Posted on 05/30/2003 11:43:43 PM PDT by Theosis
In the past week or two, even some of the most hardened traditionalists I know have complained about SSPX Bishop Williamson's latest monthly letter, in which he appears to take a very firm stand against the possibility of an SSPX reconciliation. Here's an excerpt:
Even if these Romans were to speak exactly the same language as the SSPX still, by their modernist religion, they would not be meaninq the same things. Therefore the "reconciliation" would be verbal, not real, and the SSPX would have lost the protection of its present marginalization.
This does not appear to be much different than his various negative comments about the Campos reconciliation. Williamson, as everyone knows, is from England and was raised (at least nominally) as an Anglican. Reportedly, he briefly passed through the Catholic Church on his way to the SSPX schism. He know runs the SSPX's American seminary, and his influence within North America appears to be quite strong.
On the other end of the spectrum, (which is surprising given his past reputation as a SSPX hardliner) L'Abbe Paul Aulagnier from France is now making some pretty strong statements in favor of reconciliation. To share a little of his background, he was one of the SSPX's first priests and has held the offices of District Superior of France (which if I understand correctly is sort of the position of "first among equals" when it comes to SSPX District Superiorships), District Superior of Belgium and Second Assistant to the Superior General. Here's a loose translation of an excerpt from a recent interview he gave ITEM, in which he tackles these same topics:
I am very happy with the positive reaction of Bishop Fellay. "The negotiations continue," he said, "they are not dead." This is something good. I am always very favorable towards these contacts with Rome. We cannot "separate" from Rome, "forget" Rome.
Thus the best thing is to keep things, it is to keep these contacts frequent. Otherwise our "battle" would lose its reason of being. Our goal, over and above the salvation of souls, is to see our Apostolic Tradition rekindle in Rome -- and from Rome to the entire Church.
All isolation is dangerous, and ours in particular.
If we were not to turn toward Rome, we could in time create "a little Church". [Basically a non-Catholic Church like the Old Catholics - PJV]
Then the schism would be consummated well and good. This is our danger. This is why I am happy about Bishop Fellay.
This is also why I'm happy with the "agreement" that Bishop Rangel worked to bring to a successful conclusion with Rome by creating a personal apostolic administration with an exclusive right to the Tridentine liturgy. I hope we will get there ourselves as well.
Granted, my translation isn't perfect, but you get the gist of what Fr. Aulagnier is saying. Despite couching his comments behind appeals to Bishop Fellay's recent comments, it has taken him great courage to state what he has stated in public. (Which is why I'm not gonna quibble with him over whether the SSPX is headed towards schism or already there -- suffice to say, it appears that we both agree the SSPX will end up there permanently in the future if negotiations and contacts aren't intensified.) My heart and prayers go out to Fr. Aulagnier and I pray he will be successful in urging the SSPX toward reconciliation.
Unfortunately, my head tells me that most SSPX clergy still stand behind Williamson, and that he will likely win out if we don't see a massive change of heart among these same clergy. My pessimism is further amplified by the fact Fr. Aulagnier was recently transfered to North America. This is not good in my opinion. I have always found the SSPX quite euro-centric and thus I would not venture to guess that this transfer to North America was a promotion -- especially as Aulagnier is now in the heart of Williamson's sphere of influence.
Which only raises the following question: whose side Bishop Fellay is really taking behind the scenes? In other words, if Bishop Fellay is really in favor reconciliation, why would he transfer the SSPX's most outspoken and well-respected reconciliarist ourside of his reported sphere influence after he appeared to break with the party line, when no action appears to have been taken against Bishop Williamson -- who appears to be the SSPX's most outspoken opponent to reconcilation?
This gives the appearance of a double-standard and sends a strong message to the outside world that Williamson's ideological influence has won out within the SSPX. In my opinion, traditionalists on both sides need to watch the SSPX's treatment of Fr. Aulagnier carefully, because it likely will be the litmus test of how serious the SSPX is in approaching negotiations. Those like myself at St. Blog who favor reconciliation need to make a strong statement in support of Aulagnier right now.
What do you mean it isn't a Church-approved devotion? Which Church are you referring to, the Lutheran church? The person that the devotion originated from, Faustina Kowalska, was canonized in 2000, and a plenary indulgence was granted for the Divine Mercy Sunday devotions this past year.
