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.
You've got to be kidding me - did you just quote a COT canon that defended the Traditional Mass against Protestant arguments in order to defend the Novus Ordo Mass from the criticisms of the Society? Do you realize that the Protestants at the time were altering the Traditional Mass to look like the Novus Ordo?
"Many of the schismatic posts do not merit response and many of us have real lives to live. SSPX is engaged in a never-ending ad campaign which is nothing more than a recruiting scheme based upon the schismatic profession of hatred toward pope and Church as though that might make the schism the Church."
This is paranoia. There is no hatred toward the pope and Church, nor can you point to anything traditionalists say which indicates this. But neither do we worship the Pope as you do. We are merely pointing out that he is in charge--and he is doing a lousy job. You take umbrage at this--so you attack us personally, which is ridiculous. We are traditional Catholics who attend SSPX Masses--as we have every right to do--in order to make sure our kids are raised as Catholics. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Rome.
So let me get this straight - the Society, in your opinion, must declare a concrete schism like Photius in order for their Confessions to be valid? Or are the Confessions of the Orthodox not valid either? Or do we not know?
Also, when the situation of Campos, Brazil, was resolved, why was it not required to re-hear any Confessions or to remarry anyone?
Archbishop Lefebvre did not call the Pope himself a heretic. He stated the "See of Peter" and "posts of authority" in Rome were occupied by Antichrists. That is not the same thing as referring to the Pope at all. The "See" means merely "Seat"--it is a place, not a man. It is a term used metaphorically and diplomatically--just as we use the term "White House" to sometimes mean the staff of the President and sometimes to mean the President himself. It is deliberately vague and ambiguous. In this case, the term "See of Peter" has been qualified by the plural "posts of authority", which makes it clear he is talking about high officials in Rome and not the Pope. In no instance did the Archbishop call the Pope himself either a heretic or an antichrist. In fact, if you knew anything at all about Lefebvre, you would know he cautioned just the opposite and forcefully rejected sedevacantism among his followers. Archbishop Lefebvre never crossed the line you are suggesting he crossed. There is nothing you have posted to indicate otherwise.
How do you know? I wasn't there were you?
In addition, I am no longer responding to you. I gave you examples of what you say does not exist and you refuse to deal with the examples.
Everyone can see the words of the sspx founder for themselves. Everyone can see for themselves how the sspx are heretical in regards the Papacy failing;the Mass being evil; Rome and the Papacy being occupied by antiChrists; and all the other insane evil hatred the sspx'ers traffic in daily.
"I suspect you are a sedavacanist."
You suspect wrongly. Your problem is you are not used to hearing Catholics criticize the Pope. That you are not shocked that a pope gives a well-known abortion activist Holy Communion without her having first renounced her activity, gives me some indication of the depth of your denial. You want to believe this is somehow justifiable--which flies in the face of reason itself. That is why I say you worship the Pope. You think he is a god above Divine Law itself.
Well, they claim to have the ability to annul marriages; they have their own canon law; their own jurisdictions, their own hierarchy, (Williamson even hinted God would provide them a Pope) etc so they appear to be their own church
Dumb argument. Because the Council of Trent was speaking of the ancient Mass--not Bugnini's concoction which is a denial of Trent.
Vatican I teaches infallibly the Papacy will endure firm until the end of time. It is common sense to conclude Mary never said those words as Mary doesn't oppose the Catholic Church her son established and promised to be with until the end of time.
Your comments about the SSPX are misinformed and ignorant. It is undeniable there are many apostates in high places in Rome, just as the Society has stated. This is undeniable. Cardinal Walter Kasper himself, for instance, has denied the historicity of the Resurrection and the validity of miracles. There are many like him who occupy chairs of great authority. The SSPX merely challenges Rome by stating out loud that many of these high officials have built their careers out of denying traditional Catholic teachings.
What happens when a pope dies and before a new one is elected? Also, the Blessed Mother said Rome will be the seat of the anti-Christ not the Papacy.
