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 ...
“There are those on both sides of the issue.”
Satan hates the Truth, under every form. You are, of course, correct.
Archbishop Gomez (not Garcia), is a member of Opus Dei. He was the first Opus Dei priest in the US to become a bishop.
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
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.
I guess I should have read a few more posts before replying. At least we have the same story. LOL
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?
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.
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.
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.
I’ll believe it when I see it happening.
“Archbishop Gomez is acting in a way we would wish all bishops to act...”
Your “we” does not include me. I expect honesty, not hypocracy from a bishop. Referring to the SSPXers as “not Catholic” IMO either shows ignorance unbefiting a bishop, deliberate deception, or both.
“He is the ordained and consecrated successor of the apostles of Jesus...”
Judas, who is emulated by far too many bishops, was also an apostle of Jesus.
“He is responsible for the actions of his helpers, his priests.”
Then he should be doing something about the liturgical abuse, wreckovated churches, modernism, and heteroxy present in his diocese.
“Yet he probably doesn’t even know these SSPX priests.”
But I’ll bet he knows many of the rabbis and Protestant ministers.
“He certainly hasn’t given them permission to preach in his diocese....”
Nor would he, if asked.
“Yet the SSPX priests operate in a manner that completely opposes ecclesial authority.....”
This opposition to “eccesiastical authority” includes such things as keeping the Faith and worship traditions of our ancestors and his.
Please. And the trains ran on time under the Nazis.
I’m sorry for not getting back to you yesterday. The phrase “Traditional Catholics” or “Traditionalist Catholics” when used by Catholics generally simply means Catholics who would prefer to follow the old rite of the Mass (prior to Vatican II). However, there are groups of Catholics who have formed around certain bishops who split from Rome over this issue years ago - those would be groups such as the SSPX that you might have read about. They are considered in schism and are not permitted to use Church facilities, etc., and are not “official” representatives of the Church. Neither type of traditionalist is known for being particularly involved in disputes outside of those within their own church, though.
The only possibility is a small group known as TFP (Tradition, Family and Property) that is active in Latin America and may be more contentious; they occasionally march in the street in protest of various things they don’t like, and are very committed to the defense of private property. However, I haven’t seen anything about their involvement in Chiapas, although it’s not impossible.
I have followed the situation down there for a long time and it’s very complex. Chiapas was the scene of much left-wing activity, both among out-and-out Marxists such as “Comandante Marcos” and among Catholics who were followers of what was known as “Liberation Theology,” which is what you were referring to in your post. In fact the Church there was so bad that the Pope actually replaced the bishop of Chiapas a couple of years ago with someone who was more interested in religion than in Marxism.
Furthermore, various agreements were made between leftist organizers (usually university students from other parts of Mexico) and the Mexican government to do “land reform.” This involved taking supposedly unused portions of land and distributing them to the Indians, as well as applying special taxes to assist with this. However, as you can imagine, this has done nothing but cause confusion and animosity, and there are many personal grudges involved as well. I don’t know the denominational breakdown of the groups involved in this fight, but it’s possible that the various sides do break down roughly on religious lines. However, this is not an official Catholic (or Evangelical) policy.
In addition there’s another factor: there were Muslims from a group in Spain who were working to make converts and were having some success among the Indians who had earlier become Evangelicals, probably because the Evangelical groups form quickly but then have a tendency to splinter and some of their members then get disgusted and reject Christianity altogether. The Muslims were actually expelled by the Mexican government last year because they were operating with foreign funding (not from Spain but from the Middle East and possibly Venezuela) and because they had terrorist connections. However, they did leave behind some groups of Muslim Indians.
Finally, remote rural areas of Latin America, including Mexico, have many people who are not Christians of any kind and never have been. They speak indigenous languages, they speak only fragmentary Spanish, they are virtually uneducated in modern life, and they have never really been evangelized. They are very susceptible to rabble rousing, because somehow the Marxists always manage to get in there. And since the Marxist message is simple and attractive (”everything belongs to you and we’ll take it away from everyone else and give it to you”), this group can become a real problem. This is particularly true since there’s no point of contact because they are not Christians of any kind, Catholic or Evangelical. But the Marxists are cultivating them, and some of the Marxist leaders down there now incorporate pagan rituals into their activities.
In short, I wouldn’t take anything that happens in Chiapas as typical of anything. It’s also very hard to find out what is actually going on there. This is especially the case now, after last fall’s riots when a conservative won the Mexican presidency and the leftist organizers headed out to stir up trouble in areas where they had strong Communist labor-union and university student support (such as Oaxaca). There are still disputes relating to those incidents.
I have been watching the Pope’s trip with great interest, and he addressed the bishops of Latin America quite firmly and told them to get back to religion and evangelization. However, he said that works have to be a part of this, since the disparities between the life of urban, prosperous Latin Americans and that of the rural peasant are so great that Christians have to prove their commitment and attempt to ameliorate things. The Marxists obviously find this a threat, because they do attack Christians who attempt to carry out these works. There was a particularly horrible attack a few years ago where a Catholic woman from a wealthy family, known for her activities on behalf of literacy and the disabled, was kidnapped and buried alive by the Marxists. And the same has happened in places like Bolivia, where Christian lay leaders who are actually doing work to improve the situation of the Indians are regularly killed by the Marxists. Remember, Marxism does not want things to improve, because if they can keep people miserable, they can control them and present themselves as the “saviors of the people.” So the charitable works, while they can never substitute for faith, are very important in missionary activities.
Sorry for the lengthy answer, but you asked some good questions, and this is the situation to the best of my knowledge and as I have seen it. Best wishes!
Thank you very much. I was ill informed and apologize if any prior comments implied poorly on other brethren in Christ. Your efforts to synopsize the differences go beyond anything I should have requested, but further indicate I need to do some more homework on the topic as well.
Thanks again for your patience and love expressed towards your fellow man, me..., when I probably didn’t deserve it. Thanks. It helped me understand and turn back to him when I poorly associated a report of antiChristian behavior with a larger group who might not be out of fellowship with Him.
Bravo.
Would the Society permit the bishop to celebrate mass in their chapel? That is perhaps the surest sign of communion.
I appreciate your discussion of this situation. I’ve lost touch with the situation in Mexico since we moved from Oklahoma, so your summary is very useful.
same here.....
Meanwhile, I support the bishop.
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.