Replies

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.

We are in a complete and utter state of emergency and you must be in never never land or burying your head in the sand. The Church supplies jurisdiction. Was Athanasius illigal and wrong because he went into other Bishops diocese when he was kicked out of his own and disobeyed the Pope? 80 percent of the bishops had apostatized and the Pope Liberious signed the semi Arian Creed and excommunicated Athansius see last section.

This is what Count Capponi of the Roman Rota said who had defended the Hawaii Five whom you would have probably said were excommunicated because they asked SSPX Bishop Williamson who did not have jurisdiction either to come and confirm their children. So what who cares about the apostate Bishops who have there jurisdiction! God will judge them- in the meantime Canon law and divine law say that we have the right to any Valid Rite in the Catholic Church. Trent declared it anathema to say otherwise. Take it up with Trent and Pius VI who said that although the Church has the right to change how the sacraments are dispensed it doesn’t have the right to create a New Rite newer than 200 years old. This is found in Trent Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:""If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema. (Trent Twenty-Second Session) Seems like most NO Masses fail on those two points alone- not to mention the hootenany dances and go hug a tree songs and the “I myself am the bread of Life.”

For current crisis This is what Count Capponi a canon lawyer in the Roman Rota said: “When asked why I believe the crisis we now face is worse than Arianism, I give these reasons: (a) The principle vehicle of the faith, the liturgy, was untouched by the Arian crisis; (b) whereas the Arian crisis was precipitated and sustained by the intervention of secular power, the post
Vatican II crisis comes from within the Church and is therefore more difficult to fight; (c) in the fourth century, Pope Liberius finally signed the excommunication of St. Athanasius under duress—in the twentieth century Pope Paul VI was admittedly taken in and hoodwinked by
his misguided optimism, but there was no duress; (d) the present crisis is not only one of faith but of morals as well. In addition, today not only one dogma, albeit a very important one, is denied as with Arianism, but all dogmas, be it even the existence of a personal God!
see www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/CRIFAITH.HTM - 30k

There is some controversy as to whether Liberius did excommunicate Athanasius but in fact he did and wrongly so.Cardinal Newman said, in "Arians of the Fourth Century" in note 13 of Apendix V " A.D. 357-8. And Liberius. "The tragedy was not ended in the lapse of Hosius, but in the evil which befell Liberius, the Roman Pontiff, it became far more dreadful and mournful, considering that he was Bishop of so great a city, and of the whole Catholic Church, and that he had so bravely resisted Constantius two years previously. There is nothing, whether in the historians and holy fathers, or in his own letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that Liberius communicated with the Arians, and confirmed the sentence passed by them against Athanasius; but he is not at all on that account to be called a heretic." Baron. Ann. 357, 38-45. Athanasius says: "Liberius, after he had been {449} in banishment for two years, gave way, and from fear of threatened death was induced to subscribe. Arian. Hist. § 41. St. Jerome says: "Liberius, tædio victus exilii, et in hæreticam pravitatem subscribens, Romam quasi victor intraverat." CChron. ed. Val. p. 797 " note said "9. A.D. 353. The Council of Arles. The Pope sent to it {448} several Bishops as legates. The Fathers of the Council, including the Pope's legate, Vincent, subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, was nearly the only one who stood up for the Nicene faith and for Athanasius. He was accordingly banished into Phrygia, where he died.
see http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/note5.html

It is time for people to get there heads out of the sand and see the writing on the wall. Yes a lot of “evil is befalling” the Church today to use Cardinal Newman’s words whom the liberals like to distort to say he would have liked all of this "democratic liberal" garbage going on in the Church.

Here is a few more Newman quotes for you.

"If either the Pope or the Queen (of England) demanded of me an absolute obedience, he or she would be transgressing the laws of human nature and human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither." Cardinal Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace, the Duke of Norfolk (This was the last book he personally wrote and published and certainly is the fruit of his mature thought.)

"Pope is not inspired; he has not an inherent gift of divine knowledge. When he speaks ex cathedra, he may say little or much, but he is simply protected from saying what is untrue. I know you will find flatterers and partisans such as those whom St. Francis de Sales calls the Pope lackeys, who say much more than this, but they may enjoy their own opinions, they cannot bind the faith of Catholics." Cardinal Newman, letter quoted by B. Ward in her biography.

"It is no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century." said Cardinal Newman
www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html - 74k from "A Brief Defence of Traditionalism" p.4 Seattle Catholic 21 Dec. 2001

We are living in the worst time in Church history and this calls for extraordinary measures to combat heresy and restore liturgical sanity. This means reinstituting the Old Latin Mass which is probably the oldest liturgy and saying NO to the NO Mass which because of its protestantized heteropraxis in prayer and practice which is dragging souls down the wrong road to which they will not recover unless they are warned about this experimental folly! St. Athanasius pray for us!!!

Same old same old. I'm even weary of correcting you, but correct you I must. Here is a post I sent to Black Elk two days ago--it applies to your rigid way of thinking as well:

You state Ecclesia is authoritative. Fine. The only problem is that it is in direct conflict with a more authoritative document--Canon Law. Canon 1323 allows for a subject to disobey if he fears a state of necessity. It says nothing about whether such a state must exist or not. The canon is only concerned with the interior state of the subject and how he perceives a situation. If said subject sincerely believed there was a state of necessity which forced him to disobey, no penalty is incurred according to canon 1323. The Archbishop evoked the canon--legally and honestly.

But this is not all. Not only does a canon allow for disobedience under certain conditions, but another canon stated that even if the individual were WRONG about such a state of necessity, as long as he sincerely believed there was an emergency, no penalty is incurred. How much clearer can this be? It was not up to the Pope to decide what was in the Archbishop's mind when he "disobeyed", it was the Archbishop's call, not the Pope's.

If the Pope had wanted to prove that the Archbishop was culpable, he ought not to have relied on a latae sententiae decree, but on a formal tribunal, the traditional route for disciplining high churchmen. Such a tribunal would have called witnesses, allowed for a full airing of the dispute, and rendered a fair-and-square verdict, ferendae sententiae. He didn't do this--probably because this would have given the Archbishop the right to defend himself. It would have meant bringing up embarrassing conflicts regarding matters of faith in which the papacy was at loggerheads with the Church's own Tradition. So the Pope did an end-run and used the pretext of an automatic latae sententiae to falsely charge the Archbishop with excommunication and schism. \

As for what the Pontiff owes me or doesn't owe me--that is a ridiculous point to bring up. I am not important--but the faith itself is. The Pope owes explanations not to me, but to millions like myself who expect more from a pope than poetry. We expect a vigorous defense of the traditional faith--not novelties that have nothing to do with the faith. We want faith-affirming Masses and clearly Catholic catechesis for our children. We want bishops who are devout and orthodox not corrupt and apostate. It is all well and good that he is so worried about Buddhists and Jews and Muslims. But his own Catholic sheep are starving. He needs to follow Christ's injunction to feed his lambs and his sheep before he attends to the Hindus.