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.

Just curious, what is wrong with the picture you posted?

The priest offering Mass is violating every possible rubric. In addition, while there are probably aren't any rubrics that say "Place no pagan idols upon the altar during Mass," because it never would have occurred to anyone making the rules that it could ever become an issue, but the fact that he is offering Mass (I suppose he would say he his "celebrating Eucharist") in front of a big gold idol of the Buddha is something I consider scandalous, sacrilegious, blasphemous and infamous. Moreover, since this Mass was part of a Buddhist-Christian syncretist gathering, you can judge from the postures of the participants that some sort of Zen meditation was included in the Mass.

You know, until your post I thought the millions and millions of dollars lost, the out of control heresy, the invasion of sexual criminals, the clergy being a fraction of what it was just a few decades ago, the apostasy of the Western world, the seminaries becoming like San Francisco bathhouses, the ruination of the catechism, the failure of our schools to produce Catholic children and all of the other multitudes of problems we are experiencing would be enough to consider ourselves in "crisis".

Your one silly post however has changed all of that. Thank you for putting it all in perspective, you're a genius.

As evidence for the "Yes" position, take a look at this photo. And please don't pretend that this is unusual. There are hundreds of photos like this or even worse that pop up every single week:

This isn't evidence of anything but someone misappropriating a Mass, and a Priest pretending his is Catholic. I see no approbations here, and on it's face, this is in violation of Church Law. Arguably this is highly unusual, how many Masses take place without a Buddha?

Disobedience is always wrong, unless there is a good reason, and if it really is an emergency, then you should be prepared to take your lumps. For the SSPX in particular, and more generally, those who are saying the Pope is an innovator, if they are serving God before the Church, that would require there to be a conflict between God and Church, so why would the approbation of the Pope or his approval be required or even desired? I mean this, if the Catholic Church is overthrown, and says you are not part of it anymore, why would you care?

For lunatic Priests who somehow think mixing Eastern non-Christian faiths somehow improves Christianity, the Church has penalties as well, but abandoning the Church by Traditionalist faithful leaves those with the true Catholic Church in a lurch.

These mixers of Faith don't care what they have to say, as long as they can remove Traditionalist from the Faith. Everything is good for them, except those of us who want real Catholicism.

I equate the SSPX and these liberals, they are both disobeying the superiors set above them by God, as stated in the Bible (and you know the verse as I do).

Let me put out a challenge in a parable to you who are on the SSPX fence or over it.
The faithful are just Tourists in the World, destined to return to Heaven. We only spend a short vacation here, and we are planning to return to our home for our eternity. Who would be worse, the cannibal horde who set upon a crowd of tourists, to devour them, or those who flee leaving the others not as well equipped to defend themselves to be devoured? The cannibals are evil and set on destroying the tourists, however, those of you who are well equipped by a gift from God, with intelligence and wit to defend against them, are fleeing the horde.

You leave the simple and trusting to them, and they ARE being eaten. They can't flee, and you leave them to their doom. Essentially throwing your gifts of wit and your zeal for souls in the trash by leaving for the SSPX or other groups.

Long ago men stood is large files with pikes they were shoulder to shoulder, the pikes were 20 feet long with a point. If half of them ran away, the whole company was doomed. Even tried holding a 20 foot pole? Think how you could defend yourself with one, you depended on the men next to you.

I conclude those of you who have separated yourselves, are cooperating with the "Buddhist" "Priest". You need to help us save the whole of the Church, because the battle is not yet lost, and I seriously think it can be done more now than ever in the 40 years from Vatican II. As you flee the Church, you are helping them seek the ruin of Souls.

He cannot obey an intrinsically wrong order and then worry about the consequences later. So the question comes down to this, "Should Fr. Zigrang have followed the order to cease offering the Latin Mass, or was he required in conscience to refuse this order?" He decided that he was required in conscience to refuse the order, because to obey the order would be to make oneself complicit in the deaths of many innocent souls.

The assumption here is that the Novus Ordo is lacking, it is a Mass, and to say otherwise invites the Bishop to act.

As it turned out, Fr. Zigrang only said the Latin Mass once in his parish, because the bishop responded with such lightning speed. When a pederast is sodomizing young parishioners, bishops seem to require years or in some cases even decades to respond.

I disagree. I have been right where such an action occurred, in the 70s. As soon as the Priest was found in a homosexual act (with an adult), he was gone right away. You can't point at another wrong and say, "but he is doing other bad things", when you are older than 9.

Saying that we should not act in one case of wrong, when we did not act in another wrong, in not the correct course of action. We can agree all wrongs that a Bishop sees must be acted on with equal priority. I agree they come down on Traditionalists faster than liberals, thats because the faithful liberals will appease the Bishop, because they have so scruples like we have. The Traditionalist will not appease the Bishop in any way, and then often leave the whole Church, leaving his brethren to fend for themselves.

The only reason why I ask this is in such a way is I'm wondering how a seemingly well read and intelligent person can come up with such an absurd statement as that above.

Humor me and tell me you were just kidding.

Go to Catholic churches around the world and ask people if Vatican II and the New Mass are causing them to lose their faith and if they think the Church is in a dramatic crisis since 1962. Most will look at you like you have two heads.

I'm suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Catholics simply don't see the crisis that traditionalists see.

So if we are to go about saying the Church is in crisis, we need to be aware that this is not at all obvious to 999 out of 1000 Catholics.

imply that such blasphemy and sacrilege is common or widespread does not strike me as being particularly honest.

At least those people holding the "Buddha Mass" have a serious and reverent demeanor. Here is a photo of another Mass, posted just TODAY. There are more than enough photos to fill a scrapbook for every day of the year.

Remember, these are just the people who feel inspired to post the pictures of their "Eucharistic celebrations" on the internet. How many don't get photographed or don't get posted on the internet?

You leave the simple and trusting to them, and they ARE being eaten. They can't flee, and you leave them to their doom. Essentially throwing your gifts of wit and your zeal for souls in the trash by leaving for the SSPX or other groups.

I see the story differently. All those who support and encourage the wolves attacking the sheep, and all those who turn a blind eye when they know enough to see the innocent souls being led to the slaughter, these people share the guilt of complicity. Only those who speak and protest and take a stand of public opposition can claim to have a clean conscience (on this issue at least). The SSPX is not abandoning the innocent -- those who pretend that Cardinal Mahoney and McCarrick and Kasper and all the rest are Catholics, these are the people who are abandoning the innocent.

Saying that we should not act in one case of wrong, when we did not act in another wrong, in not the correct course of action.

But offering the Latin Mass can never be categorized as a "wrong." In the newspapers of this very day, we have a story where a predator priest trolled for gay sex on several gay websites, travelling to Las Vegas and other locations for rendevous with gay partners, especially young ones. Numerous letters were sent to his bishop by parishioners protesting the appointment of this sexual pervert as their pastor. The bishop rebuked the parishioners, not the pastor. Until finally the Roman Catholic Faithful posted the pastor's gay internet exchanges for all to see. The bishop continues to praise the pervert's wonderful "pastoral leadership" and intends to put him back in a parish after he returns from counseling.

Let's face it, this is a "wrong." This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Saying the Latin Mass, on the other hand, is not a "wrong." As a matter of fact, it is a "right," one which was guaranteed to all Catholics for all futurity of time.

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.