Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
Taking a break from judging annulments earlier today, I visited a number of French traditionalist websites. I also had the opportunity, yesterday, to speak with a friend of mine who is a canonist from France following the situation as well as another friend who keeps tabs on the traditionalist movement in both the English and the French speaking world. Everyone agrees -- the situation has degenerated into total chaos, as nobody knows exactly what is going on with the highly-respected French SSPX clergy that have criticized what they see as the SSPX's growing rigidity.
It does appear that Rome has refused to take competency over the case, more-or-less stating that the SSPX denied Rome's jurisdiction over them when Lefebvre carried out a schismatic act through the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Beyond that, Rome refuses to comment other than to say, "Our door remains open for their return to full communion."
Beyond that, the rhetoric, polemic and accusations suggest that indeed civil war is breaking out among the laity and clergy within the SSPX's French District. In fact, two websites have now popped up that are exclusively devoted to tracing all the news stories associated with the crisis. What I find personally find interesting is that every news report, commentary, polemic, etc... mentions Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX around this time last year.
In the months that followed, it appears that the SSPX more-or-less tried to sweep Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion under the rug. But in so doing, even the regime currently in charge of the SSPX had to admit the important role played by Fr. Aulagnier in the founding of the SSPX. This is probably why the SSPX appeared to hope the issue would go away.
Yet it is also well-known that Fr. Aulagnier was a close friend of Fr. Laguerie as well as Fr. de Tanouarn -- two of the SSPX's leading priests. (As Fr. Laguerie's assistant, Fr. Henri appears to have just happened into the situation). It is also well-known that a number of French (and some American) SSPX priests were not happy with Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion. Therefore, I will venture to guess that the current SSPX chaos is the effect of Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion coming back to haunt Bishop Fellay. As for the particular details, this is the first time in almost fourteen years of being a traditionalist that I find the fog of war too thick to reasonably discern what is going on. (What I find even more troubling is that behind the scenes, under the flag of truce, other SSPX and traditionalist commentators with whom I am in contact have admitted to having the same problem.)
So if I can end on a personal note to the moderate SSPX clergy and their supporters who follow this blog, I'm more than happy to abide by the flag of truce and keep you guys in prayer while you fight whatever battles need to be fought, but I honestly cannot make heads-or-tails of what is happening. But like Rome has said, the door is open for you to return. I will pray that God gives you the necessary strength to walk through it.
Talk about a highway to hell.
Here's an important truth that you need to understand better.
If the Pope's writings and teachings require your approval (at least in your mind), then you are the Pope.
"The Novus Ordo was created for Protestants.
It was created by Protestants for former Catholics."
Make that by masons for protestants and former Catholics
So this is pride?
What would you call standing in judgement on the Vicar of Christ and presuming to fault his every teaching and word?
Humility?
Reading the SSPX link which NYer put up in post #5, one is immediately struck by the rich irony of almost every paragraph. The writer is lamenting the lack of obedience by the priest and his refusal to submit himself to the SSPX hierarchy.
Translation: Submit and bow down to us, you proud sinner, whilst we continue to flout and contest Papal authority and teaching.
As the kids say, "What goes around, comes around".
"whilst we continue to flout and contest Papal authority and teaching"
That's a good summary of what the modern Vatican has been doing for the last 40 years.
Compare "ut unum sint" with "mortalium animos" - and that's just for starters.
Once you've done this - report back for your next assignment.
You misunderstand what I said. I was making the point that the Pope can't invent what we must believe. It is not up to him to teach anything new whatsoever. His office gives him authority only to teach what the Church has always taught and what Catholics have always believed--in other words, what has already been handed-down by Catholic Tradition. But if he does not do this, and will not protect that tradition but teaches novelties instead--then by default it falls to others to defend the true faith. That is not something that traditional Catholics wish to do--but they are forced by default to do this in a crisis.
Your "good fruit" grows on a tree in another plot of land.
I'll stay in the garden blessed by the Gardener.
"I'll stay in the garden blessed by the Gardener."
I hope you like eating cactus leaves
Good night, Phil. You need rest.
Lefebvre's tree is also in the garden. You can tell which one it is because it's the only one around bearing any good fruit.
and it's also providing shade for all those operating under the "indult"
Puny nodules aren't "good fruit" UR, especially since some of those pomegranetes think other trees look better.
We've worn this metaphor out, I think.
"To you he's nothing more than a "silly hothead frog priest." Talk about turning on your own. Lovely. One minute he's a fine memmber of SSPX. The next he's a silly hothead frog priest."
Well, the French do have this rather eccentric approach to religion more so the earlier traditionalists with their strong independent minds. The younger breed now taking over the reins are quieter and more cautious in their dealings with the world.
Yes.
A couple of the walking definitions post here incessantly.
Spin it any way you want.
It still does not get around the fact that when the Pope teaches and writes, either you or you confreres or both, must sit down and decide whether what he is saying falls within the ambit of "tradition" or whether it is a "novelty".
It's at precisely that point that you become the Pope.
My point is that the charism of judging what is and is not in accord with Catholic tradition is not given to each and every member of the Mystical Body, though many, in their pride, think that it is.
In light of the useless comparison "more Catholic than the Pope," do you regard yourself: a) more Catholic than the Pope; b) just as Catholic as the Pope; or c) less Catholic than the Pope?
Besides, it's not those who follow the Pope that Madrid is lampooning in his latest book, but those who DON'T follow the Pope.
It IS the SSPX movement and the frog, now excommunicated and dead was obviously Marcel Lefebvre.
Black Elk
Committee to Suppress Schismatic Invincible Ignorance
That wasn't the question - how Catholic are you in comparison to the Pope? Or do you agree that the comparison is nonsensical?
I don't know.
Or do you agree that the comparison is nonsensical?
It's a spoof on people who have left the Church because they think they are more Catholic than he is.
If the comparison stings, it's meant to.
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.