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.

[Desdemona]

Do people get degrees for the sake of getting degrees?

Yes. Whether you need it or not.

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? ... 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.

Having long hair (which my mother, my sister, my grandmother, my voice teacher and my hair dresser all want me to cut off) and preferring skirts when not scrubbing floors and doing other dirty work, how is it a lack of humility? I'm curious, because so many women out there don't do all these cosmetic changes to compete with men. They have themselves convinced it's just easier. Nothing is easier to deal with than long hair, just for the record. A lot of women out there who wear slacks are housewives.

I really would like to know why people see this as the case.

Oh, and another thing - as a person who grew up on a pool deck, what about bathing suits, and I don't mean enticing ones, I mean decent-looking racing suits.

[huskyboy]

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.

When you have heresiarchs going to mosques to pray, kissing the koran, and praising "Kirchentag", it is a sign that the post-conciliar church needs to get its own house in order before expecting reconciliation, let alone call a group "outside the Church".

Objectively speaking, the post-conciliar religion is a separate religion, thus putting itself outside of the Church "which has the means of salvation". So, as far as I see it, it really is in no position to demand anything. Now, if the heresiarchs (e.g. Kaspar, Ratzinger, Hoyos) manage to confession and abjure of the heresies of Vatican II, then they could actually have some leverage.

Williamson apparently understands something many post-conciliars here do not: the issue is not just about the Mass. It's about the Catholic faith. What you see in most "Catholic" schools is the lack of such. Who's teaching in those schools. Where's the faith in the seminaries? What about the churches? I don't see much of it in any of the diocesan churches, which is why I bailed out.

So much has been made of the U.S. supporters of SSPX being extremists. Well, at the chapel where I go to hear Mass, I don't see any sedevacantists around. So, either I'm the only one or there are a few closet sedevacantists. But, from what I've heard, a large contingent in Europe is, and they're driving force behind blocking reconciliation: for they said if it took place on the wrong terms, they would leave.

Nice to know you and sitetest can give those p.c. signs of disapproval for those adhering to the Catholic faith of all times, rather than the post-conciliar faith.

[k omalley]

I have great respect for JPII but I do find confusing and troubling the fact that he elevated a man to the cardinalate who denies the physical Resurrection of Christ. Apparently Kasper is considered a leading contender for the papacy. What would happen if a man who denies the physical Resurrection of Our Lord gets elected pope? I shudder to think.

[sitetest]

Dear k omalley,

"I have great respect for JPII but I do find confusing and troubling the fact that he elevated a man to the cardinalate who denies the physical Resurrection of Christ."

I assume that we're talking about Cardinal Kasper. I've heard this said about him, especially in relation to his book, Jesus the Christ. But having read the book, I don't find that he denies the physical Resurrection of Jesus.

His language is often obscure, soft, and ambiguous concerning this central belief. But he actually spends a good part of the book examining arguments that there was no physical Resurrection, and points out that these arguments are lacking, and fail.

If you know of other works or writings where he has explicitly denied this doctrine, I be interested in hearing about them.


sitetest

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

They have themselves convinced it's just easier. Nothing is easier to deal with than long hair, just for the record. A lot of women out there who wear slacks are housewives

LOL...I am a house wife, never wear "slacks" always jeans:)

When you find yourself astride a horse or a motorcycle or a lawnmower most of the time long hair is more difficult, especially on a motorcycle:). Life style makes a big difference.

Becky

[drstevej]

***His [Kaspar's] language is often obscure, soft, and ambiguous concerning this central belief [the resurrection].***

Yeah, that's what we are looking for in a Cardinal!


1 Cor. 15
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

Kaspar would be a ghost under a Pope Piel papacy!

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

"3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

I haven't read Cardinal Kasper where he says otherwise. I have never read his words other than where he affirms that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead.

But in exploring precisely what that means, there is a diversity of opinion. Cardinal Kasper addressed much of this diverse opinion in the aforementioned book. He pretty much tossed out folks that denied the Resurrection as an objective event, on the basis of Scripture and the teachings of the Church.

But where he goes from there gets a little more ambiguous.


sitetest

[drstevej]

Cardinals displaying ambiguity on this issue ought to turn in the red cap! I baptized a twelve year old Sunday who is clear on the resurrection, could we expect Cardinals to be at least as clear?

Pope Piel, radical reformer (back to the Bible)

[huskyboy]

Since you had to talk about bathing suits, here we go. . . check these articles out:

• Questions on Fashion in Ladies' Dress
• The Magesterium speaks on Christian Modesty
• Modesty and Beauty (Ladies Against Feminism site)

There is a price for avoiding the near occasion of sin. I'd rather deal with it. How about you?

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

I'm not a theologian, and find myself unable to communicate what it is that I find difficult with Cardinal Kasper's book. And frankly, I'm unconvinced that the problem is with Cardinal Kasper. The difficulty with Cardinal Kasper, in my unlearned opinion, is that he is trying to look beyond what is defined by Church teaching, where no definition yet exists, and there, the ground is shaky. But that's just my unlearned opinion.

