Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOMEZ DENIES TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS ACCESS TO MISSIONS, STATES THEY "ARE NOT CATHOLIC"
Young Traditional Catholics ^ | THE SERVER X-ANGEL

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 ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; gomez; sanantonio; sspxers; traditional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 05/13/2007 3:42:08 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

‘This Catholic contingent is member of what would be considered a “renegade” chapel in San Antonio that belongs to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The SSPX is considered to be in a “schismatic” status since they adhere to the Traditional Rite of the Catholic Mass that was celebrated before the changes of the Second Vatican Council.’


2 posted on 05/13/2007 3:47:45 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation

Where does Bishop Garcia fall in our list of good/bad Bishops? Not too impressed by this action certainly. I’m guessing the Traditional Catholics were SSPX.


3 posted on 05/13/2007 3:48:16 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
The SSPX is considered to be in a “schismatic” status since they adhere to the Traditional Rite of the Catholic Mass that was celebrated before the changes of the Second Vatican Council.’

Since the Church allows the Traditional Rite to be celebrated in accordance with Ecclesia Dei, the adherence to the "Traditional Rite" is obviously NOT the reason why the SSPX is in schism.

4 posted on 05/13/2007 3:57:51 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

I have no good/bad data on Garcia. Since he is Novus Ordo...he is probably well intentioned..but misguided.


5 posted on 05/13/2007 4:01:21 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

“There is also the highly debated act of the consecration of 4 bishops by the Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve in 1988 which some contest lead to automatic excommunication – the highest punishment the Church can bestow.”

Quoting myself — from my own article.


6 posted on 05/13/2007 4:03:01 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

You’ll find there are quite a few of us “Novus Ordo Catholics” on Free Republic, so I wouldn’t start painting with a broad brush. I would say that their is a particular SSPX Bishop (Williamson comes to mind) who is perhaps well intentioned, but fundamentally misguided, so its not confined to Novus Ordo.


7 posted on 05/13/2007 4:13:12 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

I don’t see how he can deny them admission to the Mission, particularly if it’s run by the Park Service. This is a very strange story. I don’t know anything about Gomez, but it would be interesting to learn more from anybody who knows.


8 posted on 05/13/2007 4:17:40 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

Probably better to wait a little while on this story to see if its legit.

But it’s probably true.


9 posted on 05/13/2007 4:20:40 PM PDT by sandhills
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

“I would say that their is a particular SSPX Bishop (Williamson comes to mind) who is perhaps well intentioned, but fundamentally misguided, so its not confined to Novus Ordo.”

What is misguided about anything that the trad side of Catholicism does? (Other than the sedevacanist/conclavist/dogmatist movement)

We just want the church the way it was...because the way it is now...is too friggin politcally correct to call a spade a spade. You’ll reach out to everyone else...except yourselves...pleeease


10 posted on 05/13/2007 4:26:09 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sandhills

“Probably better to wait a little while on this story to see if its legit.

But it’s probably true.”

You are darn skippy it’s true. I have evidence from the pulpit...and I should have evidence from teh Archdiosecse tommorow


11 posted on 05/13/2007 4:27:23 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: livius

“I don’t see how he can deny them admission to the Mission, particularly if it’s run by the Park Service. This is a very strange story. I don’t know anything about Gomez, but it would be interesting to learn more from anybody who knows”

It’s a strange relationship.. the parks/area around the churches are run by the park service (from what my knowledge states) but the actual churches are ran by the Archdioscese. I am endeavoring to get clarification on this, but from what my sources tell me...this is the case.


12 posted on 05/13/2007 4:29:57 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

** Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, the Archbishop of San Antonio**

BTTT for further comment.


13 posted on 05/13/2007 4:30:27 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat; xangel0228

Don’t you mean **Archbishop Jose H. Gomez** from the article?


14 posted on 05/13/2007 4:32:27 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

I see. I know there are some missions in California that function the same way, and there are also some that are more or less separate but where Catholics are allowed to have services on certain days of the year. The same applies to the Orthodox at Fort Ross.

Still, it’s pretty weird; I don’t see how he could prevent them from saying the Rosary there, if that’s all they wanted to do.


15 posted on 05/13/2007 4:34:13 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228
What is misguided about anything that the trad side of Catholicism does?

Is this a self-parody? It sure sounds like it!

16 posted on 05/13/2007 4:34:21 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Death is perishable. Faith is eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat; Salvation
I’m guessing the Traditional Catholics were SSPX.

That is correct. Despite their great devotion to maintaining the pre-Vatican Latin liturgy, they have separated themselves from the Magisterium. They are not the first nor will they be the last to sever ties with the successor of St. Peter. As Catholics, we pray that one day they will be returned to the fold. Until then, Bishop Garcia is to be respected for his actions.

17 posted on 05/13/2007 4:35:32 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: livius

The Traditional Catholic movement is no friend of Christ, from the reports made in the press over the past few months. This is not to confuse TC with RCC or Orthodox believers. Mexican TCs around Oaxaca have been burning down Protestant church buildings, taxing those who leave the TC and imprisoning their families.