It is common sense to conclude Mary never said those words as Mary doesn't oppose the Catholic Church her son established and promised to be with until the end of time.
Then why did the Church approve of the apparition?
"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"
No private judgment is ever used. The Society obeys the teachings of the Church handed down by preconciliar popes and councils. It rejects only novelties--which are not binding on anybody when they contradict Tradition.
but wouldn't your effort be better utilized fixing the bigger problems in the Catholic Church? Do that and you may see us pesky SSPXers fade back into the fold or fade away.
Homeschooling. Write articles (with a specific emphasis and slant) for the diocesan newspaper. The lone Catholic representative for the religion advisory board for the local newspaper. Reading all my 14-year-old daugher's history and literature and religion this year and assigning and correcting her papers. Work 9 or so hours per day in a corporate position. Pray daily. Go to Mass daily when I can. Go to confession at least once per two weeks, but often weekly. Pray the rosary daily. Help my 5 children and my wife to grow closer to God. Speerhead the Latin Mass community at our indult parish for 5 year years (NOT something I ever WANTED to do!!!). Make new friends. Asssit in building Christ's kingdom. Complete a master's degree in theology.
Endure the taunts and criticisms of SSPX adherents, when I have actually defended them to my friends more than anyone I know.
Like I said, it is not my private opinion that SSPX confessions are invalid because they are not incardinated in their dioceses. In danger of death, or in invincible ignorance, of course they are valid, as the Church supplies. Don't shoot the messenger for bearing the news of the Church.
Finally, I pray daily that the SSPX and Rome will come to terms; I will be the first one to frequent the chapels whenever I travel and when the occasion strikes. I'm certain there are MANY more like me. I have even occasionally attended a few weeks ago--lo and behold! But don't tell anyone, 'K?
*LOL When Lefevbre said that an antiChrist was occupying the "See of Peter," do you thinkhe was referring to Dan Rather?
With all due respect, your "explanation" is insane.
It never approved those words of Mary. Besides, private revelations arent binding. The words of Jessus and Dogmatic Teachings are
Correct.
However, let's not be sloppy with language. We are not talking about a "religious institution", nor a superior of a religious order. We are talking about the Catholic Church, founded on the rock, Peter and his successors to whom certain promises were made by Our Lord.
Furthermore, it must be certain that such harm would definitely occur. Moreover, it is also necessary to consider the harm which would be done by the deliberate disobedience. The moral theology involved in issues such as this is something which should give pause to angels.
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.
The Pope, as Archbishop Lefebvres superior had every right to do so. Unauthorized episcopal consecration is a serious matter.
See, right, here you're on shaky ground. Key word: intended. You have presumed to know what the Pope's intentions were. It's always a dangerous exercise to judge intentions-still more so when that person is the Pope. The Pope "intended" to destroy the ancient Mass? I say, that what he intended was to prevent Lefebvre excommunicating himself "latae sententiae", to keep him within the Church and to make available to those who wished it, the Tridentine Rite. To preserve unity.
Bishop Fellay's command to this priest, on the other hand, was wholly legitimate and ought to have been obeyed.
Why? Who's to say that his command wasn't harmful to the Church or souls? You? The Pope? Bishop Fellay? As I've said previously and will continue to repeat, the decision as to what is and is not worthy of obedience is being made by you. Dress it up, spin it, slant it any way you want. But that's what it boils down to.
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.
Again, let's not be sloppy with language. "Pope-worshippers"? No. Pope-respecters. It is not due to the "fantasy that because of their high office popes may command whatever they wish". It's not a "high office". On the contrary. The Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ.
My respect for the Holy Father is due firstly, to the fact that he is the successor of Peter and secondly, I believe most firmly that as the successor of Peter, he possesses a charism to guide the Barque of Peter which I do not possess. I humbly submit that God who chose him, has endowed him with gifts and blesings which are not proper to me or my state. In other words, I don't possess the competence to stand as his uber-Pope.
Before anyone goes down "the Pope's screwed up" road, humility and prudence ought to cause everybody to be extremely reluctant and err on the side of caution.
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.