Posted on 05/13/2007 3:42:05 PM PDT by xangel0228
On Saturday, May 12th, a contingent of Traditional Catholics in San Antonio, TX perform their annual “Pilgrimage along the Mission Trail” to celebrate and remember the sacrifice and service of the original Catholic Missionaries that pioneered the Catholic Church in Texas.
The near 7 mile walk starts at Mission Concepcion and end at Mission Espada. At each mission, the group would stop and say a certain devotion, whether it be the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, or the Litany of St. Joseph.
Sounds harmless, especially since the Missions received thousands of visitors a year, from all faiths, right?
Wrong.
When this contingent of Catholics arrived at the first mission, Mission Concepcion, they were told by an obviously nervous Park Ranger that they were not to enter the mission, by order or Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, the Archbishop of San Antonio.
(Excerpt) Read more at youngtraditionalcatholics.com ...
See my #31. I think that explains the confusion over the term “traditional.”
My first thought was that the Archbishop was being a little persnickety, but I changed my mind after reading the thread.
Thanks, that was informative, too.
Everyone here would totally support the bishop if the group was Catholics for Free Choice. To me, it’s the same thing.
I want to say, "It's not the same, because ..." but I'm having trouble filling in anything after the "because." Maybe "because they're not necessarily bad people!"
The Archbishop's point, I think, must be related to its being a public, group event of self-described Catholics. (No, I'm not making a statement about whether they are Catholic or not; the question is beyond me.) If it were a tour group from the United Methodist church seeing the historic sites, it wouldn't have the potential to create confusion regarding the Catholic Church.
The Remnant: Schismatic trash. Ecclesia Dei excommunicated the SSPX bishops and their adherents and declared their movement a schism. John Paul II made that ruling and Castrillon de Hoyos has NO ASUTHORITY to poverrule a pope. Nor do the moonbats at The Remnant. More later.
ASUTHORITY=AUTHORITY
So fine... if you are going to block NON-CATHOLICS from entering the Mission... then the Park should be made “Post Vatican II (Novus Ordo) Catholic Only”..
This has tangented into a whole other conversation, but the bottom line is this:
If the Archbishop is not going to allow Trad Caths into a mission...citing they are not “catholic”...then block ALL OTHERS who are not born, bred, baptized Catholics. That means no Jews, No Muslims, no Protestants...no one else.
Do you see what I am getting at here?
I would LAY MONEY if I was to go to the Mission (the actual church) right now.. it would be open, and plenty of “non-catholics” would be in there. (I am actually thinking about doing this to prove a point.)
So if the point is stop “non-catholics” from entering the Church itself, then the park can remain open to the public...but yet the actual CHURCH should be closed to prevent the possible “non-catholic.”
Or are SSPX’ers and other Traditional Catholics the only ones that are “not Catholic?”
Of course I do, but since it's a strawman argument, it's hardly relevant.
Unless I see a report from a reliable news source, rather than "someone said someone said someone said," it's really not meaningful to try to interpret the Archbishop's intentions.
I was thinking that “ASUthority” had to do with “Appalachian State University” :-).
“Unless I see a report from a reliable news source, rather than “someone said someone said someone said,” it’s really not meaningful to try to interpret the Archbishop’s intentions.”
Will an official statement from the Archdiocese due? I Am awaiting their release. I ahve made contact with the “media office” of teh Archdiocese. They have called me back, and said they are working on a release.
(this just happened not too long ago)
Yes, a report from the Archdiocese would certainly make it clear what happened and what their point is, without the possibility of confusion.
I should emphasize that I’m not questioning the honesty of your report, just the accuracy, because the story appears to have come to you through several hands. As in the children’s “pass it on” game, it can be hard to keep the details correct!
Cardinal Castrillón says, "The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions..."
He also says:
Please accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra." The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.Blackelk wants to be Pope and tell us what the Church says. I trust what the officials the Church has appointed to deal with this problem and what they say.
My diocese isn’t nearly as big as San Antonio, and it’s tough to get through to them, too.
The cheerleaders for the schismatic excommunicati of SSPX have been promising that Benedict XVI will come to their assistance any day now or last year or the year before that. WHY??? Because their liturgical tastes have been offended! And who are a couple of mere popes to disobey the schismatic excommunicati. The softsoap is applied by the cheerleaders for SSPX while the raging toxins are provided by the excommunicati themselves like de Mallerais, Williamson, Fellay, et al., and their poisonous publications and by the fellow traveler publications like The Remnant, produced by the wingnut branch of the Matt Family and publishing a regular flood of antiAmerican paleofantasies along with a regular flood of antiCatholic proschismatic softsoap.
If Benedict XVI or ANY OTHER future pope lifts the excommunications and recognizes SSPX as schismatic rather than Catholic, I shall follow without argument. Can the SSPX cheerleading squad offer the same loyalty to the Holy See?
Finally, if anyone references the Monsignor Perle letters, let them publish the entire text of the letter(s) TO and FROM Monsignor Perle rather than the dishonestly truncated versions published by SSPX and its sycophants to mislead the actual Faithful and entice them into schism.
And, since you claim to accept Church authority, do you then accept the plain terms of John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei that specifically noted the excommunication of the SSPX ecclesiastical criminals and declared their evil movement a schism? If not, why not and why should anyone accept the non-authoritative speculations of Dario Castrillon de Hoyos which are ridiculous on their face?
The poison enthusiastically dumped here by the ton on the person and office of John Paul II during his lifetime by the self-worshiping SSPX schizzies is more than sufficient evidence of what SSPX is: a band of excommunicated schismatics enraged at John Paul II for discharging his papal responsibilities to protect the actually Catholic flock from their evils.
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia.
Roma Locuta. Causa Finita.
Why are you in charge and do you know how to spell check.I read the report and to go so far as to post your headlines is sad.
While I certainly recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, I attend diocesan Tridentine Mass each week courtesy of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford. I resent the SSPX fraud of claiming that their schism is "Catholic" and the schism's interference with the restoration of the Tridentine Mass, which is an interference carried out by their perpetual state of rebellion against legitimate Church authority.
Examples: On what authority (certainly not diocesan) do SSPX purport to hear ordinary every day confessions. They have no diocesan faculties. Or to purport to witness on behalf of the Church to which they do NOT belong and again extends them no faculties the marriages of people purporting to be Roman Catholics?
If the mission has passed into the hands of the state, it would seem that the bishop no longer has authority. If he has authority and the property is still that of the Catholic Church (the actual Church HQd in the Vatican and having bishops throughout the world and not the phony schismatic SSPX club of rebels who love to pose as "Catholic" while being anything but obedient to Church authority), then good for Bishop Gomez and whom he excludes and whom he includes is simply none of the schism's non-Catholic and anti-Catholic business.
The schizzies NEVER seem to get it that they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever among actual Catholics.
steve86: So, according to the schismatic excommunicati of SSPX (see Ecclesia Dei of JP II), John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI whom Bishop Garcia obeys are “Nazis.” I bet you think you and the SSPX schismatic excommunicati are Catholic whatever your screen name used to be. You seem to be rather obviously wrong on that.
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.