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.

[Fifthmark]

I just saw what amounted to you saying God wills men to be damned. I accept your retraction, if that's what it was.

As concerns rash judgment, what evidence do you have that FrankWild is a "schismatic," as you claim? I saw only one comment from that fellow on this entire thread.

[bornacatholic]

* "those who defend the sspx on these threads repeatedly say Rome has lost the faith, blah, blah, blah." ( i posted this statement earlier)

Vatican I: On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45]. 2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47]. 4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

* the sppx supporters routinely trash the Pope as not being Catholic, of destoying Tradition, of promulgating a mass that offends God...blah, blah, blah.

If you have refuted those who are heretical in regards to the primacy and permanency of the Pope and that it will remain firm until the end of time, congratulations. You are a defender of the Faith.

Please send me a link to where it was you refuted the heresy of those who support the sspx.

[ninenot]

since when does a Saint need to be personally accepted by each pope in order to be venerated?

And since when does a Roman Rite need to be personally accepted by each SSPX'r in order for it to be valid?

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "And STILL they are the chosen people."

Remember a father punishes his older boys harder than the youngest as an example and for the benefit of all his children. There is a hell and there will be people there. Christ is the door and no one goes to heaven except through Him.

[bornacatholic]

Well, one can argue with that, no doubt. I give the Pope the benefit of the doubt in this matter. Perhaps things have fallen into such a sorry state there was nobody to replace the current Bishops and perhaps more, rather than less, evil would have been done to the common good by replacing all those who appear to need replacing.

The Pope surely knows more about the situation than those who presume otherwise.

[ultima ratio]

How do traditionalists discern the difference between novelty and tradition? Easy. If it has not been handed-down from the past, it is a novelty. No pope in history, for instance, has ever conducted anything comparable to Assisi I and II. That this Pope has done so is clearly a novelty. No Pope has ever fabricated a Mass by means of a committee. That Paul VI has done this by intituting the Novus Ordo is clearly a novelty. The idea that I "become the pope" for saying something so obvious is absurd. Nor do traditionalists invent any truths themselves--they follow practices and beliefs which have been handed-down to them by preconciliar popes and councils.

[Grey Ghost II]

This is a lie. This is such an untruth, it borders on the sinful.

B.S. I have have been to these services (as a spectator not a participant).

By the way, if it was a lie it would be sinful. Typical neo-catholic, violation of one of the Ten Commandments "borders on the sinful"!

[Grey Ghost II]

And since when does a Roman Rite need to be personally accepted by each SSPX'r in order for it to be valid?

It only need to have the proper form, matter and intent...which the ICEL version does not. It's invalid and you waste your time going to it.

[Fifthmark]

Individual confession is the rule but if you think that the Novus Ordo doesn't abuse General Absolution, you are living in a fantasy world.

I will ask you the same thing I asked Mershon: Would you also agree, then, that all the confessions heard by the Schismatic Orthodox Churches are invalid, as the priests lack proper jurisdiction?

[Dominick]

The assumption is based on him using a common SSPX tactic. Maybe you are correct that it is a rash judgment, however, the sentiment he brought up should be addressed.

Catholicism does not trash-can people. We do not dismiss people as being unable to be saved. If they make the correct choices they can be and will be saved. Declaring someone's behavior to be immoral or in schism is not the same as saying they can't change that behavior, no matter what is that behavior. I know God works miracles. No man is predestined for Hell, even though many Men go there.

Let me go back to the trash-can. A group that was trash-canned by American society was black people. Catholicism has had problems in some places, but this was never the Church's doing. I know of one Catholic Parish in the south and the wedding of a (third?) cousin of my wife.

A beloved housekeeper asked if she could watch a cousin's wedding in the 1940s from a window outside a Catholic Church, but she wasn't sure what windows opened. She asked the Priest if she could please watch the wedding from an open window. The Priest's answer was that anyone was welcome to watch, but only from inside the Church, anyone is welcome in the Catholic Church. She came with her husband and children in their Sunday best. It was a small thing to the Priest, but a great acknowledgment of her dignity. What kind of witness was this to her of the Catholic Church?

I hear this story in glowing terms from an older BAPTIST lady, over and over again.

[Fifthmark]

The Society does not deny the perpetual succession of the papacy nor does it deny the Pope's primacy over the Church.

For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership.