There are many reports they are mixing animalism and pagan rites with Catholic tradition, resulting in a blasphemous mix.


18 posted on 05/13/2007 4:36:37 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

Are you familiar with Bishop Williamson? He is most definitely misguided, though perhaps well-intentioned. He’s even threatened schism within SSPX if Bishop Fellay pursues reunion with Rome.

And you answered your question with what could possibly be misguided about Traditional Roman Catholicism. The movement in and of itself is not misguided, but when it delves into Sedvecantism and Anti-Semitism (as it sometimes in certain groups does), it becomes misguided.


19 posted on 05/13/2007 4:48:24 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

You’re confusing traditional Catholics in America with religious issues in Mexico. Try not to put much trust in “reports made in the press.”


20 posted on 05/13/2007 4:49:18 PM PDT by marsh_of_mists
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat; xangel0228
The movement in and of itself is not misguided, but when it delves into Sedvecantism and Anti-Semitism (as it sometimes in certain groups does), it becomes misguided.

Bitterness, crankiness, and conspiracy theorizing are other common pitfalls, sad to say.
21 posted on 05/13/2007 4:51:05 PM PDT by marsh_of_mists
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Your source for what now a sewer rumor?
22 posted on 05/13/2007 4:53:12 PM PDT by Robert Drobot (Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: livius; xangel0228; NYer; BlackElk

Our only source for this information is someone who thinks his “side” of Catholicism is incapable of doing anything misguided. (”Is Christ divided?” dear St. Paul ranted ...) This suggests a lack of objectivity that leaves plenty of “benefit of the doubt” for Archbishop Gomez.


23 posted on 05/13/2007 5:01:59 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Death is perishable. Faith is eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

I seriously doubt that Traditional Catholics, particularly SSPX, are mixing animism and pagan rites into their worship! From what I have read of the events in Mexico, it had to do with land disputes and the several warring parties down there - Protestant Evangelicals, ordinary Catholics, left wing “base community” Catholics, Marxists, and followers of pagan cults, all mixing it up over a non-religious dispute.

Traditional Catholics are pretty harmless. They are, by the way, not all members of these schismatic groups. And even the more extreme elements of the SSPX may foam at the mouth a lot, metaphorically speaking, and be unpleasant to be around, but they normally just a nuisance, even to those of their own community.


24 posted on 05/13/2007 5:19:26 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1784162/posts


25 posted on 05/13/2007 5:24:47 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“Our only source for this information is someone who thinks his “side” of Catholicism is incapable of doing anything misguided. (”Is Christ divided?” dear St. Paul ranted ...) This suggests a lack of objectivity that leaves plenty of “benefit of the doubt” for Archbishop Gomez.”

Excuse me...but I think that I clearly stated that those who are sedevacanist/conclavist/dogmatists are doing something wrong.

And I love how those who are novus ordo apparently do no wrong..it’s only us traditionalists who are wrong.


26 posted on 05/13/2007 5:28:54 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: livius

My info was from several articles associated with the above link.

Is there a more accepted form of ‘Traditional Catholic’ which more closely abides in faith through Christ? I ask this sincerely.

My post was not to be argumentative, but respectful of many true believers who are Catholics through faith in Christ and hold their love for God through faith in Christ first before they promote other good works.

Recently, I have observed many reports and trends by those who do not have faith in Christ first, but seek to perform good works independent of God, thinking their religious and moral behavior is sufficient for rewards independent of faith in Christ. In other situations, I’ve also seen those who exhibit very antiChristian behavior attempt to build worldly systems in religious garb, riding on the coattails of the name “Catholic” in an attempt to promote false worldly systems counterfeiting God’s plan.

For example, there are many within communist nations such as Castro and Chavez, as well as some Nicaraguan groups which have attempted to substitute socialism for the Gospel. Since the Catholic Church is well recognized, those same groups seem to migrate their socialist priorities into the religious garb of Catholicism to counterfeit a fake gospel to those who have not known better.

The same movements appear to be headed north, perhaps accompanying those aliens encroaching here in the US.

Is the SSPX the same group which incarcerated evangelicals in Chiapas recently?


27 posted on 05/13/2007 5:39:10 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

No where has someone claimed that “Novus Ordo Catholics” are incapable of doing wrong. I’ve never seen you post in the religion forum, but I suggest you do a search for anything about Cardinal Mahoney among others and you will find that you are very much mistaken.

But you did claim that Traditional Catholics aren’t well intentioned but misguided ever; caveating that with a rather large segment of the Traditional Movement (but by no means a majority). So you do think your side of the Traditional Movement is incapable of being misguided.


28 posted on 05/13/2007 5:42:52 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

But you did claim that Traditional Catholics aren’t well intentioned but misguided ever; caveating that with a rather large segment of the Traditional Movement (but by no means a majority). So you do think your side of the Traditional Movement is incapable of being misguided”

A majority of Novus Ordians don’t even know if the Real Presence is for sure. I can’t blame them — with the “glad-handing” of the Host, etc. But thats a whole other topic.

