SSPX FRANCE REPORTEDLY IN CHAOS

Envoy Magazine ^ | September 18, 2004 | Pete Vere

[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.

[dangus]

Good point. I pray that the hearts of the rock-solid conservatives be softened and that they return to Christ's Church.

And yes, I also pray that Rome be much more faithful to the truth than it has been lately.

May they be one.

[gbcdoj]

any more than Pope St. Pius V had the authority to bind his successors on prudential matters such as banning any changes of liturgy as he purported to do in Quo Primum.

Just a note - the language in "Quo Primum" was usual for pontifical documents of that time. It was never meant to impose an obligation on Pius' successors - he knew very well that he could do no such thing.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I think the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier and the SSPX's increased intransigence and hate-filled anti-Papal rhetoric since have demonstrated that the SSPX is simply not interested in reconciling with a fully orthodox and legitimate Supreme Pontiff. I pray that they would see sense, but I am not hopeful."

Allow me to fix the typos in the above post.

I think the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier and the SSPX's justifiable intransigence and firm calls for return to Catholic doctrine since have demonstrated that the SSPX is simply not interested in reconciling with an unorthodox and erroneous, even though, legitimate Supreme Pontiff. I pray the Vatican will see sense, but I am not hopeful.

[Unam Sanctam]

Here we go again. Please cite exactly where the current Pope has departed from Catholic doctrine, in other words, where the Pope has reversed any defined dogma or any teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium on the Deposit of Faith as contained in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

[charliemarlow]

The Church must maintain its traditions. We are much richer than Vatican II documents.
We also must be allowed to question whether ecumenism and interfaith dialogue do more harm than good.
We must be allowed to ask if the wasteland that has grown since Vatican II is because of it or in spite of it.
And, most important, we must worship God in the manner He deserves and preserve the Catholic Faith from those who are working, from inside and outside, to destroy it. Otherwise, it will exist as a handful of underground. Non?

[charliemarlow]

Since one pope cannot bind another, even in the strongest terms imaginable, then we can look forward to a full correction of the items in Tantumergo's e-mail.
But, wait, no one anywhere ever said Quo Primum was nullified! It's still in effect!

[Mark in the Old South]

Clarification to BlackElk

Excuse me are you posting? I thought you did not wish to be pinged? I assure you I do not want to ping you but if you wish to post on the public forum you had best post something that NO ONE would want to comment upon.

In case you did not understand me before allow me to clear up a possible misunderstanding. You do not dictate a conservation nor are you entitled to control who speaks and when or what the content will be. I do not know that is what you intended, but just to be on the safe side I want to clear that little issue up. If you post you are giving invitation to one and all.

If you do not reply to this I will understand and will not trouble you further. I won't even comment on you post.

[ninenot]

On the OTHER thread pertinent to this affair, it was stated that some Diocesan tribunal HAD stepped in.

Evidently the fog and smoke is quite thick.

[Mark in the Old South]

Correction:

Here we go again. Please cite exactly where the SSPX has committed a schismatic act as per canon law, in other words, where the SSPX has departed from any defined dogma or any teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium on the Deposit of Faith as contained in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

By all means you go first my good sir.

[charliemarlow]

Well, they refuse to allow altar girls.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Well, they refuse to allow altar girls."

:-)
It is alleged, so does the Vatican.

It is wonder to me it really is. Vatican II called for Gregorian Chant for all Sunday Mass. When was the last time you heard Chant in your average Catholic Church, but SSPX is disobedient/schismatic doncha know. Vatican II said leave the canon of the Mass in Latin and only change to the vernacular the other sections of the Mass if it was good for the faith. When was the last time you heard any section of the Mass in Latin in your run of the mill Catholic Church, but SSPX is disobedient/schismatic doncha know. Vatican II never called for nuns to abandon their habits but revise where prudent. When was the last time you saw a nun, let alone one in full regalia, but SSPX is disobedient/schismatic doncha know.

I really wonder maybe they are right maybe some is in schism after all.

[gbcdoj]

But, wait, no one anywhere ever said Quo Primum was nullified!

Yes, they did.

... from the day on which the translated texts must be used for celebrations in the vernacular, only the revised form of the Mass and [the breviary] will be allowed, even for those who continue to use Latin. (Instructione de Constitutione, AAS 63 (1971) 712–715.)

[Viva Christo Rey]

Archbishop Lefebvre once declared that 'paul vi' was the antichrist.

Why anyone would even consider, let alone continue in negotiations - even unto this day - to be in communion with the organization of the antichrist is beyond me.

By the confusion in their teaching and their practice in treating the apostate church of 'vatican ii' as the true Church,the SSPX has set itself, its followers, and the traditional Catholic resistance in general up to be delivered over to the false shephers of the apostate church, and their souls to be devoured.

This situation in France has sadly happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen, rendering asunder the true Roman Catholic Church that remains, until the SSPX leadership relinquishes its pride and ambition, and stands for Christ, and truth, and in support of those rare statements in the past when they had at least courage to consider them.

Excerpt from a speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre to two seminaries on March 30 and April 18, 1986, before the first abomination at Assisi by 'john paul ii':

"Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious. I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods."

"What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope."

[charliemarlow]

Well, it took 52 posts to get to them, but the sede vacantists are on board.

[AskStPhilomena]

One silly hothead frog priest throws his toys out of the cot because he didn't get his way and suddenly neo-Catholics are rushing to proclaim that the entire SSPX is in "total chaos".
This seems to be a case of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Now, if you want to see some real cause for chaos...
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/02/cover-arellano.php

[Unam Sanctam]

Your use of the term "neo-Catholics" demonstrates that you are a schismatic.

[AskStPhilomena]

Your use of the term schismatic demonstrates that you are a neo-Catholic

[Unam Sanctam]

The SSPX has refused obedience to legitimate authority as regards lawful commands and without necessity. The specific form of the liturgy is something within the power of the Pope to regulate, so long as the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice is maintained, and therefore there is no necessity to disobey, and certainly not now that indult Tridentine masses are allowed.

[AskStPhilomena]

"The specific form of the liturgy is something within the power of the Pope to regulate, so long as the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice is maintained"

Here's a book by an eminent doctor of sacred theology (Rev Fr. Trinchard) that may interest you...
http://www.maeta.com/
Whether invalid or not, the short answer to the novus ordo is NO!

[sinkspur]

"Celebrated in the vernacular, the New Mass is more suitable to man, but disobedient to God and, therefore, conclusively invalid," Father Trinchard continues.

Trichard, a priest who celebrated the Novus Ordo his entire priesthood now, in his dotage, decides that it's invalid.

Oh, and Phil, he's not a "doctor." He has a licentiate, which means he couldn't quite cut the cut the doctoral mustard.