Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

Christ or Chaos ^ | 15th July 2004 | Dr Thomas Droleskey

[sinkspur]

No, not I, you, poor soul.

For the record:

At some point, a priest is going to take the USCCB and the Vatican into the courts either here or at the World Court for violation of human rights by violation of its own internal process etc.

You cheerlead a priest bringing the World Court into the Church's business.

[gbcdoj]

the new Fatima Shrine, with Rome's sanction, offers it's altar to the Hindus

Where is Rome's sanction for this?

[pro Athanasius]

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!!!

[Land of the Irish]

Rome's representative, Michael Fitzgerald, in October 2003.

[Siobhan]

You cheerlead a priest bringing the World Court into the Church's business.

That is, of course, your usual spin. But you are wrong, and, yes, incredibly dead wrong.

[gbcdoj]

The Church supplies jurisdiction.

Peter and his successors supply all jurisdiction.

From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone ... 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)

For the SSPX, there can be no state of emergency in any case, since they were offered jurisdiction by the Apostolic See.

Was Athanasius illigal and wrong because he went into other Bishops diocese when he was kicked out of his own and disobeyed the Pope?

St. Athanasius didn't disobey the Pope.

Pope Liberious signed the semi Arian Creed and excommunicated Athansius see last section

No, he didn't.

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

How exactly does the Church create a New Rite more than 200 years old?

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Pius XII, "Mediator Dei" 58)

"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."

True, but the Church has condemned the following:

1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"--heretical. (Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei", DZ 1501)

Bp. Gasser said at Vatican I:

Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.

[sinkspur]

That is, of course, your usual spin. But you are wrong, and, yes, incredibly dead wrong.

Well, I'll let folks judge for themselves. This is, after all, your post:

At some point, a priest is going to take the USCCB and the Vatican into the courts either here or at the World Court for violation of human rights by violation of its own internal process etc.

[gbcdoj]

Rome's representative, Michael Fitzgerald, in October 2003.

That would be this?

But Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue which has responsibility for such matters, told The Universe that the fears were unfounded and he reassured devotees that Fatima would definitely remain a place of prayer centred on Our Lady.

“There is no question of the Fatima sanctuary becoming an inter-faith pilgrimage centre,” said the English-born archbishop. “This is a place of prayer centred on Our Lady, and everyone is welcome.” (CWNews: "Rome scotches Fatima multifaith rumours")

[GirlShortstop]

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one's Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one's own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  
linked above

I shake my head when I read the above and think about the "good Catholics" who'd be as happy as can be if one would just believe them when they whine:  SSPX isn't in schism!  Is this garbage the encyclical wanna-be reading material for the schizzies and their fellow travelers?  One might think that the father of lies must be beaming about his handiwork hung so proudly at ess-ess-pee-ex dot org.

  gbcdoj, I am grateful for the sunlight is the the best disinfectant approach.  :-)  Thank you for your posting as well as the following:

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)

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

On second thought, this action was not surprising. Fiorenza was probably getting pressure from other bishops to make an example out of Zigrang to deter other priests from instruction by SSPX. The traditional movement is growing. The bishops can no longer ignore it. Something must be done to stop it.

[sinkspur]

I don't know where you are, but we don't recognize the authority of the World Court in the United States, nor does a United States court have jurisdiction over the inner workings of the Catholic Church.

[Saint Athanasius]

I second that gbcdoj...

and the Pope did not sign any semi - Arian decree... I should know... ambiguous, yes... but not semi Arian.

[Siobhan]

Well, I'll let folks judge for themselves. This is, after all, your post:

No, that would be untrue. That is not my post. That is your editing of my post and placing it in your usual context of spin and bait.

You succeed with some people some of the time through these tactics -- largely because they take seriously your claims to be Roman Catholic and a deacon of the Church. But as I have told you I do not believe I would regard you as a Roman Catholic were we ever to dig deeper in discussions about the Faith of Holy Mother Church. My intuition tells me from your posts, your conduct, your treatment of other posters, that it is unlikely that you hold the same Roman Catholic faith that I share with many faithful Catholics on FreeRepublic.

I am certain you have a faith, a mission, and zeal. But my observations thus far tell me your faith is alien to what I know as the Roman Catholic faith, your mission is at odds with the vocation of deacons, and your zeal raises more questions about your real motives than answers.

[pro Athanasius]

You tell him Irish (you and I are on the same boat)- we are the fighting Irish and "we are mad as Hell and we are not going to take it anymore" to quote "Network". I can not remember the actor's name who said it, maybe you can help me out sinkspur- he won an academy award. Was it Albert Finney?

Anyway we are not going to get our "dogs" to do our dirty work! We will do it ourselves. God bless you both and lets pray that sinkspur gets "illuminated". I noticed that same little discrepancy you brought up Irish and its real hypocritical of them if all roads lead to heaven- just not the Traditionally Catholic one! Gee maybe that should have been a line from "Screw Tape Proposes a Toast.

[gbcdoj]

The traditional movement is growing. The bishops can no longer ignore it. Something must be done to stop it.

You have an extremely exaggerated sense of the importance of your movement. The Eastern Orthodox "traditional" movement has hundreds of millions of members and has lasted a thousand years. In a like manner, the Oriental Orthodox, who reject the "pseudo-synod" of Chalcedon, continue to preserve their "tradition" in far greater numbers than the SSPX, and have done so for 1500 years. The Catholic Church is threatened by neither.

Or rather this criterion may stand in need of more exact definition. For the universality which carries weight here is, as Vincent of Lerins says, that "of the true disciples, the true adorers, of Christ", or, to use the Gospel image, of the true sheep of Christ. Will they be recognizable by some sign distinguishing the true faithful from the false? Undoubtedly they will, granted that Christ confided His sheep to Peter, that He set Peter over His Church, and commanded him to confirm his brethren in the faith. The true faithful will be found amongst the faithful gathered round Peter; the true universality will be that of which Peter is the centre; where Peter is, there will be the Church.[1117] The criterion of universality will then attain that strictness which the progress of our time makes desirable. And thus the argument from universality taken as a sign of apostolicity will receive its final touch from the Gospel prophecies concerning Peter; the quod ubique, quod ab omnibus is given its last precision by the quod ab Ecclesia romana. In this way the via apostolicitatis leads into the via primatus. And we may see a sign of it in the fact that St. Augustine, who had so often appealed to the universality of the true faith against the heretics, was himself, after St. Ambrose's example, expressly to invoke the authority of Rome against the Pelagians: the resolutions of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, he says, "have been sent on to the Apostolic See. Decisions have come from thence. The cause is ended. May it please God to end the error."[1118]

1117 "It was to Peter that Christ said: Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. Where therefore Peter is, there is the Church: where the Church is, there is no death but eternal life. That is why He added: And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Blessed Peter, against whom the gates of hell have not prevailed, for whom the gates of heaven are not closed, but who, on the contrary, has destroyed the antechambers of hell and opened the heavens! Standing on the earth he opens heaven and shuts hell" (St. Ambrose, Enarr. in Psalm., XL, 30; P. L. XIV, col. 1082 ).

1118 Sermo CXXXI, 10. (Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate)

[Siobhan]

I don't know where you are, but we don't recognize the authority of the World Court in the United States, nor does a United States court have jurisdiction over the inner workings of the Catholic Church.

It doesn't matter if I am sending this via satellite from Vega. Recognition of jurisdiction has nothing to do with my post.

[Saint Athanasius]

Father Zigrang was disobedient... and therefore should have been made an example of.

[AAABEST]

I see sinkspurt the mystery deacon is up to his old stalking games again. I'm getting his oddball FReepmails ( as have so many others) with the usual ominous warnings that coincide with my posts being pulled.

Posts that BTW don't happen to break any of the posting rules that have been in place in the 6 years that I've been here. I'm wondering if we have rules anymore.

Never mind his disturbing private FReepmails, this supposed deacon of the Catholic church has caused more trouble and has been in the middle of more problems in this forum than any other poster I know of. What kind of a "deacon" uses private information given in confidence as a weapon against another Catholic as sinkspur did against Brain (polycarpIV).

God forbid this person is who he says he is. He actaully touches the Eucharist before it's put in people's mouths.

[ultima ratio]

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

[AAABEST]

Father Zigrang was disobedient... and therefore should have been made an example of.

What about all the fags, heretics, apostates, leftists and worshippers of false Gods? What are they.... obedient?

You people are not simply foolish, you've lost your minds and your souls.

Either that or you're just simply liars with an agenda.