The point here is that a Bishop... who will outreach to ther religons....allow them in these very same missions... will tell a contingent of harmless Catholics...that they are not “Catholic”...while he and his flock claim to be...that is hypocrisy.

So the Novus Ordo back yard needs to be clean up before any of mine gets looked at.

The sedevacanists/conclavists/dogmatists...they have problems.....but o the whole.. I think they are minor in comparison to the problems on the novus ordo side.

This is my last post for the night.


29 posted on 05/13/2007 5:54:46 PM PDT by xangel0228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
"There are many reports they are mixing animalism and pagan rites with Catholic tradition, resulting in a blasphemous mix."

The source you offer says nothing to support your hatred for Traditional Roman Catholics, but you don't drop your venomous pen at this point. Now you write:

"Is the SSPX the same group which incarcerated evangelicals in Chiapas recently?"

May God have mercy on your lacking sense of spirituality.

Commanding His believers against bearing false witness is instructed by God no less than six times in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.

30 posted on 05/13/2007 6:18:53 PM PDT by Robert Drobot (Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot; Cvengr
I think there's some confusion here. The sect that has mixed paganism and Catholicism in Mexico has been called "traditional Catholic" as well.

Evangelical Christians in Mexico Increasingly Persecuted by 'Traditional Catholics'

In the indigenous region of Chiapas state, traditional Catholics – a blend of Catholicism and native religious practicesIn the indigenous region of Chiapas state, traditional Catholics – a blend of Catholicism and native religious practices

31 posted on 05/13/2007 6:32:25 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228; rogernz; victim soul; Rosamond; sfm; G S Patton; Gumdrop; trustandhope; MarkBsnr; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

32 posted on 05/13/2007 6:36:42 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

You’ve walked into a den of Modernists my dear.

Nothing you can say will change the minds of the neo Catholic FR Living Magisterium. Not the fact that Rome has declared repeatedly the SSPX is not in schism. No, they are More Authoritative than the Pope.

Truly.


33 posted on 05/13/2007 6:50:58 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah (tired of voting for the lesser of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; xangel0228

I think you are slighlty mistaken. In no way am I condoning Bishop Garcia’s actions if true, nor am I saying that the Society is in Schism (though perhaps Bishop Williamson personally is). What I am saying is that the contention that only “Novus Ordo Catholics” are misguided but perhaps well-intentioned is not true. There are those on both sides of the issue. That is the issue I was taking with xangel.


34 posted on 05/13/2007 7:01:22 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

I’m not mistaken. The guilty parties know who they are. Everyone has to account to God someday.


35 posted on 05/13/2007 7:10:16 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah (tired of voting for the lesser of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

I’m the Cross of San Damiano according to your quiz.


36 posted on 05/13/2007 7:17:50 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

Were I to say in full what I think regarding the reported actions of his lordship, Abp Gomez, I would be kicked off this forum.
I am so very tired of the hypocracy of this bishop and the multitude of others like him. I am afraid that he knows little about the Catholic faith and the Liturgy of his ancestors and he is IMO ill-suited for the position he holds. He sounds like a typical affirmative action appointee. Were I in his archdiocese, I would contribute not one nickel to support his mismanagement of the Church’s temporal resources.
Those Catholics who attend SSPX Masses have repeatedly been the object of persecution by the agents of Satan, who hold so much power in todays church.
We must pray for them and their persecutors.


37 posted on 05/13/2007 7:26:30 PM PDT by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“..., they have separated themselves from the Magisterium. “

With all respect dear sister, no, they have not.


38 posted on 05/13/2007 7:30:30 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer; rogernz; victim soul; Rosamond; sfm; G S Patton; Gumdrop; trustandhope; MarkBsnr; pblax8; ...
From the March 31 issue of The Remnant

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one's Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.

"Signs of the Times" Show SSPX Not Schismatic

The primary question this article will attempt to answer, through a reading of "the signs of the times" as the Second Vatican Council encouraged us to do, is what the present attitude and position of the Church is, as viewed through many recent articles and correspondence from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), and particularly, Cardinal Castrillón.

Are Catholics who attend SSPX chapels out of necessity truly attempting to be "more Catholic than the pope?"

Cardinal Castrillón's most recent interview with an Italian journalist published on March 17, 2007, repeats this affirmation that while there may be a danger of schism and/or heresy for some priests and bishops within the SSPX, theirs is not a formal schism.

Cardinal Castrillón: Church Esteems Fruitful Life of Archbishop Lefebvre

Catholic journalist Simone Ortolani published this most recent interview on the Nihil Obstat Catholic website. His Eminence re-emphasized that the motu proprio easing restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass was with the pope for his action, just as Msgr. Michael Schmitz of the Institute of Christ the King said in two recent interviews. Ortolani asked Cardinal Castrillón if Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would be rehabilitated by the Church. Cardinal Castrillón's response follows:

Cardinal Castrillón, in his capacity as PCED president, has recently rehabilitated priests formerly associated with the SSPX and a few of which were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. Along with the September 8, 2006 regularization of the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France, and in the same spirit as Archbishop Lefebvre and the current pope, the priests are charged with the freedom to completed an analysis, study and constructive criticism of the theology of the Second Vatican Council documents in the light of Tradition.

