Access Denied SSPX

[rlg94086]

I agree with this post, that there must be something missing from the story. It seems bizarre to me that a Bishop would bar anyone from entering a Catholic Church, unless he knew they were going to do something inappropriate. Certainly, a group of Catholics entering to pray the rosary during a non-Mass period of time is not inappropriate.

If they were going to make protest speeches (doubtful) or conduct a Mass without permission (doubtful), or disrupt a Mass then I guess it would make sense.

Besides, while the SSPX may be separated from the Church, aren’t the individual Catholics looked at with different consideration than the organization itself?

The article only tells one side of the story, and we naturally assume it had a bias. Since this group has been there several preceding years, how is it that they were identifiable? Name-tags? Or perhaps was their behavior somewhat proselytizing with banners, literature, vocalizing, etc.

“Locked doors” is a rather radical procedure, so my take is that there had to be something a little more behind the scene than just a few devotional people quietly visiting a site. It would be nice to contact the bishop to learn why this was done before criticizing.

 

[Walking_Home]

Actually the physical Mission Church building is the property of the Diocese and is run by them. I highly doubt that they were denied access to the actual park.

---

Thank you for the correction ByzCath. Now tell me—is there a sign on the front door to the missions —that says—admittance allowed only to those in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Catholig]

This was our seventh annual pilgrimage. The fact that we were not allowed to say prayers in the mission was not unusual. I think since 2004 we were not allowed to have mass or anything as a group in any of the missions.

The issue here is not, in my opinion, whether or not we coupd have gone inside the mission as a group. This has been deied in the past - and we have always respected the wishes of the Bishop. The issue many of us had was when the park ranger told us “I understand that there is a group of people who are not catholic coming to this mission - and they are not allowed in.” We looked around and said - there are Baptists coming? (as a disclaimer - nothing against baptist - I think it was the only group that came to mind at the time)

Another issue we had is - although as a group we were denied access (Which I can personally understand) - on this particular day they LOCKED THE DOOR to keep us out. We could always go in individually and make our private intentions. They also locked the door at Mission San Juan to deny access.

The missions are owned and funded by the federal government, and operated with a cooperative relationship with the Archdiocese. But this is federal property. The daily operations are done by the park service. Imagine an employee of the federal government telling a group of people “access denied” to a tax payer historical sight - opened to the public - based on their affiliation.

To be denied as a group - I think most of us understood - but as individuals. I think that was illegal.

I’m not sure about the whole affair, however one who considers SPPX schismatic could legitimately say that they aren’t catholic -just as he could say that Orthodox or Protestants aren’t “Catholic”.

As for the Mission being Gov’t property - I remember hearing on the news something about one of the missions asking for gov’t funding to preserve it as a landmark of sorts, but being denied because it was a religious institute or some such. I’m not sure how this squares w/ the gov’t owning them. (not that I want the gov’t to own them . Hopefully if they are gov’t property they weren’t taken like those Churches in France)

Catholig

 

[bkovacs]

There certainly is a lot of confusion on this topic to be sure.But the fact remains that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of Ecclesia Dei has repeatedly and as recently as a few months ago said that Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass.

He also has said that " neither the piests of the SSPX nor the faithful are schismatics or heretics" but that the bishops still have an irregular status that needs to be worked out.There also may be an issue with confessions since the priests do not have jurisdiction.

At any rate we are permitted to attend their chapels provided that the motivation is love for the Tridentine Mass.

I do not belong to an SSPX parish.But I do go to one occasionally to attend the Latin Mass.And for the record I’ve never heard the pope attacked.In fact there’s a picture of our Holy Father B16 hanging on the wall right when you walk in.

The priests there don’t get into Church politics at all.They preach on Heaven,Hell,confession,sin,the Real Presence,and the teachings of the saints as well as the writings of men like Bishop Sheen.The stuff all priests should be preaching on-Traditional,Novus Ordo or otherwise.

So yes the Archbishop of San Antonio was wrong.

QUOTE=bear06;2234495]Statement from the diocese:
youngtraditionalcatholics.com/media/ROI-SA.pdf

Department of Communication
Archdiocese of San Antonio
May 17, 2007
Response to Inquiry
Concerning the Society of St. Pius X’s visit to the Old Spanish Missions
The Archdiocese of San Antonio welcomes all people of faith and good will to pray with us in our churches. However, groups not in communion with Rome are not permitted to conduct public services in our churches without our participation. Our position in this matter is consistent with the policies of the Holy See and the
Roman Catholic Bishops of Texas.

Archbishop José H. Gomez has always held the position that persons of faith and goodwill are welcome to engage in private prayer at all of our churches. It was unfortunate that some of the missions were locked for part of Saturday, May 12, but they were not locked at the direction of the archbishop. San Francisco de la
Espada Mission was in fact open and the group was invited to enter and pray privately, but was advised that it could not have a formal prayer service. A few
members did accept the invitation and spent some time in prayer in the church.

The Archdiocese of San Antonio is enriched frequently when we conduct prayer services in our churches with our friends belonging to many faith traditions.

Deacon Pat Rodgers
Director of Communication
Archdiocese of San Antonio

 

[rlg94086]

And the commentary from the person who received that letter is here youngtraditionalcatholics.com/

Oops…I missed your and bear06’s posts before making mine.

So in response to the commentary from the person who received the letter. They don’t seem to be in the right state of mind:

“San Francisco de la Espada Mission was in fact open and the group was invited to enter and pray privately, but was advised that it could not have a formal prayer service. A few members did accept the invitation and spent some time in prayer in the church.”

Oh how big of them! An invitation with a condition! “***Yeah…come on in! But if we hear one word of Latin, or any of that ‘old stuff’, you’re gone!! ***We better not see two of you next to each other!! That would be TOO public!”

There is no evidence that the Bishop would have had any problem with someone praying in Latin.

I think the Bishop is right to not allow formal prayer services without his approval and/or participation. If these devout Catholics were genuine in their desire just to pray, then they should have gone in and prayed quietly. They obviously had something more in mind.

Question…did they contact the Archdiocese and try to arrange a community rosary to be prayed in the missions? If so, were they rebuffed? Or did they just show up expecting to do it on their own? I’m not clear on that.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Oops…I missed your and bear06’s posts before making mine.

So in response to the commentary from the person who received the letter. They don’t seem to be in the right state of mind:

There is no evidence that the Bishop would have had any problem with someone praying in Latin.

I think the Bishop is right to not allow formal prayer services without his approval and/or participation. If these devout Catholics were genuine in their desire just to pray, then they should have gone in and prayed quietly. They obviously had something more in mind.

Question…did they contact the Archdiocese and try to arrange a community rosary to be prayed in the missions? If so, were they rebuffed? Or did they just show up expecting to do it on their own? I’m not clear on that.

Did you read Adonis33’s posts? He was there. I’m not sure the author of the YTC website was there. So it may not be fair to make quantifying statements based on what YTC wrote in response to the Bishop’s letter.

 

[Genesis315]

From the tone of the blog and the manner the blogger interpreted the letter, it is apparent that he is suffering with some difficult spiritual issues. Let us pray that he comes to the necessary self-knowledge to let go of his impatience, anger, bitter demands, and complaining, directed towards others, and that he finds the peace he needs for his soul.

 

[rlg94086]

Did you read Adonis33’s posts? He was there. I’m not sure the author of the YTC website was there. So it may not be fair to make quantifying statements based on what YTC wrote in response to the Bishop’s letter.

I had read it, but it seemed at odds with the YTC account, so I didn’t know whether Adonis33’s account was representative of the thoughts of the majority of the group or just one person’s.

Fair enough. So, the YTC website may not be indicative of the group’s attitude. If Adonis33’s account is more the case, then this is much ado about nothing in regards to the Bishop. It sounds like the park rangers misunderstood the concerns of the Bishop and acted inappropriately.

 

[BobP123]

Let me get this straight. People were denied access to federally owned and run missions that are open to the public. Now the public would be any race or creed. A park ranger by orders of the bishop denied them access. It would seem there are legal implications involved that extend to the Church (by way of the bishop) and also the federal govt. (by way of the park ranger).

My feelings exactly. If the bishop hired public servants to defend publicly-funded property, then definitely he is out of bounds and abuses church money. That the group is SSPX or EC or Lutheran or whatever is immaterial.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Pope wants full communion with the SSPX not separation. The actions of the Archbishop were outright wrong. Considering the Pope’s wish. He should have allowed them. For the sake of embracing them, and showing a yearning for communion.

The Pope wants full communion with all schismatics and heretics. It’s his job.

 

[TNT]

The Pope wants full communion with the SSPX not separation. The actions of the Archbishop were outright wrong. Considering the Pope’s wish. He should have allowed them. For the sake of embracing them, and showing a yearning for communion.

This is known as Ecumenating…a Dogma of the Church of Love…So, SOMEBODY’s bein disO******.

 

[TNT]

I had read it, but it seemed at odds with the YTC account, so I didn’t know whether Adonis33’s account was representative of the thoughts of the majority of the group or just one person’s.

Fair enough. So, the YTC website may not be indicative of the group’s attitude. If Adonis33’s account is more the case, then this is much ado about nothing in regards to the Bishop. It sounds like the park rangers misunderstood the concerns of the Bishop and acted inappropriately.

Park Rangers are inherently prone to inappropriateness??? And bishop said NOTHING to them???
How far does a rubber band stretch anyway?

 

[rlg94086]

Park Rangers are inherently prone to inappropriateness??? And bishop said NOTHING to them???
How far does a rubber band stretch anyway?

What are you talking about? I’ve seen a posting by someone who was there that his group probably did not get proper permission and that the doors were locked at only one of the missions. I have seen no evidence that the Bishop told the park rangers to lock the doors at that mission. And they probably didn’t lock them with rubber bands.

Do you have some knowledge of something the Bishop did that no one else has presented? If so, cough it up. Otherwise, you need to be careful which way you stretch your rubber band, or you will end up shooting yourself in the eye. If you are lucky, you shoot the eye that has a board in it.

 

[BobP123]

 

[rtconstant]

The Pope wants full communion with the SSPX not separation. The actions of the Archbishop were outright wrong. Considering the Pope’s wish. He should have allowed them. For the sake of embracing them, and showing a yearning for communion.

I agree that the Pope wants Communion with all believers. However, the SSPX’s seperation was their choice and it remains their choice.

That said…

Adonis thanks for your post I appreciate you stating your side of things especailly since you were there.

I guess I have a few more questions then. First, the property in question is it Federal land? If so was the diocese’s use of the property exclusive that day (was it a private party so to speak)? If so then the Bishop did have a right to do what he did even though it wasn’t exactly the most charitable action.

Also are we sure that the Park Ranger understood exactly what was going on? The phrase “not Catholic” could have been a misinterpretation of the reason behind the request. Not trying to make excuses just pointing out a possibility. The Bishop may have very well said that. Some Catholics feel that way about the SSPX.

 

[Loy]

Park Rangers are inherently prone to inappropriateness???

The Park Ranger was very nervous regarding an obviously peaceful group. I think we can presume that he was under a gross misapprehension of the situation. I can’t say for certain whether the Archbishop said anything to cause this, but in past SSPX pilgrimages he didn’t warn the Park Rangers of any danger or request the doors to be locked. That would lead me to believe he didn’t do it this time. I don’t know anything specifically about the Park Ranger except that he was nervous. If the cause for alarm didn’t come from the Archbishop, I can’t understand why the Park Ranger would be nervous unless perhaps he was a newbie.

Let me give you an example. When I’m praying with others in front of an abortion clinic, the newbie police officers will keep circling us and then eventually question us extensively about what we’re doing. Experienced officers just smile, wave and keep on driving. They know we’re not up to anything.

Given my limited understanding of what happened, I would be more likely to believe that the Park Ranger was a rookie. I don’t know that for a fact, and it’s JMO, of course.

And bishop said NOTHING to them???

Something was said. The real question is whether it was anything beyond not allowing the group to conduct a liturgy within the mission chapels.

 

[Adonis33]

Park Rangers are inherently prone to inappropriateness??? And bishop said NOTHING to them???
How far does a rubber band stretch anyway?

The Bishop did say something to them. I’m just not sure if he asked them to lock the door. He could have - but I find that odd since the park rangers do not take orders from the local Bishop.

The doors have never been locked in the past. Althought we could not say mass, or say a public rosary in the church, we could always enter and make our own private devotions.

In 2003 - if my memory serves - we actually had mass inside Mission Conception. in 2004 - we could not have mass - but we could have mass right next to Conception. in 2005 - we had to go out to the “Free Speech” area - on the curb by the road, to have mass. I the past these things were coodinated by Fr. Pfieffer. He was in constant contact with the priests in each of the parishes - and had al least a coordial relationship with them. At no time were we not allowed to enter the mission grounds. The rangers main concern has mainly been the tourists.

Over the years we have done a very good job at respecting the direction of the rangers - and the archdiocese. There has never been a scene before. It seems strange to me that they, out of the blue, expected us to do something inappropriate this time - unless they consider Bendiction, or a Litany, or a Rosay inappropriate.

The message from Bishop Gomez seems to be consistant with what has happenned in years past. Mission Espada was in fact open - and many of us did enter. I am willing to give our Bishop the benefit of the doubt. Again - in my opinion, I think it may have been a park ranger who panicked a little and locked the door. But I may be wrong.

 

[Joysong]

Loy:

Something was said. The real question is whether it was anything beyond not allowing the group to conduct a liturgy within the mission chapels.

I agree with Loy. It does in fact remain a question, no? Then why is this discussion taking place?
OP:

The current US Bishops are really going to listen to the Pope with regard to Traditionalists. Not!.
[Can you wonder why they would listen to Traditionists after a post like this?]

youngtraditionalcatholics…nies-trad.html
Hopefully Pope Benedict will have a long talk with this Bishop as well!.

I sent the dear Archbishop an e-mail requesting a written apology by himself to the entire SSPX. And stated that they are more loyal to the Pope and Catholic teachings than many so-called real Catholics.

Incredible. I did not see that the OP was present in the circumstance, and he has only a word of a blogger who is obviously disgruntled. This prompted a demand for an apology to the entire SSPX?!! There is no injustice proven here, for all of the facts are not in. But the dismay toward the bishops in the OP without evidence is very, very discouraging. Since when is a bishop on trial at the mere word of a blogger who treads serious water by slandering his good name on the internet.

 

[Loy]

Incredible. I did not see that the OP was present in the circumstance,

Bkovacs is the OP, but I don’t think he was present. Adonis is the one who is giving us the first hand account. It seems apparent that Adonis kept a level head throughout the entire incident. It’s very difficult to keep everyone in a group on the same page, however, and I’ll wager that someone in the group presented a different version of what happened to the YLM blog. It’s always a good idea to verify what one reads on the internet, and hopefully Bkovacs will have a different view on the matter after having heard from a witness who was present and in a position to understand what happened.

 

[John_Crucis]

If the Muslims or Jews were going there to perform publicly rites of their religion would then the park ranger have been right in forbidding them entry?

If a group calling itself Catholic NOT in communion with the local Catholic bishop approach the location to engage in a public display of worship, would it be wrong for the local Catholic bishop to warn the park ranger that the group was NOT in communion with him? And therefore should be thwarted in their attempt at public worship as Catholic when in reality they are NOT in communion with the Catholic bishop of the place?

John