Skip to comments.SSPX FRANCE REPORTEDLY IN CHAOS
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.
If you don't like people replying to the nonsense you post (on a forum you want gone) you should leave... now. Trust me you won't be missed, except by the handful of SSPX bashers who send pings out to slap each other on the back and chuckle when one of you've typed something suffiently vicious.
The only time you stop by the religious forum (that you call "wretched" while lobbying for its elimination) anyway is to post your hateful anti-Society vomit and inflame the threads.
You've stated cleary that you despise the forum and you add add nothing to it but consternation. Why are you here?
There's no such word as "integrist", but if you break it down to its Latin roots, you'll see that you believe UR is a person of great integrity.
Was Latin not required when you supposedly went to the seminary? You should brush up on it before you misappropriate non-words for insults.
If you prefer "schismatic," I'll use it.
Here's a recent www.traditio.com commentary you may appreciate...
TRADITIO has said it many times before. You might as well go to the Methodist church down the street as to one of the Novus Ordo churches, for all the difference there is now. Well, it seems that some Novus Ordinarians have been reading TRADITIO and are doing just that. Apparently, they too see no difference!
The Toledo Blade recently quoted a parishioner whose 115-year-old St. James Church is being closed to pay off sex lawsuits and in recognition of the fact that Novus Ordo attendance is plummeting. What this parishioner says is quite revealing. She said if her church closes, she might not go where the diocese says. "Maybe. I'm not sure," she said. "My husband's Methodist. I may consider going to a Methodist church."
Congratulations to the New Order! It has purveyed so much unCatholic "doctrine" about false oecumenism and "we all worship the same god" nonsense that Novus Ordinarians can't even distinguish between what passes for a Catholic church and a Protestant church. And notice how Novus Ordinarians throw over the "obedience" argument when it doesn't suit them. That being the case, why should traditional Catholics be expected to "obey" Newchurch bishops who simply want to destroy the Roman Catholic Faith as it has been known for two millennia -- and have almost succeeded in doing so?
A parishioner at the closing St. Anthony's says that she'll watch the "Mass" on TV. Well, she may as well tune in to "The Simpsons" for all the good watching the "Mass" on the boob tube will do her. She'd better hope that Lucifer likes TV!
Yet another church, St. Francis, is said to have trouble scraping even 200 of its 953 "members" to Sunday Mess. So, attendance at the Mess is less than 20% of even the most active members, active enough to register at a parish.
As TRADITIO has been saying, the Vatican II "springtime" has entered winter. Pope Paul VI in 1972, just seven years after Vatican II was closed, predicted it exactly right: "We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties."
Well, don't worry. The traditional Catholics who have held fast to the True Faith these forty years, heeding the counsel of St. Paul, will be around to pick up the pieces of Newchurch. We should not lose hope now. We are finally winning the Church back!
You know HTML, how to insert quotes and have been here long enough for this not to be any kind of accident.
Now I've truly seen everything. Anyone reading these threads should look at the behavior and tactics of those who obsess on the Society.
Does this title presume that there remains something in France not in chaos?
You can use whatever words you like when you choose insults. People don't pay much attention to those who've squandered their credibility, so it's not a big deal.
I've come to enjoy it when you call me names.
The Novus Ordo was created for Protestants.
"This is not just "division," but a rebellion at the heart of the SSPX movement, its seminary in Econe."
One frog puffed up like a balloon with personal pride certainly doesn't constitute "rebellion at the heart of the SSPX movement"
In your rush to condemn the SSPX you seem to be ignoring financial (and far worse moral) bankruptcy in the newchurch.
Is this not a classic case of bending to lift the splinter while ignoring the log in your own eye?
You say: "And as I have said to you countless times, your utterly subjective private judgment that it is necessary to disobey legitimate authority of an orthodox pope because you disagree with certain liturgical legislation that is not part of the deposit of faith (and especially when the Tridentine rite is allowed by the authority you thumb your nose at) simply makes a mockery of the entire concept of legitimate authority."
But it is you who make a mockery of legitimate authority, by insisting that what is impermissible is somehow legitimate. That is false. It was not permitted to JPII to complete the destruction of the ancient Mass by denying a papal mandate for consecrations. Such a command would have starved the ancient liturgy of traditional priests--a liturgy inextricably bound up in the practice of the Catholic faith itself. The old Mass, after all, does not exist in isolation apart from the dogmatic truths which sustain it. There was no way on earth worship and belief could have been separated. So the loss of the ancient Mass PERFORCE would have meant the loss of the ancient faith itself.
Archbishop Lefebvre understood this. But even if he were wrong to have believed this, Canon Law had given him every right to resist if he believed that the faith itself was at stake should he have obeyed the Pontiff. In fact, the evidence was already in and had shown him beyond any shadow of doubt that the Novus Ordo, precisely because it suppressed Catholic dogmas, had precipitated a calamitous decline in the faith wherever it was instituted. So the Archbishop was correct: the postconciliar popes were playing with fire--and the souls of millions--yet seemed not to care how much injury was done to the Church in the name of ecumenical accord.
You make much of the authority of the Magisterium. But the Pope himself ignores the Magisterium routinely--especially the teachings of his predecessors against the heresies of indifferentism and syncretism, as well as their many clearly-defined warnings against modernism. Nor can papal novelites be a true part of that very Magisterium. Very little of the innovations of the present Holy See are therefore binding on Catholics. You ignore all this and assume whatever the Pope teaches is Magisterial. That is simply false.
Finally, the real Protestants are those in the Vatican and in seats of authority in the dioceses who would have us worship and think and believe as Protestants instead of as Catholics. It is not a matter of private judgment as you suppose. Traditionalists don't make up beliefs and practices to suit ourselves. Instead we follow a long-held Catholic Tradition, passed-down to us through all the popes and councils of the preconciliar Church, even from the time of the apostles. It is not we who follow Luther, therefore--it is rather the typical neo-Catholic like yourself who follows the Lutheran Novus Ordo and the Lutheran teachings emanating from modernist interpretations of Vatican II.
They're on the Highway to Hell.
Are popes all good teachers? No. Are all popes wise? No. Are they all good men? No. Are all their commands legitimate? No. Is the Holy Spirit behind every act of every pope? No. Is he behind everything popes say? No.
You, like a lot of other people on this site, don't have a proper understanding of the limits of papal authority. It is limited from above. No pope may counter the Divine Law or order that which would injure souls or harm the Church in any way. If he does, such commands would be nullities.
You also should remember that not all churchmen who seem good, and holy, and pious, are the real thing. We only see and know what those in power wish us to see and know. Our knowledge is limited. We must use other means to understand what's happening. Our Lord gave good advice. He said a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit. He said by their fruits we would be able to distinguish whether a man were a false prophet or a true one. Some would look like sheep, but would be wolves under sheep's clothing. Some would be the real thing. We had to judge by their fruits--and the fruits of this pontificate have been corruption and apostasy. That's clear to me.
So yes, some popes are not blessed by Heaven. Some go off on tangents of their own, paying little heed to the truths passed-down to them. When they do this, they should not be followed.
It was created by Protestants for former Catholics.
No pope may thumb his nose at the Divine Law and pray with animists. That is not my private judgment, that is basic theology. You exaggerate the faith and make it whatever the Pope says. That is wrong and profoundly unCatholic--which is why the revolution is failing. It unnaturally opposes Tradition--and therefore offends Heaven.
Lefebvre being Exhibit A.
Why don't you go back and tend to what you like?
"I also tend to like nasty chick groups like Li'l Kim, T.A.T.U. (the Russian lesbians), Foxy Brown, and dumb blonde Christina Aguilera."
No--Lefebvre was an open book. No secrets there. What you saw was what you got--and besides, his Society has borne only good fruit, for all the occasional dissension.
You sound like Dan Rather.