Schismatic Actions but not Formal Schism

Later in the March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, "The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions..." The Cardinal continues to explain the illegal consecration of bishops against the express will of the Holy Father and further warns about the danger of schism, and schism leading to heresy and vice versa, according to St. Jerome.

"I know there are in the Fraternity people filled with good will," Cardinal Castrillón said. "The Superior General, His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has in the past years persevered in dialogue."

Pope awaits SSPX with "Open Arms"

He continued, "I hope the open arms of Pope Benedict XVI will be understood as a kairos, an opportune moment, and pacifying the consciences of the faithful and of the lay people, a full effective and affective unity of the Fraternity with the Church and the vicar of Christ will be reached."

Once again, His Eminence confirmed the SSPX is not in formal schism, but that there may be a danger of schism leading to heresy and vice versa within the movement without full canonical regularization, and that Pope Benedict XVI has "open arms" to welcoming the SSPX into full canonical regularization within the Church.

SSPX Bishops and Priests not Schismatics

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón said he rejected the term and idea of "ecumenism" from within the Church as a reasoning behind the continuing discussions and open communications with the leadership of the SSPX. Specifically, he said the following:

Again, it bears repeating. The president of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly stated in at least five separate public interviews in Catholic and secular media that the lay faithful and priests of the SSPX are not schismatics nor in formal schism.

Catholic Laymen Incur No Penalty

Following this quote in the German interview, Cardinal Castrillón emphasized again what he said in the March 17 interview, his fearing the possibility of schism and heresy, quoting St. Jerome. However, the fact remains that the lay faithful who attend SSPX masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation are not sinning nor incurring any canonical penalty by doing so.

In a February interview for the Argentinian Panorama Católico Internacional and first appearing in El Catolicismo, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Bogotá, Colombia, while explaining the mission of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón said, "We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre — which is not exactly a schism."

And further, in explaining the current status of the SSPX, Cardinal Castrillón said, "The Saint Pius X associations are in a process of reinsertion with permanent visits and a correspondence which asks for the ancient rite." He added, "They are 500 priests and 600,000 faithful, a growing number, with monasteries and seminaries, some of them full."

PCED Shifts its Course

The PCED is the Holy See's curial organization responsible for relationships with traditionalist Catholics and relations with the SSPX bishops and priests. Although it is currently not of the same canonical status as that of a curial Congregation, it is evident that the language, tone and word choice of the PCED has moderated significantly since the promulgation of the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta document of July 1988, and even more profoundly after the initial meeting of Bishop Bernard Fellay and Cardinal Castrillón with Pope John Paul II in December 2000, during the year of the Jubilee in Rome.

It is important to note that in nearly every instance of personal correspondence with the PCED by Catholics, Msgr. Perl, the secretary, has affirmed the right of Catholics to attend SSPX chapels and masses with no spiritual sin, nor canonical penalty attached. Correspondence of such matters from the PCED or a curial congregation can be acted upon by Catholics with a clear conscience of moral certitude.

Danger of Heresy and Schism Greatest Where?

Of course, Msgr. Perl has always emphasized that the PCED does not, and cannot, encourage long-term attendance at SSPX chapels due to what it calls the danger of potential schism, as Cardinal Castrillón emphasized as his fear in his two most recent interviews.

However, to ensure a fair and balanced picture, in many dioceses and parishes in the U.S. Catholic Church today, the danger of becoming a heretic and/or schismatic is often greater by repeatedly attending many of those churches and masses with priests who are technically within full canonical communion — de jure, but not de facto.

So, while in individual circumstances at some SSPX chapels, there may be some closet sedevacantist or schismatic laymen, which Msgr. Perl and Cardinal Castrillón rightly warn us about, this same warning should be issued and emphasized for the greater establishment Church worldwide where dissident priests and bishops roam around unchecked by the Holy See, "seeking the ruin of souls."

In 2001, after a meeting between Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX Superior General, and two of the three other SSPX bishops with Cardinal Castrillón, Bishop Fellay said that the Cardinal had told him that he found them to be "neither heretics nor schismatics."

First Sign of "No Formal Schism"

Shortly after his March 13, 2004 meeting with Cardinal Castrillón during a visit to Rome, Una Voce International (FIUV) President Ralf Siebenbürger was the first to publicly relay this new attitude in the officialdom of Catholicism that they considered the SSPX priests and bishops not to be in formal schism. Siebenbürger said the following regarding the FIUV delegation meeting with the President of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón:

What is particularly interesting is that this supposed private conversation between the FIUV president and the PCED president was circulated widely on the internet prior to being expunged from nearly every public site. Reportedly, some within the FIUV hierarchy and the PCED were not at all enamored by this widely circulated report, and ended up eventually being one of the primary reasons for the short-lived FIUV presidency of Ralf Siebenbürger. Of course, Cardinal Castrillón has since confirmed publicly on numerous occasions, especially recently, these same facts regarding the SSPX not being in formal schism.

Groundbreaking 30 Days Interview

In a 30 Days interview appearing soon after Bishop Fellay's August 29, 2005 meeting with the Holy Father, Cardinal Castrillón again confirmed that the SSPX situation was not a matter of formal heresy, but one of canonical regularization. In answer to a question about the historical situation leading up to the August 2005 meeting, Cardinal Castrillón said, "Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism." Although the cardinal does continue to affirm the original Ecclesia Dei Adflicta motu proprio by Pope John Paul II that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops without a papal mandate, he is careful to add the caveat that it was not a "formal schism."

Later in the same 30 Days interview, he affirmed that the case of the reconciliation of St. John Maria Vianney priests in Campos, Brazil, was a much different situation, hence a formal schism, than that of the SSPX: "There the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves "auxiliaries," in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by 50 or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese."

Again, this is a reaffirmation that the Cardinal and the Holy See recognize that the bishops of the SSPX do not claim any specific jurisdiction and are canonically auxiliary bishops, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in what he believed to be "a state of emergency," to administer the sacraments and catechize the lay faithful in the traditional manner prior to the post-conciliar upheaval and chaos. In other words, the Cardinal acknowledged again in a public interview that the SSPX bishops and priests were not in formal schism, even if they continue to be in a canonically irregular situation.

Cardinal Castrillón Declares SSPX not in Schism on Italian TV

Shortly after the publication of the 30 Days interview, Cardinal Castrillón was interviewed on Italian television channel 5, November 13, 2005 regarding the status of the SSPX. In this interview, the Cardinal said the following:

Church Clarification to "Adherence to the Schism"

On September 29, 2006, some news regarding a PCED ruling for the Archdiocese of Salzburg was posted at http://www.musicasacra.com/blog/archive/2006_09_01_sacredmusic_archive.html, which is a web blog dedicated to the restoration of sacred music.

While never making its way into the mainstream secular or Catholic media, this announcement in the official Gazette of the Archdiocese of Salzburg contained an English translation from the Verordnungsblatt der Erzdioezese Salzburg no. 5 (5 May 2006) page 85, with the headline "Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X : Information."

Relevant parts of the extended text, shown below, include the following regarding the proper attitude of dioceses and parish priests regarding baptisms administered by priests of the SSPX.

Laymen Who Attend SSPX "Catholic Faithful" Per PCED

The communication to the Archdiocese of Salzburg came from the PCED with a brief history and outline of the facts concerning how the Holy See views the canonical situation of the SSPX:

From the Archiepiscopal Chancery, on 10 May 2006. Protocol number 579/06.

According to the author of this website, several months earlier the same Chancery Office in Salzburg (in the Verordnungsblatt 2006, page 126) had published an edict according to which persons baptized by an SSPX priest were considered to be "non-Roman Catholic Christians," who in the event of marriage to a Catholic, were to be treated as though they were entering a "mixed marriage."

It is clear from the contents of the official communiqué issued by the PCED for the Archdiocese of Salzburg that those lay faithful who attend SSPX chapels and have their children baptized there are Catholics in good standing who should be treated as such by the Archdiocese.

Because this new edict was published publicly after a specific communication from the PCED, it may be regarded as the official view of the Holy See regarding the status of Catholics baptized at SSPX chapels by SSPX priests or SSPX priest "friends" who serve SSPX chapels.

Extra SSPX Nulla Salus

Perhaps the most interesting nugget emanating from this PCED official communiqué is this apparent further updated interpretation and clarification of the original meaning from the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta document of this sentence: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

I should make clear to readers that I am no canon lawyer and have no canonical education nor training. However, it seems evident that the official Salzburg communiqué further defines the canonical meaning of "formal adherence to the schism," which of course, the PCED president admits is no longer truly a formal schism.

This "adhering to the schism" would include only Catholics who hold as a belief that "only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication," as stated by the PCED.

In other words, if a Catholic makes visible in his writings or in his external verbal speech, that he adheres to extra SSPX nulla salus at the exclusion of the rest of the visible Church, or perhaps parades around in public with a placard on his body demonstrating in the streets stating the same, then he is indeed schismatic and incurs excommunication.

The objective juridical penalties incurred by the priests and bishops of the SSPX are of a different magnitude and canonical stature, so it is difficult to simply apply this directive to them. However, it can be reasonably concluded that the vast majority of priests and bishops of the SSPX do not adhere to extra SSPX nulla salus as a dogma of Faith, which would incur the penalty of excommunication and formal schism.

German Priest & Professor: Bishops & Church Reject Communion with SSPX

The respected German canonist Dr. Georg May, professor emeritus of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, summarized the irony shown above in a January 12, 2003 letter, when he wrote: "The SSPX is not schismatic because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pontiff nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751)." And the explicit irony is found in the immediate following statement where Prof. Georg said, "Rather, the latter reject communion with the Society."

Prof. Georg was the Professor of Canon Law, Law of Church-State Relations and Canonical HIstory from 1960 to 1994 at Mainz University. He has been a well-respected priest for more than 40 years in the Archdiocese of Mainz. The Professor's conclusions appear to be consistent with those of the Holy See as expressed in numerous public interviews and written correspondence emanating from the PCED, specifically Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Camille Perl, president and secretary of the commission.

  1. The SSPX is not schismatic, because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pope nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751). Rather the latter reject communion with the Society.

  2. Because the Society is not schismatic, its members are not excommunicated. Both are untrue allegations, made by those, whom the reflective mirror presented to them by the Society irritates.

  3. Absolutely nobody incurs any punishment by attending the masses of the Society. Of course one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation by attending a Sunday mass in a chapel or church of the Society. Whoever alleges otherwise, reveals that he merely fears concurrence.

Traditionalist Catholic Parents Obey the Church & "Signs of the Times"

Traditionalist Catholic parents merely desire to adhere to the dogmas, doctrines, liturgy and devotional practices of the Church of all time. Traditionalist Catholics understand that we must obey the authentic magisterium in matters of faith and morals, but even moreso, we understand the importance of bringing our children up with full access to the traditional devotions, music, architecture and liturgical patrimony of the Church in this culture of death. And many Catholic parents have begun to recognize that the establishment Church, in many ways (most recently with the forced participation in even "conservative" dioceses, so-called, of sex education, sex abuse programs designed by dissident priests and the homosexual education establishment) is not only not aiding them in combating this culture of life, but is often even serving as a roadblock to grace for them and their children. In such cases, the Church recognizes "the salvation of souls" is the highest good, and Catholic parents must rely upon their well-formed Catholic consciences to guide them in making these many individual decisions for their families.

Of course Catholic parents want to adhere to, and be obedient to the doctrines and legitimate juridical documents to which we are required to assent, that are issued by the Holy See and our bishops. We strive to be "as Catholic as the pope" and all the saints and fathers and doctors of the Church, whom rely upon for spiritual sustenance, as well as prayer and the traditional sacraments.

And finally, we strive not to be "more Catholic than the pope," but only as Catholic as God's grace and our cooperation will allow us to be according to our states in life.

Most of all, we want to provide a safe haven for the spiritual growth of our children and grandchildren. And increasingly, as the Holy See has recognized, this "safe haven" is often found outside of the normal visible means of walking to our neighboring parish church.

By recognizing the plain words of Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Perl that the Church allows Catholics to fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending SSPX chapels, if necessary, for our sanctify and peace of mind, we are being obedient sons to the Church and being not "more Catholic than the pope," but actually living our lives in the heart and soul of the Church.


Brian Mershon is a commentator on cultural issues from a classical Catholic perspective. His trade is in media relations, and his vocation is as a husband to his beloved wife Tracey and father to his six living children. He attempts to assist his family and himself in attaining eternal salvation through frequent attendance at the Traditional Latin rite of Mass, homeschooling, and building Catholic culture in the buckle of the Bible Belt of Greenville, South Carolina.+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

39 posted on 05/13/2007 7:32:57 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer; StAthanasiustheGreat; Salvation
"SSPX Not in Schism"
Rome Has Spoken

Michael J. Matt
Editor, The Remnant
 

In its No. 9, 2005 issue, the highly respected 30 Days featured an interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.  The interview dealt with relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as well as other related matters.  It can be found online at: http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

The interview is fast emerging as a major event since it contained several long-awaited admissions on the part of the Vatican with respect to the status of the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s priestly fraternity as well as the old Mass.

The Remnant has often been accused of riding a “dangerous trajectory towards schism” for remaining friendly with the SSPX and defending them against the charge of schism.  Our contention since the early 1990s has been that, while the SSPX certainly has an irregular standing vis-à-vis the Vatican (resulting from an in-Church dispute over the disastrous Second Vatican Council and the New Mass), this does not rise to the level of formal schism. Happily, the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission has made that contention official. The pertinent excerpt from 30Days speaks for itself:

Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (Emphasis added)

Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge.

But, there’s more.  We’ve all grown accustomed to the neo-Catholics charging all traditionalists with “closet sedevacantism”, especially the priests and bishops of the SSPX.  Cardinal Hoyos put the lie to that as well:

After the audience [between SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay and Pope Benedict on August 29, 2005) an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.

Next, the coup de grace.  His Eminence conceded a point that traditionalists have been contesting for 35 years—that the old Mass was abrogated and, as such,  requires a special permission or “indult” for use:

It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished…

That is, Pope Paul VI never actually abrogated the Tridentine Mass!  It’s still there just as it always has been, and the “option” called the Novus Ordo Missae is just that—an option, which Catholics are free to reject.

End of story! Traditionalists win!  We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over.  It is up to us now to try to use them to mend fences with those neo-Catholics whose polemic against traditionalism has just been totally annihilated. Perhaps this startling development will also lead to a ceasefire between traditional Catholics, allowing us to direct our ideological weaponry away from each other and toward the myriad enemies of the old Faith that need so desperately to be driven out of our Church. 

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is to be credited and heartily thanked for his refreshingly honest clarifications.

