Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses

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.

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

Dear Desdemona,

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

No, first, the priest violated his vow of obedience to his bishop. Even though in my own view, I think the bishop acted poorly regarding the indult in his diocese, that is not justification for disobedience.

Then, to compound the VIOLATION OF HIS SACRED VOW, the priest ALSO treated his flock with disdain and contempt.

I think that's called a twofer.

sitetest

Please, read my post a little more closely. I said that Latin Mass is at an hour WHEN I AM WORKING. It is only 25 minutes, but because I need the income I have to work in a protestant church because Catholics don't pay.

It isn't good enough, but I'm not about to leave. And I don't think the occasional bucking of the rules in this way is horrid. I'd rather see men like this stand up and fight than knuckle under or slink away. The vows are being abused by the bishops in this way just as much. But maybe that's just the American in me talking.

I put up with a lot in my last parish to SERVE THE PEOPLE. That was the only thing that held me. The people who were touched by it. And they're still asking my mother where I am and am I coming back.

I understand a lot now. And one of those things is that there is a group of people who have some visceral reaction to any mention of restoring Latin Mass. Even the suggestion that they might have to attend one. Ever wonder why that is?

I made a general comment that refered to the many, many discussions here about how a Universal Indult "would never work" because people aren't prepared. The irony is that here, the laity wasn't "prepared ", rebelled and yet there is no question raised about the Real Presence. If the issue is God and His Presence on the Altar and in the Consecrated Host, then the rest of this is simply more evidence (I posted Fr. Buckley's story to show this is neither unique nor confined to the present) that there is a grotesque double standard, one that reflects the invasion of the hierarchy by enemies of the Church who HATE that True Presence. The laity is and has been used throughout this process of deliberate destruction and desecration. The issue is the shepherds and the false shepherds, at least imho.

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).
____________________________________________________________
The deficiencies of the Novus Ordo had already been anticipated by Trent and condemned. The Old Mass views Christ's death as expiatory and necessary for Redemption. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, is based on the wholly new theology of the Paschal Mystery, which claims to be a new way of looking at Redemption. This theology denies that Christ's death had any propitiatory value, viewing the whole concept of propitiation as repugnant and unworthy of the goodness of God. The perspectives of the two Masses are therefore incompatible. This is why we may truly speak of the effort to impose a new religion--a wholly new faith. Such notions as are now being taught had never before existed in Catholicism.

Dear CoD,

"What do you do when your bishop is disobedient to Rome? Follow the bishop or follow the Pope?"

If the bishop requires an intrinsically evil act, such as jumping off a bridge, disobedience is acceptable.

If the bishop requires something not intrinsically evil, such as exclusively saying the new rite publicly, obedience is required.

As for following the Holy Father, he has not directly instructed this priest to say the old rite. He has not generally instructed priests to say the old rite. He has said that priests MAY say the old rite WITH THEIR ORDINARY'S PERMISSION. Permission not granted, this priest is actually disobeying the pope, too, by saying the old rite publicly (noting that he'd already been given permission to say it privately).

Thus, even if the bishop is being disobedient to the Holy Father by refusing the indult in his See, the priest is not obeying the Holy Father by disobeying the bishop.

Rather, he is disobeying the bishops AND disobeying the pope, in that the pope's permission for the indult REQUIRES the bishop's permission.

sitetest

Dear Desdemona,

"'Then, to compound the VIOLATION OF HIS SACRED VOW, the priest ALSO treated his flock with disdain and contempt.'

"If that's a crime I know MANY priests who'd be convicted. That's nothing new."

You're unclear, here. If WHAT is a crime? Violating one's vows or treating one's flock with disdain and contempt?

My own opinion is that both are "crimes".

So this priest is doubly-guilty.

sitetest

"What do you do when your bishop is disobedient to Rome? Follow the bishop or follow the Pope?"

