Replies

Fr. Aulagnier seems to be a very reasonable individual.

It seems that Williamson, an individual who has never in his life been in a normal canonical relationship with the Holy See, is dictating the SSPX position vis a vis the Holy See.

I believe that most of the original SSPXers like Fr. Aulagnier deeply long to be in a normal canonical situation and I also believe that leftist heretics within the Church did them dirt and poisoned their relationship with the Holy See.

The Williamson types seem to rejoice in their material schism and I do not believe that Williamson would ever enter into communion with the Holy See unless Rome agreed to elevate him to the Papacy.

You may believe "leftists" did them dirt and poisoned relations with the Holy See, but the truth is worse: the Holy See itself had rejected traditional Catholicism--and was determined to obliterate its practices, including any traces of its classical theology as well as its liturgy, its devotions, its art and architecture, its music, even its memory--and it has done this until its own bizarre innovations have come to a dead end, leading to nothing but failure on every front. Only now, after its reign of terror, is it beginning to question its own misapplied hostility to Catholic tradition.

It still is astonishing to consider, for instance, that in the midst of several decades of corruption and dissent in most North American and European seminaries, the Vatican has only seen fit to clamp down on one--the quietly devout and orthodox Econe of the SSPX. It did everything it could to shut that good seminary down, even in the face of copious reports of its decency and orthodoxy. There have been many such anomalies. Recently, Rome refused to accept the resignation of Abp. Weakland when he turned 75--despite behind-the-scenes complaints from the faithful concerning his unorthodoxy. It was only after a love letter was published by the media proving the Archbishop had carried on a gay affair with a priest and had misappropriated diocesan funds to hush him up, that the Vatican finally asked for the resignation--and did so with dispatch. But it still backs people like this to the hilt. It supports Mahony unconditionally and has even awarded the red hat to Germany's Kasper, despite that man's unorthodox public expressions of doubt about the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ.

It is only by looking at the tolerance the Vatican shows to such unorthodox individuals that the treatment of Abp. Lefebvre begins to come into perspective. This was a man, after all, who had spent his life among the poor in Africa and whose orthodoxy was beyond doubt. He wished only to preserve the Econe and protect liturgical tradition from its predators. Why such a heavy hand in dealing with him? It surely makes one wonder. This is still a Church that is weeding-out seminarians who are suspected of saying the rosary or who make secret visits to the Blessed Sacrament.

I myself can see first-hand the goodness of SSPX priests, their devotion to the faith--and how they have been persecuted. And yet they are excellent priests. Our priest must travel across three states every single Sunday to say Masses and hear confessions at various chapels. He grabs his meals on the fly--and it is this way all week for most of these men. Yet their homilies on the Gospels are thoughtful and well-prepared, their spiritual direction is solid, and their work with the kids is outstanding. And still they are being persecuted while their counterparts on the left are tolerated.