Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
Taking a break from judging annulments earlier today, I visited a number of French traditionalist websites. I also had the opportunity, yesterday, to speak with a friend of mine who is a canonist from France following the situation as well as another friend who keeps tabs on the traditionalist movement in both the English and the French speaking world. Everyone agrees -- the situation has degenerated into total chaos, as nobody knows exactly what is going on with the highly-respected French SSPX clergy that have criticized what they see as the SSPX's growing rigidity.
It does appear that Rome has refused to take competency over the case, more-or-less stating that the SSPX denied Rome's jurisdiction over them when Lefebvre carried out a schismatic act through the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Beyond that, Rome refuses to comment other than to say, "Our door remains open for their return to full communion."
Beyond that, the rhetoric, polemic and accusations suggest that indeed civil war is breaking out among the laity and clergy within the SSPX's French District. In fact, two websites have now popped up that are exclusively devoted to tracing all the news stories associated with the crisis. What I find personally find interesting is that every news report, commentary, polemic, etc... mentions Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX around this time last year.
In the months that followed, it appears that the SSPX more-or-less tried to sweep Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion under the rug. But in so doing, even the regime currently in charge of the SSPX had to admit the important role played by Fr. Aulagnier in the founding of the SSPX. This is probably why the SSPX appeared to hope the issue would go away.
Yet it is also well-known that Fr. Aulagnier was a close friend of Fr. Laguerie as well as Fr. de Tanouarn -- two of the SSPX's leading priests. (As Fr. Laguerie's assistant, Fr. Henri appears to have just happened into the situation). It is also well-known that a number of French (and some American) SSPX priests were not happy with Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion. Therefore, I will venture to guess that the current SSPX chaos is the effect of Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion coming back to haunt Bishop Fellay. As for the particular details, this is the first time in almost fourteen years of being a traditionalist that I find the fog of war too thick to reasonably discern what is going on. (What I find even more troubling is that behind the scenes, under the flag of truce, other SSPX and traditionalist commentators with whom I am in contact have admitted to having the same problem.)
So if I can end on a personal note to the moderate SSPX clergy and their supporters who follow this blog, I'm more than happy to abide by the flag of truce and keep you guys in prayer while you fight whatever battles need to be fought, but I honestly cannot make heads-or-tails of what is happening. But like Rome has said, the door is open for you to return. I will pray that God gives you the necessary strength to walk through it.
LMAO You have no clue. Buh, bye
LOL!! Like what? Your number is miniscule.
Those who follow the dead archbishop and deny the Pope (sedes) are schismatic integrists, and you deserve to be laughed at.
The Pope has welcomed you back, but you insist on a universal indult. He's offered an apostolic administration, but you don't want that.
No, you want to infiltrate the Novus Ordo through a universal indult to try to suppress the Novus Ordo.
Why not take the administration, as the FSSP did?
I'm convinced the SSPX doesn't want a reunion. It wants its own church.
You may get the opportunity to experience that with the next Pope.
You could put those flyers on every car in our parish's lot, at every Mass, and you wouldn't get a single favorable response.
In the nineteenth century some Catholics started arguing that many of the ideas inspiring the French Revolution could be reconciled with Catholic thought as they were eventually Christian in origin. These men, who came to be called ‘Liberal Catholics’ had to endure hearing many rude things said about them by other Catholics (like the Pope, for instance). They did not like this and, after much thought, came up with a rather clever wheeze: they thought of a new word ‘integrist’. Meant of course as a term of abuse with which to denigrate their opponents (i.e. orthodox logical Catholics), and thereby created, with one masterful stroke of the pen, a climate of opinion in which they - the Liberals - would appear to be mainstream Catholics and their opponents a mere extremist sect within the Church.
Integrist doesn't apply to you, anyway, since you attend an Indult. It only applies to the schismatics.
You will notice a tactic of the integrists in the last few posts: Columba (a two-day newbie) comes on a dead thread and tries to stir the pot. This kind of thing has been specifically forbidden by the Religion Moderator.
But, she apparently has to establish her bona fides by fomenting dissension, even on Christmas Eve.
It is typical.
Thanks for the mini-history lesson, that was interesting. I've always seen the word integrist used as an insult here on the Forum, and wasn't familiar with the term at all before, but it always seemed to fall real short of its mark because of the root it shares with integrity, integral, etc.
Integrism was coined during the Pontificate of Pius X.
Fellay would rather be a big fish in a small pond.
Just trying to be nice Columba. It's Christmas Eve.
Reviving dead threads in order to post flame bait will make your stay here very short.
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.