#12: Change (or Hypocrisy?):
In 2003, Fr. Aulagnier was expelled from the SSPX for advocating for a practical accord.
The reasons adduced in favor of reaching a practical agreement with unconverted Rome by Fr. Aulagnier in 2003 are nearly identical to Bishop Fellay's reasons for reaching a practical accord with Rome since 2012: 1) The danger of schism2) Friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos)3) An alleged "new attitude in Rome"4) The conflict may last for ages
The similarities are striking, and cause the reader to wonder:
-Had Fr. Aulagnier kept quiet until 2012, would he not have been in Bishop Fellay's "privileged group" of insiders and apologists?
-If Fr. Aulagnier was expelled for advocating for a practical accord along these lines, by what right does Bishop Fellay retain his membership in the SSPX?
In the article below, Fr. Violette (then District Superior of Canada) is sounding very much like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance, while the rationale he is condemning in Fr. Aulagnier is sounding very much like Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX!https://sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210
I encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some selections related to the points above:1) Rebutting the "danger of schism" canard
: "Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants!...What is in question is not their [Roman] authority but whether we can trust them or not...It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on."2) Regarding friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos)
: "Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so."3) Regarding an alleged "new attitude" in Rome
: "This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier [or Bishop Fellay?!
]been for the past 5 years?...He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact...But we are not looking for acceptance."4) Regarding the conflict lasting for ages
: "In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s [and Bishop Fellay's?]
change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages."
This is not merely a change in the SSPX.
It is hypocrisy.
Yet we are to believe the Resistance are the rebels, and the Fellayistas are the loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre??