Skip to comments.
What reconciliation? SSPX Demotes Former French Superior
Envoy Encore ^
| 5/28/03
| Pete Vere, JCL
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.
TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Moral Issues; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; ecclesiadei; latin; liturgy; sspx; tradition; traditionalist; tridentine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-332 next last
This is an outrage! L'Abbe Aulagnier was the first priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre for the SSPX. How dare they treat him like that!
1
posted on
05/30/2003 11:43:43 PM PDT
by
Theosis
To: Theosis
How do you know why he was transferred? It might just as well have been to have his side represented more strongly in America. Why assume the worst? And why accept this writer's biased view of things? It is biased because it assumes reconciliation is a good thing. Not so. There is no point in reconciling to a Rome that remains haughtily committed to the destruction of Catholic Tradition and stubbornly clings to the modernist agenda.
Both Williamson and Fellay represent two sides of the same coin, after all, not opposites: one is mistrustful and sees danger in being reconciled too soon with Rome; the other sees danger in staying out of touch too long. And yes, it is a dilemma. SSPX has stayed uncorrupted precisely because it has been separate and able to keep alive Catholic tradition--but its own strained relations with Rome brings along with it insults and persecution. This has been stressful--yet so is premature return to an ersatz Catholicism that is Catholic in name only--only to be silenced in the way FSSP has been silenced. Bishop Fellay has called this kind of promise, complete with its offer of a special apostolic status, a zoo--in which traditionalists would be treated as oddities gradually forced by the zookeepers, first to give up the missal of '62, then eventually the faith itself.
So in a way both Williamson and Fellay are equally correct. Williamson is highly suspicious--but he has every right to be when talking about the Vatican where the name of the game is bait-and-switch. Fellay is more prudent and more willing to deal with Rome respectfully and patiently. But he knows that since Rome wishes to achieve unity without dealing with core theological problems, nothing will happen and the end result will be what we have now--both sides waiting for a miracle.
To: Theosis; sinkspur; ELS; BlackElk; Aquinasfan; american colleen; NYer; Catholicguy; Desdemona; ...
Thanks for posting this.
I have heard that there are many factions within the SSPX and all is not the unified front that is presented to the general public.
To: All
I'd recommend going to the envoy encore site and scrolling down to this story... the comments box (to large to fit here) are well worth reading.
To: Theosis
Vere adjusting his tin foil lined hat.
To: Theosis
This is an outrage! L'Abbe Aulagnier was the first priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre for the SSPX. How dare they treat him like that! Perhaps you are overreacting. He was transferred to North America, it's not exactly the equivalent of being transferred to Siberia.
6
posted on
05/31/2003 7:03:49 AM PDT
by
Aloysius
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: ultima ratio
Ultima Ratio:
As usual, you are right on target. I have to laugh at the attempts some make to trash SSPX. "Eurocentric" indeed! Priests are transfered and shuffled about on a regular basis, as the need may require. Moreover, I see no "split" between the opinions of Williamson and Fellay. The two men are contemplating the trickery of Modernist Rome from different viewpoints. Rome is attempting to set-up a pincer move against SSPX--that is what this newly issued "Return of the Latin Rite" is most probably being used to do; to wit: bait.
Think about this. If SSPX accepts Rome's "offer," will the modernists who control the Vatican simply roll over in defeat? I think not. The Modernists will do precisely what they do best: deceive--change the plain meaning of words, "reform" what has always been the accepted definition of terms into something that is alien to Catholic theology. SSPX knows this is what the game entails. But, if in being aware of the trechory that defines Modernists, SSPX rejects the supposedly "good-faith offer" being set out by Rome, then the Vatican wins the public relations battle. It is a no-win situation for SSPX. The masonic Vatican bureaucrats are not to be trusted, and every member of SSPX knows the "game." There is no division within the ranks--that is Modernist propaganda.
