoming
Pope that he made both Congar and De Lubac Cardinals.7. Published by The Seabury Press, 1979

Bishop W ojtyla said in 1963, “The convoking of a Council and its preparations have had an unexpected result. In less than four years, the interior situation in the Church has changed in unbelievable fashion. Everywhere in the Catholic world fervent voices have béen raised to demand a new approach to evangelism. A new climate, born of a reciprocal wish, has been born in re s between the various Christian Churches. No other Council had such a great preparation, never was such ample sounding of Catholic opinion made. Not only bishops; catholic universities and the General Superiors of religious congregations have expressed their opinions on the subject of council problems, but also a large percentage of lay catholics, and even non-Catholics. Such eminent theologians as Henri de Lubac, J. Danielou, Y. Congar, H. Kung, . Lombardi, Karl Rahner.and others have played am tr role in the preparation.
“The object of John XXIII was above all the unity of Christians; giant steps have been made along this road. The church is persuaded, as never before, that what unites Christians is stronger than what divides them. The yearning for unity of Christians joins hands with the wish for the unity of all the human race. The new conception of the idea of the people of God has replaced the old truth on the possibility of redemption outside the visible bounds of the Church. This premise shows the altitude of the church towards the other religions, which is the basis for recognizing values which are spiritual, human and Christian at once, extending to religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism ... . . The Church wishes to undertake a dialogue with representatives of these religions. Here Judaism occupies a particular place. The draft of the future Declaration will speak clearly of the spiritual unity between Christians and Jews.
“The Church concerns herself in dialogue with unbelievers who are of capital importance to our times, when for the first time in history, nonbelief and atheism appear as phenomena of the masses. The church tries to uncover the causes and origins of atheism, and she researches their interior motivation as well as the exterior. The Church understands that tendency towards the liberation of man and his delivery from all alienations, manifested under the form of atheism, is perhaps a manner of seeking God.”Malinski, op. cit. p. 189.

“Further on, we find proposed revelations on the orientation of the Council, and the future of the Church:
“Above all, it acted to restore the authority of each bishop and promote the decentralisation inside the Church, thus the return of the principle of collegiality, revision of pastoral methods to maintain their vigour, and now introducing new methods and forms, sometimes quite audacious. . There is also the of the question of the universality of the church; it means a changing of attitude towards ancient cultures of people who are non European. it is necessary to de-westernise Christianity. People with an ancient culture find barriers only explained by psychology against Christianity: they are presented with European trappings! Africanization, Indianisation, Japanisation, etc. is seen as necessary. It consist in planting basic Christian ideas into their culture. We know that all this is neither simple nor easy to realize. It is the end of the era of Constantine, characterized by firm agreement... Malinski, op. cit. p. 189.

He goes on "between altar and throne, between Church and States, brought to the highest point by the birth of the Holy Roman Empire in the ninth century. We face a grave problem! Working out anew relations between Church and State, the rights of the Church, and religious liberty. Going further, one must speak of re-evaluating the place of the laity in the Church, and then developing ececumenical themes on a scale previously unknown in the history of the Church.”see Malinski, op. cit. p. 191.

The above statements demonstrate the following facts. Pope John Paul II while Bishop of Krakow had a radical “progressivist” agenda . He wanted a radical change in the liturgy and mentions keeping only the “elements” (which would mean the matter) but why no mention of the form or the intention? Why such loose theology? He praises theologians considered dissident under Pius XII some of whom were censured. He presents an agenda which sounds like it could have been proposed by a humanist or Freemason (I am not saying he is one or the other.). Wojtyla talks about a “yearning for unity of Christians” which ln 1919,the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity.Catholic Ecyclopedia for School and Home, McGraw Hill, New York, 1965, Vol. 3, p.670.
See http://salbert.tripod.com/index-8.html.

He gives many sycretistic statements that speak of a general brotherhood of man which has some truth to it given that we are all sinners who are desendants of Adam while he even makes a statement that atheism, is perhaps a manner of seeking God.” Well that is a new one on me. Then he wants to “de Westernize” Christianity which is really a denial of our Roman/Latin Christian heritage. Now it is obvious that the East does not share this same heretige but why take it away from those of us who did have it and replace it with a New Mass mess and enculturation which confuses everyone and creates chaos in the Mass? It is clear that what we are experiencing today in all of its horrible confusion is due to those “intellectual revolutionary architects”who created perhaps unintentionaly for some a "tower of babel". I am afraid that we are in for more of the same with the next Pope. see Traditional Catholic publisher Roger McCaffrey looks at the future of the Papacy see http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=10903.

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.