Bishop Fellay in St. Paul

On November 5, 2005, Immaculate Heart of Mary Chapel (SSPX) in St. Paul played host to the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, who delivered a  report on the negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican. 

In the wake of the Aug. 29 meeting between Bishop Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, and Pope Benedict XVI, which lasted 35 minutes and took place at Castle Gandolfo, rumors began to fly about an imminent split inside the SSPX over a Campos-style capitulation.  Catholic World Report went so far as to claim that Bishop Richard Williamson was reduced to playing the part of spoiler out of protest:

But Bishop Richard Williamson, the most outspoken member of the SSPX hierarchy, is no diplomat.  In a mid-summer Internet message to his followers, Bishop Williamson revealed the plans for Bishop Fellay’s meeting with the Pope—making it clear that he was not pleased  by the prospect.  As the news of Bishop Williamson’s revelation filtered out, Vatican officials—always speaking under the cloak of anonymity—confirmed that the meeting had been scheduled.

(The Catholic World Report, October 2005, p. 22)

As I listened to Fellay’s 3-hour presentation here in St. Paul, however, it became evident that the rumors were just that—rumors.  He categorically denied that there is any split whatsoever inside the SSPX. 

In addition, a source close to Bishop Williamson confirmed the same thing to us, suggesting that rumors of an alleged split between Bishops Fellay and Williamson may even have been the concoction of certain entities which resent the Society’s singular position as the non-compromising traditionalist heavyweight of the world.

For three hours, a forthright Bishop Fellay discussed the history of the SSPX negotiations with the Vatican, beginning with the early meetings between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI, and culminating with details of Fellay’s own Aug. 29 meeting with the new Pope. 

Throughout his presentation he spoke with almost childlike awe and admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre, dispelling even the faintest whiff of any inclination to change the course charted by the revered Archbishop.

He also touched upon the cautious optimism with which his Society had initially received news of the election of Cardinal Ratzinger. He referenced the many favorable-to-tradition statements uttered by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger over the years, which certainly verify that the new Pope was at least well aware of the crisis in the Church.  In light of all that, said Fellay, Catholics were right to have that “glimmer of hope” where Pope Benedict was concerned, even if renewed disappointment remained a very real possibility.

He admitted that it was the SSPX who’d initially sought an audience with the Pope.  Why?  To show the Pope and the world that “we are Catholics attached to Rome, as we’ve always been.”

He also discussed the most serious impasse to a reconciliation: The Second Vatican Council!  He made it  clear that it is the SSPX’s resistance to the New Mass and Council that is at issue.  And he explained exactly what Pope Benedict means by “interpreting the Council in light of tradition,” and warned his audience not to fall for the trap of a “changing tradition.”

Still, Fellay’s intention is to keep open the lines of communication with the Vatican.  Before the Aug. 29 meeting, he had sent a letter to the Pope enumerating the serious doctrinal questions that must be resolved if there is to be any hope for successful negotiations one day. During the meeting itself, there was some evidence of the Pope having  read the letter, as he made references to topics raised in it.  For example, during the meeting His Holiness conceded that there is indeed a “state of emergency” in the Church...a point that had only been discussed in Fellay’s preliminary letter.

In other words, Bishop Fellay’s tactics seem to be as sound as they are Catholic. The traditional Catholic world seems to have in the bishops of the SSPX able-bodied representatives who are personally taking the traditional Catholic case—not deeper into the vast wastelands of Cyberspace—but directly to the feet of Peter himself.

It is difficult to fathom why any serious traditionalist would regard this as anything less than a tremendous blessing, especially as there is no evidence of unjust  compromise in the SSPX works.

After his talk, I asked Bishop Fellay if he could assure us that the SSPX will never under any circumstances field a contingent at World Youth Day.  I was only half joking;  the Bishop’s answer was serious: No, never!  It was obvious that he knew very well what I was getting at.

Bishop Fellay’s talk prompted us to wonder if the SSPX might be inadvertently positioning itself to become one of the most significant influences on the beleaguered Vatican in the Church today. It’s already applying serious traditionalist pressure on an aging and perhaps somewhat disillusioned hierarchy.  With the Grace of God, who knows where that might lead. 

One is reminded of the story of the Nazi SS-Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Kappler who, after using every means at his disposal to try to crush the “Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican,” Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty during World War II, nevertheless found himself begging O’Flaherty (whose story was dramatized in the 1983 film The Scarlet and the Black) to save his family after the Nazis retreated from Rome.  O’Flaherty never gave up on Kappler, even after the latter had been imprisoned for war crimes.  In 1956 the Nazi was baptized in his prison cell by the Irish priest, and died a Roman Catholic. 

What’s the connection?  Well, and as we’ve noted in these columns before, it’s just possible that the situation in the Church has spun so far out of control that even the Vatican is beginning to see the writing on the wall.  Is it so unthinkable that some inside the Vatican would begin to envision a time in the not too distant future when the 400 priests of the SSPX could begin to resemble the Jesuits of old, capable of doing a great deal to restore some semblance of order to a chaotic Church that now faces the total disgrace of its priesthood, the disappearance of its Mass, and a veritable eruption of real schisms throughout the world? 

