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.
Well, we've all seen pictures of Saddam Hussein patting babies on the head, too.
I never thought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was something I should commit to memory, as, apparently Williamson has done.
The issue is modesty with respect to swimsuits. And the idea of young ladies experiencing "razor burn" when they hit the water in front of crowds of people hardly seems in keeping with the concept of modesty. Pope Pius XI issued some letters on the topic, and here are quotes:
Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verbally and by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely, Women ... adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... and professing godliness with good works.[ellipsis in the original, not by me]So girls should be "fully and modestly dressed" even if they are on a swim team. And if Williamson is a nut (on this issue at least), then so was Pope Pius XI and virtually every bishop in the world at that time (within our parents' lifetimes).Very often, when occasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodest fashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls -- which fashion not only offends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to the temporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to their eternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause. [Sound like this thread?]
Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.
It is desirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel, example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited to Christian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.
I agree. Dr. Julian Bond had a legitimate grievance, and no doubt he was distraught at the destruction of all his plans, however, his criticisms of Bishop Timlin and others have become hysterical to the point of being self-defeating.
If my bishop's politics sounded like those of Lyndon LaRouche, I'd be a bit concerned.
I'm trying to remember. Was Pius XI as concerned about the rise of the Third Reich as he was about what girls wore in the gymnasium?
This kind of anti-Catholic slander is beneath you, sinkspur. I hope this will refresh your memory: he wrote the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" (With Burning Sorrow) regarding the Nazis, long before it was fashionable to be against them, in fact a year and a half before the Allies declared "Peace in our time" after signing their treaty with Hitler at Munich.
"ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON THE CHURCH AND THE GERMAN REICH"
Given at the Vatican on Passion Sunday, March 14, 1937.
I apologize then for making the implication that you were only feigning ignorance in order to smear Pope Pius XI. But really, he is a pope that you can't afford to not be familiar with. He spent his career as a librarian, until he was pulled from obscurity to become the pope. His first encyclical outlined the plan for his entire pontificate, and then he methodically went about implementing it, one step at a time. Besides publishing "Mit Brennender Sorge" condemning the Nazis, he also published "Quadragesimo Anno" condemning the communists.
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.