What reconciliation? SSPX Demotes Former French Superior

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

[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.

[sinkspur]

Using him as a whip to scourge traditionalism generally--as Sinspur does--is ridiculous.

Why? You use Weakland to scourge the true Church, and Weakland's gone.

You should denounce Williamson, as many of us have denounced Weakland, and every other episcopal enabler of child abuse.

I knew an old monsignor in my early college days who I thought was a wonderful, spiritual man. He told me one day that the Jews were behind all the problems in the world.

I never saw God in him again.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

More to the point, ultima accused us, you and me, of SLANDERING this sick puppy by quoting him. NOW he admits that the man is the SSPX "hairshirt". Why the original accusation of slander?

We were SLANDERING this character by quoting him!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


sitetest

[drstevej]

***The Sound of Music can not be considered equally harmful ***

Rome's hills are alive with the sound of Schism
Demanding rubrics that we've used for a 1000 years...

[ultima ratio]

I would NEVER go to Williamson for spiritual guidance anymore than you would go to Mahony. Having said this, however, I will add he is not crazy, nor does he lack friendliness and a certain humility with the lay people he deals with. He is nowhere as extreme in person as he seems to be in writing. But I never thought he was on the right track, just the same. Most of the letters are pretty innocuous--but every now and then a phrase pops out that is pretty noxious. I would say this: if Fellay and the others reconcile with Rome, I would follow Fellay, not Williamson. Those who would side with Williamson would be those of like mind--of which there will be very few in number, in my opinion.

[ultima ratio]

Because there's a difference between finding someone annoying--and believing slander about the person. Do you understand the difference or must it be spelled out slowly?

[sitetest]

Dear ultima,

Truth is the ultimate defense against libel - or slander.

We quoted the man's own words. That isn't slander.

So why would you tell falsehoods about us?

Perhaps that's slander?


sitetest

[sitetest]

Whaddaya think? Have we been slandered?

[St.Chuck]

They have frozen themselves into a time warp!

I've had that impression also. Like the Amish, Mennonites, or Hassidic Jews, they will latch on to the 1950's and stay there. I wonder if they sell "Leave It To Beaver " videos in their chapel bookstores.

[ultima ratio]

I use Weakland as an example of the PAPACY'S refusal to discipline bad bishops. He was symptomatic of a greater failing higher up. Besides, other than airing some rightwing views in a few letters, how does Williamson compare with Weakland who mocked the Catholic faith and pushed the gay agenda in defiance of even Vatican precepts? Williamson's Masses are above reproach. His dealings with others are friendly and considerate--anything but radical. His letters I read and then discard--that pretty much ends it.

[drstevej]

***They have frozen themselves into a time warp!***

Don't tempt me to do a "Let's Do the Mass Warp Again" parody....

[sinkspur]

I would say this: if Fellay and the others reconcile with Rome, I would follow Fellay, not Williamson.

Good for you. There's hope.

[ultima ratio]

Oh, but Sinkspur never used his words--he accused him of Nazi sympathy, without proof, citing Catholicguy, of all people. He claimed Williamson praised the Unibomber, another calumny without basis in fact--Williamson had only praised some of the writings which even the mainstream press found intriguing. This is slander.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima,

You need to read Wildman Williamson's letters a little bit more closely. He is promoting his foaming at the mouth as SSPX teaching:

"However, here is a pointer in the direction of normalcy: any Catholic with the least respect for Tradition recognizes that women should not be priests - can he deny that if few women went to university, almost none would wish to be priests? Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times."

Here's more dreck:

"From which, one must question what kind of queenship can be exercised by Novus Ordo theologians, even conservative. Normally, "conservative" Catholics who have left Tradition are in bad faith, so will be bad teachers, while those who have never known Tradition will be ignorant, and so bad teachers. Both will make a point of "rescuing" a damsel in"schismatic" or "excommunicated" distress. Therefore a Traditional girl putting herself under "conservative" teachers will, to keep her Faith, require a special effort to resist the menfolk whom God designed (and her parents paid) her to follow. She will then be voluntarily so setting her true Catholic Faith against her true feminine nature that one or the other is almost bound to suffer."

Same dreck, different letter:

"If ever there was a sign of the times, surely it was the cloud of smoke choking Manhattan after the terrorist attack of September 11th, and rising slowly into the New York sky from the ruins of the World Trade Center. Everything modern man believes in -capitalism, materialism, globalism - struck down and reduced to a lethal pile of smoking rubble! We pray for the souls suddenly appearing before God, and for their bereaved families. But there is every chance modern man will roll on into World War III.

"That is a religious and not a political calculation. Man proposes, God disposes."

These aren't his "right wing political views". These are his religious views.

He is a moral hazard, as bad as any bishop in the real Catholic Church. That he is charming and kind in person only makes him a greater danger, as he is likely to take in trusting folks with his gentle manner, and they might drink the poison that he spews.

The pope has over 3000 bishops to oversee. If he is unsuccessful in his administration of over 3000 bishops, we may ascribe that to many things; a lack of administrative competence (it would say nothing about his personal holiness, his orthodoxy, or his wisdom to say that administratively, he's not up to snuff); occasional mistakes (I know that you think all the real Catholic bishops are bad, but that's just one more delusion); factors of which we know nothing.

The SSPX has four schismatic bishops. One of them is a bad man who writes evil things and calls them "catholic" teaching. That the SSPX can't find its way to get rid of ONE lousy bishop out of a GRAND TOTAL of FOUR bishops speaks very, very poorly for the SSPX.

The Catholic Church, headed by our Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II, looks good in comparison.

sitetest

[drstevej]

The Mass Warp

(Lyrics by Pope Piel I)

 

It's astounding, trads are fleeing
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
SSPXers  will take control

I remember them doing the Mass Warp
Loathing those moments when
Vatican II would hit me and the NO would be calling
Let's do the mass warp again...
Let's do the mass warp again!

Its just a clown on the left
A topless reader the right
Shake hands with your neighbor
Not a Tabernacle in sight
But it's Protestant twist that really drives you insane,
Let's do the Mass Warp again!

[sitetest]

Dear ultima,

I'll let sinkspur speak for himself. Here is what you said (or is it slander for me to quote you?? LOL.):

"Neither you nor sitetest do anything but slander people."

I quoted the whackjob. How is that slander?


sitetest

[jt8d]

Let's stick to the remark you made. I realize that you have a handy tendency to digress, in order to obfuscate the issue, but I am wise to this diversion now. You stated that Pat Buchanan opined Hitler to be a "genius," and you did this shrewdly, deceitfully, and without noting the context of the remark. Now, here in your reply, you again attempt to muddy the waters by bringing up other issues that have no relevance to what YOU did.

Please address the issue at hand: that you misappropriated the "genius" quote for ulterior reasons. Stick to the point, and answer the charge--if you are capable of doing so, without going off on some he said/she said tangent.

[sinkspur]

Buchanan calls Hitler a genius; Bishop Williamson admires Ted Kasczynski, the Unabomber.

Whitewash those any way you want.

Do you think, with all the anti-semitic baggage that swirls around him, that Pat Buchanan might have picked someone else to heap accolades on?

[Aloysius]

And the boy thinks abortion can be stopped if women just wore dresses, instead of pants.

Everything else has failed. Why not try it.

[St.Chuck]

The point of whether the "American" revolution was "justified" is a side issue, for reason only that, in the main, the colonialists were Protestant, and thus inebriated with their own inflated sense of self-worth, which is typical to Protestants by political temper, and reinforced through their materialistic and situational-ethic minded theology.

I am not convinced that Protestant principles as much as enlightenment values were behind the American Revolution and America's Constitution, as some Calvinists would like to believe. But if we do want to give the Protestant's the credit (or in your case the blame), they certainly were convinced of man's natural inclination toward the abuse of power and created a wonderful system of checks and balances, i.e. the federal system, the electoral college, the separate branches of government, a bicameral legislature, and a republic as opposed to a direct democracy. If the Protestants were in possession of the "political temper" you suggest, then they were very much cognizant of it and took pains to avoid it's negative consequences. If you would attribute the revolution to Protestantism, then you would have to appreciate Protestantism's recognition of the very real affects of original sin and the institutions they established that would accomodate that reality.

Why on earth would you believe a king would act as a Catholic, when the Pope cannot be trusted to remain Catholic?