What reconciliation? SSPX Demotes Former French Superior

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.

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?

This has been the subject of many rumours and much history. When the SSPX first came to North America, Lefebvre preferred that the local laity own the property, since for various reasons he felt the movement should remain as decentralized as possible. This would backfire in 1982-83 with the expulsion of the famous Sedevacantist 9 who became the Society of St. Pius V. The SSPV more or less took the faithful of their particular chapels with them, and hence much formerly SSPX property (and even one of their two American magazines). Although this was followed by a number of civil lawsuits between the SSPX and the SSPV, the courts ultimately ruled for the most part in favour of the SSPV.

Subsequently, the SSPX then began to take control of their Mass centers insofar as ownership was concerned. However, at different times different rumors have circulated. Reportedly, a good chunk of American SSPX property, including the seminary, is under the control of some sort of American corporation, of which Bishop Williamson is the CEO. I have never been able to confirm any of these rumours, however, enough of my Francophone and European friends have told me that the SSPX basically is willing to write-off North America to Williamson if a split came about.

Having said this, would I prefer Fellay or someone else? Yes. But I don't get to choose. Not all the chosen are exemplary in every way. The best we can hope for is orthodoxy--that is the bottom line.

I wouldn't. He may be a good negotiator to many, but from some of the recent comments before and after the Mass celebrated by Hoyos, I'm not sure if he'll pull a Rifan. If Williamson were in Fellay's position, it'd either help the "sedevacantist" cause or it would force the Vatican to cry "uncle" and fold the modernist program. Right now, nothing seems to happen because the organization is deadlocked. (But, it's kind of tense with some of the European contingent, so extreme care has to be taken perhaps.)

Contrary to what some people may think (secretly), I don't agree with everything Williamson says - especially that one issue with regards to the post-conciliar folks. To me, avoiding them at all is like set up some kind of a conclave. That's one extreme in a battle which has the "new evangelization" at the other extreme. Even so, in the letters I've read on the Web site (and in Angelus), I don't really see the "extremism" that people have accused him of.

Reportedly, a good chunk of American SSPX property, including the seminary, is under the control of some sort of American corporation, of which Bishop Williamson is the CEO. I have never been able to confirm any of these rumours, however, enough of my Francophone and European friends have told me that the SSPX basically is willing to write-off North America to Williamson if a split came about.

That's not good. If SSPX in Europe reunites and America splits off, I wonder if some SSPXers in America would be willing to go FSSP?

Incorrect. Dom Basile Valluet, OSB, who was ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre for Le Barroux Monastery (before they reconciled in 1988), wrote a six-volume doctoral thesis on the subject, where he showed examples of the Church teaching and upholding religious liberty throughout the Centuries. His work, which unfortunately is only available in French at this time, has never been refuted.

Are you sure we're talking about the same religious liberty? Because the Church teaches religious liberty is a no-no. The following concept has been condemned in the Syllabus of Errors:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

Divine Revelation shows the Catholic religion to be the only true religion.

Now, on the other hand, the Church does support religious tolerance, in other words, allowing practioners of false religions to keep doing whatever they're doing, as long as they obey the civil laws and they do not go out proselytizing.

If you can share a little more in the way of details as to what he said, we can find out whether it holds up to Church teaching. In the meantime, I have an article which shows that Dignitatis Humanae contains the religious liberty heresy. Quite long, though, but it's at http://www.catholicrestoration.org/library/v2_condemned1_p1.htm if you want to see.

That it's a very big stretch is the understatement of the century.

O, but the century is only two and a half years old. 97.5 more years to go. [lol]

You know, we're not going to agree here. There is no way to equate wearing pants with creating the abortive society or the reverse, stopping abortion by never wearing pants.

When the abortion and pants are connected with Catholic faith and morals, there is a valid need to be concerned.

You should know that de Castro Mayer and Williamson have said that abortion can ended "by example". A sign of good Catholic is that (s)he accepts Catholic morals. Therefore, no abortion, no women in pants. I've already seen links in this thread pointing to stuff related to modesty and pants - and I'm not the only one putting in such links.

Another sign is that a Catholic accepts Catholic teaching. That means no abortion, no women in pants, because these things have been condemned by the Church for all time - and no amount of "evangelizing" in the name of situation ethics will change that. So one has to stop supporting modernist thinking and situation ethics.

Here's a question for you: if you think abortion is wrong today like it was wrong 200 years ago, why do you think it's okey to for women to wear pants now when that was never heard of (let alone accepted) 200 years ago?

I don't know which is more alarming - the fact that Williamson said it, or that you and others see nothing wrong with it.

What's more alarming is that people tell me they believe, but then act like Catholic faith and morals can change. If it's true that they really do change, I guess the whole thing about papal infallibility would be a lie as well, huh?

Are you sure we're talking about the same religious liberty?

I am sure that we are not.

Let me just state off the bat that it is well worth learning French and Latin, if only to read Dom Basile's six-volume doctoral thesis on Vatican II, Tradition and Religious Freedom. Here in North America, although it is not listed in their catalogue, you can purchased all six volumes from the FSSP's publication service. Each volume cost me about $35 each if I am not mistaken

Initially, at Rome's invitation, Dom Basiled set out to prove that the Second Vatican Council had erred with regards to religious freedom. After all, Le Barroux had been permitted, if I am not mistaken, to suspend their assent to this teaching when they reconciled in 1988. In the process of researching and studying over six-thousand texts, Dom Basile began to distinguish between two concepts of religious freedom -- the first is that as promoted by liberals, secularists and the masons; while the second is that which has always been implicit within Catholic Tradition until articulated at the Second Vatican Council. He then draws the conclusion that the first type is rightly condemned by the Church throughout the ages, whereas the second represents a legitimate development of doctrine at the Second Vatican Council.

Now keep in mind I'm about to translate and condense over three-thousand pages of heavily footnoted dense academic French into a handful of sentences. Basically, man is not free "by the light of reason" to pick whatever religion he finds true. Rather, this freedom comes from God who bestowed upon man a conscience. In exercising religious freedom, man is morally obliged to seek God's truth and to embrace it once he discovers it. Additionally, the state may regulate man's religious freedom in view of the common good. (For example, in view of the common good, the current effort among the UK, the US and their allies to regulate Osama bin Looney's practice of his particular brand of Islam is completely consistent with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on Religious Liberty) So what Pius IX condemned, and what the Second Vatican Council promoted, are two completely different concepts of religious freedom.

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:-)

Everyone does have a right to make a living. That's not a problem. But the whole issue had me thinking. Why does everyone insist on the university so much? It's not for everyone. And it doesn't necessarily guarantee one's wisdom or financial stability. I know of a couple of people who either didn't finish or never went to college for a degree and are doing reasonably well after going to a trade school. Not rich, but they're doing fine with a nice house and two cars.

Wanting to learn is understandable, but then we have to learn the right stuff. And in these times, what we need to learn isn't necessarily found in a leftist campus of "higher" learning. And we should go to college for the right reasons, too. I know there's more to it than that, but from what I've seen personally, I agree with the assessment that college education has been overrated. And we don't even here a peep about vocations to the priesthood or religious orders. Isn't that a great way towards proper learning and proper formation? An honorable way to live, also.

Someone had once said that a woman who decided to persue a religious vocation was twice a woman. Or something along those lines. . .

Does Williamson speak French?

I would imagine so, however, how would this allow Fr. Aulagnier to keep an eye on him and his activities within a predominately English-speaking continent? Hence I must disabuse UR of his thought that Aulagnier was sent across the Atlantic to keep tabs on Williamson.

Additionally, unless we see a reversal in Aulagnier's fortunes, I doubt very much we will ever see the SSPX reconcile. This is just, in my opinion, the latest example of Fellay and the SSPX capitulating to hard-liners like Williamson. This is not surprising, given that Fellay's election as Superior General shortly after Lefebvre's death came about as a capitulation of Lefebvre's prohibition against a bishop assuming the Superior General's office within the SSPX, and establishing their own marriage tribunals present another capitulation. Unfortunately, the SSPX's followers will continue to buy into it as the SSPX hierarchy alleges the "state-of-neccessity" to justify one capitulation after another.

Why does everyone insist on the university so much? It's not for everyone.

Well that's true, but unless one has an aptitude for business or a trade then they are out of luck. It's difficult to get a good paying job without a college degree, particularly for a woman who isn't into manual labor.

BTW, you ever try crawling around the back of an ambulance in a scrub dress? The paramedics seem to get a kick out of watching it. So much for modesty.

Someone had once said that a woman who decided to persue a religious vocation was twice a woman. Or something along those lines. . .

Are you implying that just because a woman has not married she should enter a convent? I'd make a lousy nun and I haven't given up on getting married despite all the predictions of the doom and gloom crowd. The religious life is a calling and I don't have it.

I would imagine so, however, how would this allow Fr. Aulagnier to keep an eye on him and his activities within a predominately English-speaking continent?

Perhaps he was sent to minister to him and bring him over to the reconciliation with Rome camp?

Hence I must disabuse UR of his thought that Aulagnier was sent across the Atlantic to keep tabs on Williamson.

I would like to believe this is the case but I really don't know. As far as the SSPX goes, I'm an outsider looking in. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.

"ever try crawling around the back of an ambulance in a scrub dress?"

No, but I have had to leap up on one of those high beds in ICU to do CPR. A short dress would be totally immodest and you would never be able to make the leap and would probably end up toppling backwards off the bed if your knees got caught in long skirts. At those times I am very grateful for my scrub pants with the elastic waist.
I've also had to wrestle a few patients in DT's about three times my size. Glad I was wearing pants.

Speaking of arrogance, by what authority do you speak on behalf of all Catholics?

She's not speaking for all Catholics, nor has she ever claimed to.

Have you read the sick stuff she posted from that maniac Williamson of the SSPX?

Sandy's done a great service in revealing the instability of the American leader of that sect.

Your last post indicates to me you have no idea what's going on.

I know that you are unfamiliar with the catechism, that refers to the sacrificial nature of the mass repeatedly and quotes Trent in explaining the expiation. The catechism calls it a sacrifice, the pope calls it a sacrifice, the council calls it a sacrifice. It's a sacrifice, the same sacrifice that was made once and for all and for two millenia. Your accusation that the definition of "sacrifice" has changed is unsupported by the magesterium.

The New Mass, for instance, introduces a new notion of the meaning of "sacrifice" based on the "theology of the Paschal Mystery".

So says you, so you say theologians say so. So what. The pope in his apostolic letter,Vicesimus quintus annus tells us, regarding the 1969 missal that , This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development(17); and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with “the ancient usage of the holy Fathers.”

When in doubt turn to the pope. But you insist on turning away from the Church and the pope the Holy Ghost chose to guide it. You'd rather spend your time pigeonholing theologians into your cage of error.

These are real doctrinal differences that can't be sloughed off or wished away.

No. No doctrinal differences.

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.