What reconciliation? SSPX Demotes Former French Superior

Envoy Encore ^ | 5/28/03 | Pete Vere, JCL

[Theosis]

This is an outrage! L'Abbe Aulagnier was the first priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre for the SSPX. How dare they treat him like that!

[ultima ratio]

How do you know why he was transferred? It might just as well have been to have his side represented more strongly in America. Why assume the worst? And why accept this writer's biased view of things? It is biased because it assumes reconciliation is a good thing. Not so. There is no point in reconciling to a Rome that remains haughtily committed to the destruction of Catholic Tradition and stubbornly clings to the modernist agenda.

Both Williamson and Fellay represent two sides of the same coin, after all, not opposites: one is mistrustful and sees danger in being reconciled too soon with Rome; the other sees danger in staying out of touch too long. And yes, it is a dilemma. SSPX has stayed uncorrupted precisely because it has been separate and able to keep alive Catholic tradition--but its own strained relations with Rome brings along with it insults and persecution. This has been stressful--yet so is premature return to an ersatz Catholicism that is Catholic in name only--only to be silenced in the way FSSP has been silenced. Bishop Fellay has called this kind of promise, complete with its offer of a special apostolic status, a zoo--in which traditionalists would be treated as oddities gradually forced by the zookeepers, first to give up the missal of '62, then eventually the faith itself.

So in a way both Williamson and Fellay are equally correct. Williamson is highly suspicious--but he has every right to be when talking about the Vatican where the name of the game is bait-and-switch. Fellay is more prudent and more willing to deal with Rome respectfully and patiently. But he knows that since Rome wishes to achieve unity without dealing with core theological problems, nothing will happen and the end result will be what we have now--both sides waiting for a miracle.

[american colleen]

Thanks for posting this.

I have heard that there are many factions within the SSPX and all is not the unified front that is presented to the general public.

[american colleen]

I'd recommend going to the envoy encore site and scrolling down to this story... the comments box (to large to fit here) are well worth reading.

[Land of the Irish]

Vere adjusting his tin foil lined hat.

[Aloysius]

This is an outrage! L'Abbe Aulagnier was the first priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre for the SSPX. How dare they treat him like that!

Perhaps you are overreacting. He was transferred to North America, it's not exactly the equivalent of being transferred to Siberia.

[jt8d]

Ultima Ratio:

As usual, you are right on target. I have to laugh at the attempts some make to trash SSPX. "Eurocentric" indeed! Priests are transfered and shuffled about on a regular basis, as the need may require. Moreover, I see no "split" between the opinions of Williamson and Fellay. The two men are contemplating the trickery of Modernist Rome from different viewpoints. Rome is attempting to set-up a pincer move against SSPX--that is what this newly issued "Return of the Latin Rite" is most probably being used to do; to wit: bait.

Think about this. If SSPX accepts Rome's "offer," will the modernists who control the Vatican simply roll over in defeat? I think not. The Modernists will do precisely what they do best: deceive--change the plain meaning of words, "reform" what has always been the accepted definition of terms into something that is alien to Catholic theology. SSPX knows this is what the game entails. But, if in being aware of the trechory that defines Modernists, SSPX rejects the supposedly "good-faith offer" being set out by Rome, then the Vatican wins the public relations battle. It is a no-win situation for SSPX. The masonic Vatican bureaucrats are not to be trusted, and every member of SSPX knows the "game." There is no division within the ranks--that is Modernist propaganda.

[american colleen]

But where does "these Romans" come from? He sounds like a non-Catholic.

Well I guess Williamson couldn't come out and exactly like the non-Catholics and call us "papists." ;-) Bet he wanted to, though.

[Theosis]

How do you know why he was transferred?

I know people in Levis where he is currently posted. He does not claim to be on any extended vacation.

It might just as well have been to have his side represented more strongly in America. Why assume the worst?

Because he is no longer holds a Superior position, because he was removed as Second Assistant to the Superior General on the General Council, and because he has little grasp of the English language. How effective can the reconciliation position be presented in America by a priest who once was superior and is no longer so, and who does not speak or grasp the language of the people?

Hence, the outrage. Only a sedevacantist would find this news encouraging.

[Theosis]

Perhaps you are overreacting. He was transferred to North America, it's not exactly the equivalent of being transferred to Siberia.

I would agree with you if he spoke and understood the English language. He does not. Thus he is isolated to Quebec.

[Land of the Irish]

I would agree with you if he spoke and understood the English language. He does not. Thus he is isolated to Quebec.

They don't speak French in Quebec?

[Theosis]

They don't speak French in Quebec?

Yes they do, but the suggestion was that this "transfer" would present the reconciliationist side in America. What about English-speaking Canada, Mexico and the United States?

[ultima ratio]

I acknowledge the justice in your argument, but disagree that only a sedevacantist would be encouraged. There is great danger in a premature reconciliation. Rome has the power, but does not exhibit the faith. That is the sum of the dilemma.

[ultima ratio]

He is referring to the "new Rome" which is modernist, not Catholic. Look at the evidence--the widespread suppression and subversion of Catholic doctrine. He is correct.

[Land of the Irish]

What about English-speaking Canada, Mexico and the United States?

What's you point? The priest was transferred to a region that speaks French, his own native tongue. First you complain that he can't speak English, then you complain that he's not in an English-speaking country.

[Theosis]

What's you point?

That he was not, as ultima ratio suggests, transfered "to have his side represented more strongly in America." It is quite simple.

[Theosis]

There is great danger in a premature reconciliation.

You're missing the point. This isn't about premature reconciliation, but reconciliation period. Williamson basically passed through the Catholic Church on his way to the SSPX from Anglicanism. The Church will likely never be in perfect enough shape for him to reconcile. He has lived most of his life outside of submission to the Roman Pontiff, so the present situation is probably no big deal to him.

On the other hand, Fr. Aulagnier is not just any FSSPX (or SSPX in North America) priest -- he is one of only two priests left from Lefebvre's first class of SSPX seminarians, was one of Lefebvre's closest confidants when the Archbishop was still living, and he is the former superior of arguably the FSSPX's most influential district. The apparent silencing of Fr. Aulagnier within the FSSPX is the silencing of the voice of Archbishop Lefebvre. Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay continues to appease Williamson rather than risk schism within the SSPX. Therefore it should surprise nobody that ideologically the SSPX is now Williamson's.

[ultima ratio]

I disagree. The problem is not Williamson--it's Rome, which is pulling out all the stops to separate Fellay and the others from Williamson. Nor do I believe Williamson is the ogre you make him out to be. He is certainly angry--but he has a perfect right to be. Any Catholic should be, after the past four decades. Authority is not Williamson's problem--the lack of orthodoxy in Rome is what he finds most difficult to reconcile with. So do I.