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.

[St.Chuck]

I happened to be reading Ecclesia de Eucharistia and I was delighted to discover that the pope shares your exact concerns, even echoes precisely what you have expressed many times. Does that make the pope a traditionalist? Or does that make you a modernist?

Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation. It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery.

[ultima ratio]

My problem with Williamson is that he has a tendency to buy into quasi-paranoid conspiracy theories, has some nonsensical ideas about contemporary women, and is less realistic than Fellay. The problem is he is feeling more and more isolated from Rome and would not feel at home should a rapprochement occur. Fellay and the others would fit in, he wouldn't. So he has a vested interest in staying put. At the same time, it's true that Modernism is not yet a fully spent force. Things may have to get worse before they get better--i.e., before Rome starts looking to get back to basics.

What complicates the situation psychologically is that those who have found a haven from the storm with the SSPX have grown comfortable with the situation. We have mixed feelings about "regularization". There is fear that the security we have found will be lost, that the Novus Ordo establishment will exert influence with Rome to crush the movement. People have been content with the present situation which allows them to raise their kids in old-fashioned orthodoxy.

Change is always unsettling and introduces an element of danger. This is why trust is essential. As it is, Rome has not yet demonstrated it can really be trusted, especially since the Vatican is still largely the provence of modernists even now. Nothing has happened to make traditionalists feel more secure as far as I can see. Yes, the Pope has issued a new encyclical--but the same apostates hold high positions and the same liberal thinking holds sway among most western bishops.

[ultima ratio]

The Pope wrote about the Eucharist in the same way twenty years ago. But he will not do anything about abuses apparently except wring his hands in writing. Nobody ever gets fired. Nobody is ever repremanded. He seems to believe that publishing letters and documents is his only job--other than globe-trotting endlessly. His writings now comprise a pile of documents ten feet high. But there's never any action.

Not only this, but the Pope himself is one of the worst transgressors in these matters. He is himself lax about observing an orthodox liturgy and some of his youth rallies and country-hoppings have been the venues of sacrilegious papal-Mass abuses that have caused serious scandal--including Sacred Hosts falling into the mud and getting trampled, Sacred Hosts swigged down with beer by bikers, Sacred Hosts being taken off the premises unconsumed. At one outdoor papal Mass a pick-up soccer game was being played in the midst of the Consecration. It is difficult to take the Pope seriously when he allows these same abuses year after year. To say nothing of his frequent inclusion of pagan rituals at these liturgies--and, at least once, of a bare-breasted female lector. The idea that any of this is TRADITIONAL is ludicrous.

So, no, the Pope talks a good game--but actions speak louder than words and his actions show he has not taken sufficient precautions at his Masses to preclude scandal. His behavior has certainly been that of a progressivist, not of a traditionalist, however you try to spin the truth. Nothing like his actions have ever occurred in the entire history of the Catholic Church. And yes, I say again they are scandalous. I say this because it is true. These are acts which have caused eyebrows to be raised throughout the Catholic world. So, yes, I welcome his encyclical on the Eucharist--but if this Pope wishes us to believe he means what he says, he will shore up his words with actions.

[ultima ratio]

"Your accusation that the definition of "sacrifice" has changed is unsupported by the magesterium."

My whole argument has been that every effort has been made to reassure the faithful that nothing has changed--which is your position--while at the same time changing everything. Of course the word "sacrifice" is frequently used by the New Church--how could it not? It may even couple the term with the word "expiation" in the New Catechism. But the new theology does not ascribe to these words the classical meanings formerly ascribed to them by the Catholic Church.

Here again is Cardinal Ratzinger: "[We] can no longer imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less that it would require an expiation equal to that which constitutes the cross of Christ."

Notice how the Cardinal's words oppose even the traditional Act of Contrition: O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee--" Notice how he denies our sins require an expiation by the Cross of Christ. He even denies the Mass is an act of immolation: "In what does sacrifice consist? Not in the destruction, but in the transformation of man." This surely was not the meaning of Trent.

The Cardinal is merely repeating the same new theology taught by many others which radically departs from past teachings. Here is another among many, Henry Pinard de la Boullaye: "Second enigma and second scandal: not only has the Eternal Father chosen His own Son to make expiation in our place, but faced with the most innocent and beloved of victims, the victim most capable of moving God in His compassion, He asks for compensation of the most humiliating and painful kind! --What harshness! What incomprehensible insensitivity! Let us say rather, gentlemen, what an abomominable way to interpret the thoughts of God! Nothing justifies it in the least." (Jesus Redempteur, pp.119-120.)

Nothing, that is, except the perennial teaching of the Church.

As for what the Pope says about the new Mass being traditional--that is simply a bizarrly wrong statement. Not even a pope can call something black, white, and still be correct. How can a Mass which has been acknowledged by the greatest of the world's liturgical experts as a radical break with the past, be considered in any way traditional? To say it is, is to play games with truth. Tradition is something handed-down, not something fabricated by an ad hoc committee. This is another wrong statement made by this very fallible Pope--and he has made many, believe me, this being yet another. It is certainly a fallible statement and wrong on the surface.

[ultima ratio]

"When in doubt, turn to the pope."

