Replies

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.

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.

Dominick, while your point is a good one you're completely missing the larger one here. I'm beginning to think that I may have mistaken naivety for maliciousness when I first met you.

Most in the Society won't deny the validity of the NO-mass, only it's potential for harm, but forget about that for a minute because it's really not the point here.

Don't you find it simply outrageous that the only Catholics suffering official sanctions anymore are traditionalists for relatively minor offenses while flagrantly evil heretics and deviant criminals are giving aid and comfort?

This is nothing less than wickedness and sickness. No matter one's feelings on the SSPX or NO-mass, any Christian with a conscience must absorb this glaring truth.

What you in your post above are correctly calling for is for all of us to be the church militant, yet if we are to fight evil we must be able to correctly identify it. Whether you know it or not the imperfect SSPX is very much an ally in this battle, not an opponent.

You can argue all you want about emergencies, but eventually, an authority will determine what the emergency is.

This is a basic misunderstanding of the concept of "emergency." By definition, the "authority" does not determine that an emergency exists, or else it wouldn't be an emergency.

As a comparison, just the other day some other poster was saying that you can't disobey orders in the army until someone in authority says you can. But he finally agreed that this was wrong -- the authority is NEVER going to tell you to disobey orders, but sometimes you must anyway. For example, if a soldier is give an order to kill innocent civilians, he MUST disobey the order, and he must do so immediately. He cannot wait for some other authority to declare an emergency situation.

Didn't the Nuremberg trials establish the principle that "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse? One MUST disobey any orders that are intrinsically immoral, and one cannot wait around for confirmation.

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.

These are preposterous examples. Abortion, for example, is always wrong. No emergency could ever justify it. There is never an emergency situation that makes an abortion okay. But there are emergency situations that arise rather frequently that make it necessary for us to disobey lawful superiors.

blaming the ills of the Church on Mass reforms when more serious plans are afoot to destroy the Church plays into the enemies hands.

If it is true that the New Mass represents the destruction of the traditional Catholic Mass, then it is impossible for there to exist "more serious plans." Nothing could be "more serious" than the destruction of the Catholic Mass. No event in heaven or earth, not even the destruction of the earth itself, could be "more serious" than the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice by which God becomes present to man. So it can never be a question of "more serious issues"; it can only be a question of whether it is true that the New Mass represents the destruction of the Catholic Mass. Some may answer "Yes" and some may anser "No," but that is the only "serious" question. As evidence for the "Yes" position, take a look at this photo. And please don't pretend that this is unusual. There are hundreds of photos like this or even worse that pop up every single week: