BISHOP RIFAN ON FR. AULAGNIER AND THE SSPX

Envoy Magazine blogspot ^ | November 23, 2003 | Pete Vere

[NYer]

Over the past week, a number of traditionalist readers have asked me what happened with Fr. Aulagnier and the SSPX.  As far as I can tell, Bishop Rifan's prediction in the May 6 issue of La Nef  (a publication which, in my opinion, is the best traditional Catholic magazine on the market) has now played out.  For those who read French, you can access the relevant excerpt here.  I'm also providing the following unofficial loose translation of the first couple of paragraphs for those who do not read French:

La Nef: How do you see the future of the SSPX and an agreement with Rome?  Does it still seem possible?

Bishop Rifan: Certain priests of the the SSPX desire an agreement with Rome, but visibly not those in charge.  Sadly, the SSPX sought to conserve its unity by fear.  Certain priests, who approve of us, write to us, but they do so in secret because it is very dangerous to be in disagreement with the superiors of the SSPX.  We can critique the pope quietly, but not the superiors of the SSPX.... And there are punishments for all those who, publicly, diverge from the official line:  Fr. Aulagnier was reduced to complete silence and exiled to Canada for having approved of our Apostolic Administration and for having attended my episcopal consecration.

Opposition towards the Holy See is each time more hard and more radical.  Bishop Williamson has written that we should not offer public or official veneration to St. Padre Pio, in order not to give any credit to the canonizations made by the Pope (Williamson's newletter of December 2002).  And Fr. Peter Scott, the rector in Australia, in his public letter of Nov. 1st 2002, wrote to friends and benefactors about the Luminous Mysteries proposed by the Pope: "I ask of you, if you wish to remain Catholic and if you wish to have a truly supernatural interior life, to not eve think of praying these mysteries."  (Pete's Note: This is my personal translation back from the French of what was likely first written in English.  If someone has the original English words, please pass them along to me.)

In line with this directive, the most logical ones arrive at sedevacantism, like Fr. Basilo Meramo, prior of the SSPX in Bogota, who wrote: "The Pope, with his errors and his heresies, and with all manner of doctrinal and governing action, does not give the guarantee of being the legitimate successor of the Chair of Peter..."

With this in mind, I think more and more we're seeing that the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier (who co-founded the SSPX with Archbishop Lefebvre) is much like the election of Vicky Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church as Bishop of New Hampshire.  It will take a while to play out, but in the end it represents a permanent break.  Just as the Episcopal Church USA has decided, through their actions, to abandon the Anglican Communion, so too has the SSPX opted for a permanent break from Rome.

[Unam Sanctam]

One can defend Tradition and the Faith from within and in obedience to the Holy Father. To be disobedient to the Holy Father and perpetuate unfounded and baseless charges of heresy against the Pope is in no way a defense of Tradition and the Faith. It is a betrayal of 2000 years of Catholic tradition and history.

[PetrosRomanos]

But fortunately Fr. Scott displays an entirely different spirit from the Vere/Aulagnier school of non-stop whining.

The individual whining about Fr. Aulagnier being exiled here is Bishop Rifan -- the spiritual grandson of Bishop Castro de Meyer. He's the one who alleges that Fr. Aulagnier was exiled.

[PetrosRomanos]

It looks like Vere is saying that SSPX has been highjacked by people who want a permanent break, and that the transfer of Fr. Aulagnier (who didn't want a permanent break?) is part of that.

Kind of. While it certainly appears that Vere supports this position, in fact the position is being advanced by Bishop Rifan. Additionally, if we judge from his website and his recent Wanderer interview, this would appear to be Fr. Aulagnier's position as well.

[PetrosRomanos]

A large part of the posted article comes not from Vere, but from La Nef. As a traditionalist publication, does it present credible information?

Yes. It is more or less the equivalent of Latin Mass Magazine in France. Those whom it regularly features (Loic Merian, Dom Basile Valuet, Fr. Arnaud Devillers, Fr. Gerard de Servigny, Cardinal Stickler, Bishop Rifan, etc.) are basically a who is who of traditional Catholicism loyal to Rome.

[PetrosRomanos]

Fr. Aulagnier was transferred from France to Canada at the same time that the SSPX was transferring many priests to new assignments such as sending Bishop Williamson to Argentina and Fr. Scott to Australia. Beyond this fact, the rest is just a smear job.

Except for a few things. Among those who have publicly claimed that Fr. Aulagnier's transfer to Quebec was intended to silence him one finds Bishop Rifan, Fr. Aulagnier, Bishop Fellay, and French SSPX clergy too numerous to mention. You are obviously not familiar with Bishop Fellay's recent letter expelling Fr. Aulagnier from the SSPX.

[narses]

To compare the actions of Abp. LeFevre with that of the sodomites in the ECUSA is slander. Your comments are a mix of truth and falsehood. The necessity of the act is now a matter of history. Had the Abp. not acted, there would be no Indult. The acts of the last 40 years from the hierarchs have included many a "betrayal of 2000 years of Catholic tradition and history".

[PetrosRomanos]

To compare the actions of Abp. LeFevre with that of the sodomites in the ECUSA is slander.

I would agree with you, if indeed this is what was done. It was not. In fairness to the SSPX, I would be very surprised if Vere did not deliberately choose the comparison he did for polemical reasons. This is unfortunate. But read his words carefully. He has not compared the actions of the Archbishop to those of the sodomites within ECUSA. The comparison involves Bishop Fellay's very recent expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier, not the 1988 episcopal consecrations. The expulsion takes place over a decade after the Archbishop's death. Secondly, he does not compare the two actions in terms of sinfulness, but in terms of their effect upon their respective ecclesiastical body. In other words, the "consecration" of Gene Robinson cemented ECUSA's break from the Anglican communion, while Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion (given that he co-founded the SSPX with the Archbishop) cements the SSPX's break from the Catholic Church. If anything, Vere actually implicitly admits that the break was not cemented in 1988. Nevertheless, I agree that Vere should have been less polemical in his choice of similes.

[PetrosRomanos]

It looks like Vere is saying that SSPX has been highjacked by people who want a permanent break, and that the transfer of Fr. Aulagnier (who didn't want a permanent break?) is part of that.

No, Fr. Aulagnier never envisioned a permanent break from Rome. With this in mind, it should be pointed out that he does not currently see the SSPX as having broken from Rome. Rather, he sees certain individuals within the SSPX as pushing the Society toward a permanent break with Rome. What further complicates the issue is that Fr. Aulagnier co-founded the SSPX with Archbishop Lefebvre and was probably the Archbishop's closest friend within the SSPX, having convinced the Archbishop first to found the SSPX in 1969, having been the first SSPX seminarian ordained into the SSPX, and having convinced the Archbishop to retract his signature in 1988 and then proceed with the episcopal consecrations. So Fr. Aulagnier sees himself as the voice of Archbishop Lefebvre within the SSPX as it stands now. If you can read French, I highly suggest you check out Fr. Aulagnier's essay on the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre. If you cannot, then you might find Fr. Aulagnier's recent interview in the Wanderer of interest. In it, he clearly lays out his thinking on this subject, which he models after what he believes what have been the Archbishop's thinking if the latter were still alive.

[Unam Sanctam]

There is a world of difference between indult masses pursuant to Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX -- the first is obedient to and in communion with the Successor of Peter, while the latter is not. That is rather an important thing for a Catholic, since the Pope is the Magisterium and has teaching authority, while mere individuals do not. If there has been betrayal by hierarchs, it is all the more reason to stay within the sheepfold and fight for orthodox belief and reverence in the liturgy. To claim that the "Vatican II Church" is a new religion and unconnected with Sacred Tradition of 2000 is utterly false, and merely repeats the same error that the modernists repeat. And yes, I believe that the disobedience, arrogance, self-pride and false doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre is in no way different from that of "bishop" Robinson of ECUSA. They both have set themselves up as a counter-Magisterium and thus have attacked Tradition. Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia. The Pope is orthodoxy, not the schismatic conventicles of SSPX.

[dsc]

"The luminous mysteries are not a matter of dogma. They are simply more meditations on the life of Jesus. If one does not prefer to say them, they are under no obligation to."

I remember reading that the Rosary was given to us intact by Our Lady in an apparition.

Last time I mentioned that, I also got a blizzard of articles claiming that the Rosary was a human invention that had evolved over time.

I really don't know what to think at this point, but I've developed a strong aversion to innovations.

"How can anyone reconcile this statement, though?"

I don't know. I think that's beyond my tiny and still-alleged realm of competence.

[dsc]

>>I'll confess to some serious misgivings
>>re the Luminous Mysteries.
"Why?"

I remember reading that Our Lady gave us the Rosary complete in an apparition. Maybe it's a false memory, or I dreamed it or something, but that's what I remember.

I have also read extensively about--and experienced--the power of the Rosary in its Traditional form.

I don't like the idea of meddling with it. I don't like the idea of it changing after all these years.

Already the very act of changing it has rendered many more vulnerable to Satan's snares: some by causing them discomfort with the change, others by causing them to have bad feelings toward those who didn't jump enthusiastically on the bandwagon.

Change in Traditions long held almost always has undesirable effects such as those, and should be avoided wherever possible.

At this point in history, when it is imperative that no further erosion of Tradition be allowed, and that depredations now in place be reversed, heaping still more innovations on the groaning backs of the faithful hardly seems prudent to me.

[dsc]

" I see that you even participated on the thread, although it was a year ago"

Well, my memory isn't what it used to be.

I think.

Hard to remember back to a time when I had a good memory, but I do seem to recall something about such an era.

[dsc]

"a liturgical poofter-wreckovator if there ever was one, of whom Peter Vere says, "He taught me everything I know about canon law."

Okay. It's hard to keep the players straight without a scorecard.

I've been thinking of trying to draw up a scorecard for my own reference--you know, "Vere, Peter, acolyte of..." --but I haven't had the energy.

[Domestic Church]

Shocking especially because St.Pio said the Latin Mass until his death.

[Maximilian]

Among those who have publicly claimed that Fr. Aulagnier's transfer to Quebec was intended to silence him one finds Bishop Rifan, Fr. Aulagnier, Bishop Fellay, and French SSPX clergy too numerous to mention.

So then you are saying that Fr. Aulagnier has been part of the whining campaign from the beginning? That is too bad, since I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I find it highly unlikely the Bishop Fellay would claim the Fr. Aulagnier's transfer to Quebec was intended to silence him. What evidence do you have for that?

You are obviously not familiar with Bishop Fellay's recent letter expelling Fr. Aulagnier from the SSPX.

Why don't you let us know what it says if it's relevant? But I take it this letter would have come long after the transfer, and after the campaign of resistance by Fr. Aulagnier. In that case, it is not relevant to the point that Fr. Aulagnier was transferred at the same time as a general reorganization was occurring including Williamson and Scott.

[Maximilian]

The individual whining about Fr. Aulagnier being exiled here is Bishop Rifan -- the spiritual grandson of Bishop Castro de Meyer.

The individual who has been on a non-stop campaign of complaining about Fr. Aulagnier's transfer is Peter Vere, and the person posting this item to some blog was Peter Vere, and the person comparing the SSPX transfer of Aulagnier to the consecration of a gay episcopal bishop was Peter Vere. Whether Bishop Rifan turns out to be the spiritual grandson of Bishop Castro de Meyer is yet to be seen.

[Theosis]

Maximilian wrote: "The individual who has been on a non-stop campaign of complaining about Fr. Aulagnier's transfer is Peter Vere, and the person posting this item to some blog was Peter Vere, and the person comparing the SSPX transfer of Aulagnier to the consecration of a gay episcopal bishop was Peter Vere." Here is what was initially written: "And there are punishments for all those who, publicly, diverge from the official line: Fr. Aulagnier was reduced to complete silence and exiled to Canada for having approved of our Apostolic Administration and for having attended my episcopal consecration." As far as I know, Vere is neither in charge of an Apostolic Administration nor has he been consecrated a bishop. Therefore, the evidence suggests that Bishop Rifan is the one making the claim here. This would be consistent with other evidence such as the fact Bishop Rifan was the subject of the interview in which the claims were made.

[PetrosRomanos]

Since some folks, in the spirit of Bishop Williamson, will buy into any conspiracy except the most obvious, here is the text of the SSPX's letter expelling Fr. Aulagnier, which one can read at http://site.voila.fr/btag/annx/c001.htm :

Monsieur l’abbé Paul Aulagnier a été du premier groupe de séminaristes qui, en 1969, s’est rassemblé autour de Mgr Lefebvre et a préludé à la Fraternité Saint-Pie X. Des neuf séminaristes de cette époque, il est l’un des deux derniers restés fidèles, avec Mgr Tissier de Mallerais.

Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier a rempli dans la Fraternité d’importantes fonctions. Il fut professeur et sous-directeur au séminaire d’Écône, supérieur du District de France durant dix-huit ans, fondateur de la revue Fideliter, supérieur de la maison autonome de Belgique. Il fut surtout, pendant trente ans, Assistant général, d’abord auprès de Mgr Lefebvre, ensuite auprès de Monsieur l’abbé Schmidberger, enfin auprès de Mgr Fellay. Pour tout cela, et notamment pour l’important développement du District de France sous sa direction, nous lui devons une vive reconnaissance.

Cependant, après qu’en 1994, au terme de trois mandats successifs de supérieur de District, Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier a reçu de nouvelles fonctions, il a commencé à exprimer des divergences avec les orientations données par les autorités légitimes de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X. Comme Assistant général, il faisait partie du Conseil réuni régulièrement autour du Supérieur général pour décider de ces orientations. Il avait parfaitement le droit, disons même qu’il avait le devoir, à titre de conseiller et d’Assistant, d’exprimer et de défendre en ce Conseil ce qu’il estimait juste et utile.

Malheureusement, Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier ne s’est pas arrêté à ces fonctions d’Assistant et de conseiller, qui ne peuvent évidemment s’exercer que sous l’autorité du Supérieur général élu par la congrégation. Il a exprimé, de façon très publique, très répétée et souvent assez polémique, ses divergences avec les autorités légitimes et leurs orientations. Il a également pris, en dépit de ces orientations, des initiatives publiques d’une extrême gravité.

Les autorités légitimes de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, et particulièrement son Supérieur général, Mgr Fellay, n’ont pas manqué, par de nombreux avertissements, conversations et lettres, tant privés qu’officiels, de l’avertir, de le supplier, de l’exhorter à respecter la hiérarchie légitime et à ne pas semer sans cesse le désordre et le trouble.

Malheureusement, ces nombreux efforts, menés dans la plus grande discrétion pour ne pas porter préjudice à Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier et lui permettre de se reprendre, n’ont abouti à aucun résultat. Tout récemment encore, et malgré des ordres formels, Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier a exprimé publiquement son opposition aux orientations actuelles de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X. Devant le constat de cette très grave divergence manifestée de façon persévérante par Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier, le Supérieur général a dû se résigner à prendre à son encontre des mesures extrêmement graves.

C’est une peine immense et un déchirement pour chacun de nous, qui avons de l’estime et de la reconnaissance envers Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier. Nous devons prier de toutes nos forces pour que Monsieur l’abbé Aulagnier reste fidèle, humblement, à Mgr Lefebvre, à l’œuvre que celui-ci a fondée, la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, et aux autorités légitimes de celle-ci. Et chacun de nous doit prier pour rester lui-même humblement fidèle, malgré les traverses et les tentations, en cette crise terrible.

Suresnes, le 14 octobre 2003.

Abbé Régis de Cacqueray, Supérieur du District de France.

[Maximilian]

I've been thinking of trying to draw up a scorecard for my own reference--you know, "Vere, Peter, acolyte of..." --but I haven't had the energy.

If you find the energy to make your chart, please post it here on FR. The rest of us with accelerating memory lapses could benefit.