Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

Catholics exhibit fidelity to the Tradition of Holy Mother Church in many ways. Each of us has a distinctive, unrepeatable immortal soul that has personal characteristics of its own not shared by anyone else. Not even identical twins are the same in every respect. This plurality of souls in the Mystical Bride of Christ is reflected in the many different communities of men and women religious that have developed over the Church’s history. Each community has its own charism and mission. Ideally, each community of men and women religious should be totally faithful to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith and expressed and protected in the authentic Tradition of the Church. The means of expressing this fidelity, however, will vary from community to community.

What is true of communities of men and women religious is true also of us all, including our priests. Some priests have the patience of Saint Francis de Sales or Saint John Bosco, meek and mild, able to handle the rough seas that beset Holy Mother Church and/or themselves personally with perfect equanimity. Other priests have had the bluntness of St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio, mincing no words in their sermons about the necessity of rooting out sin and the possibility of going to Hell for all eternity. Both St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio were devoted to their role as an alter Christus in the confessional, using that hospital of Divine Mercy to administer the infinite merits of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood to bring sacramental absolution to those to whom they had preached in blunt terms.

In addition to fidelity, though, there are different ways of expressing courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings. Some Catholics stood up quite directly to the unjust and illicit dictates of the English Parliament, which had been passed at the urging of King Henry VIII, at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England. Others kept their silence for as long as was possible, as was the case with Saint Thomas More, who discharged his mind publicly only after he had been found guilty on the basis of perjured testimony of denying the supremacy of the king as the head of the Church in England. Some priests in the Elizabethan period, such as St. Edmund Campion, almost dared officials to arrest them as they went to different locales to offer Holy Mass or as they took groups to the Tower of London. Other priests went quietly from house to house to offer the Traditional Mass underground as both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in England used every sort of pressure imaginable to convince holdout “Romans” to go over to Protestantism and worship in the precusor liturgy of our own Novus Ordo Missae. Still other newly ordained priests came over from France, knowing that they might be able to offer only one Mass in England before they were arrested and executed.

The same thing occurred in France 255 years after the arrest and execution of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More. Some priests simply stood up to the agents of the French Revolution. Others, such as Blessed Father William Chaminade, donned disguises as they went from place to place, much as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro did in Mexico prior to his execution at the hands of the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico on November 23, 1927. Ignatius Cardinal Kung, then the Bishop of Shanghai, China, was hauled before a dog-track stadium in his see city in 1956 before thousands of spectators. The Red Chinese authorities expected him to denounce the pope and thus to save himself from arrest. The brave bishop exclaimed the same thing as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro, “Long live Christ the King,” and was hauled off to spend over thirty years in prison before being released. Oh, yes, there are so many ways for priests to demonstrate their fidelity and courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings.

Well, many bishops and priests who are faithful to the fullness of the Church’s authentic Tradition have been subjected to a unspeakable form of persecution in the past thirty-five to forty years: treachery from within the highest quarters of the Church herself. Men who have held fast to that which was believed always, everywhere and by everyone prior for over 1,900 years found themselves termed as “disobedient,” “schismatic,” “heretical,” and “disloyal” for their resisting novelties that bore no resemblance to Catholicism and a great deal of resemblance to the very things that were fomented by Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, things for which Catholics half a millennium ago shed their blood rather than accept. Many priests who have tried to remain faithful to Tradition within the framework of a diocesan or archdiocesan structure have been sent to psychiatric hospitals or penalized by being removed from their pastorates or by being denied pastorates altogether. Others, though, have faced more severe penalties.

Angelus Press, which is run by the Society of Saint Pius X, put out a book earlier this year, Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?, 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. One of those priests is my good friend, Father Stephen Zigrang, who offered the Traditional Latin Mass in his [now] former parish of Saint Andrew Church in Channelview, Texas, on June 28-29, 2003, telling his parishioners that he would never again offer the new Mass.

As I reported extensively at this time last year, Father Zigrang was placed on a sixty day leave-of-absence by the Bishop of Galveston-Houston, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, and told to seek psychological counseling, preferably from Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. 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. Bishop Fiorenza met with Father Zigrang in early September, seeming at the time to let him stay for a year with the Society while the diocese continued to pay his health insurance premiums. Within days of that early September meeting, however, Fiorenza was threatening to suspend Father Zigrang by the beginning of October if he did not vacate Queen of Angels and return to a diocesan assignment.

October of 2003 came and went. Father Zigrang heard no word from Bishop Fiorenza or the chancery office until he received the following letter, dated Jun 10, 2004:

Once more I appeal to you to cease your association with the Society of St. Pius X and return to your responsibilities as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston

Your continued association with a schismatic group which has severed communion with the Holy Father is confusing and a scandal to many of Christ’s faithful. You are well aware that without appropriate jurisdiction the marriages witnessed and confessions heard by the priests of the St. Society of St. Paul X are invalid and people are being lead to believe otherwise. You are also aware that the Holy See has asked the faithful not to attend Masses celebrated in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X.

I plead with you to return by July 1, 2004, to the presbyterate of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston and receive a priestly assignment from me. This letter serves as a penal precept (c. 1319) and is a final canonical warning (c. 1347.1). If I do not hear from you by June 30, 2004, I will impose a just penalty for disobeying a legitimate precept (c. 1371.2). The just penalty may include suspension (c. 133.1), nn 1-2: prohibition of all acts of the power of orders and governance.

I offer this final warning after consultation with the Holy See and will proceed to impose a penalty if you persist in disobedience to a legitimate precept. It is my fervent hope and constant prayer that you not remain out of union with the Holy Father.

Overlooking Bishop Fiorenza’s John Kerry-like gaffe in terming the Society of Saint Pius X the “St. Society of St. Paul X,” 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. 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. The glaring inconsistency of the canonical rhetoric of Vatican functionaries and their actual practices continues to be lost on Bishop Fiorenza.

Father Zigrang did not respond to Bishop Fiorenza’s June 10 letter. He received another letter, dated July 2, 2004, the contents of which are so explosive as to contain implications for the state of the Church far beyond the case of Father Zigrang and far beyond the boundaries of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston:

With great sadness I inform you that, effective immediately, you are suspended from the celebration of all sacraments, the exercise of governance and all rights attached to the office of pastor (Canon 1333.1, nn 1-2-3).

This action is taken after appropriate canonical warnings (canon 1347) and failure to obey my specific directive that you cease the affiliation with the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and accept an assignment to serve as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston (Canon 1371.2).

I want to repeat what I have said to you in person and in the written canonical warnings, that I prayerfully urge you to not break communion with the Holy Father and cease to be associated with the schism which rejects the liciety of the Novus Ordo Mass, often affirmed by Pope John Paul II. This schism also calls into question the teachings of the Second Vatican Council regarding ecumenism and the enduring validity of the Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel.

Your return to full union with the Church and to the acceptance of an assignment to priestly ministry in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston will be joyfully received as an answer to prayer. May the Holy Spirit lead and guide you to renew the promise of obedience you made on the day of your ordination.

First, The Society of Saint Pius X does not reject the liciety of the Novus Ordo Missae. Its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, criticized the nature of the Novus Ordo and pointed out its inherent harm. That is far different from saying that the Novus Ordo is always and in all instances invalid. Is Bishop Fiorenza claiming that any criticism of the Novus Ordo and efforts to demonstrate how it is a radical departure from Tradition are schismatic acts? Is Father Romano Thommasi, for example, to be taken to task for writing scholarly articles, based on the very minutes of the Consilium, about how Archbishop Annibale Bugnini lied about the true origin of the some constituent elements of the Novus Ordo?

Second, the Society is not, as noted above, in schism, at least not as that phrase was defined by the First Vatican Council. The Society recognizes that the See of Peter is occupied at present by Pope John Paul II. Its priests pray for the Holy Father and for the local bishop in the Canon of the Mass. The Society can be said to be disobedient to the Holy Father’s unjust edicts and commands. The Society of Saint Pius X is not in schism.

Third, Bishop Fiorenza seems to be stating that ecumenism is a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church from which no Catholic may legitimately dissent. If this is his contention, it is he who is grave error. Ecumenism is a pastoral novelty that was specifically condemned by every Pope prior to 1958. Pope Pius XI did so with particular eloquence in Mortalium Animos in 1928. Novelties that are not consonant with the authentic Tradition of the Church bind no one under penalty of sin, no less binds a priest under penalty of canonical suspension. A rejection of ecumenism constitutes in no way a schismatic act.

Fourth, Bishop Fiorenza’s assertion that the “Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel” is enduringly valid is itself heretical. No human being can be saved by a belief in the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded in its entirety when the curtain was torn in two in the Temple on Good Friday at the moment Our Lord had breathed His last on the Holy Cross. It is a fundamental act of fidelity to the truths of the Holy Faith to resist and to denounce the heretical contention, made in person by Bishop Fiorenza to Father Zigrang last year, that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant. Were the Apostles, including the first pope, Saint Peter, wrong to try to convert the Jews? Was Our Lord joking when He said that a person had no life in him if he did not eat of His Body and drink of His Blood?

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:

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us.

We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force–notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemoial prescription–except, however, if of more than two hundred years’ standing. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission., statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

It is apparently the case that Bishop Fiorenza received a “green light,” if you will, to act against Father Zigrang from Dario Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, who is both the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and the President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, to whom a copy of the July 2, 2004, suspension letter was sent. Father Zigrang surmises that Bishop Fiorenza brought up the issue of his case during the bishops’ ad limina apostolorum visit in Rome recently. Father believes that Cardinal Hoyos wants to send a signal to priests who might be tempted to follow his lead that Rome will let bishops crack down on them without mercy and without so much as an acknowledgment that Quo Primum actually means what it says. Whether or not the specific “schismatic” acts Father Zigrang is alleged to have committed by being associated with the Society of Saint Pius X at Queen of Angels Church in Dickinson, Texas, were outlined to Cardinal Hoyos by Bishop Fiorenza remains to be seen.

Naturally, the grounds on which Bishop Fiorenza suspended Father Zigrang are beyond the sublime. As my dear wife Sharon noted, “Doesn’t Bishop Fiorenza have a better canon lawyer on his staff than the one who advised him on the grounds of suspending Father Zigrang.” Indeed.

The very fact that Fiorenza could make these incredible claims and believes that he has a good chance of prevailing in Rome speaks volumes about the state of the Church in her human elements at present. Will Rome let the bishops govern unjustly and make erroneous assertions about “schism” as well as heretical claims (that a priest must accept that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant and that ecumenism is a matter of de fide doctrine) with its full assent and approval? Will Rome countenance the same sort of misuse of power by local bishops upon traditional priests in the Twenty-first Century that was visited upon “Romans” by the civil state and the Anglican “church” in England from 1534 to 1729? The answers to these questions are probably self-evident. Putting them down in black and white, though, might help priests who are looking to Rome for some canonical protection for the Traditional Latin Mass to come to realize that they wait in vain for help from the Holy See, where the Vicar of Christ occupies himself at present with the writing of a book about existentialism!

There will be further updates on this matter as events warrant. Father Zigrang is weighing his options as to how to respond to the allegations contained in Bishop Fiorenza’s letter of suspension, understanding that the answers provided by the Holy See will have implications of obviously tremendous gravity. Given the intellectual dishonesty that exists in Rome at present, Father Zigrang’s case may only be decided on the technical grounds of “obedience” to his bishop, ignoring all of the other issues, including the rights of all priests under Quo Primum offer the Traditional Latin Mass without approval and their rights to never be forced to offer Holy Mass according to any other form.

To force Rome to act on what it might otherwise avoid, perhaps it might be wise for someone to bring a canonical denunciation of Bishop Fiorenza for his contentions about ecumenism and the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant, spelling out in chapter and verse how these things have been condemned in the history of the Church. Then again, Fiorenza could “defend” himself by simply pointing to the Pope himself, which is precisely why this matter has such grave implications. This matter is certain to be explored in great detail in the weeks and months ahead by competent canonists and by theologians who understand the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church.

I examined canon 1371.2 (the canon that the Bishop says warrants my suspension), checking a good commentary, the disobedience of an Ordinary's legitimate precept may warrant a just penalty but not weighty enough to warrant a censure (e.g. suspension). I think this point may have been missed by the Bishop's hired canon lawyer, when the Bishop was weighing his options about what to do with one of his wayward priests. As I said to you before, the Bishop has a history of not suspending priests, even those who commit crimes beyond mere disobedience. Although lately I've been told he recently suspended a priest who attempted marriage with one of his parishioners. This was done about the time my suspension was in the works.

Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for all priests in Father Zigrang’s situation so that they will be aided by their seeking refuge in you in their time of persecution and trial.

What will happen with Fr. Z? Will he get a stipend and health insurance from SSPX?

This is a good question, and I don't know the answer. But it points out the courage of priests like Fr. Zigrang and Fr. Laurence Smith and Fr. Stephen Somerville. They have sacrificed everything, given up the earthly comforts of the established diocesan situation (and those can be remarkably comfortable indeed), and "sold everything they had to come follow Christ."

There can be no possible earthly motivation to do so. There is no monetary profit, no earthly rewards, no prestige or even recognition. All they can look forward to is persecution and slander. Thank God there are a few loyal men like them who put the Truth above all earthly considerations.

Although he is not a traditionalist, one might put a priest like Fr. Haley of Arlington VA in the same category. He has sacrificed everything, he was persecuted relentlessly, he was even placed in a mental hospital, all because he would not agree to say that black was white. Now the evil Bishop Loverde is holding a trial to have him forcibly laicized for the crime of exposing the unimaginable corruption that exists in the supposedly "conservative" diocese of Arlington.

This would include the need to be humble and admit that schism is always wrong, as did many of the parishoners at "Most Holy Family Monastery" when they finally regularized themselves.

Is that near Philadelphia? What is the situation there? I thought that Most Holy Family Monastery was the home of the sedevacantist Brother Dimond. Has something changed?

No, he had a canonical right to say the ancient Mass. That right has never been officially abrogated.

Only if he wasn't scheduled by his Bishop to say another Mass. Priests can't just go about choosing how they will say Mass one day to the next. Take a bi-ritual priest. He can't go to a Byzantine Church and claim a "right" to say the Latin Mass there just because he has the canonical power to say both rites.

You argue incorrectly since Canon Law explicitly prohibits retroactive legislation to cover a present exigency.

I wasn't suggesting a law was passed.

Besides, if this had been done, it would have been pronounced openly. In fact, the entire issue was ignored and the marriages and confessions simply accepted as valid. This would be in keeping with the Church's own tradition of interpreting the laws on supplied jurisdiction extremely liberally, always in favor of the faithful.

The act of accepting them as valid was a retroactive validation of an objectively uncanonical situation.

All the talk about states of necessity and the like are subjective assertions which cannot be proven with certainty. Objectively, the confessions and marriages (and ordinations) were contrary to the canons and thus invalid. They only became objectively valid when Rome accepted them as such, using the power of the keys.

He must have an "in" with one of the mods, because he is notorious for making FReepmail threats to multiple Catholics here that he'll get their posts pulled or get them banned.

Several folks (who also received the D-CON's weird nasty FReepmail threats) have told me that he buys his special immunity here. I wonder if that's true. At any rate, he is hellbent on silencing those who speak the truth and love the traditional Mass (and do not favor the special kind of clergy.

At any rate, his anti-Catholic game is becoming quite obvious to very many people here, but you can be sure he will take measures to cover himself for a while.

Why not just go and shoot such a man and be done with it then?

Wouldn't bother me if someone did just that.

Or does the end only justify *some* means, not *any* means?

Had you been following another thread you would know that "some", "many", "all" and "any" are interchangeable.

SSPXers: What is your take on posts #149 and #160?

The advice in those posts (to work within the system) is of course the most prudent course in normal situations. The whole question comes down to whether this is really a normal situation or not. If one says "The situation today is grave but not significantly different than other crises the Church has faced," then one would want to work within the system. Certainly no one ever violates Canon Law for trivial reasons.

But if one comes to the alternate conclusion, that the situation today is of a fundamentally different nature than past crises, that probably no situation since at least the Arian heresy of the 5th century has so seriously challenged the Church, that we are not faced with individual personal defections but with widespread institutional apostasy and heresy, then if that were the case, then quietly working within the system is just as clearly not the right answer. If there is a concerted world-wide plan to destroy the Catholic faith and the Catholic liturgy, then one is required to take a stance of clear and public opposition. One cannot say, "I don't care about the mass defection of the Catholic Church as long as I can get an indult for myself and my 100 fellow parishioners."

SSPXers: What is your take on posts #149 and #160?

Herman is a smart and excellent poster, but the law he cites is totally inapplicable to Society priests as it pertains to and regulates parish priests, not all priests.