8
posted on
05/31/2003 7:39:32 AM PDT
by
jt8d
(War is better than terrorism)
To: sandyeggo
But where does "these Romans" come from? He sounds like a non-Catholic. Well I guess Williamson couldn't come out and exactly like the non-Catholics and call us "papists." ;-) Bet he wanted to, though.
To: ultima ratio
How do you know why he was transferred?
I know people in Levis where he is currently posted. He does not claim to be on any extended vacation.
It might just as well have been to have his side represented more strongly in America. Why assume the worst?
Because he is no longer holds a Superior position, because he was removed as Second Assistant to the Superior General on the General Council, and because he has little grasp of the English language. How effective can the reconciliation position be presented in America by a priest who once was superior and is no longer so, and who does not speak or grasp the language of the people?
Hence, the outrage. Only a sedevacantist would find this news encouraging.
10
posted on
05/31/2003 8:00:05 AM PDT
by
Theosis
To: Aloysius
Perhaps you are overreacting. He was transferred to North America, it's not exactly the equivalent of being transferred to Siberia.
I would agree with you if he spoke and understood the English language. He does not. Thus he is isolated to Quebec.
11
posted on
05/31/2003 8:03:39 AM PDT
by
Theosis
To: Theosis
I would agree with you if he spoke and understood the English language. He does not. Thus he is isolated to Quebec.They don't speak French in Quebec?
To: Land of the Irish
They don't speak French in Quebec?
Yes they do, but the suggestion was that this "transfer" would present the reconciliationist side in America. What about English-speaking Canada, Mexico and the United States?
13
posted on
05/31/2003 8:25:37 AM PDT
by
Theosis
To: Theosis
I acknowledge the justice in your argument, but disagree that only a sedevacantist would be encouraged. There is great danger in a premature reconciliation. Rome has the power, but does not exhibit the faith. That is the sum of the dilemma.
To: american colleen
He is referring to the "new Rome" which is modernist, not Catholic. Look at the evidence--the widespread suppression and subversion of Catholic doctrine. He is correct.
To: Theosis
What about English-speaking Canada, Mexico and the United States?What's you point? The priest was transferred to a region that speaks French, his own native tongue. First you complain that he can't speak English, then you complain that he's not in an English-speaking country.
To: Land of the Irish
What's you point?
That he was not, as ultima ratio suggests, transfered "to have his side represented more strongly in America." It is quite simple.
17
posted on
05/31/2003 8:22:08 PM PDT
by
Theosis
To: ultima ratio
There is great danger in a premature reconciliation.
You're missing the point. This isn't about premature reconciliation, but reconciliation period. Williamson basically passed through the Catholic Church on his way to the SSPX from Anglicanism. The Church will likely never be in perfect enough shape for him to reconcile. He has lived most of his life outside of submission to the Roman Pontiff, so the present situation is probably no big deal to him.
On the other hand, Fr. Aulagnier is not just any FSSPX (or SSPX in North America) priest -- he is one of only two priests left from Lefebvre's first class of SSPX seminarians, was one of Lefebvre's closest confidants when the Archbishop was still living, and he is the former superior of arguably the FSSPX's most influential district. The apparent silencing of Fr. Aulagnier within the FSSPX is the silencing of the voice of Archbishop Lefebvre. Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay continues to appease Williamson rather than risk schism within the SSPX. Therefore it should surprise nobody that ideologically the SSPX is now Williamson's.
18
posted on
05/31/2003 10:00:12 PM PDT
by
Theosis
To: Theosis
I disagree. The problem is not Williamson--it's Rome, which is pulling out all the stops to separate Fellay and the others from Williamson. Nor do I believe Williamson is the ogre you make him out to be. He is certainly angry--but he has a perfect right to be. Any Catholic should be, after the past four decades. Authority is not Williamson's problem--the lack of orthodoxy in Rome is what he finds most difficult to reconcile with. So do I.
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-332 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson