There are reports that +Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal are all in the United States of America.
The rumoured purpose for the visit is a meeting to discuss the particulars of forming a splinter organization composed those priests who are opposed to what they perceive as a new direction set by Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter, a direction that they see as a betrayal of the mission of the SSPX.
In my opinion, it is a logical next step based on the actions and rhetoric emanating from +Williamson in his Eleison Comments, and the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal that were posted on youtube.
Obviously, as a supporter of the SSPX, and based on my understanding of the issues, I hope that they will step back from the brink. However, having witnessed this behaviour in the past, I would be surprised if they took such an action.
In either case, prayers are needed for the attendee’s of this meeting.
In thinking about the General Council’s letter to the three SSPX Bishops the principle that +Fellay invoked still stands in bold relief:
“… If the Pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will?…”
Previously on rorate (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/williamson-exclusion-maintained-by-sspx.html), I had broken this principle into an if-then-else statement:
IF
Pope asks you to do something
-AND-
no compromise of faith,morals etc is asked
THEN
it confers an obligation to obey.
ELSE
No can do
ENDIF
In the lead up to the June 13th meeting between Cardinal Levada and +Fellay, those opposed to a regularization of the SSPX stated that +Fellay was going to betray the SSPX.
On June 13th, following the above principle, +Fellay did not ‘sell out’ the SSPX.
When the predictions of a ‘sell-out’ proved false, those opposed to +Fellay’s actions did not stop. Instead, taking a cue from the Jehovah Witnesses, they continued saying that the ‘sell-out’ is still on etc.
As noted in the earlier post on culture ( angelqueen.org/2012/07/25/the-vatican-and-sspx-an-organizational-culture-perspective/ ) this irrational behaviour is consistent with evoked response(s) that occur when a cultural assumption has been transgressed by an another party.
My conclusion, is that there is the possibility that all this ‘noise’ wasn’t really about the possibility of the SSPX being regularized.
It is about something deeper.
Hence the need for prayers.
Truly depressing! I fully acknowledge the massive problems, for SSPX, within The Curia, the Bishops’ Conferences and their Chanceries, but history tells us that total separation [Sedevacantism] can lead nowhere. Indeed SSPX, itself or an affiliate, produced an historic ‘tree’ proving the very point. [Perhaps someone could dig it out as it was most instructive.
The forces of Tradition should be ‘within the tent’ working constructively together to counter the nonsense pervading Mother Church to-day. Not ‘without’ and perpetuating petty squabbles between themselves.
One of the problems, for some in SSPX, is that they have no experience of Mother Church before Vatican II, that is as orchestrated at parish level. Therefore, they crate their own versions of such. Mother Church, at parish level, was one of saints, sinners and all stops in between and it worked. Elements of SSPX only seek to be themselves as an elite Elect – God help them.
I completely agree with you, especially your final paragraph. One of the major problems that I’ve noted since attending SSPX chapels is precisely this (false) memory of a perfect Church pre-Vatican II. If + Williamson & Company insist on waiting until we return to that “perfection” they’ll have a very long wait.
Plus, the idea is a formally condemned heresy.
Can we at least have a Pope that doesn’t espouse the glory of Religious Liberty, the separation of Church and state, that doesn’t go to Jewish Temples and tell them their still covered by the old covenant?
“they’re still covered”
“No sellout occurred” How ridiculous…That’s akin to the both of us driving down the road…I tell you..” you better put your seatbelt on…if we have a head-on collision, you could go through the windshield..” You grudgingly put it on…then said head-on crash happens…Then you turn to me and say, ” See? I didn’t go through the window..!” If the other 3 bishops and 3 doz or so priests hadn’t questioned Bernie the Rat ( how can I call him that? Well when you have a rabid zionist as a bus partner and you harass your senior bp bc the Jews hate him…well ) he would have driven the SSPX into the waiting arms of modernist Rome…What they did to the FSSP would be pretty compared to what the modernists have planned for the SSPX..
Well, yes, when we deserve it ! Start doing some serious penance and saying many rosaries for a holy Pope and God will bless us with one. I can suggest one penance: give up posting on angelqueen.
There are many of us who were around pre-Vatican II who are worried about the potential agreement in the works. You say that we are remembering a perfect world and you seem to imply we wear rose-colored glasses when we remember the Church in those days. At least we didn’t have popes who openly taught highly questionable doctrines and appointed open heretics to high positions in the Curia. We had mostly decent men wearing the mitre and to be under one of those bishops was not frightening. I know that as always, they were not all saints and some were big sinners, but it was not the usual thing to have a homosexual or heretic over a diocese. And if one had been publicly found out, they would have been gotten rid of.
Are you kidding me?! There is no comparison between this time and ANY in the history of the Church. Even during the time of St. Lydwine, it is said that some of the popes (they had three) may have been really bad men, but not one of them messed around with the teachings of Christ.
The Church is the via media. Just as the progressivists have a mentality of disobedience so do those on the right. Help this group find the door. Otherwise they will continue to foment their revolutionary spirit and thereby challenge the peace of Christ in the SSPX. Let us follow Bishop Fellay down the via media!
@tradical,
I haven’t heard of this, what is your source for this rumor ? Isn’t it dangerous to be spreading such information about ? I agree we need to do more P^3 if it is true but how can we know for sure ?
@jackofbalarat22,
It is true. An internet search will lead you to several other forums with more discussion and details on this.
@NeelyAnn,
Aside from one website that claims to make mention to this meeting, I don’t see anything else. Seems like just another rumor to me.
Hi Jack,
I have pieced together the information from a number of ‘angry bird’ forums and decided to post it when I observed the trend was consistent with other ‘splinters’ that left the SSPX.
As noted, I have experienced one such ‘splinter’ directly and it was not pleasant.
Definitely more P^3.
where?
When time allows, I do a search in google with a single keyword: sspx’
The following sites had references that I pieced together the information for the post:
ignis ardens
you tube
cath info
and a couple other sites that I found via google that escape me.
I did not record the links as I wasn’t intending to write a great deal about it.
What happens when priests of this new sect (or sect to be) disagree with Bishop Williamson and find him to be a ‘liberal’, will they then start their own new sect. And what happens if the founders of the new sect disagree with one another, will they then found their own new sect? Now, that sounds familiar, something maybe like we Catholics called … . let me guess? Protestantism? ‘I am my own pope’ and ‘don’t let anyone think they can tell me the contrary.
Isn’t that what the Sedevacantists did in America during the time of Archbishop Lefebvre. They accused the saintly founder of the SSPX of being a ‘liberal’ a ‘modernist’ a such and such . . . etc. Today, the same is unjustly put bishop Fellay.
Nothing is new under the sun. Sad only the faithful who a deceived by all the stupid hype of these people who otherwise should be true leaders.
Isn’t interesting, that Bp. Fellay has all along been warning Bishop Williamson precisely about this point, namely that we can never dismiss authority of the Roman Pontiff out right without disastrous consequences. Consequences we are beginning now to see in the actions of Bishop Williamson (if the rumors are true?).
It becoming clear that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal are getting desperate as they know well that the axe is about to fall since Menzingen doesn’t intend to put up with their crazy nonsense for much longer.
No…Fr. Kelly and Sanbourne just wanted the property in their names…Kelly’s a strange brew; seemingly to the “right” of the SSPX ( sedevacantist ) but fiercely americanist…Yes, the contradiction has always been lost on him..The expelling or suspending of these 3 doz or so priests is a black mark on Fellay-not on them!