Normally speaking, yes. But if the pope is opposed to tradition, he must be resisted. The faith comes first.

[ultima ratio]

Well, who owns what is a mystery to me. I have no idea how this would sort out if there were a split. As for Williamson's taking "everyone with him", that's something else. My hunch is that ultimately most would go with Fellay and opt for reconciliation if that is ultimately feasible. Much would depend on how Rome is perceived as trustworthy.

[huskyboy]

Was the no-pants-for-women part of an infallable statement of Catholic doctrine?

Sure is. And it's connected to Catholic morals, which can also be defined/taught in an infallible manner by the Church. Let's keep in mind that in the Western world here, men wear pants. That's part of the culture (well, except for Scotland and the kilts, but kilts were designed for men there).

Now, I could go digging around for a quote from an encyclical from Pope Pius XII, but I'm just going to keep it simple and lift a quote from Scripture (which I quoted earlier):

A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.
(Deuteronomy 22.5)

[Theosis]

What complicates the situation psychologically is that those who have found a haven from the storm with the SSPX have grown comfortable with the situation. We have mixed feelings about "regularization".

I have noticed the same thing. In the end, this is why I got out after Bishop Fellay was elected Superior General. I remember the Archbishop saying, and the SSPX hierarchy always reassuring us, that one of the main proofs that the SSPX were not schismatic is that the bishops were not permitted to hold any of the superior offices within the SSPX, etc... This was drilled into our heads. When the SSPX reversed itself on this key point after the Archbishop's death, I knew where this was going. I thank God for giving me the grace to get out before my family got comfortable with the schismatic situation.

[Aloysius]

At one outdoor papal Mass a pick-up soccer game

That would be the Soccer Mass.

[ninenot]

Thanks; I did not read the note. Frankly, it sounded like a Snopes item to me.

[ninenot]

Frankly I have no idea what your remark means. Sacred music is an integral part of the liturgy, not the choir--

The reason females were not allowed in choirs has nothing to do with "decoration," except in the sense that the decoration the females usually apply has led to some, ah, extra rehearsal time...

[huskyboy]

That is from the old covenant - Jesus gave us a new covenant.

He also said He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. If we were to follow His example, we would not still not be taking the Lord's name in vain (that was also under the old law). But, under the new law, we also have to watch that we don't do the same with the saints.

I will end this branch of the discussion with what the Magesterium has to say about dress. A true pope follows the Magesterium and does not introduce heresy in his teaching. (I trust you do accept everything that the Magesterium teaches.) Here's a link to what the Magesterium says: http://www.fatima.org/library/cr57pg53.html.

If you don't believe me, talk to someone in the novus ordo, and compare those answers with what a traditional priest (i.e. one who says and/or sings exclusively the true Mass and administers the Sacraments the same way it's been done before Vatican II).

[Maximilian]

Frankly I have no idea what your remark means.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be obscure. Here is an explanation of what I said, and what I meant:

this is actually true at many traditional parishes today, including indult parishes, such as those run by the FSSP.

The point of this sentence was that the practice of having all-male choirs is not a relic of the middle ages. Serious, traditional choirs today are still all-male. The reference to the FSSP was intended to indicate that this is a ridiculous item to use to bash the SSPX.

The choir is designed to be an organic part of the offering of the sacrifice, not an ornamental addition.

The point of this sentence was that many Catholics have developed the false idea that music is merely "ornamental" at Mass. Actually, Gregorian chant is intended to be an integral part of the sacrifice of the Mass. That is why the choir should be all male -- because the members of the choir are essentially serving at Mass, as are acolytes and deacons. Originally they were all clergy, of course, in a monastery or a cathedral. But even when lay members are accepted, they must be males.

A legitimate usage is to have a polyphony chorus which includes females, and which sings before and after Mass, or even a motet during meditation, while the true "choir" chants the proper of the Mass.

[ninenot]

A legitimate usage is to have a polyphony chorus which includes females, and which sings before and after Mass, or even a motet during meditation, while the true "choir" chants the proper of the Mass.

Thanks for your clarification. Naturally, in order to use the "treasury of Sacred Music) including Palestrina's Masses, (the Ordinary parts) and including more contemporary compositions such as those of Peeters, Bruckner, et.al., one needs either boy-voices or females.

These Ordinaries are available, outstanding compositions, and should be used.

[Theosis]

I was unsure from your earlier posts if you were still within the SSPX - I am glad to hear you are not. May I ask what you do now? Do you attend the indult?

I attend the indult. I still have some friends, however, among those within the SSPX who are seriously hoping for reconciliation, which is why I support Fr. Aulangier's efforts as well as those of the other French clergy who stand behind him.

[TradicalRC]

Ah. The sentence could be read two ways: I originally read it as Her speaking on behalf of all Catholics, then claiming that they (all Catholics) do not share the same sentiments.

But as drstevej pointed out, the sentence can be read to mean those Catholics who do not share the same sentiments.

Sorry, sandyeggo if I misunderstood.

[drstevej]

Blessed is the peacemaker for he shall become Pope Piel.

[TradicalRC]

I would take that over the whorish and androgynous apparel that I am confronted with every Sunday.