[AskStPhilomena]

Good priests are suspended while perverts are promoted.

[hole_n_one]

churchbell tower's ring-a-ding-a-ling ping.

[sinkspur]

He's not a good priest. He is disobedient to his bishop and to the Pope.

In addition, he is performing invalid sacraments, and leading people to believe otherwise.

Zigrang's belligerence, his year of indoctrination in SSPX propaganda, and basic lack of courtesy to even respond to Fiorenza's letter indicates he's decided to join the schism.

[gbcdoj]

His Grace Bishop Fiorenza will be completely in the right in suspending Fr. Zigrang, who is rebelling against his bishop.

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.

Whatever Mr. Drolesky believes, the position of the Church is clear.

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.] (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei")

Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner - with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff - a process of distancing from hierarchical communion.  As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

... However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree.  In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances.  (cf CIC, can. 1323)  As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops.  This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity. (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Annexe to Prot.N. 5233/96)

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.

"No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church" (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum). As for the case of the SSJV, Rome tacitly gave them jurisdiction because of the invincible ignorance of the faithful, who followed their priests and bishop into the schism. This doesn't apply to those who aren't ignorant of the fact that the SSPX lacks jurisdiction.

Rome has never required Eastern converts to make a general confession; and must thus regard confessions made in good faith to dissident priests as valid. If it is asked through what channel such jurisdiction comes to the priests of a dissident Church we must answer that it is transmitted to them "by the bishops and patriarchs who rule their Church today as formerly, themselves retaining their jurisdiction because the Roman Church, for the good of so many souls living in good faith in schism, has not wished to deprive them of it, has in fact done nothing to indicate an intention to do so, and much, on the contrary, to suggest her will for its preservation".[1059]

1059 Ami du clerge, 1914-1919, vol. XXXVI, p. 318. To those who contest these views one could show the validity of absolution given by dissident priests by insisting "on the principle, admitted by all, of good faith and colourable title.... As regards the people, good faith, since their priests are sent them by their bishops and patriarchs and are taken by all for legitimate pastors. As regards the pastors, colourable title, since the priests are deputed by a bishop and held to be legitimate pastors" (ibid., 1927, vol. XLIV, p. 569) But it is only a momentary, fugitive jurisdiction, valid for these particular cases, that can be established in this way, not one that is durable and continuous. (Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate)

First, The Society of Saint Pius X does not reject the liciety of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Yes, it does. The Society teaches that it is sinful to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, or even to attend the indult because that "supports" the "evil" Novus Ordo.

The Society recognizes that the See of Peter is occupied at present by Pope John Paul II.

Irrevelant. As Cajetan says, schism is when someone "rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is".

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:

And Drolesky has failed repeatedly to recognize that (a) Quo Primum grants no such right for priests to offer Mass without episcopal approval, which is ridiculous in light of the fact that the 1917 Code required priests to get temporary faculties to function outside of their diocese and (b) Quo Primum was obrogated by Missale Romanum.

[Siobhan]

In terms of Canon Law, those are the poorest letters from a bishop I have ever seen. The bishop got terrible guidance from his canon lawyers.

I am not getting into an SSPX argument here. I just want to point out how dreadful Bishop Fiorenza conducted himself as President of the USCCB, and here we have letters so poorly constructed that they bring further shame on the office of the Bishop of Galveston-Houston.

[Land of the Irish]

Fiorenza is "no more a Catholic than Ian Paisley - and no more a bishop than Billy Graham".

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Ping

[St.Chuck]

Oh boy! I don't have time to point them out right now, but this Drolesky gem is a cornacopia of neo-schismatic errors. I could be guilty of gluttony though if I wade in. Hmmm.

[Saint Athanasius]

The Priest should have been suspended... and I am glad the Bishop suspended him.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Thank goodness the altar tables of the diocese are safe for liturgical dancing, pagan sacrifices, promiscuous, homosexual priests and protected from the likes of a traditional priest!

Brrrr!

[ultima ratio]

Let Fr. Z join the SSPX. That is where the true Church is since the Holy See is no longer fully Catholic.

[Dajjal]

Outraged bump

[Dominick]

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.

Here is the most damning thing. Why not say the Novus Ordo Mass? He does have the right to refuse to say this Mass, but, he also has an obligation to his employer, and if he doesn't do that, he owes a specific explanation, Which is not in this article. We don't know his reasons, and this may be an important reason for the schism.

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

Spicifially (Ecclesia Dei 343/98 27 October 1998):
It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

Simply he went to the SSPX full time, and is now in Schism. He detached himself from Catholicism.

Clearly, we don't know why. This article is slanted in that the words of the Priest are not there, to say why he would refuse to carry out his office, and obey a lawful order from the Bishop. Laypeople are not obligated in the same way as a Priest is, and the authority of a Bishop is important to a Priest's work.