Could this be what our somewhat conflicted Pope has in mind? Probably not, but stranger things have happened, and, if I were pope and I found myself in charge of this monumental nightmare—it’s what I’d have in mind.

The SSPX, then, seems to be in a very good position. It is most advantageous to the Traditionalist cause (and maybe even to the Vatican itself, down the road!) for the Society, which is not in schism, to remain where it is.  As we see it, the SSPX should “stay the course”, which, from what I could gather on November 5th, is precisely what Bishop Fellay intends to do.  Pray for him!


40 posted on 05/13/2007 7:34:24 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

“There are those on both sides of the issue.”

Satan hates the Truth, under every form. You are, of course, correct.


41 posted on 05/13/2007 7:35:38 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228
I have no good/bad data on Garcia. Since he is Novus Ordo...he is probably well intentioned..but misguided.

Archbishop Gomez (not Garcia), is a member of Opus Dei. He was the first Opus Dei priest in the US to become a bishop.

42 posted on 05/13/2007 7:42:28 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Clarity and perspective bump.
43 posted on 05/13/2007 7:47:41 PM PDT by Barnacle (Hunter, Thompson, Gingrich, Tancredo, whoever. Just vote Conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

I’ll keep watching here, so make sure you post tomorrow after you talk to the Archdiocese.

Since its time to go to bed, I think I’ll print out the Texas’ Bishops pastoral letter against coal fired power plants. ZZZZZ


44 posted on 05/13/2007 7:52:44 PM PDT by sandhills
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: livius

This is a church/state separation issue peculiar to missions/state/national parks. The grounds surrounding the missions are parks and administered by the parks service. The building itself, if still functioning as a church, is solely under the administration of the Holy See.

Monies and other functions are forbidden to be comingled, which is why I find it strange that a park ranger was used to deny admittance.


45 posted on 05/13/2007 7:54:47 PM PDT by rock58seg (Conservative American skeptics: The worlds last bastion of sanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228

I guess I should have read a few more posts before replying. At least we have the same story. LOL


46 posted on 05/13/2007 7:56:35 PM PDT by rock58seg (Conservative American skeptics: The worlds last bastion of sanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

What else may be asked of somebody if they are indeed a sincere brother in Christ than to either deny or ascertain their perspective of actions ascribed to them which are obviously antiChristian?

I abhor the behavior of those who call themselves Traditional Catholics and imprisoned evangelical Christians and destroyed the buildings of other believers in Christ.

Catholics tend to declare there are no denominational differences amongst themselves, yet a contrived argument appears to arise defending actions of “Traditional Catholicism” in Chiapas, Mexico and even those between Orthodox and RCC members.

I’ll ask again. What difference is there between Catholics who support those actions in Mexico and your stance here, and even that of the Vatican, if indeed there is no difference amongst Catholics?


47 posted on 05/13/2007 7:57:42 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xangel0228
The SSPX is considered to be in a “schismatic” status since they adhere to the Traditional Rite of the Catholic Mass that was celebrated before the changes of the Second Vatican Council.

With all due respect, this statement is patently false. Its practice of the TLM has absolutely nothing to do with the SSPX's irregular status with the Church.( God forbid ). This is made evident in the motu proprio, " Ecclesia Dei ", in which the pope exhorts the bishops to make the TLM readily available.

48 posted on 05/13/2007 8:34:09 PM PDT by LordBridey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogator
Were I to say in full what I think regarding the reported actions of his lordship, Abp Gomez, I would be kicked off this forum. I am so very tired of the hypocracy of this bishop and the multitude of others like him. I am afraid that he knows little about the Catholic faith and the Liturgy of his ancestors and he is IMO ill-suited for the position he holds.

Archbishop Gomez is acting in a way we would wish all bishops to act. He is the ordained and consecrated successor of the apostles of Jesus. He is responsible for the actions of his helpers, his priests. Yet he probably doesn't even know these SSPX priests. He certainly hasn't given them permission to preach in his diocese and he certainly hasn't given them the function to hear confessions, so as far as he should be concerned, they are acting in an illegal, disobedient, and unaccountable manner. Any man who claims to be a Roman Catholic priest should be accountable to the bishop. Yet the SSPX priests operate in a manner that completely opposes ecclesial authority. Archbishop Gomez is right to obstruct such men, and until the phantom motu proprio appears, either rescinding, clarifying, or expanding " Ecclesia Dei" every bishop who confronts the SSPX will be in the right.

49 posted on 05/13/2007 9:09:24 PM PDT by LordBridey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: narses
Pope Awaits SSPX "With Open Arms"

Well, if the Pope's arms are open as he approaches the SSPX, I hope he's wearing those cool sunglasses I saw him with in one photograph,

because if the SSPX's future responses are anything like their past responses to papal and Curial outreaches, the Pope's going to need something to keep his eyes free of the sand they'll be kicking in his face.

Starting with Williamson, who's been his own Pope so long, he's not about to go back to being a bishop.

50 posted on 05/13/2007 9:51:30 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson