Access Denied SSPX

[Adonis33]

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

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.

Would like to point out that the article had the facts straight (I posted this on another blog). However - it seems to me that the article jumps to conclusion that weren’t there.

After the conversation with the second park ranger - it was our impression that the park service was prepared to prevent us from entering the grounds of the missions. A member of our pilgrimage called a local news channel (he acted on his own), hoping that maybe the rangers would back off a littel when they saw the media. (I had a discussion with him later - he appearred to regret calling the media). When they arrived - Fr. Zigrang had no desire to talk to the media. Nobody from our group talked to the media. It would later turn out that our concerns were unfounded. The rangers at the other parks were cooperative with us.

I think, in my opinion, much of the attention has not been to our benefit. We absolutely do not want to be seen as trouble makers - we have been doing this pilgrimage for seven years - we would like to do it for seven more.

However - there may be people at my parish who feel differently.

 

[Adonis33]

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.

I only speak for myself. In light of reading the ArchDiocese letter - I’m sure that many would also come to the same conclusions I did - but of course you will have those who want to believe otherwise.

 

[otjm]

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.

whatever you are smoking, I would like some too!

 

[mdstanzel]

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

BINGO! Nothing more needed.

 

[mdstanzel]

whatever you are smoking, I would like some too!

Give me some of that. Must really be good.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

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?

That’s the difference. A Muslim is not in communion with the Church, but there is no danger of Catholics thinking that his religion is “real Catholicism”, or that his attendance is anything other than an interfaith gesture.
However SSPX have a program for the Catholic Church which has been rejected by the hierarchy. and if they are permitted to attend Church events that could be taken as implying that their excommunication has been lifted, or that the bishop disagrees with the Pope’s actions.

 

[BobP123]

That’s the difference. A Muslim is not in communion with the Church, but there is no danger of Catholics thinking that his religion is “real Catholicism”, or that his attendance is anything other than an interfaith gesture.
However SSPX have a program for the Catholic Church which has been rejected by the hierarchy. and if they are permitted to attend Church events that could be taken as implying that their excommunication has been lifted, or that the bishop disagrees with the Pope’s actions.

Or that the bishop disagrees with his own synod’s position on the SSPX.

However, it has been reported that many, if not all, appeals to Rome have overturned recent decisions by the bishops which excommunicated SSPX membership in their diocese.

 

[Loy]

Walking_Home;2234200:

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.

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.

The mission chapels are legally owned by the Archbishop but they are all inside federal parks (these parks are pretty tiny comparatively).

The Park Rangers work for the federal government. Although they don’t work for the Archbishop, they must listen to him as legal owner of the chapels, because people who do not have permission to be on Church property are tresspassers. It is their job to enforce the law and keep the peace, just the same as law enforcement officers anywhere else.

Although the Park Ranger made a mistake, I think I can follow his thought processes. I don’t know whether he realized that everyone in the group could enter the chapel as individuals for private devotional prayer. But I think he was under the misapprehension that one way or the other, this group was bound to go into the chapel and assemble as say prayers as a group. He didn’t like the idea that he, as a Park Ranger, might have to arrest these people for trespassing with intent to pray, so he avoided the whole situation by locking the doors. For one reason or another he was under a lot of stress and made the wrong decision. Again, that’s JMO.

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.

Obviously the Park Ranger did not understand what was going on. It would be difficult to determine what exactly he was told, especially if there were a lot of people in the chain of communication. For example, if a chancery official told his secretary to call the park and the park receptionist told the Park Ranger’s superior, well you can imagine all the opportunities for miscommunication. All we know for sure is that the Chancery denies that the Archbishop asked for the doors to be locked.

 

[Frank_Fenn]

I’d like to make a point clear if I may? The SSPX is the bishops and the priests. Not the laity. The laity is not defined as SSPX. Also, please note, that the canonical status of the laity that goes to the SSPX has not been determined, as pointed out to me by my wife.

I thought to clear up any confusion if it exists what the SSPX is, and who is a member of the SSPX.

If access was denied to parishioners then that is also unfair because the parishioners cannot be confused as members of the SSPX.

My wife wanted that clarified about a year ago when she asked the SSPX priest, " who is classified as a member of the SSPX? the priest replied, the bishops and the priests.

 

[Walking_Home]

While technically the Missions may be owned by the diocese—it is apparent that the National Park Service is in charge of administering the Missions themselves. For people to be denied admittance to the Missions based on race or creed would be a violation of the separation between Church and State.

nps.gov/archive/saan/strategicplan/aboutthispark.htm

The park first began operations in 1983, with the signing of several cooperative agreements. These agreements established between the National Park Service, the Archdiocese of San Antonio, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, and the San Antonio Conservation Society, were critical to allow the National Park Service to take over the management of park resources. Additionally, the missions have continued in their role as centers of religious activity, and the cooperating agreement with the Archdiocese allows for both park operations and religious events to occur without violating the Constitutional limitations regarding the separation of Church and State.

nps.gov/archive/saan/strategicplan/stragmission.htm

I. MISSION of the National Park Service at San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park:

The mission of the National Park Service at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is rooted in and grows from the park’s legislated mandate found in the Act of Congress by PL95-629, and approved on November 10, 1978. Our mission statement is a synthesis of this mandated purpose, plus the park’s primary significance as itemized below.

Legislative Intent

The law creating San Antonio Missions National Historical Park mandated the National Park Service to preserve, restore, and interpret the Spanish Missions of San Antonio, Texas for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans.

 

[Loy]

The SSPX is the bishops and the priests. Not the laity.

That is correct.

If access was denied to parishioners then that is also unfair because the parishioners cannot be confused as members of the SSPX.

Everyone should have been permitted to enter, even the SSPX priest. They could not, however, pray in the chapel as a group being led by an SSPX priest.

 

[paramedicgirl]

That is correct.

Everyone should have been permitted to enter, even the SSPX priest. They could not, however, pray in the chapel as a group being led by an SSPX priest.

It surprises me that this group was even denied the ability to pray the rosary as a group.
What were they afraid of a thunderbolt from heaven?

 

[Loy]

It surprises me that this group was even denied the ability to pray the rosary as a group.
What were they afraid of a thunderbolt from heaven?

Prohibiting group prayer is a simple rule that maintains the Archdiocesan control over the chapels.

Even an Eastern Catholic priest in communion with Rome would need to get the permission of the Archbishop to conduct a liturgy in an Archdiocesan oratory. That priest, however, could be disciplined by his bishop.

I’m guessing that permission will continue to be denied until the SSPX places themselves under bishops in communion with Rome.

Otherwise, the Archdiocese sends out the signal that the chapels are open for any group to come in and conduct a prayer service.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Prohibiting group prayer is a simple rule that maintains the Archdiocesan control over the chapels.

Even an Eastern Catholic priest in communion with Rome would need to get the permission of the Archbishop to conduct a liturgy in an Archdiocesan oratory. That priest, however, could be disciplined by his bishop.

I’m guessing that permission will continue to be denied until the SSPX places themselves under bishops in communion with Rome.

Otherwise, the Archdiocese sends out the signal that the chapels are open for any group to come in and conduct a prayer service.

Do you mean, groups other than the SSPX? Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Jews and Muslims can pray as a group there, but not SSPX?

 

[Loy]

While technically the Missions may be owned by the diocese—it is apparent that the National Park Service is in charge of administering the Missions themselves.

I’m not sure if you understand that a Spanish mission encompass more than just a chapel. A mission is a compound of buildings that includes not only a chapel, but everything else a community might need, such as residences, a mill, a bakery, stables, etc. The Archdiocese only owns the chapels, a few other buildings and some of the grounds inside the mission. Having private property within the boundaries of a U.S. Park does not relinquish the owner’s rights. The Archbishop administers the chapels, not the U.S. Government. The fact that the Archbishop owns land inside a federal park does not make him an agent of the U.S. Government. Consequently, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the Archbishop from discriminating as to who may worship inside the chapels.

For people to be denied admittance to the Missions based on race or creed would be a violation of the separation between Church and State.

Everyone is in agreement that the pilgrims should not have been denied access to the parks because of their religious affiliation or status. But that doesn’t give everyone the right to go anywhere they want inside the parks. The chapels remain the private property of the Archdiocese, and anyone who enters the chapels must abide by the conditions that are set by the Archdiocese.

Hopefully the misunderstandings will be corrected without the usual American custom of filing lawsuits.

 

[Loy]

Do you mean, groups other than the SSPX? Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Jews and Muslims can pray as a group there, but not SSPX?

That’s not what I meant. If the Archdiocese were to generally allow the SSPX to conduct liturgies in the chapels, then it would send out a signal that other groups not affiliated with Rome may worship there, too.

 

[paramedicgirl]

That’s not what I meant. If the Archdiocese were to generally allow the SSPX to conduct liturgies in the chapels, then it would send out a signal that other groups not affiliated with Rome may worship there, too.

Thanks for explaining. Are you saying that the SSPX is not affiliated with Rome? I thought they were considered an internal matter of the Church, not in perfect communion with Rome, but not totally disconnected.

 

[otjm]

Thanks for explaining. Are you saying that the SSPX is not affiliated with Rome? I thought they were considered an internal matter of the Church, not in perfect communion with Rome, but not totally disconnected.

There has been genral all around confusion on the issue.

The very bottom line is that there is a great deal of unrest and disagreement within the group fo priests and bishops who hold themselves out as SSPX, who have been ordained under the chain going fack to the prohibited ordination of 4 bishops, Rome is trying to reconcile them to the Church, but it is going to be a long and arduous task as should be obvious to any outside observer.

Some people attend an SSPX church because of disagreements with the Mass of Paul 6th; some because they want the Mass prior to that and cannot find it available in their area by permission of the local bishop; some attend because they reject Vatican 2, or significant parts of it and find sympathy among some of the members of the SSPC priests and bishops. There are probably other reasons too, but those seem to be the majority.

 

[Loy]

Thanks for explaining. Are you saying that the SSPX is not affiliated with Rome? I thought they were considered an internal matter of the Church, not in perfect communion with Rome, but not totally disconnected.

“Not in perfect communion with”, “not affiliated with”; it’s all very difficult to figure out which vocabulary to use. I have a lot of sympathy with anyone, even an archbishop, who doesn’t understand precisely what the canonical status of the SSPX is at this time.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Just a little note here regarding ownership of the Missions…etc. I know for a fact that Mission San Jose is not just a “Mission” but is an active Catholic Parish which has it’s own Mass and Pastor. So it isn’t as if these are just empty buildings, at least some of them are actual living Churches. So the question is not about “federal parks” vs. “Diocese owned buildings”. Rather the question is whether a Bishop should let a group perform a public prayer service in a Catholic Church. I think the answer would have been the same if a group of parishoners asked to hold a TLM Mass in one of the Missions.