Hmmm...for comparison, this letter was sent by my bishop to a fine priest, a Monsignor, upon his retirement. His crime? He spoke to the Wanderer and knew the sexual proclivities of most of the bishop's lap dogs:
Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
churchbell tower's ring-a-ding-a-ling ping.
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.
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.
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.
Blind obedience to an evil idiot is NOT a Catholic virtue.
Fr. Z is himself an expert in Canon Law, he is right both canonically and morally.
Fiorenza is "no more a Catholic than Ian Paisley - and no more a bishop than Billy Graham".
Quoting the room-temperature Oswald Baker, whose congregation numbered 20 before his retirement.
Hmmm...for comparison, this letter was sent by my bishop to a fine priest, a Monsignor, upon his retirement. His crime? He spoke to the Wanderer and knew the sexual proclivities of most of the bishop's lap dogs:
"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."
Nope. Time and again I've hear Bps. Fellay, Williamson and de Malerais say the opposite. Sorry, but you're wrong.
Fr. Zigrang would be wrong to assent to Bp. Fiorenza's mistaken view concerning the Mosaic Covenant, which could never save men. Certainly on this matter he ought to appeal to the Holy See, since Bp. Fiorenza's opinion appears to contradict the recent declaration "Dominus Iesus".
But there was no reason for him to leave the diocese for the schismatic SSPX - certainly there is nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo which requires a dogmatic rejection of this rite legitimately promulgated and approved by the Apostolic See. And Bp. Fiorenza had given him permission to use the Tridentine for his private Masses, as well.
"his year of indoctrination in SSPX propaganda"
There are over 300 Diocesan priests taking instruction in Latin and Canon Law and the Liturgy from the SSPX right now Deacon. Get over it. The revolt against the sodomite cabal is in full force.
OK. Whatever.
Seems that there's some division in the Society then. I'm only going by what's on their official website, www.sspx.org:
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.
From here: http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#attendnovusordo.
The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics.
From here: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q10_indult.htm.
Yeah, sorta like the NO Catholics claiming it is a sin to attend SSPX services, even though Rome says it fulfills the Sunday obligation and is NOT sinful.
Ping
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.
Wow! And you must consider that a "wide and generous application" of the Indult!
You must have the same problem as Black Elk with his morbid obsession of deceased priests? Has it ever occurred to you, that your hero Paul VI, inventor of his own personalized Mass, and suppressor of the Mass of All Time, is also deceased?
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.