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.
I'll have to reacquaint myself with the charges being leveled in this case, but I have been very consistent in defending the decisions of all bishops, however unorthodox they might be, regarding sexual abuse allegations. Allegations. Allegations. Allegations.
Bishop Timlin has acted properly in this case. The suspects have been removed. They have not been reassigned. Bishop Timlin has acted cautiously and prudently despite enormous pressure to drop the hammer on these guys. I know it's not chic these days, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I believe Sammy Sosa too.
There can be little doubt the Catholic Church for forty years has been denigrating and rejecting its own past. Rather than affirming the pride former ecclesiastics took in Catholicism's confrontation with its adversaries, the modern Church now apologizes for its own history and gives its enemies fodder for more attacks. This can be attributed to one reason only: a loss of faith in traditional Catholicism itself.
I disagree. The past forty years have been spent soberly examining the Church's past. I reject the notion that any Doctrine has been altered, and the pope affirms and affirms that with every encyclical he issues. The only apologies the Church has offered have been for the excesses that members of the church may have been guilty of. The Church has not apologized for it's Doctrine.
Catholic ecclesiastics continue to confront their adversaries regularly. The bishop of Sacramento's principled stand regarding Gray Davis' support for abortion and Cardinal Arinze's remarks at the Georgetown commencement excercises are but two of the most recent examples. From Leonid Brezhnev to George W. Bush, the pope has a long history of opposing that which is inconsistent with Church Teaching. He has not displayed the timidity you suggest. That anti- Catholicism is alive and well and growing lends creedence to the fact that the Church remains and grows as a moral force and is indeed confrontational.
I don't know why you think that the past was somehow more Catholic acting. For every John Vianney in France, there were perhaps a thousand lazy, cowardly, inarticulate, unmotivated, distracted, undisciplined, poorly educated, worldly clerics just as there are now.
The result is evident everywhere--particularly in the language that theologians now use.
I don't know what the problem is with clarifying definitions and making them accessable to people in rapidly changing cultures. If you are perturbed by theologians, don't read them. The Catholic Catechism should be your definitive guide.
#1328, addresses your qualms about "sacrifice", "eucharist", and "mass". "The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it." Inexhaustible richness!
The very meaning of the word "faith" itself has shifted. It now means a feeling of communion with God, an experience of the divine--and has lost its rational justification grounded in Catholic doctrines.
I'll take your word for it, but rather than say shifted, why not expanded? Don't the saints "experience the divine?" Are we not called to be saints? Is not an ever greater knowlege of God desirable?
This is why no one in Rome will discuss the New Mass doctrinally with the SSPX and why the Vatican is insisting on "regularization" without any basis in doctrinal agreement--which would reveal its own present course of contradicting Traditional teachings.
My sense is that there is nothing to discuss Doctrinally. The Vatican's position is since there has been no Doctinal change, there is no Doctrinal change to discuss. I think that will prove to be the stumbling block for the poor souls mired in the schism. I mean, how do you discuss a delusional proposition? It would be absurd to treat these claims as true. Impossible for the Church of Truth to take them seriously. I think it important to examine why the Church does not need to discuss these allegations. Either the Church is wrong or the SSPX is wrong.
Maybe more later.
None of it's true; not the canonization, and not even the story.
It's linked at snopes.com.
If you were on the Latin Mass email list you'd know that this is actually true at many traditional parishes today, including indult parishes, such as those run by the FSSP. The choir is designed to be an organic part of the offering of the sacrifice, not an ornamental addition.
Doesn't the European headquarters of SSPX 'own' the institution per se in America? If Williamson split, could he legally take everything and everyone with him regardless of who wants to go?
I wasn't trying to compare anything. All I'm trying to say is, if the morals that the Church teaches (as well as the faith) do not change, then it would necessarily follow that if one movie was bad back in the day, it is still bad today. Again, the only thing that changes is people's sensitivity to it. The other thing I observed is that there appear to be fewer and fewer suitable movies each successive year (which I may have already pointed out earlier).
My kids are protected from harmful and sinful music, movies and TV. The Sound of Music can not be considered equally harmful or have the word "pornographic" included in any description of it.
Just thought of something which can be tied in with my earlier charge of anti-Catholicism. Even if the earlier movies seem to be okey in terms of morality (as most people see it), there is still the anti-Catholic element to deal with. Earlier movies may seem innocent, but if the portrayal of Catholicism is false in terms of substance, then the movie is just as anti-Catholic as one which shows and glorifies outright prejudice against the faith and against the faithful. How much does Sound of Music resemble The Story of the Trapp Family Singers? The Song of Bernadette shows St. Bernadette's father as ashamed of his poverty, which is not true in reality. The Messenger contains historical inaccuracies and attempts to put a new age/occult spin on life of Joan of Arc. You may not find them morally objectionable, but that may be because you're only looking on the surface. When one looks at the substance and symbolism, (s)he can find out often that a movie is saying a lot more.
I wonder why blasphemous movies like Dogma and Bruce Almighty do so well at the box office. Could it be because the vigilance against such stuff has dropped over the years? Did we fail to recognize that we compromised truth and genuine Catholic culture and faith in the arts, all in the name of making a movie "look good"? Shouldn't these movies be designed to transform the world, rather than accomodate to it?
You really did not address this particular problem directly. You discussed the immorality of immodest dress (no argument from me there, although I wouldn't take it as far as you) but you never addressed the abortion-as-it-relates-to-pants idea that is so wrong.
Let us review the "objectionable" paragraph again:
Girls, be mothers, and in order to be mothers, let not wild horses drag you into shorts or trousers. When activities are proposed to you requiring trousers, if it is something your great-grandmother did, then find a way of doing it, like her, in a skirt. And if your great-grandmother did not do it, then forget it! Her generation created your country, your generation is destroying it. Of course not all women who wear trousers abort the fruit of their womb, but all help to create the abortive society. Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers or shorts. Bishop de Castro Mayer was right.
(bold text I added for emphasis)
I still don't see a direct connection between the two, but something makes sense, intuitively. See, women wearing pants is a modernist phenomenon. And abortion - although it was condemned by the earliest feminists - is also a modernist phenomenon. Women think they can wear pants because the times have changed (so it must be okey). It leads to wearing other types of immodest clothing, again, because times have changed. So, does that mean extramarital activity is okey because the times have changed? If that must be okey, then if woman conceives afterwards as a result of extramarital activity, then it probably follows that it's acceptable to seek an abortion; after all, the times have changed.
Now, there's a problem with that line of thinking. The Church already condemned abortion, immodest clothing, and extramarital activity. The Church also condemns situational ethics (which is what I've just shown above) because it is rooted it relativism and modernism, which have in turn been condemned by the same Church.
For the sake of consistency (and to avoid charges of hypocrisy), anti-modernists necessarily have to stop thinking that the idea of women wearing pants is acceptable, especially since they too oppose abortion. It's a very big stretch to make the connection, but if a woman is wearing pants - regardless of intent - it may give the signal to others that it's okey, and is a potential for scandal. Clothes have a language of their own, too.
You really don't know me. The only issues I have is regarding morality. I'm keeping the discussion inside that fence.
Having said that, is there something wrong with preventing one person from leading others into sin?
The Protocols of Zion is Masonic - excuse me, Illuminist - document. The only reason why it appears to be otherwise is to divert people's attention from the real source of the problems.
I suppose a ham sandwich could be an occasion of sin to some.
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.