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.
Still vying to have the forum shut down?
The only place any "war" exists is in your own small mind. What you perceive as a war, others perceive as a nobody on an internet forum acting as a disruptive child.
Perhaps those drugs you take for your weight problem are becoming an issue.
Your first sentence is what they all say up at the asylum. The rest is the same old, same old bushwah.
I sure do bet that ol' Marcel regrets his indiscretions as to "antichrists" now that he certainly knows the truth he denied in life.
Merely????????
According to the ruling of Antipope UR I. How very laughable! How very pathetic! How excruciatingly presumptuous!
If we actual Catholics are going to be shot in the back by those who purport to be Catholic, we will make it our first priority to fire back at the pseudoCatholic phonies and then give full attention to the outer enemies. We gave the Albigensian heretics a lot of priority as targets too.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Huh????
And also, Monsieur Fellay has absolutely no authority whatsoever to order anyone to do or to refrain from doing anything. He is excommunicated. He has no authority as an illicitly consecrated bishop. He does not even claim a diocese and has benver had one and never will.
Considering the source, I regard myself as flattered but flattery will get you nowhere. But you knew that. Phony moral equivalency arguments are no more convincing from you that from the Demonratic National Committee which you ignore and I do not. If I post 150 consecutive times against schismatics on a thread like this, I also post on other threads as well. I am not here to advertise the RCC. I don't have to. We are, vis-a-vis the schism, the brand name as you well know.
I know the brand name well: neo
First of all, you have taken your quotes out of context. This is deceptive and slanderous. Here is the full letter, one in which you will see immediately that the Archbishop is accusing some in high positions of being Antichrists, but does not accuse the Pope himself of being an Antichrist. In fact, he does the opposite and actually encourages his bishops TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE SEE OF PETER--meaning the Pope--and not the modernists who surround the Pontiff in the highest places.
_________________________________________________________
My dear friends,
The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.
This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.
That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.
The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.
I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.
Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."
As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.
In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,
+ Marcel Lefebvre
"This Fr. Peter Scott, then, would he be a member of the schismatic-American community and the man who would be an American anti-pope?"
The same Father Scott is actually Australian and is now running a seminary in Australia for the Society. The only American anti-popes I know are those that run Amchurch.
Actually, it didn't approve the so-called "Secret" of La Salette. In fact, the "Secret" was banned by the Holy Office:
Wednesday, 9th May 1923In a General Session of the Supreme Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals appointed for protecting the faith and morals, proscribed and condemned the little work The Apparition of the Most Holy Virgin on the holy mountain of La Salette, Saturday 19 September 1845. - Simple Reprinting of the entire public text by Mélanie, etc. Society Saint-Augustine, Paris-Rome-Bruges, 1922; ordering those to whom it looks to take care to withdraw examples of the condemned book from the hands of the faithful.
And the same holiday and day of the Most Holy Lord. N. D. by the foresight of divine providence Pope Pius XI, in the customary audience of R. P. D. Assessor of the Holy Office has commissioned the report himself and approved the resolution.
Given at Rome from the Holy Office on 10th May, 1923.
Aloisius Castellanus, S. R. and U. Notary.
I've seen bornacatholic's scurrilous attempt to smear the SSPX--not unlike your own. He cites the Archbishop out of context. I have posted above the entire letter. Notice how Archbishop Lefebvre encourages his bishops to remain loyal to the Holy See, despite the apostasy of those in high places in Rome. That you and he distort this by asserting a meaning the good Archbishop never intended, is a measure of how far you both will go to slander the SSPX.
The judgment that SSPX was schismatic or excommunicated is wrong, whether the Pope says so or not. No pope, after all, is above Divine Law--which is to say, no pope can condemn the innocent merely for refusing a command in order to protect the faith. That the Pope thought otherwise is proof of nothing except he is as prone to error as other men.
Cut the crap about damnation. Bad enough you pretend to be a pope, but now you want to be God.
"Your first sentence is what they all say up at the asylum. The rest is the same old, same old bushwah."
You may not like my first sentence. But I notice you avoid addressing the rest of my argument. What's normal about a Pope who gives Holy Communion publicly to an abortion activist? Inquiring minds want to know. How about giving the red hat to somebody who thinks the Resurrection never happened? Inquiring minds want to know. How about praying to the Great Thumb in the Togo Forest? Inquiring minds want to know.
Presumptuous? Hey, next to you I'm Francis of Assisi. You need to take another look at the parable about the Publican and the Pharisee. You keep pushing the rest of us out of the way so you can walk up to the sanctuary and parade your bona fide credentials as a Pharisee. You even claim to know who's damned and who's saved. Fine. I'll take my chances as a Publican.
Of course it is. Why do you think they call the New Mass a "Eucharistic Celebration"?
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.