You do him injustice in offering a critique based on the things shouted about him here at FR, which are, at very best, a bad caricature of what he's written (at least that I've read). Heck, you do him grave injustice if you offer your critique based on what I say about him. The level of theological discourse in his writing in not really within my competence

Read his book, if you wish to criticize him, and then come back with your criticisms. If you wish, I'll then re-read my copy of Jesus the Christ, or will try to obtain and read any other works by Cardinal Kasper that you would care to discuss, and then we can talk about criticisms of his view of the Resurrection. You can, if you wish, at that time, take a position that he does not sufficiently affirm this central tenet of faith, armed with your Ph.D., and I will lamely defend. ;-)


sitetest

[drstevej]

I was assuming YOUR assessment...

***His [Kaspar's] language is often obscure, soft, and ambiguous concerning this central belief [the resurrection].***

... was accurate. My comments were based upon your assessment.

***Heck, you do him grave injustice if you offer your critique based on what I say about him.***

Then my injustice builds upon your injustice. I have not read Kasper. So let me state again with the caveat to Kasper... IF the shoe fits!

Cardinals displaying ambiguity on this issue ought to turn in the red cap! I baptized a twelve year old Sunday who is clear on the resurrection, could we expect Cardinals to be at least as clear?

Sitetest, one lesson of my inquirity into historical issues...

Ambiguity is often theological camoflage hiding heresy.

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

I really don't want to be maneuvered into a position defending Cardinal Kasper or his work. The only reason I posted about this is because, having read some of his work, I don't recognize it from what is said here at FR. He does not, so far as I've ever read, deny the Resurrection.

"Ambiguity is often theological camoflage hiding heresy."

Eh, maybe. When I was at the Catholic University of America in the late '70s and early '80s, the heretics were pretty much straight up. I had a full professor of Catholic theology who calmly, plainly, clearly taught that the Resurrection was not an objective event, but rather "a psychological phenomenon in the minds and the hearts of the apostles and disciples." That is a direct quote. It is seared in my mind and on my heart. I will never, ever forget it.

And that's where my problem is, Steve. For months and months, I read all this stuff on FR about how Cardinal Kasper denies the Resurrection. So, I go out, buy a copy of his seminal work, and read it. Ugh! My brain hurts just thinking about it! It was not an easy read!

But what do I find in it? In the first part of the book, I find a subtle, brilliant effort eviscerating the position held by my old heretic professor. A work affirming the objective reality of the Resurrection. A work explicitly relying on Church teaching to sweep away the BS offered by the likes of my professor back at CUA.

But then, after that part of the book, Cardinal Kasper heads off for the clouds, beyond the definitions of the faith. He heads off for the clouds, but I fear that I have been unable to follow him. His language becomes obscure, at least to me. It becomes soft, at least to me. It becomes ambiguous, at least to me. But he is into areas of speculation, not knowledge, and I am in areas, with him, with which I am largely unfamiliar.

So, I really can't positively defend what he has to say, because, heck, I'm unsure I even understand it. However, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't orthodox. I'm sure that there are many things that you, as a Ph.D., know and understand, and can articulate, which may be beyond the understanding of other everyday Christians. It may seem that the language that you use, likely as not including terminology specific to your own areas of expertise, are obscure, even soft and ambiguous to those who are not well-versed in your areas of expertise. Heck, at times, Steve, when reading some of your longer, more in-depth theological postings, my eyes have glazed over in incomprehension. To me, at those time, your words appear at least obscure.

Perhaps the difficulty is that the audience for some of Cardinal Kasper's work comprises other theologians, and perhaps a more general audience may not be equipped to entirely understand it.

But I can say that Cardinal Kasper actually opposes the arguments of those who deny the Resurrection.


sitetest

[drstevej]

Well said. Your CUA prof reminds me of an OT professor I had at Emory Uinversity's Candler School of Theology (Mythology ???). BTW, I did a semester there.

The course was Old Testament introduction and the professor was big time into source and form criticism in denial of Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch.

One student raised his hand after several weeks of the professor's dissecting of the Bible to prove multiple authorship, etc. and asked, "Professor Tucker, are we supposed to tell this to our congregations? They'd lynch us!" Dr. Tucker responded, "Tell them whatever you want, this is the way it is."

At the break I wrote the following verse on a 3X5 card and slipped it into his book.

James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

On the midterm in the course we were to take Genesis 37-39 and divide the story up into the various sources using the techniques we had been taught. I played the game and received an A on the exam. After getting my grade I told the teacher I was bothered by it. He was surprised and said, "I remember you did quite well." My response was, "What bothers me is that I am convinced I can take any single author book and use the same approach to erroneously 'prove' multiple authorship."

I got a C in the course. I fear his final grade in eternity will be much worse!

[St.Chuck]

Thank you Sandyeggo. Your post # 41 does more to expose this suspect group than all the meandering trips into canon law, council histories, and papal encyclicals. The Post of the month to be sure.

It is no wonder the Vatican is working so diligently to bring the poor souls who follow this guy back into the fold.

[huskyboy]

I appreciate your taking the time to address these issues charitably, and I would like to ask you if you agree with Williamson in most, if even not all, of what he says, and if most SSPX agree in total, or in part, with his newsletters.

