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.
Yes, they did.
... from the day on which the translated texts must be used for celebrations in the vernacular, only the revised form of the Mass and [the breviary] will be allowed, even for those who continue to use Latin. (Instructione de Constitutione, AAS 63 (1971) 712715.)
Why anyone would even consider, let alone continue in negotiations - even unto this day - to be in communion with the organization of the antichrist is beyond me.
By the confusion in their teaching and their practice in treating the apostate church of 'vatican ii' as the true Church,the SSPX has set itself, its followers, and the traditional Catholic resistance in general up to be delivered over to the false shephers of the apostate church, and their souls to be devoured.
This situation in France has sadly happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen, rendering asunder the true Roman Catholic Church that remains, until the SSPX leadership relinquishes its pride and ambition, and stands for Christ, and truth, and in support of those rare statements in the past when they had at least courage to consider them.
Excerpt from a speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre to two seminaries on March 30 and April 18, 1986, before the first abomination at Assisi by 'john paul ii':
"Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious. I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods."
"What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope."
Well, it took 52 posts to get to them, but the sede vacantists are on board.
One silly hothead frog priest throws his toys out of the cot because he didn't get his way and suddenly neo-Catholics are rushing to proclaim that the entire SSPX is in "total chaos".
This seems to be a case of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Now, if you want to see some real cause for chaos...
Your use of the term "neo-Catholics" demonstrates that you are a schismatic.
Your use of the term schismatic demonstrates that you are a neo-Catholic
The SSPX has refused obedience to legitimate authority as regards lawful commands and without necessity. The specific form of the liturgy is something within the power of the Pope to regulate, so long as the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice is maintained, and therefore there is no necessity to disobey, and certainly not now that indult Tridentine masses are allowed.
"The specific form of the liturgy is something within the power of the Pope to regulate, so long as the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice is maintained"
Here's a book by an eminent doctor of sacred theology (Rev Fr. Trinchard) that may interest you...
Whether invalid or not, the short answer to the novus ordo is NO!
Trichard, a priest who celebrated the Novus Ordo his entire priesthood now, in his dotage, decides that it's invalid.
Oh, and Phil, he's not a "doctor." He has a licentiate, which means he couldn't quite cut the cut the doctoral mustard.
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.
Following this line of thinking, then I, as a practicing catholic, must also allow the VOTF "their" voice, when they also say "we also must be allowed to question .....". At what point in time did the members of the Catholic Church becoming a voting block? Who gave you the 'authority' to question what the Holy Spirit does through the Holy Father in the church that Christ established? Essentially, and I hope you realize this, you are questioning God's authority to use the Catholic Church to bring ALL faiths together. Who are you to question God?
Your arrogant attack is typical. You can't win an argument, so you claim someone isn't Catholic. By my perspective the question is whether the Pope is Catholic, not whether traditionalists are. No traditionalists I know would have worshiped with animists--an act already defined as heretical by preconciliar popes--and one which certainly offends against the first commandment. And yet JPII had done just this. By what authority does he do this? His own? Since when has a pope the power to abrogate the Divine Law?
As long as you address any of us, you are subject to our responses. You don't make the rules around here.
For sure, we lost Fr. Aulagnier several months ago. Yes, we have just lost Fr. Philippe Laguérie and Fr. Christophe Héry. This is a great loss and a great sadness for us. The Society is going to miss their fine qualities.
To you he's nothing more than a "silly hothead frog priest." Talk about turning on your own. Lovely. One minute he's a fine memmber of SSPX. The next he's a silly hothead frog priest.
Somebody may already have said this to you but your invective and polemics says far more about you than it does about your intended targets.
Yet another one who denies the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. Your misguided faith in 'tradition only' removes you from the spiritual well of faith entrusted by Christ to His church. You have locked yourself into a closet and expect the entire church to join you in your inner sanctum.
Gold-trimmed lace albs? Better than priests wearing clown noses or naked lectors reading the Epistle or bikers at papal Masses chasing-down the Holy Eucharist with beer.
By default ordinary Catholics must protect Sacred Tradition when the pope himself will not. The authority comes from Gid--it is a given in times of emergency.
Heh-heh. Was it the gold, or the lace that got your goat?
Er... we know.
The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ compares the Church to a human body. It is made up of many different parts, some visible and large, others hidden and small. Together, they complement each other and form a beautiful creation. Not all have the same job. Likewise with the Church. Not all are apostles, not all are prophets or healers or teachers. Yet all have an important role to play.
The 2004 version of the Mystical Body will be a great deal healthier when significant numbers of individuals humbly accept their true role in the Church, desist from acting as if they were the head, i.e. the Pope, and cease their attempts to assume charisms which are not proper to them.
"Yet another one who denies the work of the Holy Spirit in the church"
Not at all. Of course the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church--but He helps traditionalists, not Rome. And since the true Catholic faith is sustained by traditionalism, not by the Novus Ordo religion, we must turn to that surviving remnant of Catholicism to appreciate where Christ is actually working his wonders. Beyond the traditionalist movement there is just devastation--hardly the work of the Holy Spirit.
These "neo-Catholics" are a total fantasy in your brain. I've never met anybody who believes such rubbish. And yes, your use of the term demonstrates that you believe the Vatican II Council created a new religion. You share this belief with many modernist dissenters. You completely caricature and misrepresent what the Catholic Church stands for, what the Catholic Church teaches, what the Pope believes and teaches. You create fantasy straw men in order to impugn faithful and orthodox Catholics and equate them with liberal dissenters who are the true enemies of the faith. You have no desire to build up orthodoxy in the Church. You simply want to tear down the Catholic Church and the Pope and build up your schismatic sect. 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. It swallows up the entire concept. It makes mincemeat of the whole notion of authentic magisterium It is pure Protestant private judgment. Luther and Calvin would be proud of you!
Neither got my goat. I am not one for fancy costumes either. But I care about the dogmas of faith--and the Novus Ordo trashes these. That is why I abhor it. Has nothing to do with what priests wear.
The "Spirit" of Vatican Council II is not the Holy Ghost. As a matter of fact, guidance from the Holy Ghost was not even invoked at that purely pastoral council that declared no new dogma.
For a smart man, you can certainly let some brain-dead verbage drip from those lips.
Let me get this straight: the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Pope and has cozied up to those who challenge his authority?
You're not a traditionalist; you're an integrist.
But popes must defend the faith. When they do not, but command what is harmful to the Church, their commands lose legitimacy. You need to understand this important truth better. When a pope actually attacks Sacred Tradition, he forces ordinary Catholics to resist--and to defend the faith by default.
"I've never met anybody who believes such rubbish."
You yourself, along with other neo-Catholics, accept Assisi I and II. I rest my case.
"Talk about turning on your own."
Turning on his own (because his insatiable pride has been somewhat bruised) is exactly what this silly hothead frog priest has done. There's nothing gracious about that.
And THERE you have it. IMHO!
The VOTF have their opinion, as do Cardinals Ratzinger and Mahony, Bishops Raymond Burke and Howard Hubbard, Sinkspur, myself and countless others. But ... we were not elected pope and neither were you! Karol Jozef Wojtyla was validly elected by the College of Cardinals.
The Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Churchs reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."
That remains true, despite your 'opinions'.
"You create fantasy straw men in order to impugn faithful and orthodox Catholics"
Assisi I and 2 aren't "fantasy straw men",
nor is papal endorsement of hindus...
nor is the kissing of the koran...
nor is the treatment of arch-laymen Rowan Williams as though he were a bishop...
Now who were you calling an orthodox Catholic?
I see you're still lifting quotes and using them as if they were your own. I'm not surprised. http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp