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.

***Out of a Wisconsin Catholic population of about 1 million+, the SSPX membership is around 1,000.***

How many of the 999,000 non-SSPX are agressively Catholic? How many attend mass weekly and believe Catholic core doctrines?

This seems to be the relevant comparison.

How many of the 999,000 non-SSPX are agressively Catholic?

If you want to compare SSPX and non-SSPX Catholics, it may be more technically correct to ask "how many of the 1million+ have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law" since we know that "formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law". Further to it, whittling down the 1million+ would not be an easy task since Our Lord blessed us, and gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
FReegards!

Aarti is a Divine hymn which is sung as an invocation for the deity to come & bless.

Are you claiming its impossible to do this in a Christian way? Invoke "ho Theos" to come and bless?

I guess you'd say the Church was wrong to use the sacred springs of the pagans as the running waters of Baptismal fonts across Europe, to buidl Cathedrals were pagan worship sites stood, to transform pagan festivities into Christian feasts, or to turn the Pantheon into a Church.

Or is inculturation only valid in Europe but not India?

Of course, speaking of the UN is not exactly germane to this thread--but since you might regard 'speaking about the UN' as ANOTHER heresy...and I'm sure you can come up with some fragment of some letter someplace which would seem to make it so---I'll respond FWIW.

The Pope likes the UN because he's not sold on GWB's "preventive strikes" concept. There's a good reason for that: "preventive strikes" are hard to square with the Just War theory. You may recall that theory--it has to do with morality in war.

"Preventive strikes" are possibly acceptable at the very bleeding edge of the theory, when it is demonstrated that the target nation/state has the will and the way. Even more helpful is a demonstration that the target nation has participated in prior strikes against the country, (obviously in a clandestine fashion.)

IOW, our action in Iraq was marginally acceptable from a moral point of view.

Of course, the Pope's words about the UN have ALWAYS included a conditional phrase to the effect that 'the UN needs reform,' or some such. This is obvious to anyone with two eyes.

The Pope is a liberal, although not quite as naive as Paul VI. Liberals believe that there can be some forum which brings justice and mediates all conflict satisfactorily.

Most of us disagree, and the argument in favor of patriotism is very strong in Church history.

Second answer first: about 30% of Catholics attend Mass weekly (or more often.) Thus, about 1/3 of a million.

As to "aggressive" Catholics--perhaps you'd like to define that term. "Aggressive" seems to describe Tomas deTorquemada rather well. I don't know of any Catholics up here who are fully "like" TdT, who should be canonized.

whittling down the 1million+ would not be an easy task since Our Lord blessed us, and gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Thanks, GS, for another useful angle.

I forgot that some SSPXr's are living in sin, (having invalidly and illicitly attempted 'marriage,') and are also in a very dicey position regarding the validity of their Confessions.

I've mentioned before that I've actually been to India on a Catholic mission and received the same mark on the forehead from a married woman that the Pope received while working in a slum to rebuild one of their parks. (Actually, we were at the "school" in the slum at the time on our first visit to these people, but I digress).

The ceremony had nothing to do with paganism. We didn't hold any lamps or have any chantings of the Vedas. It was explained to us by the leading men as exactly how Dominick and gbcdoj have explained it here - a ceremonial gesture of friendly greeting and blessing God for our coming among them as honored guests. We looked upon it as about the same as receiving a luau upon arriving in Hawaii - especially since we were also give a floral necklace at the same time that had been made by the girls of the school.

Had we thought we were engaging in Shiva worship, we would certainly have fled. (We did see Shiva worship a few weeks later at the slum, when a wild procession of a statue went by as we worked - the procession itself rather reminded me of Italian processions of the Madonna.) And our leader (a devout Catholic) would certainly have known what was going on had that been the case, considering the careful vetting that went into planning our trip.

ur, you are quite simply out of your depth on this one, and don't know what you are talking about.

LOL I don't know what you think about this ninenot, but I would be incredulous if someone presumed that either of these two beauties would never be found to be DEFECTIVE!

The two regularly ingest the consecrated Host.

And your point is.....?

btw, I find it distasteful when a person [moreso even - a non-Catholic] introduces the Body and Blood of Our Savior as some sort of "gotchya!".

Steve, I'm at a loss to explain to you the pastoral situation regarding Ted Kennedy (or Mario Cuomo, or Rudy Giuliani, or.....the list goes on.)

As you have noticed, a great Furor was aroused by a few Bishops who took seriously the Pope's letter on the Eucharist and/or who took seriously Canon 915.

It might be analogous to this: GS took umbrage to your pointed question about the pols and the Eucharist; OTOH, I did not.

I realize that we're dealing with different stakes in the Politician Controversy.

But I still can't explain it. Look, Cardinal Cushing of Boston was not known as a lefty-wonk, and he was comfortable with the Kennedy antics, too, I guess.

***btw, I find it distasteful when a person [moreso even - a non-Catholic] introduces the Body and Blood of Our Savior as some sort of "gotchya!".***

It was a fact. I would think you would reserve all of your offense for CINO politicians who advocate and legalize abortion and then have the gall to ingest the Host in sheer hypocrisy.

For a priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or Pope to allow these men to flaunt Catholic doctrine and take the Eucharist pretending all is well with their souls is also something that should cause you offense unspeakable.

I did not disrespect the Host. In fact, out of respect to you I even capitalized the "H" even though as a Protestant I do not believe in transsubstantiation. My accomodation in capitalization was for you, not me.

Have said before, if I believed the doctrine of the real presence I would be a raging trad.

Appreciate the comments and the tension.

I am reminded of the writings of Malachi Martin (Final Conclave, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church) exhorting the Church to forsake it's pursuit of economic and political clout and focus on its spiritual calling.

I am not one who supports the current SSPX leadership, but the sacramet of marriage conferred by the SSPX, while illregular and in need of regularization, is valid(though annulments by the SSPX are another matter alltogether). As for confessions, because of its irregular status, the validity is a bit more difficult.

I can understand the fustration at the SSPX leadership, I really can, if they regularized their relationship with Rome in late 2001, the traditionalist movment would be FAR ahead of where it is today. I can understand the fustration at Bishop Williamson, who I believe is on the edge of sanity, who has a cult of personality that surrounds him and skirts the lind of Sede territory.

But that said, I think the stones thrown in this forum at many honest faithful who attend the SSPX because their is no other option for a reverent mass, much less a mass that is theologically orthodox in terms of church teahcings and traditions avilable where they live, are disgusting. I know that doesnt excuse the Pope bashing behavior on the part of two traditionalist posters on this forum, but still, walk a mile or even an inch in the shoes of many people who have to go beyond the diocean structure.

Lastly GSS, and to others, why did the Vatican overturn the ex communication of laity who attended SSPX masses(and in fact they paid to fly out the SSPX priest) to Hawaii?

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.