Thanks. I've only had time to read a fraction of what he says. The first quote which started the fiasco came from what I think was a recent edition of Angelus magazine, which I only started buying from the chapel bookstore three months ago. I don't know what most others in SSPX think, so I couldn't answer that part of the question (except with respect to the reconciliation - all I've talked to say the faith needs to be restored before reconciliation begins).

1. Actually, there were several countries in Europe which had Catholicism as the official state religion, and if I remember correctly, forbade non-Catholics right to hold public office. You don't need a dictatorship for it; a constitution which recognizes Catholicism as the true religion and official state religion, grants the Church the freedom to conduct its business (even allowing for a pope to remove a heretical monarch or politician), and codifies Catholic morals into law is all that's needed. Seeing the mess we have in the U.S., though, I'm starting to think maybe a monarch is needed here sometime soon.

2. I had to stop there only because I had an idea that I wanted to add in, but I still can't find the words for it. I don't know exactly how you look at traditionalists, but I don't see anything wrong with an education - my only question at that moment was whether it was for the right reasons (that's the getting degrees for the sake of getting degrees part). I do believe there are different natures and set roles for both man and woman. There's no way getting around that reality. I would think that one could do something which is morally permissible as long as it didn't divert the person from normal duties.

And what happened to women pursuing vocations? Why is it necessary to do what the world expects all the time?

3. About the rosary: I don't have a problem with praying the rosary, with one exception. I don't use the "luminous" mysteries at all. I even told my friends that I refuse to do so. I think we may end up heading toward tension someday, but I don't believe anyone has a right to tamper with tradition. This they know about, but we'll have to see how they really handle it when it counts. And, last week before praying the rosary with some of them, they had this "divine mercy" chaplet. I kept silent on that one for the entire time, because it's not a Church-approved devotion.

4. I need have to comment because it was self-explanatory. I was in a charismatic group back in those days. And guess what? We heard one of the prayer leaders talk about the WTC incident as a chastisement from God. Which, if you had included this quote, from the same Williamson letter, would eliminate any hint of "anti-semitism" that was alleged:

This problem of the United States is politically insoluble, because it is a religious problem! The United States is caught between these two scourges of God, because it has turned away from God. God chastises those whom He loves (Heb. XII, 6), so that if God were not now chastising the United States, it would be the proof not that He loved, but that He did not love the United States! Let us be grateful that God is using Arab and Jew to chastise us! And let us therefore, with no thought of hating Arab or Jew, because they are NOT the real problem, turn to the real problem, which is the sins by which we offend God. Let us take the Ten Commandments in reverse order, culminating in the first.

I would like to say that the religious liberty that Masons promoted when setting up the foundation for the U.S. government got us in trouble: from it we have the Americanist heresy, the religious indifferentism even among self-proclaimed Catholics, and of course, intimidation via political correctness. And I haven't begun to start talking about the Vatican II heresies which are related to this.

5. Christian morals, like Church teaching, do not change. I don't where you see a problem with my comments on "Sound of Music". We can't find any decent movies nowadays.

6. That other women wear pants doesn't change the fact that the Church disapproves of it. Even Scripture condemns this idea: "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). Now before we start leveling accusations of chauvinism, I should let you know that I posted three links earlier to articles regarding modesty. One describing what the Magesterium teaches, another is article about proper women's attire, written by a woman, and a third is a site about modesty, by an organization called Ladies Against Feminism. Now, if women agree to Church teachings, where's the chauvinism? It's modernism and feminism which is the real problem here.

As for the link to abortion, it's a Castro de Mayer statement which happened to be repeated. I don't know how they made the connection, but logically speaking, it's not that far off. If a feminist wanted to really go further, sterilization is not that difficult to deal with.

[huskyboy]

It is no wonder the Vatican is working so diligently to bring the poor souls who follow this guy back into the fold.

Why them only, and not CMRI, SSPV, and the Catholic Restoration folks?

The post-conciliar church still has not done one thing to justify its support for religious liberty - which can be found in the so-called "Vatican II magesterium". Not to mention the novus ordo service which tries desperately - and fails - to pass off as a Mass, the Spirit of Assisi prayer services, the refusal of one "pope" to take the Papal Coronation Oath, a new canon law, a new "catechism", new sacraments (especially the novus ordo ordination rites), charismatic renewal, and much more. Looks like the modernists need more exposing to me.

[NYer]

Williamson basically passed through the Catholic Church on his way to the SSPX from Anglicanism.

Thank you for pointing this out ... it caught my attention too, when I read the original post.

A question ... What drew Williamson to the SSPX in the first place?

[huskyboy]

As for the link to abortion, it's a Castro de Mayer statement which happened to be repeated. I don't know how they made the connection, but logically speaking, it's not that far off. If a feminist wanted to really go further, sterilization is not that difficult to deal with.

Clarification: an extreme feminist would be likely to advocate sterilization because there would be no need to worry about children in the first place.

So much talk about human rights, abortion rights, etc., but not one thing from most freepers here about God's rights. I wonder why that is. . .