Interview of Father Aulagnier with the President of Entraide et Tradition

You are asking me for my opinion on the recent letter of the month of June from the Dominicans of Avrillé to their friends and benefactors. I just became aware of it in my faraway Canada. I will gladly share it with you and in a straightforward manner.

One part of the letter is consecrated to the last encyclical of the Holy Father on the Eucharist: Ecclesia de Eucharistia. You know already that I have studied it in depth, as so many of my confreres have done as well, a good census, such as Father Hery, Father de Tanoüarn. You published all three of us on the site ITEM; in the file that you had dedicated to this encyclical. You are equally aware of the fact that Mgr. Fellay, in an Italian journal, manifested his satisfaction with the publication of this document. ITEM has equally published it. I congratulate you for it.

Any errors and weaknesses can be perfectly revealed, as the FSSPX has done often enough, in this recent instruction. I completely acknowledge that one can say that our censuses of the encyclical are “optimistic” where others are “pessimistic”. But this commentary from the Dominicans of Avrillé is inadmissible from the point of view of an intellectual method: it is partial and thus false. It is not very strong from persons who use the motto: contemplari alliis tradere. It is even shocking. I will show you the partial and false aspect of their presentation by a little example.

At the end of their fourth paragraph, they quote the Pope: “There is no doubt that the liturgical reform of the Council has produced a greater participation in the holy sacrifice of the altar for the faithful that is more attentive, more active and more fruitful”. This is a small part of number 10 of the encyclical. If the Dominicans quote this passage, which insists upon the benefits of the liturgical reform, it is for mocking it. This liturgical reform has only emptied the churches. Case closed. But if one wants to criticize the thinking of Jean-Paul II, one needs to make an effort to both present it completely and try to understand it. They would have to honestly follow the quotation. For the thought of the Pope does not stop at this single “satisfecit”. Just the opposite. He especially insists upon the present grave doctrinal omissions. And thus one can completely conclude that it is the liturgical reform that the Pope wants to criticize. In any case, one needs to repeat all that the Pope says about the present liturgy. And, de facto, the Pope continues number 10 by writing: “Unfortunately, apart from these lights, shadows are never lacking”. The Pope enumerates them: “There are in fact places where an almost complete abandonment of eucharistic worship is noticed”. And about this subject, I precisely rejoice about the great procession announced at Nantes in honour of the most Holy Sacrament, while the bishop of Nantes hardly encourages his parishioners to honour, as the Pope requests, the Holy Eucharist.

The Pope continues: “To this is added, in such or such an ecclesial context, abuses which contribute to obscuring the right faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this admirable Sacrament” (some time ago, he would have said “abuses which contribute to obscuring the right interpretation of the conciliar reform”). The Pope explains these abuses: “Sometimes there appears a comprehension that greatly reduces the eucharistic Mystery ”. This is how the Pope states the disappearance of the notion of sacrifice, benefiting from the notion of meal or of the simple notion of festivity: “Deprived of its sacrificial value, this sacrament is lived as if it did not go beyond the meaning and value of a cordial and fraternal encounter”. He will dedicate numerous paragraphs in order to recall the essence of the holy Mass which is precisely a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ. It would have been better, as Mgr. Fellay has observed, that the propitiatory character of the sacrifice be better explained. But this essential element is de facto present. It is manifested, as I had explained in my commentary, that the Pope took into account the theological criteria that Cardinal Ottaviani presented to Pope Paul VI in addressing to him the Brief critical examination, similiar to remarks from the Society’s book that was presented to Cardinal Ratzinger and to the Supreme Pontiff: The problem of the reform of the Mass. In any case, about this notion of sacrifice Pope John Paul II almost insists just as much upon it as the reformers insist on the notion of the meal, of banquet, in the Institutio generalis which directed the liturgical reform. ras]> <![endif]>

The Pope continues: “furthermore, the necessity of a ministerial priesthood which adheres to the apostolic succession is sometimes obscured”. Here is expressed, very clearly this time, the second deficiency of the liturgical reform that issued from the II Vatican Council. And there as well, the Pope is going to refute this error present in the Novus Ordo Missae during long and very great developments, precise and with a great technique. Any serious reader cannot help but see this. The Pope finally writes: “the sacramental character of the Eucharist is reduced to a sole efficacy of an announcement”. Here, the Supreme Pontiff is going to explain the third truth of the faith concerning the holy Mass which is unfortunately expressed in an equivocal manner in this new Mass: the real presence of Our Lord. The Pope will then have an opportunity to mention transubstantiation, to quote the Council of Trent, Saint Thomas of Aquinas.s]> <![endif]>

From then on, only quoting from the end of number 10, only taking into account a single expressed idea, whereas this number 10 contains precisely other ideas and even all the ideas of the encyclical- this number 10 being the plan of the whole encyclical- this, for me is an intellectual dishonesty. With such proceedings, the criticism coming from Tradition ceases to be credible.

Their conclusion is particularly shameful coming from theologians who are supposed to be speaking in the name of Tradition. They state: “The conclusion of this brief review is that Rome (the conciliar Rome) has not changed since 40 years not only according to content but also according to form. According to content, since they continue to teach the new theology, that of the new Mass”. Now, I encourage that one criticizes them, but on condition that one has read correctly and thus to find that the encyclical does de facto denounce the ambiguities of the theology of the new Mass. To speak falsely on a subject so important for Catholics of Tradition as the Mass, the aim of their combat for such a long time, is self-defeating. It is to deceive the faithful, to lead them into error by falsely informing them. It is to discredit oneself in the eyes of those that one criticizes. :p>

They continue with their conclusion: “According to form, for they (Rome) persists in the art of mixing the true and the false together so as to render docile the mentalities and to make one progressively pass form Catholicism over to the new religion”. Here the intention is judged. Thus, from partiality to intellectual falsity, we arrive at a moral suspicion. Saint Ignatius stated the contrary at the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises (no. 22) that one must always grant an a priori that is favourable to the “proposition of one’s neighbour”. According to Our Lord, He says that one must not “extinguish the smouldering wick”. How much more reason when the wick re-lights, which must not be put out but left intact so that it burns further. Partiality. Error. Suspicion. What a family! As one knows, I do not belong to such a family. And, I could equally demonstrate to you very easily that, in this letter and this conclusion, which rests upon the principle that everything that comes from Rome is a priori bad, thus raising the theory of the “Church in eclipse”, which is certainly a theory worst than sedevacantism, which is certainly heretical by not expressing the truth about the Church. I believe that this letter of Avrillé does a great harm to the noble cause that we are defending.

As one knows, I do not belong to such a family. And, I could equally demonstrate to you very easily that, in this letter and this conclusion, which rests upon the principle that everything that comes from Rome is a priori bad, thus raising the theory of the “Church in eclipse”, which is certainly a theory worst than sedevacantism, which is certainly heretical by not expressing the truth about the Church. I believe that this letter of Avrillé does a great harm to the noble cause that we are defending.

Acknowledging that this post originates from a link at patrick madrid's blog

I am unfamiliar with the thoughts of the bishops in the SSPX and it was good to read something firsthand. I didn't find anything remotely unorthodox in this interview. It makes me wonder why hackles get raised at all. But I am still learning. He strikes me as a very pious and very intelligent man.

He is, which is why the SSPX's General Council stripped him of his position on the SSPX's General Council. While some SSPX laity have disputed this interpretation, every SSPX cleric with whom I have spoken, whether for or against Fr. Aulagnier, has privately admitted to me that this is the case. (Although when it comes to his parallel removal as a European District Superior and his reassignment in Quebec, those SSPX clergy sympathetic to Aulagnier have told me that this was also part of the punishment, whereas those in the Fellay or Williamson camp deny that this is obviously the case.)

What was Fr. Aulagnier's crime that warranted such drastic measures? It appears that he dared to be vocal about the SSPX's need to reconcile with the Church or risk permanent schism, and that he also had the audacity to break ranks with the rest of the SSPX leadership and support the Campos traditionalists in their reconciliation with the Church.

It seems that Bishop Fellay will tolerate all sorts of kooky public opinions promulgated by Bishop Williamson on the one hand, while on the other going to severe lengths to silence those like Fr. Aulagnier whose only crime is to want the SSPX to reconcile with the Church.

Even in Argentina, which if I am not mistaken, is the SSPX's most powerful district in South America, Williamson will continue to hold a position of major authority as a seminary rector. So please pray for Fr. Aulagnier and those forces within the SSPX who support him, that they will see their wish of reconciliation with Rome -- although it may be without the (F)SSPX.

He strikes me as a very pious and very intelligent man.

Yes, which is probably why the SSPX stripped him of his position on the General Council as well as one of the European superiors, and shipped him off to be the chaplain of an old folks' home in Quebec. Fr. Aulagnier's crime? Breaking ranks with the rest of the SSPX leadership to support the Campos traditionalists in their reconciliation with the Church, and stating the SSPX needs to do the same or risk permanent schism. Of course, no similar action is taken against Bishop Williamson for promoting all sorts of kooky ideas, some of which he attempted to substantiate by favorably quoting the disreputable Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Even in Argentina, which if I am not mistaken is the SSPX's most powerful district in South America, Bishop Williamson will continue to hold a major position of authority as a seminary rector. This is the problem with the SSPX.

Your assumptions are the merest gossip. You have no hard information at all about why Father Aulagnier was reassigned, nor what the motive behind Bishop Fellay's action was. In fact, it has been my understanding that he and Bishop Fellay are on the same page. You have been, moreover, mistaken before to think the reassignment was to place Father Aulagnier under Bishop Williamson's thumb. In fact, you were wrong then and it appears you have learned nothing from this error. Bishop Fellay may well have had an opposite purpose from what you imagine--to use a man like Aulagnier to better prepare North Americans for coming reconciliation.

Having said this, I'd like to add that while the Pope's encyclical is praiseworthy--and I myself, who am often critical of the Pope, have said so from the outset on this site--nevertheless, it these admissions of abuses and theological weaknesses are very late in coming and are not being followed up by any real actions. He still retains as his chief liturgist at the Vatican, for instance, the Bugnini associate responsible for bizarre anomalies and abuses at his own outdoor papal Masses. The Pope needs to do more than write orthodox encyclicals. His own behavior needs to be more orthodox.

Your assumptions are the merest gossip.

When I hear the exact same thing directly from various SSPX clergy of different ideological positions, some of whom are Superiors, then yes I assume that whatever that thing happens to be is going on in the SSPX. Don't presume to know my contacts of what information I'm acting upon.

As for the Williamson thing, no I wasn't wrong. He was placed in Williamson's sphere or influence.

You were dead wrong on Williamson. You had said Aulingnier had been deliberately placed under his wing. This was false and you should at least have the grace to admit it. As to whether or not Father Aulignier is right and Bishop Fellay wrong--the issue is moot. Your position seems to be that if reconciliation is desired now, it is the correct stance since this is what the Vatican wants. But that is not the way to look at it. The situation is dangerous and could destroy the only effective counter to modernism left in the Catholic Church. The Pope has sent some signals, true. But an encyclical is not enough. Nor are meaningless p.r. gestures. There is still no real action on Rome's part to rein-in wayward bishops and priests, nor to protect Tradition. Besides, timing is everything. Too soon, and the SSPX falls into a modernist trap, putting Tradition itself in jeopardy. Too late, and reconciliation is lost.

I notice neither you nor NYer do anything but praise Father Aulignier. He becomes a good and devout priest in your eyes because he wants reconciliation now, immediately. Bishop Fellay is a bad priest because his moves are more cautious. This is utter nonsense. I notice Father Aulignier has not resigned and is just as much a part of the SSPX resistance as ever. How is it he is "good" whereas everybody else--including people like myself who admire the SSPX--are "schismatic" or "Nazi sympathizers" or "women-haters"? You might at least make some effort at consistency. The truth is, most SSPX priests are sincerely devout and scholarly. All are well-trained theologically and know the issues at stake. All want to halt the spread of modernism and return to a true Catholic tradition. They recognize the over-arching conflict is for the soul of the Catholic Church. Rome's genuine conversion, therefore, and nothing else, should ultimately determine when and whether there is a "reconciliation" during the lifetime of this Pope.

You were dead wrong on Williamson. You had said Aulingnier had been deliberately placed under his wing.

I said he was put within Williamson's sphere of influence, namely, North America. However, if you disagree, the issue is easily resolvable. Please quote me where I stated the position you attribute to me. Additionally, you have not dealt with the issue that Fr. Aulagnier was the SSPX's Second Assistant for a long-time, and after going to Campos, is no longer so. Even the most anti-Aulagnier SSPX clergy I know are not questioning whether or not this is a demotion, and the reason behind Fellay's outrageous treatment of Aulagnier. So who is scared to ask questions here?

The truth is, most SSPX priests are sincerely devout and scholarly.

LOL! I've known graduates from one particular seminary that could quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but who could not remember St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existance of God. Shows you where the priority is...

You may know such SSPXers, I do not, nor have I ever met such an individual, though I'm sure there may be some of that ilk who are attracted to the Society for the wrong reasons. But the vast majority are not of that pernicious cast of mind.

In this regard, you should carefully separate "anti-Semitic" views from the usual European outlook on Israel and on that nation's policies regarding the Palestinians. Even more should you separate the traditional outlook of Catholicism regarding the conversion of the Jews from the modernist stance on this issue coming out of the Vatican. That said, anti-Semitism per se is wrong and should be denounced.

Has it ever occurred to you, moreover, that Williamson has been transferred to a region less scandalized by some of his paranoid opinions? Bishop Fellay is certainly not of that temperament nor outlook, nor are the people around him. What's more, the Vatican knows this, which is why they distinguish Williamson from others of the SSPX leadership that they must deal with. So do I. So should you. Unfortunately Archbishop Lefebvre was not infallible when he named him bishop.

As for what you said previously, you are splitting hairs. I don't have to look up any quotes, you admit virtually what you said previously. How is "under his sphere of influence", which is what you actually said, different from
what I have said more colloquially, "under his thumb"?

I have said that even if you were right--even if this is a demotion as you contend--so what? The issue is not one of right or wrong, it is an issue of timing. No one doubts both Aulagnier and Fellay want reconciliation. But the timing is a key factor and can turn out to be either harmful to the movement in the long run or a triumph of traditionalism over modernism. Aulagnier wants reconciliation now and is impatiently agitating for this. Fellay senses the moment is not yet propitious, that modernism still has a stranglehold on the Vatican which must be further loosened. These are matters for the leadership to work out. I'm sure Fellay is looking at this from multiple perspectives--it is for him a very dangerous juncture as well as a potentially promising one and I can see where he doesn't want one of his priests muddying the waters while he is busy negotiating further concessions.

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.