The American hierarchy has seen so many acts of disobedience to Rome that the mind boggles. Time and again the AmChurch has, and often continues, to ignore Rome. From Confession to the role of Bishops and Catholic politicians, to baptism and conversion and the design, construction and management of the actual physical facilities, disobediance to Rome has become an American "tradition". What to do? Stay faithful to the Deposit of Faith, obey the Divine Law and when given a choice between violating that Law and violating a man-made rule, follow the Law.

Funny how important obedience becomes when a Novus Ordo bishop is being resisted. Yet the same bishops routinely disregard the commands of the Pope himself in liturgical matters. Many of the innovations that have become permanent were made so because of initial acts of disobedience on the part of Novus Ordo bishops and priests. This bishop, in particular, had disobeyed the papal injunction to be "generous" toward those faithful desirous of attending the Old Mass. This papal assertion apparently went in one ear and out the other.

Also have to laugh at your continual recitation of the claim that the Novus Ordo--which is profoundly unCatholic--is the "normative" Mass--as if by reciting this mantra often enough you will make it so. But nothing will ever make the Novus Ordo anything more than a bad turn on the road to salvation, the cataclysmic event that Ratzinger has cited as the cause for a reversal of the Church's fortunes in modern times. It is a concoction dreamed up by a liberal claque. As such it purports to replace the ancient Mass of over a thousand years that had been shaped and guided by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages.

Dear Desdemona,

"Normally, I would agree, but this priest had been asking for years and nothing. What's so horrible about it?"

?????

Come on, Desdemona! We don't get to break our vows because we ask for something for years, even a good thing! If a man's wife refuses him sex, even for some years, he is not then justified to violate his wedding vows! His wife may be wrong, but her sin does not justify his adultery!

And Desdemona, that doesn't mean we can't see the priest's situation with some compassion. Just as we may see the poor slob compassionately who, weak with temptation, sins against his marriage vows, I can understand the priest's frustration with this bishop of his.

But one cannot excuse the adulterer's sin against his wedding vows, because of his wife's prior sin against him, and one cannot excuse this priest's sin against his priestly vows, because of his bishop's prior sin against him.

VIOLATING SACRED VOWS IS A BIG DEAL, even when committed in difficult circumstances.

But of course, this priest isn't even in an analogous position to the poor man whose wife denies him use of their marriage. This priest had been permitted to celebrate Mass, even celebrate the old rite privately! But that was not enough! The better analogy would be a man whose wife gives him use of their marriage, but does not wear the lingerie he wishes she would wear for the occasion.

And then, he justifies his adultery, his violating his vows, over it. One would not be unjustified if one felt very little compassion for such a one as this.

sitetest

Dear Desdemona,

I'm sorry I misunderstood this post, about timing and the old rite, for you.

But Desdemona, if the new rite is sufficiently harmful to souls as to justify VIOLATING ONE'S SACRED VOWS, then certainly you cannot justify continuing to go to the new rite, even at the cost of some of your income, no? After all, the new rite is harmful to your soul! Harmful enough to justify a priest's violating his vow of obedience not to say the old rite publicly (even though he'd been permitted to say it privately)! What's a little money when your soul is on the line?

Listen, Desdemona, if you REALLY believed the new rite is actually harmful to souls, I don't think you'd hesitate to do the right thing. But I don't think you really believe that. And thus, the priest's disobedience was entirely unjustified, even as the bishop's refusal for any public indult Masses his dioceses is probably unjustified, as well.

sitetest

Dear Desdemona,

"No, sorry comparing sex to Mass is just not in the cards."

Why not? Sex in marriage is a good to which a married person is generally entitled.

But remember, no one has shown that the priest was denied the ability to celebrate the Mass. Only that he was denied the ability to celebrate a particular rite of the Mass in public.

You haven't at all made a case for this priest's blatant disobedience, nor for his shockingly poor treatment of his own flock.

Good night.

sitetest

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.