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.
Since you have left the Catholic Church and no longer see yourself as part of the same religion as the Catholic Church, which has been handed down in corporate institutional form by the successors of Peter and the successors of the apostles in communion with him, then perhaps you will stop making posts that tear down a religion other than your own. It is most rude.
BTW, if there is anything I will do or not do, it will be out of respect for Jim Rob and his moderators. After all, there can be no respect for SSPX unless and until it repents and keeps a civil tongue in its individual and collective mouths as to the Holy Father if y'all want to pretend to be Catholic.
I have never agreed not to post. I have agreed not to go after those who do not pester me by pinging me. You go ahead and say whatever you please. Unless you pester me by pinging me personally against my expressed wishes, what reason is there for me, as an actual Roman Catholic in communion with Rome and with my diocesan bishop, to pay you attention whatever? I don't pay any attention either to Nestorians, Manicheans, Pelagians, Aryans, Donatists (earlier ones than Marcel), Albigensians, Feeneyites or others also outside the Roman Catholic fold either.
I am answering only because you keep tugging at my sleeve, pestering, demanding my unwarranted attention, etc. If I don't hear from you again, it will be too soon but I will not respond unless you do.
John Paul II need not lose sleep worrying about any future pope overturning the excommunications of Marcel or the decree of schism against SSPX. The SSPX may evaporate or its adherents may recant and repent and do penance for their crimes and those of their excommunicated leaders and schismatic forebears, as the case may be, in which event, the Catholic Church will, no doubt, consider their re-admission.
SSPX. Something about a flea, an elephant's leg and a yearning for an indecent act.
That's a relief but try to convince the usual gang of suspects! Now, there's the challenge! Is there a definition of "invincible ignorance?"
This is hilarious.
If Christ's Last Supper is the determinent, the Novus Ordo much more closely resembles the Eucharist of the Early Church, according the Didache, 155 A.D., than does the Mass of Pius V.
The only endorsement we see on the book jacket is from the agent of Malachi Martin.
I guess Maeta couldn't get Martin's third cousin, twice removed, to comment.
Get in line to get Patrick Madrid's book.
"Yes, in particular, this ex-Occultist and ex-SSPX with a personal grudge, Pete Vere, now chief bottom licker of Patrick Madrid."
Are you sure about the EX-occultist part?
It seems he's still dabbling on the dark side.
"It was rejected because the SSPX still thinks it can force the Vatican to give a universal mandate for the Tridentine Mass."
No, the SSPX just wants the Vatican to admit there never was an abrogation of the old Mass, and to acknowledge a universal mandate legally unnecessary. In other words, it wants Rome to start telling the truth for a change and to end the unlawful mistreatment of priests who wish to say the old Mass.
There is no "cult of personality" surrounding Williamson. That is nonsense. The only cult of personality in the Church is that of John Paul II.
This is a lot of wishful thinking. Rome is not watching the splintering of anything. The SSPX has division in its ranks, but its center still holds. There will always be those who tire of the fight for whom Rome will always exert an irresistible attraction. But as long as incidents such as Hindu priests being allowed to worship at Fatima elicits no demurral from those at the top, there can be no doubt whatsoever the issues are still joined and reconciliation is still out of the question. It is not for Tradition to bend to the Pope, it is for the Pope to bend to Tradition.Our faith is not whatever the pope says it is during any given pontificate, it is what has been handed down from the apostles in the deposit of faith.
This is not just "division," but a rebellion at the heart of the SSPX movement, its seminary in Econe.
Better strike while the iron's hot, UR, lest your "remnant" be nothing but an image in Rome's rear-view mirror.
Of course there is no interest in reconciling with the Pontiff as long as he denies Tradition. Let the Pope conform to Catholic practice and teachings first, then reconciliation with traditionalists will follow. It is not hateful to say such things. It is, in fact, merely belaboring the obvious. We don't worship popes. Catholics follow them--when they clearly teach the truth. But we must resist them when they don't. That is Theology 101. No pope who prays with animists and gives pectoral crosses to Anglican "archbishops" should be taken at face value, imho.
Concelebrate at a Novus Ordo Mass? Never. It will never happen. You and sinky are daydreaming.
Look, the SSPX makes no "demands." It is Rome who came, hat in hand, to talk about "reconciliation". Of course the Society will obediently discuss anything at all with the Holy See, according to its wishes--but it will not compromise Tradition for the sake of getting along with this Pope or with any of his successors. It is the Pope who must first reconcile himself to Catholic Tradition--then all else will follow.
Who said anything about SSPX priests concelebrating Novus Ordo Masses?
With your birettas and gold-trimmed lace albs, somebody might ask you to re-arrange the gladiolas.
Succeeding popes can supposedly overrule "Quo Primum", but they can't lift the alleged "excommunication" of Archbishop Lefebvre by John Paul II?
I'm convinced that you do think this pope to be a god.
But Lefebvre NEVER crossed the line. He was tempted to say this Pope was a heretic--but he declined ultimately to agree with the sedevacantists. That is the essential truth.
My own view is it doesn't matter all that much. Sedevacantists don't deny the papacy, only the legitimacy of John Paul II--which even Lefebvre had trouble with. Traditionalists have the true Catholic faith--they shouldn't be fighting one another--and playing into Rome's hands by doing so.
"Your use of the term 'neo-Catholics' demonstrates that you are a schismatic"
The term was coined by traditionalists to describe Catholics who latch on to every papal novelty, no matter how bizarre and outrageous. Witness Assisi I and II. It has nothing to do with schism. It has to do with the careless way some Catholics regard their own patrimony--passed-down from the apostles. If the Pope asked neo-Catholics to worship Radha Krishna, they'd oblige. As long as the pope says so, it's all right with them. They've already swallowed eliminating kneeling for Communion--which the Pope allowed to be instituted without a murmur; they've accepted his giving Holy Communion to Cherie Blair, a known abortion activist; they've shrugged their shoulders at his praying to the Great Thumb as well his pouring out of libations; they've ignored his apologies to Islam. Anything is permissible to them--as long as the Pope says so.
The refusal was not only canonically permitted, it was necessary. The Church was and remains in crisis. It doesn't matter if the Pope believes it is so or not. He has been wrong about a lot of things.
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.