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.

It's not beside the point; you're the one who brought up world peace as a pathetic defense of the Assisi sacrileges.

I wasn't defending them - just pointing out that they by no means condemn evangelization in favor of "dialogue" (what does "dialogue" have to do with prayer in common, anyway?).

You are the one who says that the Pope is opposed to evangelization and thinks only of "dialogue", something which you cannot prove in the least.

What Mass do you think was being celebrated say from 1964-1967 which had been so vulgarized that Fr. Gommar de Pauw coined the term hootenanny Mass to describe the first Clown Masses and the like? It certainly wasn't the Novus Ordo.

It certainly wasn't the traditional Latin Mass either! I'm sure you know very well that a New Mass was approved in 1964, one that closely resembles the official New Mass of Pope Paul VI. Fortunately it still had the Latin Offertory and Consecration, so the heart of the Mass was untouched. But all the other parts of the Mass were translated into the vernacular and open to "inculturation" and experiments to encourage the "full and active participation of the congregation" -- precisely things like Hootenanny Masses.

So I hope you weren't deliberately encouraging the false impression that the Mass being travestied during the period from 1964 - 1967 was the traditional Latin Mass.

1. The pope, according to the schism, cannot judge Marcel's internal disposition by Marcel's outward actions (which is done in every civil annd crimnal court in our land) when the pope was certainly well-acquainted with Marcel personally.

2. The self-serving SSPX schism, however, at least according to the schism, can decide, without so much as personal acquaintance of a given priest in communion with the Holy See or witnessing a given NO Mass what that priest's internal disposition was. Right, chief! Sure!

3. The experience of arguing with any of the schismatic satraps is like arguing with John Francois Kerry. Marcel's ittle legion will stay on message because they have such a narrow agenda to defend. There will never be a meeting of minds or engagement on issues (not that y'all deserve to be engaged on what pass for issues in the schism).

4. I don't miss your point. I find your point without substance, credibility or excuse. I disagree with your point. I regard your point as just so much schismatic propaganda. After all, if you guys can hurl hatred at the pope 24/7/365 in the guise of disagreeing with him, I guess Catholics can certainly disagree with you. Or did Marcel forbid us to disagree with those ensnared in the schism?

5. The last paragraph of your post stands on its own as one of the most farfetched ever posted even here bu the "trads" without a pope.

6. As often as you claim the schism to be Catholicism while it rejects the Novus Ordo Mass (as though the schism had the authority to do anything) as invalid, the point must be made to those new to the argument or forgetful that SSPX does, in fact, in its own publications reject the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and reject the Indult Tridentine Masses as fit for Catholics on the ground that it may lead us into diasagreeing with the all self-worshipping schism on the NO Masses (or because Tridentine Masses said by priests in communion with actual diocesan bishops and with the Holy Father may take some pittance or more from the hungry coffers of SSPX and the non-stop propaganda campaign of SSPX against the Roman Catholic Church???).

7. Of course, the schism spokesfolks here would NEVER, EVER, even think of repeating themselves, now would they???? They don't have to. Their needle is stuck.

UR: People who "respect" or even agree with your contortions of reality on Ecclesia Dei's declarations that SSPX is a schism and that Marcel and the Econe 4 were excommunicated reject the words of the pope whose authority you lack. They come in various categories: SSPX schismatics; SSPX excommunicatees; dupes of SSPX; people poorly catechized; non-Catholics; the gullible; people who are ever hearing from their internal voices the words of Pasternak's fictional KGB General Yevgraf Zhivago: "Don't you believe? Don't you WANT to believe????"

Also, I am jealous. Dominick has been arguing with you for much less time than I but he gets his posts ignored by you! In the spirit of the otherwise saintly late Bishop Castro de Mayer: Hey, whaddabout me?????

Compare the 1964 Missal to that of 1962. The only difference of any substance is the allowance of the vernacular in lieu of any Latin for certain readings and prayers. The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular. It was however, the same words. And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses. There is certainly nothing special about the Tridentine Missal that protects it from abuses like that.

The 1970 Missal has the "In spiritu humilitatis" and the "Orate fratres", which both express the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Admittedly, there is no prayer as exact as the "Suscipe sancta", but this is made up for by the Canon which clearly shows that the "sacrifice" referred to is that of Christ.

Really, who cares what the offertory says or if there is even a significant offertory at all?

There certainly wasn't one worth writing home about for the first 1000 years of the Roman Rite, since the offertory in the early liturgical books was nothing more than the Offertory Procession, Chant and Secret.

I certainly like the Tridentine Offertory prayers, but it is hardly an essential of the Mass, unlike the Canon. No reason to get hung up on such minor details and nuances.

To the Modernist, the sacrifice of the Tridentine Mass is also one of only praise and thanksgiving. This is because Modernists don't accept the clear words of the Mass given to us by the church - not because of a defect in the Mass. The fact remains that no Protestant could in good conscience say the Canon of the Novus Ordo:

The Roman Canon is actually more Protestantistic in some ways, especially the infamous phrase "ut nobis" in the prayer "Quam oblationem", which could easily be misinterpreted in an Anglican/Cranmerian sense that the Real Presence the Canon speaks of is only "for us" and not an objective reality, thus reducing the sacrifice to a mere offering of bread and wine. Canon III of the 1970 Missal, for example, omits this imprecision. Why can the combination of "ut nobis" and the dropping of the formal epiklesis not be taken as "proof" that the Gregorian/Tridentine Canon denies the Real Presence, but some minor rewording of the Offertory is sufficient proof for the 1970 Missal?

Compare the 1964 Missal to that of 1962.

I have a copy right here in front of me, and the difference from the traditional Latin Mass is night and day. It entirely incorporates the spirit of Vatican II and the New Mass.

The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular.

Your stance of being a traditionalist at heart but just loyal to Rome is betrayed when you make statements like this. Rather than being "universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 missal," the reality is that not a single traditionalist on the face of the Earth is using the 1964 version of the Mass. Nor would they. It is universally execrated, by traditionalists as a betrayal of the traditional Latin Mass, and by liturgical revolutionaries as not revolutionary enough.

And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses.

Thank you for admitting that it was never the traditional Latin Mass that ever allowed even "the first Clown Mass," but rather the post-Vatican II 1964 Missal which first allowed sacrilege and heterodoxy to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Also, I am jealous. Dominick has been arguing with you for much less time than I but he gets his posts ignored by you!

In the fine tradition of the "traditionalist" SSPX, he fled the field. When you are presented with an abuse, you leave the Mass and the Church and leave the Abuser to feel he is right.

I have much less in common with the Buddha Worshiping Priest than I do with UR. It is a shame that one has to go so far afield, and maybe run the risk of being lost, but when he returns to the Catholic Church, what a shout there will be in Heaven, and what a groan will come from the Mass abusing liberal intelligentsia.

UR isn't a dumb guy, he has bad company. I like to paraphrase Don Bosco, 'a bad companion is worse than a thousand devils'.

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.