Agreement over matters of what? Oh, wait, don't answer that - it might make it conditional and ruin your whole argument.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "And since when does a Roman Rite need to be personally accepted by each SSPX'r in order for it to be valid?"

What do you mean by Roman Rite? I am inclined to think you mean the Latin Rite that is centuries old, but one can never be sure when strolling in the thick woods. One never knows what wild animals one might encounter, lions, tigers, and bears OH MY! Oh look there's an elk. :-)

If you mean what one finds in most mainstream Catholic Churches well what can a person say other than it looks nothing like the Vatican II instructions. Few Novus Ordo churches have Gregorian Chant, which was mandated by Vat II. I went to several Catholics Churches before I found this place I never heard the canon of the Mass in Latin which was mandated in Vatican II. I notice no one addressed those issue when I brought them up before. Hmmmm could it be there is no satisfactory answer to these issues? Well who wants Gregorian Chant anyway when you can have a Bali-style liturgical dance? Oh look I can see the priest's belly button. You see such interesting wildlife in the wilderness doncha?

[Fifthmark]

I'm curious to see your reply to my Schismatic Orthodox question. I did like your story, though.

[ultima ratio]

Obedience in a religious institution is owed to a superior unless something has been commanded which would harm the Church or would do harm to souls, in which case such a command would be illegitimate. An example of the latter would be JPII's command to Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate--a command deliberately intended to destroy once and for all the ancient Mass. Bishop Fellay's command to this priest, on the other hand, was wholly legitimate and ought to have been obeyed. Your confusion is not uncommon among pope-worshipers and is due to the fantasy that because of their high office, popes may command whatever they wish. This is not true. Even popes are limited--from above, not from below. No pope may command what is contrary to Divine Law.

[bornacatholic]

It denies it in practice and the gentleman who began the sspx indicated the Pope was heretical and an antichrist etc..

I asked if you have an example of an instance where you refuted the heresy of the sppx re. the Dogmatic Teachings of Vatican I. Are you searching for one?

[bornacatholic]

In a move which indicates an ongoing hardening of attitude against the Roman Catholic Church, the U.S. District Superior of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Peter Scott, has forbidden persons who attend SSPX chapels to attend any traditional Latin Mass which is in communion with Pope John Paul II. Writing in the May issue of Regina Coeli, Scott, who is known even with the Society for his distempered reactions to anyone who questions his authority, and for overburdening the consciences of the people who attend his chapels, said it was "crucial" for the "sanctification" of families that they not attend the Indult Mass. He writes:

"Remember that if you cannot get to a true (sic) Catholic Mass celebrated by a good (sic) traditional priest, you should not attend the New Mass or the Indult Mass, and this even if it is the only traditional Mass available".

[ultima ratio]

There is nothing insane about my perspective. The pope does and says much that is unCatholic, that is novel and unorthodox. What is scandalous and insane is the attitude of people like yourself who wish to deny the obvious. What is Catholic about praying with animists and kissing the Koran? These are the really scandalous actions, not my telling the truth about them.

[bornacatholic]

For example, the Society, presumes to set itself up as what many consider a virtual counter-church & magisterium: in addition to employing private judgment to determine what is and what is not Catholic, the Society presumes the competence to annull marriages without the permission of the Pope and bishops, it confirms Catholic young people without permission, and alleges that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are invalid or dangerously dubious. It also reportedly brings in much revenue by exploiting every real or imagined problem in the Church to its own advantage. The Society has also reportedly unilaterally imposed censures on lay persons and attempted to defame those priests who have left their ranks.

[Mershon]

Well, I don't know you "Old South" obfuscator. My comment was about invalid confessions that don't take.

The three churches where I go to confession do not have face-to-face as an option; as if it would be better to have invalid confessions behind a screen rather than valid ones "face-to-face" anyway.

Sometimes, the Sat. morning line is 2 tto 3 hours long. Besides, most of my friends would not consider me a "Novus Ordo" folk. I happen to be Catholic, and would prefer to go to the Traditional Latin Mass, and believe it is objectively a fuller representation of the Faith.

And as for your subtle, hidden innuendos... Do they teach you that at the SSPX chapel?

"Faith, hope and charity. And the greatest of these is charity."

How traditional is that?

[Mershon]

I would say no, because the Greek Orthodox don't claim to be united with the Catholic Church.

Nice try though.