The Society notwithstanding, there are all types of situations where priests don't fall under the authority of the local Bishop. Brotherhoods, the Paulists, Father Wickens etc.

There are people married on boats, just as there are masses given on the battlefield, just as you as a layperson can baptize someone in certain limited situations. I'm not much of a canon lawyer but the more I read the more it seems that the historic church seems more focused on the issue that the sacraments be administered as opposed to how they are administered.

Incidentally the "mass anywhere" concept (which is inherent throughout canon) is how the society is able to perform valid masses.

If any of the society sacraments were not valid you'd hear people in authority screaming bloody murder, but those of good conscience won't and don't. Just as they won't take action against Society worshipers because they know better. They know we're doing no evil and committing no sin, so the best they can say and remain credible and honest is to make claims of "irregularity", "error" etc.

Also, if I may be permitted a very uneducated guess I would venture that many of these kinds of laws - such as the one Herman posted - were addressing issues during times when intra-parish politics were quite intense.

Is that near Philadelphia? What is the situation there? I thought that Most Holy Family Monastery was the home of the sedevacantist Brother Dimond. Has something changed?

Most Holy Family Monastery is the former name of what is now Mater Ecclesiae. It is in Berlin, NJ, a suburb of Philadelphia.

So-called "Brother" Dimond (really just a layman masquerading as an approved Monk), being unsuccessful in his attempts to steal the property from the Oblates of St. Jude, the rightful owners (as his brother put it to me in an email once, they only lost the NJ property in court because they didn't file one little piece of paper with the county - it just so happened that little piece of paper was the deed and title to the property!), was forced to flee to upstate New York with the $250,000 in printing equipment they had recently acquired and $250,000+ in cash donations from the attendees of the Monastery to what he now calls Most Holy Family Monastery, but which is really a large property swindled from a benefactor with various false promises and premises. Much of what Dimond left behind in the way of anything of value (sacred vestments, sacred vessels, more cash donations, and books) was then stolen from the Oblates of St. Jude by Fr. William Ashley, when he took off in a huff over the failure of Bishop DiMarzio of Camden to approve his plans for Opus Mariae Mediatrix.

Nothing has changed, but perhaps that clarifies the situation for you.

. Zigrang simply went off and did his own thing like so many episcopi and sacerdotali vagantes before him.

As you may recall from the stories last year, Fr. Zigrang simply started saying the Latin Mass. He never "went" anywhere until he was kicked out by the bishop. So he never left or disobeyed or became a wandering priest or any such thing, but simply began to say the traditional Catholic Mass of all time, the one that was guaranteed to all Catholics for all future perpetuity of time. That was when the bishop tossed him out.

States of necessity are not legally defined precisely because they depend on the perceptions of the priests involved. If the canon is used dishonestly, then it can have no moral effect and would be illegitimate. But if it is used sincerely to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful, then it is more than justified.

"This isn't any of your business - unless you just have to make it your business."

Considering that I was suspended for three days for calling Sinkspur Satan -- even though I didn't call Sinkspur Satan -- and that no one in management will condescend to discuss that with me...

And considering that we now have another poster suspended for...I'm not sure for what, except that he displeased Sinkspur...

It seems to me that there is a discrepancy between the rules as stated and the way that they are being applied, and that looks like everybody's business to me.

a man who was apparently a fine priest until he fell hopelessly in love with his own opinions

Here is the argument in a nutshell. Is the traditional Catholic Mass simply "his own opinion" or is it the very reason for our existence, the reason he is a priest, the source and summit of grace and worship, the fountain of divine life which he could not withold from his parishioners even at the cost of his life?

Those who justify all of the theological and ecclesiological and liturgical novelties since Vatican II invariably make the claim that the position of traditional Catholics is no more than "their own opinion." Who is correct in the current situation rests entirely on whether this claim is true or not. Is the traditional Catholic faith and the traditional Catholic Mass no more than the pesonal opinion of traditional Catholics, or is it something solid, something real, something divine, something eternal, something that never changes with the times, something that all people can come to know with surety, and not just as an "opinion"?

The right of priests to say the ancient Mass is universal. It knows no diocesan boundaries. It was granted by Pius V and has not been officially abrogated; therefore any attempt by an Ordinary to punish a priest for saying this Mass would be illegitimate. No bishop can oppose a papal bull which explicitly prohibits the punishment of any priest who says the Mass.

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.