Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses

Seattle Catholic ^ | July 4, 2003 | Peter Miller

[Land of the Irish]

For a Catholic priest in a small Texas town, it has been a particularly eventful week.

Over the course of three days, Fr. Stephen Zigrang JCL, pastor of St. Andrew's Church in Channelview, has been called into his bishop's office, threatened with suspension, removed from his parish and even forced to defend his mental health to his own father. These unfortunate events have taken place because Fr. Zigrang did something new during last Sunday's Masses — or, more accurately, did something very, very old.

Before each Mass on the morning of June 29th, Fr. Zigrang announced that he would no longer be offering Mass according to the revised missal of Pope Paul VI, instituted in 1969. He proceeded to offer the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 (also called the "Latin", "Traditional" or "Tridentine" Mass). Parishioners who were used to attending a Mass in English, with the priest facing the congregation, witnessed a priest offer a Mass almost entirely in Latin, while facing the altar. Guitar bands and sing-along hymns were replaced by chants and reverential silence. Rather then standing up to receive Holy Communion in their hands, congregants were instructed to kneel and receive the Blessed Sacrament on their tongues. One of the three masses was a sung mass, also called a Missa Contata.

The Diocese Reacts Fr. Zigrang is a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, under Bishop Joseph Fiorenza. Upon hearing of the weekend's events, the diocese reacted immediately. Unable to reach him for most of the day Monday, the chancery sent word to Fr. Zigrang that the bishop would like to meet with him the following morning, July 1st.

Despite advice from others suggesting he be accompanied by a lawyer, Fr. Zigrang went to see the bishop on his own. He was told that he would be suspended and had until the next day to vacate the St. Andrew's rectory. He was provided a letter signed by Bishop Fiorenza and the diocesan Chancellor, Monsignor Frank Rossi, admonishing him for his actions and informing him that failure to "follow the liturgical directives of the Holy See in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other sacraments … is a grave disobedience and threatens the unity of the Church within the parish committed to your pastoral care."

First thing the following morning, the Director of Communications for the diocese, Mrs. Annette Gonzales Taylor, responded to an inquiry from the night before with an email claiming that, "…your inquiry is a bit premature in that Fr. Zigrang has not been suspended. At this time, Bishop Fiorenza and Fr. Zigrang continue to be in conversation."

When reached by phone to clarify the matter, Mrs. Taylor reiterated that Fr. Zigrang was not suspended, is still the pastor of St. Andrew's and no action has been taken against him. She said that she did not know whether he was at the parish today as priests take some days off. When asked why Fr. Zigrang would be (as witnesses claimed) in the process of moving out of the rectory if no action had been taken against him, she did not know.

At some point that same morning, as he was moving out of the parish rectory, Fr. Zigrang was called by Bishop Fiorenza, who recommended that he take a two month leave of duty. It was further suggested that Fr. Zigrang may want to seek psychiatric counseling during this time.

The following day, June 3rd, parishioners found a note on the St. Andrew's church door explaining that there would be no daily Mass or Eucharistic adoration. The note also referenced the name and number of another priest to contact.

Finally, Fr. Zigrang's elderly father was contacted this week by Chancellor Monsignor Frank Rossi, who expressed to him concerns about Fr. Zigrang's psychological well-being.

Past Efforts Fr. Stephen Zigrang has been a priest in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston for over 25 years and pastor at St. Andrew's for the past six. He is a former seminary instructor and has a licentiate in canon law. He was previously a member of the diocesan marriage tribunal where his lack of lenience toward annulment applications brought him into conflict with his peers.

Prompted by years of liturgical research and studies which drew him toward the Traditional Latin Mass, Fr. Zigrang had requested on multiple occasions for the opportunity to offer a public Tridentine Mass in a parish. His most recent request came in January of this year when he sent a letter to Bishop Fiorenza requesting permission to convert St. Andrew's parish in to a traditional parish (dedicated to the practice of the Tridentine Mass and other sacraments) or start such a parish in another location. Six months later, he had still not received a reply.

For the past couple years, Fr. Zigrang has been offering the Latin Mass privately in the rectory at 6:30 each morning. When he attempted to offer a single Latin Mass for his congregation on Sunday mornings, he was ordered by Bishop Fiorenza to stop.

In 1988, responding to Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass and sacraments, Pope John Paul II called for the "wide and generous application" of Latin Masses throughout the Church, but the decision was left up to each bishop on whether or how to implement those directives. Many bishops have refused to allow any such Masses, while some have allowed only limited access.

In the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, home to 1.5 million Catholics and the largest diocese in Texas (eleventh largest in the United States), there is a single Latin Mass offered on Sundays in downtown Houston. Not all believe that these accommodations are adequate to meet their spiritual needs, or in the "wide and generous" spirit alluded to by the Holy Father. Catholics who need to travel great distances with families have requested that the early Mass time be moved or another Mass be added for more reasonable access. Some have requested daily Masses; others Masses on Holy Days of Obligation; and still others a traditional parish, going so far as to locate property and priests available for such an arrangement. These requests to Bishop Fiorenza have reportedly been ignored or denied. The attendants of the Mass also are under certain restrictions, including a prohibition from promoting or advertising the Mass.

Critics point out that this diocese, which prides itself on promoting and celebrating diversity, particularly in liturgical matters, has demonstrated a clear and disturbing exception when it comes to the Tridentine Mass. Although hundreds of Masses are said throughout the diocese in a multitude of languages from Spanish to Chinese, and in a multitude of styles from "Country Music" to "Gospel Spiritual" with little to no concern from the bishop, requests for Traditional Masses are ignored and attempts to offer Masses in Latin quickly and definitively put to a stop.

Parishioners Respond The parishioners' responses to Fr. Zigrang's Latin Masses have been varied. Many were surprised but respectful of their pastor's decision, but there were also some notable negative and positive reactions. Some were openly hostile toward the move, storming out of the church at the beginning of Mass. Members of the musical band which performs at the 10:30 Mass were particularly dismayed (having no role during a Latin Mass), as were lectors and extraordinary ministers. After one of the Masses, a regular guitar player was particularly vocal about the complaint that would be forthcoming to the bishop.

On the other end of the spectrum, other parishioners were greatly appreciative of the opportunity afforded to them. Some old enough to remember when the Mass was in Latin were given a reminder of how much had changed and some of what was lost. Others who had never experienced such a Mass were struck by its simplicity and beauty. At least once attendant commented on the contemplative rather than "entertainment" focus, and another described it as "absolutely beautiful".

Several congregants came up to Fr. Stephen Zigrang after Mass to personally thank him. In what now appears to be his last Sunday at the parish, he gave them the rare opportunity to experience a Latin Mass in their parish, and allowed them to witness firsthand the reason for which their pastor was willing to risk the consequences which would soon follow.

***

Home

Articles

News Archive

Letters to the Editor

Assistance Needed

Further Reading

Links & Resources

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

[ninenot]

Already, ICEL is history--the walking dead.

In less than two years, some American priest/scholars will have a Vatican-approved translation ready to go. Cdl. George will be in the position to gently shove ICEL's crap out of this country.

Watch, and see...

[ninenot]

Well, the PopePiel schtick is an excellent sidebar.

Personally, I keep it up because it is better than kicking the computer screen when I see reports on certain Bishops...you get the picture.

It is our intention to keep PPielI strictly on-course. Several of us will serve as household administratives.

Besides, it's only a 90-day-renewable contract thing. Since most of the New Torquemada's heretic-trials will be VERY speedy, (as will be the executions following,) we won't need much time at the Apostolic Palace.

[ninenot]

As sympathetic as I am to Fr. Zig., disobedience to the Bishop against lawful orders is a violation of holy obedience, plain, pure, and simple.

He was wrong.

OR--UltRatio is right. Take your pick.

[ultima ratio]

No the rampant fools are the people who claim on the one hand that the Second Vatican Council was the biggest event in modern Church history, the biggest thing since the Pentecost in fact--and yet on the other hand had NOTHING to do with the forty years that followed, a time of unrelenting disaster for the Church. You want it both ways--but it won't wash. OF COURSE Vatican II had something to do with what followed abruptly.

As for other factors--give me a break. There are ALWAYS other factors. The fall of the Roman Empire was another factor, the rise of Islam was another factor, the French Revolution was another factor, the two World Wars were other factors. All during these times the Church turned to its ancient Mass for solace and spiritual nourishment. Only in the nineteen-sixties, after almost two thousand years--did the modernists seize their chance. They took it to declare a revolution--and it's been downhill ever since.

[ultima ratio]

First of all, this is bull. No one of authority has made any such statement. The Society has requested simply that Rome admit what is historically true: that the old Mass had never been abrogated by Rome and that consequently all priests had an inherent right to celebrate this Mass.

As for "screw 'em"--that works both ways. I have no wish to become a Protestant just to follow the pope. If he will not affirm his Catholicism in deed as well as in writings, and will not protect his people from spiritual dangers, then he must not be followed.

[ultima ratio]

No--you set up the wrong choice, as usual. The choice is between two thousand years of Catholicism and this new thing that calls itself Catholicism but is indistinguishable from Luther's church.

[ultima ratio]

Are you ready to admit you were wrong about the SSPV? Are you still convinced Bishop Bruskewitz invited them into his diocese--or that they requested his permission to set up shop there?

No wonder you say the things you do. It's all a mass confusion in your head--SSPX, SSPV, FSSP--you make no distinctions and show little understanding of the momentous issues and distinctions involved.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I think a little shock action doesn't hurt from time to time. As far as disobedience to the bishop, on occasion, especially with the souls of the flock in mind, it might be warranted.

I agree. If we do nothing to fight evil we end up enabling it.

These bishops will not be healing the Church. They are actively preventing it!

[drstevej]

***this new thing that calls itself Catholicism but is indistinguishable from Luther's church.***

Can't remember Luther in a clown outfit at communion or hearing that Katie and the girls put on gossamer gowns and swirled around the altar. The thought of Luther doing a hula mass is truly frightening.

[Desdemona]

That whole disobedience thing bites from time to time.

I still say bold moves are necessary.

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"Frankly, I would rather see bold moves like this than listing along and things just not getting any better and having to 'discuss' everything."

Bold doesn't require rude and obnoxious. What this priest was ill-mannered and uncouth. I have no problem with decisive pastors. My own parish has been blessed with three pastors in a row who have been decisive men. When the old church burned down, the first of these men saved the parish, quite literally, from being disbanded. The second pastor rebuilt the church, and because he was a decisive man, we have a beautiful CATHOLIC church, built against the expressed wishes of our cardinal, rather than one of these modern mausoleums. The parish grew from 250 families to nearly a thousand families.

Our current pastor has built a new rectory (the old one is falling apart), and is getting ready to build a new parish hall. As well, he has added to the life of the parish by inviting the Knights of Columbus to establish a Council in our parish, and by starting 24/7 Eucharistic Adoration, among other things.

These fellows didn't ask anyone's permission to do anything. But they were courteous, listened to people's input, and let people know what they were doing.

We named our Knights of Columbus Council after the first man, who literally died working for our church. We turn out in large numbers when the second man visits us, and needless to say, I love our current pastor a great deal.

Decisive and bold don't have to mean divisive and cold.

"As far as musicians are concerned, in my last parish choir, I was the only one who did that and made an effort to make all rehearsals. Catholic guitar music people are notorious for being slap-dash about their 'ministry.' So, please don't read too much into my actions, at least not in a universal sense."

You may make criticisms of others, but you can't have things every which way, Desdemona. You said to sinkspur:

"The 'musicians' use Mass as a performance outlet. Trust me on this one."

When he said he wasn't inclined to trust you on this one, and he questioned you on this, you then said:

"'Do you use your participation in sacred music that way?

"Let me put it this way, when I was cantoring and 'song leading' (I have a solo voice which really is not conducive to that form), in order to present the material the way I did, to the best of my ability, required preparation. Usually at least an hour a week to work out the phrasing, the line, etc. I just would not wing it (which drove the music director nuts and me nuts when he'd change the material without telling me, sometimes in the middle of Mass). That's just how I was taught and how I am. Just showing up and sightreading without rehearsal, IMO, is not respectful of God, Mass, the congregation. It just isn't. As a result, I found myself not assisting the way I should and instead was more cognizant of the music than I was paying attention to Mass. So, I started going to Mass twice a weekend, once for me and once to more or less perform."

So, to assure sinkspur that other musicians are using Mass as a "performance outlet", you relate your own experiences to show how, with the best of intentions, this comes to be.

But then, when I suggest the same for these musicians at this parish where the priest behaved so rudely, you suggest that they are probably not like you at all!

But then, why ought we think that they are using the Mass as a "performance outlet"? You need to choose which criticism you are going to make, and then not make others that contradict what you've already said.

"Everyone has their own opinion and I'm entitled to mine and I think a little shock action doesn't hurt from time to time."

Shock, sure. Rudeness, no.

"As far as disobedience to the bishop, on occasion, especially with the souls of the flock in mind, it might be warranted."

Unless you agree with ultima ratio that the new rite is instrinsically harmful to souls, then there was no justification for disobedience to the bishop.

Do you consider the new rite to be instrinscially harmful to souls?


sitetest

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Just for the record I want to clarify some of the FSSP comments. First, the FSSP is thriving. The demand for their priests and services outpaces their ability to provide them. Second, I think the reason we don't hear any discontent out of Lincoln is because Bishop B is doing such a good job making everyone happy. No one has to demand the Traditional Mass, it is freely provided and available. I get the FSSP newsletter and the Bishop is always pictured wearing Traditional vestments and appearing quite happy. In fact, there is a picture this month of a newly built chapel. I'd bet the only ones unhappy in the Diocese of Lincoln are the CTA types.

We don't have anyone posting here from the Lincoln diocese. That's too bad. We could get a local opinion on this.

[Desdemona]

But then, why ought we think that they are using the Mass as a "performance outlet"? You need to choose which criticism you are going to make, and then not make others that contradict what you've already said.

If they weren't using it as such, they wouldn't be complaining about lack of role. I've spent entirely too much time in church choirs not to know how church musicians operate, with a few exceptions, including me. Very few are in it more for God's glory than their own gratification. They'll deny it, but a lot of times it's REALLY obvious.

I was blatently using Mass as a training tool. I don't use a mike. In a church, I don't need it, but only because I have the muscles toned right and to keep them toned, I have to sing in big spaces. Mass accomplished that for me. It was weekly and music that took minimal (comparatively) time to prepare.

This whole thing is a contradiction. How are priests supposed to safeguard the flock if they can't do it in a Catholic way? This priest had a good point.

Do you consider the new rite to be instrinscially harmful to souls?

I think it's not as good as the old. After reaing through the literal translation of the old Mass, the new is nowhere close to as reverent as the old. Not even as reverent as it ws when I was a kid. It just isn't and I've seen a lot of evidence that the more reverent places have better attendence and stronger communities.

[Desdemona]

The other thing, it's perfectly great to rebuild after fires, etc., and to hold together parishes, but when there is a poison inside, among the people, where fighting persists, then something is wrong.

I'm sitting here watching Mother Angelica. There's somebody who did something. Was it and is it rude? Or is it necessary? I've learned more about Catholicism on EWTN than I ever did at church. Isn't that sad?

[sitetest]

narses,

"They will tell you that Traditional Catholics ought to accept the NO Mass because of the Real Presence on the Altar, and yet faced with the reciprocal they squeal about how people were 'unprepared'."

I said that I would not wish to assist at the old rite. Are you referring to me in this post?


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"If they weren't using it as such, they wouldn't be complaining about lack of role."

Baloney. They may be miffed that this priest thinks he can jerk them around and abuse their time and commitments.

If I arranged my schedule around something my pastor asked me to do, and then he abruptly changed his mind AFTER I showed up to do as he asked, I WOULD BE PRETTY IRRITATED, TOO. I might say, "If you didn't need me in the first place, why did you get me all the way over here, when I could have arranged my schedule otherwise?"

"I think it's not as good as the old."

Well, Desdemona, you're entitle to your own opinion. Now please answer the question, do you think the new rite is intrinsically harmful to souls? Because, remember, your answer must justify a priest VIOLATING HIS VOW OF OBEDIENCE TO HIS BISHOP. I have seen many posters harshly criticize priests who violated their vows of celibacy by requesting laicization so that they could marry. Ironically, at least these men REQUESTED PERMISSION to be RELEASED from their vows by the Supreme Pontiff, and often did not act until permission was granted.

Now, all of you who have so criticized priests, will you now criticize this priest as harshly for violating his vow of obedience to his bishop?

Desdemona, how about it? Is the new rite so evil that it justifies VIOLATING A SACRED VOW?


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"...but when there is a poison inside, among the people, where fighting persists, then something is wrong."

I re-read the article, here. I didn't see anything about a poison inside, among the people, where fighting persists. What are you talking about?

The only poison I saw was the one introduced by this priest by acting in a cold and divisive way toward his flock.

"I'm sitting here watching Mother Angelica. There's somebody who did something. Was it and is it rude?"

I don't think I've seen Mother Angelica act rudely. She's acted boldly, but it seems to me that she has always tried to act in a considerate fashion.


sitetest

[Desdemona]

Okay fine, is the NO harmful? I think in a way it is. It's banal and mediocre. I attend it because there is only one Latin Mass in this archdiocese and it's at an hour when I am working and somehow in our Cathedral just about anything is more reverent just by virtue of the beauty of the church.

I am one who has shown up to sing for Mass - dressed nicely, hair curled, warmed up and everything - and been told, oh, we had other plans. That happened at least once a year. I've even had solos prepared and they were cut. Granted it was the music director, not the priests, but still. I put up with it for 13 years before I finally said enough, basically because I was overloaded as it was. I haven't cantored or sung at Mass as a soloist in almost a year. And I'm seriously considering holding out until the music improves.

NOw in the Houston case, did the musicians offer to learn the Latin? They could have had their role. It's not hard. Otherwise, their motives are in question.

So my question to you is, is the priest going to jump off a bridge under the guise of obedience if the bishop tells him to? He took a sacred vow after all.

[Desdemona]

So, you're whole problem is that this priest blind-sided the congregation?

Sometimes that's how you discover the greatest stuff.

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"Okay fine, is the NO harmful? I think in a way it is. It's banal and mediocre."

So harmful to souls as to be justification for violating one's vow of obedience to one's bishop? If you answer yes, be forewarned, you have essentially gone over to ultima's camp. To be consistent, you must leave us in our Novus Ordo church, and seek out Tridentine-onlyism.

As to your very poor excuse, then, about the Latin Mass being an hour away, heck, if the new rite is sufficiently harmful to justify violating a SACRED VOW, then how can you avoid traveling a mere hour to make the old rite Mass?

"I am one who has shown up to sing for Mass - dressed nicely, hair curled, warmed up and everything - and been told, oh, we had other plans. That happened at least once a year. I've even had solos prepared and they were cut."

That is rude and disgusting, and there is no excuse for it.

"I put up with it for 13 years before I finally said enough, basically because I was overloaded as it was."

Look how you describe your experience, that you were "putting up with it". And, in justice, you finally said, "enough", probably long after it was just.

So why was it okay for this priest to rudely dump on his own flock?

"So my question to you is, is the priest going to jump off a bridge under the guise of obedience if the bishop tells him to? He took a sacred vow after all."

If you are going to compare saying the normative Mass of the Latin Church to jumping off a bridge, then there is little sense in trying to discuss it with you, Desdemona. Usually, jumping off bridges is inherently harmful. Usually, going to a properly-celebrated Mass of Pope Paul VI is inherently good for you.

Do you no longer understand the difference?


sitetest