Speaking of the rosary, the current form of joyful, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries for the rosary came from Pope Pius V in 1569, who was a former Dominican. Before that, the rosary was known as a "Paternoster," for obvious reasons.
Okay ... that's it! Go ahead and trash the Sound of Music, denigrate a gir's interest in demonstrating her "ideas" in a university but ... DO NOT!! ... take away my dress slacks! If Williamson continues along this path, the SSPX women will have replaced their mantillas with this:
Ladies, I am sorry we will offer no retreats for you this year, but send your menfolk instead. They are the ones who most need it!
Isn't that about the time Ultima arrived in the Religion forum ...... ????????
I'd be kinda interested in hearing from his wife, instead. ;-)
That's a quote from huskyboy. Now that's scary! These folks are allowing a lunatic fringe Anglican to run their lives. He isn't even catholic! ... oh, excuse me, he passed through catholicism on his way to the SSPX. And huskboy is one of the good sheeple, following the shepherd regardless of where he takes them.
My calendar doesn't have any "divine mercy" Sunday.
Anyways, here is an excerpt from the Daily Catholic site:
A local devotion under the title of "Divine Mercy" was approved by the Ordinary of Vilnius in 1936 and from there spread rapidly, especially after World War II in the United States. It appears that Sr. Faustina could not write, save a few lines phonetically. Most of her "diary" was concocted by her sisters after her death. Because of the incongruities of the dairy (different handwriting, different use of terms), the devotion was suppressed, and the book of her diary was placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum [Index of Forbidden Books]. This decision was upheld by Pope John XXIII in 1958/59. In early 1978, a Polish cardinal petitioned the Vatican to remove the suppression of the devotion, which was being practiced without sanction in his diocese, and the Vatican replied in the negative, confirming the suppression.
You know, I had respect for certain people despite disagreements, but when it gets down to this, I have to rethink things a bit more.
The Lord is my shepherd. . . and after extensive reading on what Catholicism really is supposed to be, I can conclude with certainty that He would not be pleased if I continued to sit on the other side of the fence. So, away from the protestant-like novus ordo service I went.
Of course, I have higher suspicions that some folks because I was deceived as far as what Mass is really supposed to be. And there are other issues as well. In return for being fed that deception, I will go out there and share the truth that I've learned. That's it.
Now, instead of people talking about lunatics, fringe groups, and Anglicans, how about posting the real reason you post-conciliars have with those who support the true Mass and sacraments, along with the true Catholic faith? What is it. . . really?
This is the second time I've seen this statement. What gives? This appears to be another manifestation of the traditionalists vs. the "neo-Catholics" debate. From what I can tell, some of the traditionalists are claiming that the Divine Mercy devotion is meant to "replace" devotion to the Sacred Heart, when nothing could be further from the truth. I don't get it.
In early 1978, a Polish cardinal petitioned the Vatican to remove the suppression of the devotion, which was being practiced without sanction in his diocese, and the Vatican replied in the negative, confirming the suppression.
This Polish Cardinal would become Pope John Paul II. What this part of the statement doesn't say is that the "supression" was lifted in 1978 right before Pope Paul VI died. The fact that they don't mention he becomes pope give you a picture to where they are coming from.
What this situation and others in this debate have taught me is to check people's facts.
With God, anything is possible. That's why I don't dwell on it too much. But I don't discount the possibility, even if many consider it wishful thinking.
If we return for a moment to politics, the United States is now caught precisely between these two scourges of God. Unquestionably one main grievance of Arabs against the United States, provoking their terrorists to lash out as we have seen, is the United States' one-sided favoring of Israel over the Arabs for the last forty years. But each time the United States attempts to act even-handedly towards the Arabs, Jewish power inside the United States - e.g. virtual control of finance and the media - blocks the attempt, and the United States returns to oppressing the Arabs.
I wonder what it is that (generally) people in the U.S. are doing or not doing that gives rise to the tug-of-war phenomenon. I believe that non-intervention is the best policy. But somehow this country gets into other countries' affairs - something one would easily notice during World War I. Had it stayed out of that conflict, things may have been better for the U.S.
Other things to consider are how we, over the decades, have done things to compromise our faith in this country. Remember the Americanist heresy? It had to have been taught to many people, otherwise a certain pope would not have said anything. Catholicism is not a branch of Christianity, it is synonymous with Christianity. Too many people live as if it were a branch or denomination, and this contributes to the growing religious indifferentism which was already showing up among protestants.
I'm also just venturing a guess, but what of the prayers of the years for our leaders and lawmakers, for our court system, and so on? How many people have been doing that? I don't know if you're trying to proof-text the letter, but I have a sense you're not getting the context of the entire letter. It's just a sense for right now.
Regarding the Sound of Music, I would hazard a guess that the reason you can't find any decent movies these days is because you have raised the bar supernaturally high. There is nothing wrong with the Sound of Music - it's a heartwarming story based on true events. It's even set in an era prior to VII!
There were immoral movies before Vatican II. That's where the Legion of Decency came in - to let the people know which movies were safe to see. A movie which glorified violence back then and was condemned is still a problem now because the movie hasn't changed. Only the sensitivity to such immorality has changed. And that's the danger that some are falling into right now. I can now see why even conservative post-conciliar folks and even protestants say the television should be thrown out and movie-going should be limited.
There's nothing supernatural about what my standards are for movies and television. The number of anti-Catholic movies, music videos, and televisions shows grows each year. The same could be said of programs which advance "racial" stereotypes. And of course, those movies and shows with occult themes cloaked inside. I don't see why any support should be given to such "entertainment". Do you?
To assign murderous intent to her based on her apparel is calumny.
Let's ask the question then about today's [modernist] clothes then. Do you not agree it at the very least provides for the occasion of sin? If so, do you see where seductive clothing could lead to? Likely immoral behavior. On the spiritual side, since you want to talk about "murderous intent", let us consider how many people potentially could be dragged to hell: the woman wearing immodest clothes and those men who looked at her and mentally picturing adulterous scenarios. It would be foolish to think men are always strong enough to fight these temptations and what not, and it is ludicrous to even think that wearing clothes is a private matter and doesn't affect the other people out there.
People have committed crimes because of what others wear: robbery, homicide, hostage-taking, for instance. All because someone wanted to stay "up-to-date", someone thought that next door neighbor was "so, so fine", and more. Modesty keeps those "weird feelings" in check, and also contributes to maintaining order, not just between two people, but also in society.
Our Lady has said on at least two occasions that many people will not make it to heaven because of "sins of the flesh". Immodest clothing an initiator of such stuff. That was true then. Still is true now.
I suppose rape victims are responsible for being raped, in your warped mind.
Men have had impure thoughts about women since time began, whether women wore burquas, mummus, shorts or habits.
It's quite another thing to try to spread the blame for a criminal act by a criminal to a victim. If a man wants to put his hands on a woman, he's going to put his hands on her, no matter what she's wearing.
That's what criminals do; to them, physical assault is an act of violence, not uncontrolled passion.
You and Williamson seem to have some issues of your own regarding sexuality. Most mature men can admire an attractive woman, and move on.
Leering is something high school sophomores and puritans do.
Yes. Witness the recent rousting of Saddam Hussein from power, an action taken by duly elected heads-of-state, in contravention to the will of the Pope. In your world, Hussein would still be in power, not only in Iraq, but in Kuwait, too, as the Pope opposed the Gulf War in 1991.
The Pope was wrong about the rightness of both.
I would say it's because most women like to have a roof over their heads and food on the table. The rent fairy never visited my home. The utility companies and grocery stores don't give things out for free to single women. If you are offended by the idea of me working then I will send you an address where you can send support checks. I wouldn't want to make you unhappy:-)
(I would say more, but I think I may get decked already.)
Sweetie, you're not within reach;-)
My thoughts exactly. The guest on Journey Home this week is a former Baptist minister. He and Marcus Grodi happened to talk about Martin Luther. Turns out he never planned to separate from the Catholic Church; he just wanted to draw attention to his concerns, as posted on the cathedral door. The longer the time between the rift the farther away he drifted from Rome. Those who claim to be Lutheran today are actually 'separated' from Luther's original demands. Like a snowball rolling down a mountain .. it just continues to grow.
What I do find consoling in the original post is the fact that the French SSPX are determined to return to the fold. They are willing to make concessions. Those who follow Williamson, however, are now traveling at warp speed away from mother church.
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.