In Canon Law, a Priest operating against the authority of a Bishop, does not have the faculties to administer Marriage, nor does he have the faculties for Absolution. His Masses are real, but illicit.

You can argue all you want about emergencies, but eventually, an authority will determine what the emergency is. I can't go around telling women to have Abortions because it is an emergency of one sort or another. I can't walk down the street with a bunch of burly men, dragging them into Church for an emergency. The emergency is a defense, and since we don't have the whole story here, we can't tell what this Priest thought.

On the SSPX, the Pope and the CDF, has spoken. Look for other threads for arguments on this subject.

Blaming all the ills of the Church on the Novus Ordo Mass is wrong, and defies logic. We have a World out there, filled with Communists seeking to monkey wrench our institutions, we have secularists who would love to get into Church money, and we have Protestants who would love to woo people away, add to that the folk who want to remove the strictures the Church holds on Birth Control or Abortion, and you have a stew that has a more damaging effect than liturgical reform.

I know Christ can do what we need when we need it, and what we don't expect, but, blaming the ills of the Church on Mass reforms when more serious plans are afoot to destroy the Church plays into the enemies hands.

[Bellarmine]

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.

Any members of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston out there willing to pursue this???

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Do you folks ever actually read what your oh-so-beloved Tridentine Council says about Priests who "abandon ship"? A real Traditionalist would obey the letter and spirit of that council, not come up with innumerable spurious pretexts to violate it at every turn.

Session 23, DECREE ON REFORMATION
CHAPTER XVI.
Those who are ordained shall be assigned to a particular church.
Whereas no one ought to be ordained, who, in the judgment of his own bishop, is not useful or necessary for his churches, the holy Synod, adhering to the traces of the sixth canon of the council of Chalcedon, ordains, that no one shall for the future be ordained without being attached to that church, or pious place, for the need, or utility of which he is promoted; there to discharge his duties, and not wander about without any certain abode. And if he shall quit that place without consulting the bishop, he shall be interdicted from the exercise of his sacred (orders). Furthermore, no cleric, who is a stranger, shall, without letters commendatory from his own Ordinary, be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries, and to administer the sacraments.

So what, exactly, has Bishop Fiorenza done that is so anti-traditional by suspending the disobedient Fr. Zigrang when that is precisely what the Traditionalist Gold Standard, the Council of Trent, ordains must be done to Priests who leave their parish?

The same Decree also reminds us of another long-standing SSPX problem - the nullity of its confessions and absolutions.

CHAPTER XV.
No one shall hear confessions, unless he be approved of by the Ordinary.
Although priests receive in their ordination the power of absolving from sins; nevertheless, the holy Synod ordains, that no one, even though he be a Regular, is able to hear the confessions of Seculars, not even of priests, and that he is not to be reputed fit thereunto, unless he either holds a parochial benefice, or is, by the bishops, after an examination if they shall think it necessary, or in some other manner, judged capable; and has obtained their approval, which shall be granted gratuitously; any privileges, and custom whatsoever, though immemorial, to the contrary notwithstanding.

And of course the invalidity of the "marriages" its Priests attempt to witness:

Session 24, DECREE ON THE REFORMATION OF MARRIAGE
CHAPTER I.
Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them. Moreover It enjoins, that the parish priest, or any other priest, who shall have been present at any such contract with a less number of witnesses (than as aforesaid); as also the witnesses who have been present thereat without the parish priest, or some other priest; and also the contracting parties themselves; shall be severely punished, at the discretion of the Ordinary. Furthermore, the same holy Synod exhorts the bridegroom and bride not to live together in the same house until they have received the sacerdotal benediction, which is to be given in the church; and It ordains that the benediction shall be given by their own parish priest, and that permission to give the aforesaid benediction cannot be granted by any other than the parish priest himself, or the Ordinary; any custom, even though immemorial, which ought rather to be called a corruption, or any privilege to the contrary, notwithstanding. And if any parish priest, or any other priest, whether Regular or Secular, shall presume to unite in marriage the betrothed of another parish, or to bless them when married, without the permission of their parish priest, he shall-even though he may plead that he is allowed to do this by a privilege, or an immemorial custom,-remain ipso jure suspended, until absolved by the Ordinary of that parish priest who ought to have been present at the marriage, or from whom the benediction ought to have been received.

But gosh, what's the violation of numerous niceties of Trent when the entire SSPX is premised upon the violation of Chalcedon and Nicea with its wandering Priests and meddling Bishops? Its not like ecumenical councils really matter to the SSPX since "they're right" and "the Pope is wrong." Tossing out Vatican II makes it so easy to start tossing other Ecumenical Councils overboard as well, doesn't it?

[Palladin]

I will pray for Father Zigrang.

It is, indeed, intolerable when saintly priests are reprimanded, and openly homo priests are allowed to rule the roost.

God help the Church! He's the only one Who can.

[JohnnyZ]

Good news! Glad to hear that at least some bishops won't tolerate schism.