Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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 previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-332 next last
To: american colleen
Dear Colleen,

I miss him, too.


sitetest
61 posted on 06/03/2003 9:20:16 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo
'night gang.

Yes, CG, you too.
64 posted on 06/03/2003 9:23:43 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I think of Richard Williamson as more of a tragic figure like Howard Hughes; both brilliant and gifted men who let their eccentricities and delusions ruin them.
65 posted on 06/03/2003 9:24:39 PM PDT by Loyalist (Keeper of the Schismatic Orc Ping List. Freepmail me if you want on or off it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona; ultima ratio
She is, however, conscious of something. She is clearly aware that divided shorts are not like an undivided skirt, and the difference is that abandoning the skirt gives her a vague feeling — surely of unease, or emancipation, or both ....

It never occurred to me to obsess over skirts vs. shorts as Williamson has done here, in print.

I'll bet he could detail a "well-turned thigh" and why women who would develop such, through such base pursuits as running and exercise in co-ed gyms, are harlots.

Williamson's ripe for an ONION expose!

67 posted on 06/03/2003 9:26:53 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Dear sinkspur,

"Williamson's ripe for an ONION expose!"

Couldn't be done. Nothing anyone could write to satirize or parody him would be more outrageous, or funnier, or sadder, than the things he's actually written himself.


sitetest
68 posted on 06/03/2003 9:28:49 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Dear Loyalist,

From his letter, I can discern that he is, indeed, intelligent, but brilliant? Nah.

But even conceding, for the sake of argument, that he were brilliant, he ought not be a bishop, and evinces little that identifies him as a Catholic.

He is an evil madman.


sitetest
69 posted on 06/03/2003 9:28:57 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Catholicguy
Damn it, I miss Catholicguy.

So do I. He was fine as long as he was pontificating about matters ecclesiastical.

He got off in the weeds of politics and slammed the president, viciously.

I'm sure Jim would welcome him back, if we encouraged it.

70 posted on 06/03/2003 9:30:34 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Dear sinkspur,

I don't think he would come back.


sitetest
71 posted on 06/03/2003 9:31:31 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Catholicguy
I don't think he would come back.

You're probably right. That's lamentable, though. He could be counted on to turn the knife, exquisitely, in a spar with the schismatics.

72 posted on 06/03/2003 9:35:00 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo; sitetest; sinkspur; Theosis
Yep, he was a colorful guy, for sure. When he first started posting, he and I got in a run-in because he was pretty bombastic back then. He took a little rest and came back to FR the calm, cool, collected Catholic who we all knew and loved.

Well, you smarties can read the history stuff, but I just read Williamson's diatribe/excoriation of "The Sound of Music" and this man is a bitter, mean-spirited human being. He just wrecked the movie, everyone in it and the idiots who liked it.

Can you imagine this Julie Andrews staying with the Captain if "the romance went out of their marriage"? Would she not divorce him and grab his children from him to be her toys? Such romance is not actually pornographic but it is virtually so, in other words all the elements of pornography are there, just waiting to break out.

Right here is the mentality of sweet compassion for homosexuals and of bitter grief for Princess Di, of sympathy for priests quitting the SSPX for the Novus Ordo. Everything is man-centered and meant to feel good, the apostasy of our times.

Freakin' NUTS!!!

Not "The Onion" - but an SSPX version of Landover Baptist Church - Where the Worthwhile Worship. Unsaved Unwelcome. Just like Jesus Commanded.

Sandyeggo, thanks for taking the time to retrieve Williamson's rantings. I'm bookmarking this thread. IMO, Williamson is probably one of the main reasons that up to 90% of the Euro SSPXers are favorable to a reunification with Rome. I wouldn't follow this nut across the street, myself.

73 posted on 06/03/2003 9:36:59 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: american colleen
What a great website! The Landover Baptist Church, which proudly proclaims that its website "is inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18."

I feared you had linked into Fred Phelps' homepage, he of the "God hates fags" type.

75 posted on 06/03/2003 9:43:15 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo; Land of the Irish; huskyboy; ultima ratio
I think I really needed to see these - including but not limited to the poor Sound of Music, :) - in order to bring some clarity and balance to what I've been reading on the religion forum.

Williamson is the dark underbelly of a cult which is outside the Catholic Church, and will continue to be as long as sinister characters like Williamson call the shots.

As sitetest said, you'd think Lefebvre could have done better than elevate an anti-semitic misogynist like Willliamson to the episcopate.

77 posted on 06/03/2003 9:48:17 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I've read all of those letters. Some are elegant expressions of orthodox Catholic faith; others are scurrilous trash. You wouldn't think the same man had written both.

The SSPX suffers terribly under him, just as the mainline Church suffers terribly under so many of its bishops.

I wish he'd go away.

78 posted on 06/03/2003 10:00:38 PM PDT by Loyalist (Keeper of the Schismatic Orc Ping List. Freepmail me if you want on or off it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
Let's go through these issues you brought up.

1. Religious liberty. This idea has been condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. This should not even be up for discussion. Now, if you want to talk about religious toleration, then I can handle that. One can tolerate false religions without giving away the entire store. Williamson was right as far as listing the consequences goes.

2. Women in universities. One question here. Do people get degrees for the sake of getting degrees? It's not like every guy out there can go to Yale or UDC. Some go to trade or vocational school. Part of this has to do with our abilities to learn, part of this has to with what God has in mind for us, and part of this simply has to do with our state in life. I see nothing wrong with being an auto mechanic. But I kind of wonder what's going on when 60% of bachelor's degree holders in a particular area are women. Is there a willingness to learn, or is this part of the feminist program? (I would say more, but I think I may get decked already.)

3. Fellowship with novus ordo. Strongly disagree here. It's the only way I can evangelize and get people to at least consider abandoning the post-conciliar church. If you can't talk with them or hang out with them, how can we even accomplish a counter-revolution? It does *not* mean we can start going to their invalid, protestantized services, however.

4. WTC. No comment here, except to recommend everyone read Hilare Belloc's book.

5. Sound of Music. Wasn't this the movie that was condemned by the Legion of Decency back in the day? If so, their concerns about the movie hold valid today. Remember, there is a slippery slope with regards to movies. Bet until you see "The Passion" and "St. Therese", you're not going to find a decent movie out there, one that would have been given the approval by the LoD.

6. Women and pants. Strongly agree. What happened to a woman's sense of modesty these days? Did not the Marylike Standards call for dresses? Did not the Church also condemn the idea of women wearing men's clothes? Our Lady of Fatima warned people about this warped idea. One of the benefits of being at Mass as opposed to the novus ordo service was, is, and always will be that I don't have to worry about distraction, because the women wear veils and dresses. Now, if this behavior could extend beyond the Church and for all seven days of each week, we'd have something positive going here. As it stands, women dressing like men (and excessively short hair) shows a lack of humility, like I said before. It implies she is equal to man in every way (the modernist sense), which is contrary to Christian thinking.
79 posted on 06/04/2003 5:11:29 AM PDT by huskyboy (Introibo ad altare Dei; non ad altare hominis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'll bet he could detail a "well-turned thigh" and why women who would develop such, through such base pursuits as running and exercise in co-ed gyms, are harlots.

Walk enough stairs and unconsciously, you'll do the same thing.
80 posted on 06/04/2003 5:19:23 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson