Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

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

[Dajjal]

Outraged bump

[pro Athanasius]

Here are the facts.  Jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God.  The highest good in law is for the salvation of souls.  Archbishop Lefebvere acted according to his conscience and under canon law even if you think you are in a state of emergency  what constitutes a state of necessity is not explicitly  defined in the Code of Canon Law. The relevant canon in fact says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4E°). When we speak of the "state of necessity" (sometimes called "state of emergency"), we mean that Lefebvre acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience. Lefebvre believed he was saving the Old Latin Mass for posterity because Rome was not nor did it have intentions to ordain Bishops in the old Rite in order to carry it on.  Don’t you find it odd that only the society of St. John Mary Vianney in Campos is the only traditional society with a traditional Bishop who has official recognition with Rome?  They had to do this for them because they already had one.  So Lefebvre was naturally suspicious because Rome would not give them a direct date.

 

Another fact Athanasius was excommunicated because he did not go along with the program any more than did Archbishop Lefebvre who did not wear horns and was an orthodox Bishop unlike most of the ones we have today. “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

 

You need to get your facts straight.  I don’t think you read Greek and Latin as Cardinal Newman did and this is what he said,”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." see post 43.

 

 

 Count Capponi of the Roman Rotta said, “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

 

Trent and Que Primum mandated that any Rite in order to continue had to be in existence over 200 years such as say the “Dominican Rite”.  There were too many Rites being practiced which were under 150 years old during the time of Trent and unlike today’s conciliar Popes Pope St. Pius V was willing to do something about it.  The rite he canonized was not new but old he was just making sure that no on messed with it.  I already quoted Trent to you which stated that no Pastor whatsoever which includes the Pope can create a New Rite.  Now don’t throw around the term New Rite and say this Pope or that Pope before 1960 said we can have a New Rite because when that was said it was not said in the same sense which you and the radical liturgical “experts” meant it.

 

 

St. Vincent of Lerins (5th cent. A.D.), who stated that "a true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard‑of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation. 

 

Decree of Papal Infallibility, promulgated by Pius IX at the First Vatican Council of 1870:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Liberals, please note the last words. They say that “such definitions…are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

 

Hence, once a doctrine has been defined by the Pope ex cathedra, be it by him acting alone or through a general council, he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. Therefore, these doctrines cannot be changed, not even by the future consent of the Church ‑ not even by a Pope himself. As St. Augustine (d. 430) said, “Rome has spoken, the case is now closed”.

Furthermore, according to the same council, not only are the doctrines unable to change, but also our interpretation of them.  The Vat I Council declared that

“…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

 

And again, the same council also declared that

see Ses 3 Chapt 4:14  "  If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

 

First Vatican Council also stated  Ses. 3 chapt 4– “the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”

 

Vatican I see Ses 3 Chapt 4:and Canon 3 Ses. 3  "  If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema."

 

Pius VI on 28 August, 1794, dealt the death‑blow to the influence of the

Council in his Bull "Auctorem Fidei", which condemned the propositions of this

Illegal council:

 

    "[To contend that] ways must be prepared for people to unite their

     voices with that of the whole Church ‑‑ if this be understood to

     signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into

     the liturgical prayers ‑‑ is condemned as false, rash, disturbing

     to the order prescribed for the celebration of the sacred mysteries,

     easily productive of many evils." (Auctorem Fidei)

                                               

Later in history, Pope Pius XII would again repeat the warning against

tampering with the liturgy in his encyclical "Mediator Dei" :

 

   "This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless

    antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.

 

    It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were

    responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those

    resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church,

    ... had every right and reason to condemn."

 

                                (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)

 

 

St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.

““Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”” (Epistle to the Catholics)

 

[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.

[AAABEST]

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.

[Land of the Irish]

Like many of his fellow Roman prelates, Fitzgerald is a two-faced liar.

"Archbishop Fitzgerald said further that he agreed with Father Dupuis that "the unity with God is not confined to the people who belong to the Church". The Church, according to this new union, should not proselytize. Nor is the purpose of dialogue to "convert" the "other" to Catholicism. This is pointless, since members of all religions, according to Dupuis, are already part of the "Reign of God". Rather, "the Church" says Fitzgerald, "is there to recognize the holiness that is in other people, the elements of truth, grace and beauty that are in different religions," and "to try to bring about a greater peace and harmony among people of other religions". Perhaps this Congress should have been called, "Fatima Meets the Age of Aquarius"."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1022497/posts

[sinkspur]

That is your editing of my post and placing it in your usual context of spin and bait.

Those were your words, Siobhan.

You're spinning like mad yourself.

[sinkspur]

Engage in personal attacks, get your posts pulled, BEST. Those have always been the rules, and still are.

[ninenot]

There's little question that Fr Zigrang went a bit too far, and is legitimately suspensu a divinis.

Too bad. Fiorino is a bad guy; if Zigrang had merely been obedient, his example would have been outstanding.

Now another several hundred gigabytes of desperate self-justification will emanate from the troglodyte schizzies...

[ninenot]

Here pleads AAAB 'I have never violated the rules of this site for 6 years....'

And follows five posts later, insulting a woman poster.

Either your mother or your father should have raised you better.

But then, of course, had they done so, you'd not be defending schizzies...

[ninenot]

Nitpicking:

saying the Tidentine Latin Mass publicly without his permission is disobedience

[ninenot]

Most folks understand that JPII is a liberal. SOME of us here understand that, regardless, he IS the Pope.

Hmmmmmmm. Pope. Liberal. So what?

[narses]

"... nor does a United States court have jurisdiction over the inner workings of the Catholic Church."

That's funny. Really. Wrong, but funny. If you can't afford to buy a clue Deacon, here's one for free - in the US, the Catholic Church operates via a corporate model, corporations are GOVERNED BY state (and sometimes federal) corporate law (as well as other civil and criminal codes). In almost every way, "the inner workings" are governed by US law and therefore, in almost every way, US Courts HAVE jurisdiction. That ones free. For the rest of your ludicrous claims, go buy help.

[ninenot]

Let's reduce your argument:

Jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God. God spoke directly to LeFebvre. LeFebvre acted on God's word and defied the Pope.

Thus LeFebvre is right.

I can agree that jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God.

All the rest is pure Martin Luther.

[sinkspur]

The "inner workings" of the Catholic Church involves Canon Law and Church Law, narses.

No US court has jurisdiction over how the Church treats its priests or due process within the Church.

[narses]

"but saying the Latin Mass without his permission is disobedience."

When was the Tridentine Mass suppressed? How was that done?

[narses]

"There is the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass - ..."

That is also true for the SSPX services and the Orthodox services. Such truth doesn't keep you and others from jumping up and down screaching HERETIC or SCHISMATIC now does it?

[sinkspur]

I thought you were going to change your ways, narses? You sent me a long email, saying you were as much to blame as anyone for all the flaming that goes on around here.

Now, here you are, back at it again.

Shall I post your email and contrast it to just your posts this morning?

[narses]

"No US court has jurisdiction over how the Church treats its priests or due process within the Church."

Wrong (again). Labor laws Deacon. There is another "free" clue for you. Go buy another one. Corporate law governs how corporations operate. If a corporation ignores it's own bylaws, it can be found to be acting "Ultra Vires". That can strip the corporate protection from the Bishop and make him personally liable for civil rights violations of his employees. Why did the Bp. suspend Fr. Z? God knows, we don't, but it is very likely that his medical and pension benefits are partly at issue. Those issues are governed by both Canon Law and Civil Law. Again your assertion fails, totally and completely. Get help.

[narses]

I thought you were going to change your ways, narses? You sent me a long email, saying you were as much to blame as anyone for all the flaming that goes on around here.

Now, here you are, back at it again.

Shall I post your email and contrast it to just your posts this morning?

Please point out what rules of either charity or this forum I have violated Sinkspur. Please do.

I don't attack you personally, I don't use profanity, racism or violence in my posts, so go ahead, point out whatever you want. As for my email, do as you wish, but post whatever you do in conformity to the rules here and in full, not excerpted dishonestly. I assume you grant me reciprocal permission to post your emails?

Please point out where anything I've done on this thread is a FLAME. If you cannot, please ask for your post to be deleted, as it appears you are trying to claim I am engaged in a flame war here.

[sinkspur]

Corporate law governs how corporations operate. If a corporation ignores it's own bylaws, it can be found to be acting "Ultra Vires". That can strip the corporate protection from the Bishop and make him personally liable for civil rights violations of his employees.

Name me one instance where a church of any denomination has ever been prosecuted for violating its own internal canons?

Governments do not interfere in the inner-workings of churches, narses.

You are arguing hypotheticals, and I'm arguing reality.