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.
Come on, Pyro, get with it! Open your eyes, smell the coffee .... admit that "St". Faustina was ordained in order to provide the Polish peoples with someone pleasing to them. And, as for "St". Juan Diego ... oh brother, ... he is a nobody! Another fabrication of THIS pontificate, determined to increase the "dwindling" number of catholics by canonizing just about anyone! (/sarcasm).
This post has been a veritable eye opener for me. Except for the French SSPX who are still hopeful of reconciling with Rome, those on this side of the Atlantic Ocean have saddled up with an Anglican leader who "passed through" the catholic church on his way to the SSPX. Just how much understanding of the Catholic Church can he have, much less any fidelity to the Holy Father. These SSPXers are rapidly headed towards sedevacantism, which they embrace with open arms.
lol.. I've never seen one here either.
And you are probably right!
Understand that this thread has exposed even the most conservative of us to a traditional extremism. To deny the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy, given by Our Lord to Sr. Faustina, is to deny Christ Himself!
"Paint an image according to the pattern you see with the signature: Jesus I trust in You ... I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish. I also promise victory over enemies already here on earth, especially at the hour of death. I Myself will defend it as My own glory... I am offering people a vessel with which they are to keep coming for graces to the fountain of mercy. That vessel is this image with the signature: "Jesus I trust in You" ... I desire that this image be venerated, first in your chapel, and throughout the world."
It's one thing to freeze the liturgy of a missal dated 1962, it is quite another to stop the progression of saints or deny that Christ has anything else to say to those of us who love Him, and follow His appointed successor on earth.
Those of us who are faithful to the Holy Father are labeled "modernists" .... no longer viewed as catholics! Yet, we who are members of the Church Militant, are out there on the frontlines defending our church in the face of adversity. It is a weekly battle and, oh how we would love nothing more than to attend mass without having to keep track of abuses. Yet, it is because of OUR efforts, that the church is rallying. We all know, only too well, that the Vatican operates at a snail's pace. So be it! We will defend our Holy Father, even unto death.
I wish they all could be LeFerbvrist girls!
ROFLMAO!!!! Thanks, I needed that and probably some of the other posters, as well. LOL!
According to these SSPXers, it would seem that you and I and the others viewed as 'modernists' have lots in common. And doesn't that just make my heart sing!
They have frozen themselves into a time warp!
The real choice is between the successor of St. Peter, who values every human being,and a wacky bishop, who cautions his dopey followers against praying with Novus Ordo Catholics, while he obsesses over women who wear shorts and pants.
Williamson's all you've got, in the line of episcopal succession, here in the United States.
Neither you nor sitetest do anything but slander people. Where are the proofs for any of these accusations and slurs?
Slanders and slurs? Read the goofy stuff Williamson writes; the only one doing the slurring is Dickie-boy.
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.