So what is new?
- November 21, 1974 – +Marcel Lefebvre
We adhere with our whole heart and our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth.
Because of this adherence we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.
All of these reforms have, indeed, contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, and to naturalistic and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechesis, a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the solemn magisterium of the Church. No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, such as has been clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s magisterium for 19 centuries.
“But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8).
Is this not what the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if a certain contradiction is apparent in his words and actions, as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the Church.
The lex orandi (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed without changing the lex credendi (law of belief). The New Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or Pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age-old magisterium.
This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform.
It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to the future generations.
For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practiced by the Church of all time, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and her institutions and codified in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the late Council. Meanwhile, we wait for the true light of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of eternal Rome.
By acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. Pius X, of remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of St. Peter, and of being fidelis dispensatores mysterium Domini Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Our Lord said, “By their fruits you shall know them”.
With Assisi III, the new appointees to the CDF and other various positions. Does anyone have much faith that Rome is returning to Tradition? +Williamson deserves the benefit of the doubt as does +Fellay. Until all things are revealed we cannot assume anything.
Agreed, we do not know all the facts of either side. We do not even know what pressures are being brought to bear on the Holy Father and whether or not he is the one making the decisions in Rome or is a puppet in the hands of the Vatican bureaucracy. Let us “watch and pray”
Marcel,
It is important to keep the issues clear.
This post is focused on the rumoured actions of a number of the members of the SSPX who have been accusing +Fellay of ‘selling out’ the SSPX etc.
The Eleison Comments are quite clear in expressing +Williamson’s thoughts on +Fellay.
Likewise Fr. Chazal and Fr. Pfeiffer have been most vocal on the topic with the same thread.
The state of the Church is an another matter entirely.
As tradical admits, the post he put up is based on rumors.
This forum’s own basis for continued membership has undergone a SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ( meant in the metaphysical sense of that term ) in recent months as a direct consequence of AVOIDING SPECULATION.
it works both ways tradical, my friend.
gpmtrad,
You are quite wrong here. The difference is that everything that was said about Bishop Fellay was based on what people ‘thought’ or ‘feared’ was happening. Bishop Fellay never admitted to or said the things that these people said, no matter how many times others tried to tell us ‘such and such is what he really means’. These people were relating gossip because they did not know anyting about the ‘negotiations’ but only told us what they ‘thought’ was happening and what they ‘thought’ was going on. None of them were party to the behind the scenes meetings – including Bishop Williamson, Fr. J. Pfeiffer, or Fr. Chazal.
With Bishop Williamson, we have his own direct words, so no gossip there. Now the only part speculative is that he is definitely trying to set up a counter group to the SSPX because he usally refers to this in a coded way. Some can verify this though because he has been discussing his options and what it will take to follow through in private with a few select people. He is currently holding these cards somewhat close but things do get around from those he has spoken to.
For Frs. J. Pfeiffer and Chazal, it is another case. They have been clear in their sermons and now we have the meetings which groups of people have attended. Once you start that, there is no more speculation and no way to keep it secret. The people who have been at these meetings are not relaying gossip or private interpretation (as with Bishop Fellay) but what happened at the meetings. Some may not be with them but most discussing this are with them and are trying to help them. No gossip here, just the facts of what they are seeking to do.
Fr. Pfeiffer said ” the latest rumor…” in his sermon and then pointed out that every rumor before had been proven true..Read your sunday bulletin…Fellay talks up “our new relationship with Rome..” It’s a done deal as far as he’s concerned..set-back by the good priests and bishops who are trying to hold him back…but whereas he was a speeding train, now he’s a slow moving one-but on the same track…
gpmtrad,
Yep, unfortunately +Williamson hasn’t come out and said explicitly “Hey, I’m outta here you buch of accordistas”.
As noted it was a call to arms (prayer).
We now return to our regular programming.
There are rumors both ways. +Williamson speaks his mind I am aware. But we don’t know if he has inside information that we do not. My point, is that we can’t assume anything at this point and play the what if game. What we all need to do (like was mentioned before) is to pray for our priests and bishops. We also need to keep The Blessed Virgins request at Fatima in mind. That without Her help, Russia will spread her errors throughout the world and the Faith will nearly be lost by all. Isn’t that what seems to be happening now? We must pray the rosary.
Tradical, mon vieux.
Did you watch the ten hour conference +Bishop Williamson gave in London on June 22, 23, 24 ?
No?
Thought so!
When this conference is viewed by all he criticise the good Bishop, it would be time for a debate.
Please don’t use video clips from the conference or smatterings from other blogs .
Listen and watch the man himself, if your faith is not deepened, I would be surprised. HE Williamson is a man of Faith who is aware of wordly traps.
After viewing we then discuss.
Until then, mon vieux.
vaya con dios
Mon chere M. Torey,
You are correct, I did not watch all 10 hours of the conference … not that I didn’t want to, but because my machine kept crashing the download … c’est domage.
However, that conference is not the you tube sources that I was referring to.
Now as far as my criticism of the good Bishop (I can only assume that your are referring to +Williamson.
There are a great many things for which he could be criticized … but not today.
Yes. Marcel Vianney.
HE Bishop Williamson does have inside information some of which he reveals in his London conference.
Perhaps i should put the conference on DVD and mail it to my american friends in Christ.
vaya con dios
Sure Chris, I’d be interested in a copy.
BTW: Why don’t you end the suspense and send me a private message via angelqueen with the ‘inside’ information.
tradical,
Listen to this, it will clarify everything. Simply disobedient. I am so sad as I know most of the these priests and they were my confessors and advisers. Now they will break their engagements and commit a serious sin. P^3.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHiNcI2Ce2Y&feature=g-all-lik
Yep sad for them and those that follow them.
I am gladdened that Bishop Williamson either did not go or did not sign up.
P^3
Everything Fr. Pfeiffer says in the sermon of Aug 12th is unfortunately true…
Bill,
You should have a listen to Fr. Couture’s lecture/conference on the situation.
angelqueen.org/2012/08/30/lecture-presented-by-fr-couture-on-the-sspxs-current-position-with-rome/
Why,
Because fortunately, everything he says is true.
There is also an accompanying one by Fr. Chazal stating some additional details.
Fr. Hewko it appears then has refused his transfer to the new priory in Chicago and is abandoning the faithful that need him there. Also, according to Fr. Chazal, Fr. Pfeiffer is their ‘boss’ while they get organized.
Mother have mercy on him and all the other priests who are leaving souls for their own projects !
Father Hewko was being punished and silenced for his sermon at the ordinations. Why have these priests been able to speak against modernist Rome since the SSPX was formed and now they cannot?
I beg to differ, Fr. Hewko has been in Syracuse for 7 yrs., and its normal for priests to be moved after 3-5 yrs. in a priory. He also would have been an experienced priest in a new priory which would help with its establishment. Unless you have spoken directly to his superior and know that this was a punishment I would refrain from making such statements.
Have you spoken to his superior? He was going out to Chicago until his superiors saw this letter below. I know father Hewko personally as I am from Syracuse. You speak as if you know the situation first hand and to that I say shame on you. “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
The better question is: why were they blackballed, suspended and expelled for merely asking the SSPX leadership for honest answers? Someone told my wife, “well, I don’t have to tell my kids what I’m doing..” Pardon me ma’am, but if you’re getting drunk ( as in drunk on megalomania ) and setting the house on fire ( betraying AchBp LeFebvre ) they have a right to know.
Bill,
I’m curious, why do you believe Fr. Chazel and not Fr. Couture?
Everything Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal have sd are backed-up by the facts…by what we’re seeing and feeling…bp deMallerais says he’s “heartbroken” that the Superior General has been misleading people, still committed to a deal-any deal, disregarding the advice of the other 3 bps, disregarding the the most thoughtful, courageous priests we have…It’s a scandal that fellay got a 2nd 12-yr term…it’s turned him into a classic megalomaniac….Maurice Pinay says Fellay believes some off-the-wall prophecy about a moderating bishop…I don’t know…but it sure seems to fit..
Bill,
‘heart broken’: Ok and how did you confirm this statement which came from Fr. Chazel? If a person accuses Bishop Fellay of lying, why does Fr. Chazel suddenly become the paramount of truth? In this case you have no facts to base this assertion it is literally hearsay.
‘ … seeing and feeling …”: Sorry Bill but that isn’t completely true. When I listened to some of Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermons I found a number of issues upon which he either ignored the complete story or even warped what was said.
‘… disregarding the advice …’: Are you certain this is true? Have you considered the principle noted above that Bishop Williamson seems to be disregarding? Were not two of the ‘three’ noted Bishops also part of the chapter? Did they not provide their input into the outputs of that chapter? Have you listened to Fr. Coutures conference? NB: Some people are having problems with the download – it is quite large – probably due to a high resolution.
“… a scandal that Fellay …”: How so? Are you accusing the capitualaries of not voting him superior? If you have details of the ‘scandal’ I wonder who broke their vow of silence this time? Some people seem to think that the other half of this statement is that “it’s too bad Bishop Williamson wasn’t elected superior”.
‘… maurice pinay …’: Great now you’re going to bring in that website? Hardly a stunning recommendation.
Bill,
Someone once said to me that ‘you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts’.
If you really want to delve into this please include some of facts in your next posting. Pick only three – otherwise we’ll be here all weekend and I have to work on the house.
Everything else in your email is hearsay, opinions and FUD.
regarding ‘heart broken’:
www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20344 -Bishop-Tissier
His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais requests that a clarification is made concerning the false information posted recently on Ignis Ardens.
“Vous faites bien de me questionner sur les propos que m’a paraît-il prêté l’abbé Pfeiffer. En réalité il n’y a rien de vrai dans ce que raconte l’internet de mon entretien avec François Chazal mardi dernier à Ecône.”
“You do well in asking me about the comments with which Fr. Pfeiffer apparently credits me. In reality there is nothing true in what the Internet reports about my discussion with François Chazal last Tuesday at Ecône.”
angelqueen.org/2012/08/30/unconfirmed-tissier-speaks-on-fs-intent/#comment-2672
A savvy internet sleuth on IA has presented a convincing analysis of said “+Tissier note” as quite possibly bogus.
As for the larger picture, one may wish to reflect on the latest EC of +W as to where this is all actually heading; not that it will come as news except in the case of certain partisans in a rush to dip their tootsies in the fountains of sunny Nova Roma, slouch back in the warmth of a fine Italian sun and partake of some delightful gelato while 40 years of work to preserve orthodox, traditional Catholicity goes down the gurgler.
If it was the comment about image resolution, not all that big a deal as the person may have downsampled it in order to ease the upload.
With respect to the gurgler – I’ll consider posting my thoughts on the latest ‘EC’ – although from what I’ve read of it so far – you’re not going to be particularly pleased with my opinion.
Allow, Monsieur, that moi shall save you zee trouble! : – )
I dunno. I don’t pretend to know. And I don’t know anyone who DOES know.
For sure. For real. For all the tea in China.
Just.
What.
Happens.
Next.
But I will say this: Bp. Williamson is much – writ large, and not with all of it do I always hold truck. But the man, I believe with total sincerely, is an absolutely sincere believer in what he has been doing for a very, very long time.
He makes plain what he thinks. And the indications are, he’s not only sincerely but objectively dead-on.
“.. zee trouble …”
Ok I’ll put it on the back burner for now, I have some pork chops cooking on the bbq on low and I’ll catch it royally if they burn. Time for some spiritual reading.
“… I believe with total sincerely, is an absolutely sincere believer in what he has been doing for a very, very long time …”
Yes, and I know some people who are in psychiatric care for exactly the same reason. No, I’m not diagnosing +Williamson but noting that sincerity does not equate truth.
“… but objectively dead-on…”
Here you an I part ways. I agree that +Williamson is sincere, but his judgement is objectively at best suspect, at worst it is compromised. This EC issue contains elements of this skewed thinking.
Save those chops by all means! Sounds terrific! Bon appetit!
I’ll grab my complete works of the Bard, put my 48 X 48 inch protrait of +W up on the mantle, tune into a Beethoven concert, do some meditating, and get back to you.
Oh, just one thing: Sincerity, per se, is rather a questionable quality among those with a psychotic or affective disorder, owing to absence of rational discriminatory capacities. I think you were trying to describe an obsessive state.
If H.E. is obsessive about anything at all, as all who have read him know, it is objective truth.
Fr. Pfeiffer et sim. speak (a la Traditio.com) of a “neo-Society of Saint Pius X” under Bishop Fellay. Are they considering a “neo-Society of Saint Pius V” (“The [1983] Nine” deja vu)?
+“ONLY SHE CAN HELP YOU”+
Vienna, Virginia, 10th August 2012 Priest Meeting.
TODAY’S SITUATION
1. The Society of St. Pius X declaration of July 14th, 2012, while proclaiming the notion of the Divinity of
Christ and His Kingship, actually moves in the opposite direction by using ambiguous language and by
preparing to place the SSPX under the authorities of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant
tendencies.”(1974 Declaration)
2. There has been a longtime slide in the SSPX towards Vatican II and a growing silence about Novus
Ordo scandals against the Faith.
3. There is an illusion that one can join the Vatican II Church without accepting Vatican II.
4. There is a need to assure souls that the combat for Catholic Tradition, maintained by Archbishop
Lefebvre against Modernist Rome, will continue.
5. A new attitude favoring compromise has infected the leadership of the SSPX.
6. This new attitude now prevails in publications, websites, seminaries and pulpits.
7. The priests who resist this new attitude are being punished or threatened with punishment and in all
cases are being silenced. The present crisis demands a public response of priests and faithful against this
compromise with Modernist Rome.
8. Many priests are personally disillusioned with Menzingen for doctrinal reasons but are unsure, cowed or
do not know what to do.
9. Many independent priests trust the SSPX less and less. They hope to pass on their parishes to doctrinally
reliable priests.
10. There is a replacement of the original Fatima solution, which is the consecration of Russia by the pope
united with the bishops, by a belief that the SSPX can negotiate Modernist Rome back to the Catholic
Faith.
11. The imprudent and reckless willingness to agree to a “suitable condition” of abandoning the flock to the
“wolves” of the diocesan bishops.
DECLARATION
The heart of the Faith is the Divinity of Christ and his Kingship over all nations: “Oportet illum regnare”. The
errors of Vatican II are an indirect attack against his Divinity and a direct attack on his Social Kingship. They
will forever remain the Revolution of 1789 within the Church.
Today’s Vatican has only changed for the worse since the Council (more damage, more new heresies, more
effective semi-modernism), to such an extent that we can repeat the Archbishop’s words of 1974 and 1976: “The
Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not
Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate
themselves from the Catholic Church.” (June 29, 1976)
The Pope has allowed the True Mass, but only within the Pantheon of modernist liturgies. Further, he has made
clear his espousing of the false doctrine of Religious Liberty by preaching it to be the model of how the Church
and State are to relate one to another. Lastly the doctrine of Ecumenism has been widely and consistently
professed by the Pontiff in his visits to protestant temples, synagogues and mosques and Assisi III confirms that
the spirit of Assisi is alive and well. It was this spirit that moved the Archbishop to undertake an “Operation
Survival”, that is now itself in great peril.
Today’s SSPX clearly wants to place itself under this Conciliar Church, mitigates the poison of Vatican II, is
more and more silent in face of the abuses by the conciliar hierarchy, uses ambiguous language referring to two
opposite Magisteria. At the same time that it is ever ready to believe in a constant debate with obdurate Roman
officials, it uses strong arm tactics toward those standing against wicked reconciliation.
We must wait for Our Lady to convert the Pope and inspire him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart
in union with all the bishops and we must persevere in the Charity of the Truth and the Truth of Charity,
organized in a united corps of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr..Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. François Chazal
I wonder what Fr. Pfeiffer’s opinion is on the principle as stated/broken down at the head of this posting.
Every word of the above is true…and obvious to anyone who has been attending the avg SSPX chapel over the last few yrs…There’s no denying it-unless you’ve adopted this cult of Bp Fellay ( ” we must agree with every word he says, every move he makes, any association he cultivates-otherwise we’ll have chaos..which the modernists will just be giddy over..)…
It has never been about the SSPX with bp Williamson. It has always been about him. He didn’t want to stop being a huge fish in a tiny pond. Breaking away allows him to become a whale in an heretical puddle. Break away and they will then, indeed, be schismatic. That argument will be over.
Thank God for Bishop Fellay. As I’ve been saying for years here–despite the sometimes nasty criticisms of the lemmings and sycopants–the best thing that can happen is regularization…without bp Williamson. SSPX would then BE AVAILABLE to countless souls that will be lost without it.
Husam al Din said, “As I’ve been saying for years here–despite the sometimes nasty criticisms of the lemmings and sycopants–the best thing that can happen is regularization….”
I hate to burst your bubble, but I think Mueller and DiNoia and the Jewish lobby have nixed regularization for anytime soon.
LOTI’s argument is most sound. And, tradical and husan, it only underscores other points I’ve been trying to make recently.
Either the pope was invincibly ignorant of what he was getting by appointing Mueller, a highly improbable supposition, or he knew exactly.
You tell me.
To clarify, and as I’ve said before, my objective criticisms of specific words and acts of Fr. Josef Ratzinger, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benoit XVI are based on a fair and reasonable reading of his own words and official reports from both the Vatican’s news service and other, widely regarded Catholic journalists.
Personally, I like Pope Benoit XVI – as a man, a scholar and a survivor or WWII under the Nazi regime. I think him to be a gentle, academic and kindly man. I pray, and with real sincerity for his intentions and his health, safety and his happy estate every day of the week. He is my pope as much as yours or Raymond Arroyo’s. He heads the Catholic Church and is the legitimately-elected Supreme Pontiff. And, I hope that I am dutifully obedient to all he commands which is consistent with the dogmatic and theologically authentic pastoral prescriptions of the Church.
He is also, as he has said again and again, commited to the agenda of V II.
For whatever it may be worth, it is my opinion that he, like Karol Wojtyla, grew up and was badly educated in a time and place decimated by WW II and its immediate aftermath – the global explosion of international Marxism. One could easily hate and fight against Marxism 24/7 and still not escape its more subtle influences, many of which had already infected both Church and state leaderships worldwide long before either Ratzinger or Wojtyla came of age. As Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany made plain as day in the late 19th century, Liberalism ( a mutant co-virus of Darwinian/Marxism and the protestant Enlightenment ) wasequally impossible to avoid in his own day.
That’s it. Benoit XVI is acting according to the Weltanschaaung into which he was inaugurated in a Germany rife with Hegelians, liberals, nouvelle theologie crackpots and Modernists. Until the early 1950s, Papa Pacelli and Cd. Ottaviani cracked down on them – landing Fr. Ratzinger in very hot theological water until, under Papa Roncalli, he was liberated and handed a plane ticket for the Circus Maximus which began in October, 1962. Upon day one of which, Ottaviani was humiliated and sent packing while the Rhine Group took over the levers of conciliar power and turned the Church on its head.
Thus, the probability of Benoit XVI EVER conceding freedom to the Society to freely preach and to teach as rigorously Traditionalist priests and avoid the cruel cudgel of Modernist local ordinaries is…. just…. about….. zip.
” … Either the pope was invincibly ignorant of what he was getting by appointing Mueller, a highly improbable supposition, or he knew exactly….”
I believe there are more possibilities.
For example, German Bishops demand: Either you assign ++Mueller or we go into schism. Pope capitulates. I don’t think it would be the first time a Pope was weak in the face of adversity. In fact, if I remember correctly there appears to be a precedent for this with the assignment of Card. Kasper.
“…. just…. about….. zip…”
I’ve been working from the principles are being adhered to by +Fellay and if they are fulfilled that he would have no choice.
Whether or not this Pontiff will actually fulfill the second part of the principle (no compromise on Faith etc) is, I agree, doubtful.
As mentioned elsewhere humanly speaking, I don’t think he’ll do it, we may have to wait until the next or maybe even the following pontificate.
With regards to cultural changes – that’s an entirely different issue.
BTW: Thanks for the profession about the Pope, I was beginning to wonder where you were on that spectrum.
Cheers!
The SSPX is already available to them….bp Fellay abused Bp williamson to curry favor w/modernist Rome and world Jewry…( Max Krah, a rabid zionist, is his investment partner )…He could have defended him since he just stated the obvious concerning the Holohoax…he already had a problem w/Bp williamson and the infamous interview just gave Bernie the Rat the excuse to publicly have a problem with him…He’s a coward, a money-watching Judas…and that’s all..
tradical said, “My conclusion, is that there is the possibility that all this ‘noise’ wasn’t really about the possibility of the SSPX being regularized.
It is about something deeper.”
My conclusion is: tradical should practice what he preaches, P^3. And none of his P’s, according to him, stand for “pontificate”.
Irish,
Why so cutting on a Sunday?
First, it is a faulty assumption that I’m not doing P^3. I’m definitly doing the first P and third and a little of the middle.
Question:
Do you agree with the following principle:
If the Vicar of Christ asks you to do something that does not involve a compromise of Faith (doctrine, liturgy etc), then you have an obligation to obey.
Don’t worry about all the fluff around what the current pontiff has done recently and even in the remote past. Don’t even consider what happened to ICK during June (or was that Bon Pasteur)…
Take the principle as it stands with the following assumption regarding the ‘no compromise required’ part:
You have ascertained to the best of your ability that no compromise of the Faith etc will occur or be required.
What would be your answer in this specific case.
“If the Vicar of Christ asks you to do something that does not involve a compromise of Faith (doctrine, liturgy etc), then you have an obligation to obey.”
My answer is, “Yes, absolutely.”
Could you please point out where you think I have disobeyed him? That is obviously the implication of your silly inquisition.
Hi Irish,
Sorry, I didn’t think you had.
This is the principle that was guiding +Fellay as he tried to follow what he understood as a wish by the Pope that met the aforesaid conditions.
I’m not certain why I thought you didn’t agree with the principle. Probably due to sleep deprivation, sorry.
Let me clarify my response. I will obey him as long as that request does not comprise the Faith, but that request must also involve the Faith, the Catholic Faith.
If a pope orders orders me to quit my job and join Israel’s IDF or the UN to defend that nation, for instance, I will not feel obliged to obey him, nor would I do so.
That’s an original thought.
Not worry neither blind nor stupid obedience was envisioned.
Okay, tradical, time to ‘fess up! You actually ARE a fictional character!
You’re “Ned” from the John LeCarre novels, right? Btw, what is the weather forecast for the upcoming weekend in Menzigen?
Cheerio! : – )
s/, G. Smiley, D.O. ( your ol’ mate from the Circus )
Cute thing about Ned.
Weather in Menzigen: Looks like a nice weekend
So to prove that you are not an A.I. would you care to exercise your God given ability to reason and answer the question that I posed to Irish (LOTI)?
I must have less reason than you credit me, Ned. Not quite asure what you mean by an AI – artificial intelligence?
As to your question: In fatih and morals in the same terms and in the same meaining as it has always been held, everywhere, by everyone… ? Yep.
Next question: If a successor to Peter contradicts – in fact publicly faults and/or ignores! – Pascendi and the Oath Against Modernism, supports the French Revolution, de Chardin, Kungology, etc., and likes wiggling the ol’ Teutonic tootsies down at the blue mosque, just how do we arrive at the proposition that his “terms and meaings” are on the square with hundreds of earlier popes who DID NOT have a problem keeping things straight, day in and day out, century after century?
Oh, wait! Don’t bother answering! I got it!
Under the “hermeneutic of discombobuluity” whatever was still is, kinda, ‘cept when it ain’t – ‘cuz, well, the times they are a’chaingin’, don ‘cha know?
Sorta reminds me of that old Beatles lyric:
“Anyway, the thing is… what I really mean to say….. that is I think it’s not too bad….”
Back to you, Ned! : – )
Nope, you’re not an AI. Any reasonable programmer wouldn’t dare write such shoddy code.
Thank you for answering the question.
“…how do we arrive at the proposition that his “terms and meaings” are on the square …”
I certainly haven’t come to that conclusion, I was surprised to read that you have.
Is it bad that the Pope may hold ideas that don’t square with the circle? Yep.
But does it matter?
Knee jerk reaction is: Duh, of course it matters eh!
But does it matter in the context of the discussions with the SSPX? It serves as a backdrop and provides some insight to the people involved in the discussions as to the real motives behind the appeals to unity. But beyond that, it is only secondary information. Secondary information is nice, but Primary information is better.
This brings up an interesting point, Bishop Fellay has been quite open about the position and thoughts of the SSPX etc, providing the Vatican with lots of consistent secondary and primary information. However the messages from the Pope are (apparently) always passed via a third party. The SSPX is always dealing with secondary information.
Further, in these discussions +Fellay has been dealing with people who can’t make a decision because it has to be referred to the feria quarta meeting and then on to the Pope. In other words management by committee (the worst kind).
I think that having an direct meeting with the Pope would solve a couple of problems:
1. Bishop Fellay et al will have primary knowledge of the mind of the Pope with regards to all these issues that gpmtrad has rightly identified.
2. They’ll be dealing with the decision maker.
September promises to be interesting since +Fellay has cancelled his attendance at the German district’s pilgimage.
More to pray for, as LOTI noted P^3
Cordially,
J. McClane (IANN)
(aka Tradical)
Tradical,
I would respectfully disagree with you regarding the openness of +Fellay. HE has stated that the preamble would be released, yet where is it? Where have these negotiations gone? We have been asked to compromise with modernist Rome. To accept VII and the NO mass. I agree we needed to answer the Popes call to us, as we have done. But, seeing what has come of the negotiations so far, how can we go any further? If the Pope is willing to regularize us without having us accept VII then why hasn’t the Vicar of Christ done so? Why have we been asked to accept VII not once but twice? We declined the preamble because of this the first time. +Fellay sent our version of a preamble to Rome. Rome sent it back to us with all the things we could not accept from the first version. So why do we continue to negotiate? That is what the other 3 bishops and numerous priests have been against. All who have spoken out have been punished.
So I believe we have a problem here. Let us continue to pray for the Pope, +Fellay and all our priests.
Marcel,
I’m afraid that you’ve taken elements of my posting out of context.
The openness that I would identifying was the ease with which you can ascertain the official positions of the SSPX with regards to the information at hand.
HE has stated that the preamble …
The discussions are not ended, they are at an impasse, but both parties have indicated a willingness to continue discussions. Also in this kind of matter it would be up to the Vatican to release it first.
Where have these negotiations gone? …why do we continue to negotiate?
Why not? Beyond the point that if you are truly Catholic and if Rome calls you to have a discussion … you go.
“… we have a problem here …”
Yes there is a problem but it may not be quite the one you envision.
Fr. Couture gave a good conference on the current status of the discussions etc.
It is well worth listening too.
www.sspx.org.nz/?page_id=4
Okay, let’s see how a tete a tete between HH Benoit & +BF might look…
HH: Guten tag!
BF: Gosh! Est Sie! Ach, du lieber!
HH: Naturlich, und Ich bin sehr froelich nach Sie zu sehe, ja?
BF: Ach, du lieber!
HH: Warte mal, mein Freund. Warum bist du hier?
BF: Ach, du lieber! Est Sie! Ich kann nicht denke!
HH: Einz mal, warum bist du hier?
BF: Ja, ja! Est SIND Sie! Hommina! Hommina! Hommina!
HH: Verlegen, ja? Ja, ja! Verlegen, bitte. Auf wieder sehen!
This would one day enter the conciliar annals as the “Starstruck Conference”.
Truly yours is a dizzying intellect.
I don`t recall such Papalotry when he met with the Pope in 2005.
Or perhaps you are imposing your own reverence of the holder of the office of the papacy upon the character of Bishop Fellay. Now that is an interesting thought.
Another alternative, perhaps your perception of Bishop Fellay`s motivations for this actions has been narrowed to such a degree that makes this into a criticism.
Now which is it …
Cheers!
JM (IANN)
aka Tradical
Wow, gpmtrad. Do you really think Bp. Fellay would be that, um, overwhelmed? I mean he has presided over a number of gerneral chapters, been at a huge number of public events and meetings, dealt with some very unpleasant situations, written and delivered more conferences and speeches than I’d care to think of, … Do you really think he’d suffer from stagefright?
Of course the reaction you describe is probably from personal experience. Recently? Maybe with a certain blonde mentioned in a comment on another post?
Sorry, but you did ask for it
Yep, I sure did, Luc.
Anhyway, there’s a pic many have seen with +F shaking the ol’ papal paw and grinning like an eight year old at Yankee Stadium as he gets Derek Jeter’s autograph.
It’s a cute pic and many have commented on it, both ways.
Just having a bit of fun with it. Nothing more. Besides, how often can one work hommina, himmina, hommina into a post, anyway. These things just happen!
And, tradical ( I mean, Ned! ) I called my shrink, Dr. Phil, and he told me that he thinks you are actually NOT Ned, at all! Nope, Pure Karla. Gotta be. Mindbending suggestions and all. The whole reverse and playback gambit. Thought that went out when the Berlin network was rolled up in ’88. Hmmmm?
Anyway, Dr. Phil and I are dropping by Smiley’s place over in Sussex tomorrow for a spot of lunch and a few glasses from his renowned Clare collection. Let you know who they think you are, for sure, after that!
Somehow I am not surprised that you have an attending psychiatrist.
I think Smiley moved to Abingdon, but I may be mistaken.
Just make certain you stay on your meds and everything will be ok.
Merci!
One nice thing about Claret, no Rx necessary!
And, for the record, I am as anti-shrink as they come! Imagine, charging $200 an hour for what a good bartender does for free!
Take care of that cold. Don’t need another Leamas incident on our hands, do we, old boy? Poor ol’ Liz, adolescent Communist though she may have been, that bloomin’ cold of his is what got her into quite a spot!
Number CCLXVIII (268)
1 September 2012
SIX CONDITIONS
In an official letter of July 18 to Superiors of the Society of St Pius X, its General Secretary revealed the six “Conditions” for any future agreement between the SSPX and Rome. These were hammered out by discussion amongst the 39 capitulants of early July. Surely these Conditions demonstrate an alarming weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders as a whole.
The first “essential requirement” is freedom for the Society to teach the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition, and to criticize those responsible for the errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. Well and good. But notice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer “Rome must convert because Truth is absolute”, but now merely “The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth ? “O, what a fall was there !”
The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy. Again, well and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of the Faith as is the Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 1969 onwards. But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a “mutual enrichment” Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected ?
The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. The key question here is, who will choose him ? Readers, in the text of any future “agreement” with Rome, go straight for the paragraph about the appointment of bishops. In 1988 Rome proposed that the Archbishop present a selection of three candidates for Rome to choose one. Rome then rejected all three. When will people get it ? Catholics must fight and fight in this titanic war between the religion of God and the religion of man.
The fourth condition desires that the Society have its own tribunals of the first instance. But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all ?
The fifth condition desires exemption of SSPX houses from control by diocesan bishops. Unbelievable ! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them ? The Society is not what it was, dear readers. It is in the hands of people quite different from Archbishop Lefebvre !
The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to look after Tradition, with a a strong representation from Tradition, but “dependent on the Pope”. Dependent on the Pope ? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism ? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem ?
In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.
Friends, prepare to fight for the Faith from within your homes. Fortify your homes.
Kyrie eleison.
By Gertrude the Great:
Bishop Williamson is criticising a list of conditions approved by the entire General Chapter.
Why did the hard-liners (including Tissier) vote for these conditions? Because of Condition #1: “Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences.”
The reasoning was, this will never be granted until Rome converts, so that nothing else really needs to be spelled out. Also, the General Chapter established that only the General Chapter could approve a reconciliation with Rome, thus stripping Bishop Fellay of the power to do so.
I heard that..it was necessary since Fellay ( Max Krah’s investment partner ) has shown he no longer deserves our trust.
How do you know +Tissier voted for it? There were 9 votes against it.
I thought the entire GC approved the conditions, and the 9 votes were against excluding Bp. Williamson.
But I could be wrong.
An update on the situation with regards to the situation of the SSPX.
John Lane posted this on his forum.
strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1284
“Bishop Fellay gave his first post-GC Conference here yesterday.
In it he ran over the history of the contacts with “rome” over the past ten or twelve years, highlighting particularly the fact that they had demanded at several points that the Fraternity accept V2 and the New Mass, and which demand had always been refused.
The bishop gave a lot of detail about the contacts over the past nine months. He provided dates for the various key events, and explained what he was doing on each occasion, and what was in each of the texts. He said that things are back to their starting point, since the notion that “rome” would approve the Fraternity without making any demands for compromise, has been shown to be false. Benedict’s text of June 13 made this abundantly clear.
He said there are two possible outcomes now – either renewed excommunications and a declaration of schism (he thinks this less likely) or that the Fraternity will be left as it is (he thinks this the likeliest outcome). A renewed round of discussions was not mentioned as a possibility. What he did say was that he didn’t think that the relationship with “rome” could now be repaired “in this pontificate”.
Anthony Malleus posted a link to what I believe is the same talk, but I haven’t succeeded in getting it to work yet.
catholicapologetics.net63.net/onlinelibrary/Adelaide.mp3
Thanks for that Tradical. People Seriously need to take a chill pill. Here’s a good letter from Fr. Black on all this nonsense:
www.sspx.com.au/district_newletter.html
Thanks – a good letter.
I just finished listening to Bishop Fellay’s conference.
It basically confirms the essentials and fills in a lot of gaps. Very good talk and well worth the two hours. The details concerning Roman interactions start around 1hr20min or so.
There were reports that Bishop Wiliamson was in Brazil, I had assumed that it was an SSPX sanctioned event. I was wrong.
source
Google translation:
Statement regarding the pastoral visit of Bishop Williamson to Brazil:
At the invitation of Dom Thomas, prior of the monastery of the Holy Cross of New Freiburg, BE Williamson came to confer the sacrament of confirmation and give some lectures.
I would clear that this trip has been organized independently of the SSPX. Indeed, according to the directives left by our founder Archbishop Lefebvre, only the Superior General, Bishop Fellay in this case, gives the mandate to the auxiliary bishops to undertake a pastoral visit. This procedure has not been respected, which is a serious act against the virtue of obedience but also a more basic lack of courtesy. In addition, the District Superior agreement has not been requested as required by the statutes of our Fraternity. The harmonious collaboration that existed between the SSPX and the Monastery of the Holy Cross has been broken by this act of great gravity, so the organizers must take responsibility before God.
Indeed, some have been deceived and faithful attended the ceremonies and conferences announced believing that they had been organized by the SSPX. Following the article by Dom Thomas Aquinas’ Honor and Glory to Mgr Williamson “I attack with the greatest firmness indirect accusations were made suggesting that the SSPX would agree with modernism and cease fighting for the defense of Catholic Tradition. Such insinuations are free, false, hurtful and injurious to our Superior General and to the members of the SSPX, and admit I can not remain silent.
If Bishop Fellay has rejected the outstretched hand of Rome on June 13, it is for doctrinal reasons and it is because we reject Vatican II imbued with modernism which is the main cause of the ruin of the Church today and we want to continue saying it, it is also because we reject the Novus Ordo Missae that departs from both Catholic doctrine “as a whole and in detail”, that no agreement has been signed with practical Rome.
This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre yesterday and this is the Monsignor Fellay today. The General Chapter last July confirmed it. Any other assertion is nothing more than manipulation or lie. Any practical agreement prophecy reveals a morbid imagination.
Early next December, BE Bishop de Galarreta will come to visit and confer the sacrament of Confirmation in Brazil and other countries in our district as our Superior General planned for many months.
I invite the faithful of the Catholic tradition in Brazil to not pay attention to rumors, to continue to support their priests for their sacrifices, prayers and generosity and beg God to send numerous and ardent vocations to defend and extend the reign of Christ the King under the noble banner of the Catholic tradition and the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
God bless you! BOUCHACOURT Christian Father Superior District.
@ tradical,
So sad to see this day come, but unfortunately, ‘nothing is new under the sun.’
www.sspxasia.com/Public_Announcement_about_Fathers_Chazal_and_Pfeiffer.pdf
I suppose we may see something similar in the near future with + Williamson. I read his Elesion Comments and hear these sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and notice one common thread: they are splitting hairs over words.
What are your thoughts ?
Hi Jack,
I can’t see how Bishop Fellay won’t expel Bishop Williamson for what amounts to rank disobedience. It is as if Bishop Williamson is daring Bishop Fellay to expel him.
I am wondering if an over indulgence in conspiracy theories leads to a complete distrust of authority, as well as a narrowing perspective.
For example, I heard a sermon that Bishop Williamson gave on the attach on the pentagon. The theories he put forth were ludicrous on a number of levels. Yet he persists in this, ruling out other explanations and even unambiguous eye-witness accounts of events.
I am concerned that this lack of judgement extends to his current actions.
Regarding Frs. C and P. I’ve seen this behaviour before up close and personal. The pattern is almost identical. Needless to say the priest in question left the SSPX after creating a fair amount of trouble. Luckily most of us are fairly stiff necked and saw through some of what can only be described as contempt for superiors, lies and manipulation.
@ Tradical.
Totally agree. The Conspiracy theory stuff has become more than just an hobby, its influenced his thought and judgement process. He believes that man didn’t land on the moon ( this from an SSPX priest who was a seminarian under him), that 7/7 was an ‘inside job’ ( from his conference that he gave before the Gen. Chapter of this year) and the list goes on…The devil found this chink in his armor and has exploited it into stubbornly thinking that Bishop Fellay is in compromise. So sad indeed.
As for Bishop Fellay expelling him, yes, I think that will probably be forthcoming soon now that Bishop Williamson has shown that he will go and do what he wants regardless of the statutes and the superiors of the society ( referring to his recent trip to Brazil for unauthorized confirmations.) In the words of Bishop Fellay to Der Spiegal several years ago, ” He was not ordained as a bishop for his own personal purpose but for the common good of the church, to spread the revealed truth.” and “We have lost one of our four bishops” says Bishop Fellay “We can’t use him for anything anymore.” He had hoped and believed that Bishop Williamson had understood things better in the meantime (since Jan 2009) but unfortunately Bishop Williamson has not understood.
Bishop Fellay likens Bp Williamson to uranium, “it’s dangerous when you have it but you simply can’t leave it by the side of the road”.
So given this, would it be better to silence him, send him to a monastery for the rest of his days or to expel him and let him loose on the world ?
I will take a Mass, a sermon, a polite aside or even a rebuke – ANY DAY – from Richard the Lionhearted against, over and above nearly anything said, implied, winked or nodded by the same bishop who has ( and I am not speaking to doctrine but merely praxis, here ) singlehandedly done more to UNRAVEL the SSPX with his lack of managerial ability than anything the Modernist hijackers might otherwise have hoped for.
I state again, the Society needs a massive reorganization if it is to survive. It’s mission is intact but it won’t accomplish it if it sinks under gross managerial incompetence. The very first thing +F SHOULD have done when he heard from his own episcopal colleagues about the gravity of their concerns was to have gone TOTALLY PUBLIC IN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT GRAVITY OF THAT CONCERN and to do all he could to quell, directly and personally, the issues which were already beginning to tear the Society apart.
He didn’t. His HQ became a star chamber and the Society has now been plunged into disorder and is mortally threatened by a dissension for which he is responsible.
Too cute by half is never the answer to crisis. And as the sub pens from the Kriegsmarine, under Admiral Mueller, empty out and head for the seas upon which Trad convoys are sailing, a coordinated ASW program will be priority one.
Good luck with that.
Is that so? Bp Fellay has single handedly destroyed the SSPX? What do we have, one bishop who continues to disobey statutes and directives of the society (which come directly from +ABL), plus a handful of priests who have actually dissented or been expelled, and you call that single-handedly destroyed? Are you out of your mind?
After hearing Bp Fellay state publically and categorically that there never was, or ever could be in the future, an agreement with Rome that involved compromise of Catholic Doctrine, how can one still maintain that he will sell out, or wants an agreement with Rome no matter what, or he needs to reorganise the society, or he needs to resign as SG, or whatever? Unfortunately, it would seem that no matter what he does now or in the future, you and your ilk will never be satisfied, because, essentially, you are firmly attached to your opinion on the matter and nothing will change it.
Allow me quote from the Imitation of Christ, Chapter 4, “Prudence in Action”:
“Do not yield to every impulse and suggestion but consider things carefully and patiently in the light of God’s will. For very often, sad to say, we are so weak that we believe and speak evil of others rather than good. Perfect men, however, do not readily believe every talebearer, because they know that human frailty is prone to evil and is likely to appear in speech.
“Not to act rashly or to cling obstinately to one’s opinion, not to believe everything people say or to spread abroad the gossip one has heard, is great wisdom…. “
If more Traditional Catholics understood this simple truth and put it into practice we wouldn’t be having such a devil of a time. How hard is it to understand that the Devil’s oldest and most successful tactic is to create a false opposition between us and our lawful superiors? It’s been happening since the day Eve talked with the serpent.
I would suggest more Traditional Catholics come down from their high and mighty opinions, the proud, stubborn pedestal on which they have placed themselves; learn humble submission to the Will of God and true respect for their lawful religious superiors and leave the vile lies, slander, calumniation, etc. He has rejected a practical agreement with Rome. He has not compromised the Faith! Leave your proud and false opinions and apologise.
Quote: “…( I am not speaking to doctrine but merely praxis, here ) singlehandedly done more to UNRAVEL the SSPX with his lack of managerial ability:”
While I leave to others their own opinion of my sanity, or lack thereof, the comments were meant to convey the urgency of +F’s BAD MANAGEMENT. Period.
Here is the head of the single most important Traditionalist organization on planet Earth and there he was the past two years, doing just what I described. That is not opinion, but fact.
Were he running a state government, an army or a corporation he would have been, by now, impeached,confined to barracks or fired outright for gross incompetence. Again, not opinion, but fact.
I’ve spent a number of decades analyzing, advising and helping to build aviation and manufacturing corporations. And two ironclad laws of effective management – not opinion, but fact – are that leaders may NEVER give mixed signals nor may they ignore objective counsel – especially in a real crisis. +F did both, repeatedly.
Further, his comments about +W were not only amateurish but destructive to good order and sound public relations. Those disputes, and I do not gainsay the necessity of resolving them sucessfully, could easily have been privately dealt with instead of +F making incendiary remarks designed to play to the accordista crowd and the hijackers in sunny Nova Roma.
It is not now, nor was it when I made my remarks, in my mind that +F is in any way a “failure” as a priest, a bishop or a traditionally-minded individual. I have not “judged” the state of his soul but, instead, pointed out objectively his own record as the head of an organization. As a priest and a bishop, he has my admiration on a number of levels. As the head of the most important Traditional society in the world, he does not.
And the Society’s future remains a matter of the gravest possible concern as a consequence of those inabilities.
When +F apologizes to the Benedictines and Dominicans he refused to ordain, when he apologizes to +W for mocking him publicly ( in +F’s capacity as a “religious superior” as you put it ) and when he apologizes for creating a catastrophe which has split the Society – SOMETHING A REAL LEADER WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN PERMITTED TO BEGIN HAPPENING – then we can all reassess to whom regrets are to be expressed.
Hi gpmtrad,
” … SOMETHING A REAL LEADER WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN PERMITTED TO BEGIN HAPPENING …”
Playing the d advocate, I would ask the following questions:
1. Is the SSPX really split?
1a. From what I have seen there are some fault lines but the reality of ‘the split’ in terms of actual departures (explusions etc) seems to date to be less than that of 1983, 1988, 2001, and 2006 (or was it 7).
2. Is there not a possibility that some internal elements have been trying since 2006 to create just such an event undermining of the leader?
2a. Even the best leader could be undermined by those working against him. As with the factual statements made by Bishop Fellay concerning Bishop Williamson, it is also a fact that numerous sensitive documents were leaked and contributed to the unrest. Not to mention, in the case of Fr. Pfeiffer, in one of his sermons he warped elements of Bishop Fellay’s statements leaving out aspects and adding his own interpretation on others.
3. Are we certain that he lacks managerial ability?
3a. Has the SSPX gone through a significant contraction or growth period? Does it have a coherent publicly announce vision and mission? Is the organization in the midst of a major upheaval or is this just the result of some pressure being put on the organization that has made the fault lines more evident? Has he assembled a good team around him as advisers? Has he dealt with organizational members that are not aligned with the culture of the organization?
Since you have a business background I’ll put it in this way: Look at the metrics, not the marketing projections.
Tradical, well said.
It seems curious that now Bp Fellay has put to bed the lies about a compromised agreement, the “anti-Fellay” cry is to fall back on the alleged ill-treatment of Bp Williamson and the running of the SSPX.
The old proverb says that empty vessels make the most sound. Along with the abovementioned quote from the Imitation of Christ, surely anyone with sufficient use of an intellect would be very reluctant to believe so much hearsay and so many rumours! Just who is making the most noise?
Gpmtrad, while you may have acquired much worthwhile knowledge and experience in your professional career (and it is to be respected and commended, if so), it is hardly the point. In fact, it is completely beside it. The point is, who are we, as laity, to determine concrete conclusions from rumours, leaked documents, 2nd- 3rd- 4th-hand hearsay, etc.; in short, how can we claim to know black and white what is good or bad “business management “, when so many truths, half-truths, lies, slanders, calumnies and the rest have been all mixed up together in the rumour and innuendo that has been circulating for the past months and years? What gives us the right to say, from our immensely removed positions as laypeople and thousands of miles away, this is good, this is truth, or this is error, this is bad management, within the SSPX? How can we claim to sift the lies and deceit from the good and true better than those who are actually in the midst of these situations and experiencing and dealing with them personally?
We are laity. We are the little guys. We are the “Church taught”, not the “Church teacher”. We are the lambs and sheep, not the shepherds. The sooner that fact penetrates the brains of Traditional Catholics, the better. Furthermore, the SSPX shepherd has not betrayed the flock in the most essential point. That is fact. That is the only important fact.
The Traditional Catholic laity should quite simply let those in positions of authority within the SSPX to exercise their authority, which is their God-given authority, without the interference, innuendo, etc. that has been manifested to date. We are really not nearly as important as many seem to imply with their ridiculous behaviour. We have to go to Mass, receive the sacraments frequently, study the Faith, support our parish priest, form good Catholic families and leave the sacerdotal and administrative work of the SSPX, to the SSPX! End of story.
“…surely anyone with sufficient use of an intellect would be very reluctant to believe so much hearsay and so many rumours! Just who is making the most noise?…”
No offense to anyone, but we all have our own perceptual biases with which we process information. My wife and I discuss a lot of these issues at length as the more viewpoints that are introduced the better the perspective and in the case of team creativity the better the results.
With regards to the laity issue you mentioned. I think part of the answer is that we’ve been betrayed before (V2 etc) and are more than a little gun shy.
Gpmtrad,
This just doesn’t fly. Bishop Williamson has been rowdy and disobedient for sometime now (even prior to the Vatican discussions) and it is his behavior, both prior and during these discussions, that encouraged the rest of the fiasco that ensued. Both Frs. Chazal and Pfeiffer spoke out only after Bishop Williamson had paid a visit to them and their chapel(s). Fr. Chazal said in one of his first sermons that he would not be doing what he was doing had he not had the support of a bishop. In fact, I think he actually said that ‘a priest without a bishop is zero’. (Turns out they ended up without a Bishop, as far as following them out the door goes.)
Perhaps Bishop Fellay’s only mistake was not to crack down sooner on these priests and Bishop Williamson.
A quick and simple internet search of the history of Bishop Williamson will reveal that he has had issues with just about every superior – these troubles did not start with Bishop Fellay and they won’t end there – unless of course, he places himself in a position to be his only superior. He had troubles with his superiors when he was a protestant, he had troubles when he first entered the Church, he had troubles under the G.S. prior to Bishop Fellay, and he had troubles with Bishop Fellay almost from the get go. He also had troubles with the various local D.S.’s while stationed at the seminary in the US.
Some people just have trouble submitting themselves to authority. Bishop Williamson is one of those people. It seems that it is his nature to act independently and he does just that. I don’t think he can help himself.
it is for doctrinal reasons and it is because we reject Vatican II imbued with modernism which is the main cause of the ruin of the Church today and we want to continue saying it, it is also because we reject the Novus Ordo Missae that departs from both Catholic doctrine “as a whole and in detail”, that no agreement has been signed with practical Rome.
I’m wondering if the “poison pill” that collapsed the negotiations contained not only unacceptable language on V-II, but also had something re: the Novus Ordo.
i.e. forcing the SSPX to permit their priests to offer the NO – or perhaps some language which prohibited SSPX priests from speaking out against the NO.
I listened again to the adelaide talk yesterday.
+Fellay said that, in addition to the ‘accept the council’ mantra, the SSPX would have to accept the NO as licit/lawful meaning good.
Once someone says that you’re (imo) only one ideological step away from concelebration.
The meat of the talk starts at 1h20m
Tradical, I haven’t listened to the talk, yet, so perhaps this is addressed, but does Bishop Fellay reference the recent dubium Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei, Prot. 156/2009 on how the NO was to be regarded —
“(a) Duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum); or
(b) In accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.
This Pontifical Commission would limit itself to saying that legitimas is to be understood in the sense of 1(a).”
That is the only requirement of the faitful is to note, as did Abp. Lefebvre, the books were legally promulgated but one is not required to hold it is pleasing to God.
Just to state the obvious here: this is exactly the sort of thing the Conciliarists were aiming to achieve all along, the ol’ Divide and Conquer. Sow dissent within the ranks of their most troublesome foe (one would think that this title should belong to those who actually deny Christ or His Church, but for some reason they bend over backwards for them, while plotting the demise of those who try to preserve the Catholic Faith). Get them fighting amongst themselves, the Modernists say, and they have less time to point out our hijacking of the One True Church. It saddens me to see their devious (and yet rather obvious) plan bearing fruit.
It looks as though egos have taken over in some quarters. There have been ongoing predictions of a “Fellay Sell-Out”. First, it was to happen in June, but it didn’t. Then it’s “but wait until next month!”… wrong again, still no deal. Now, rather than admit that they were mistaken (or less likely, that Bp. Fellay had a last minute change of heart), they’re digging in and predicting now some vague future betrayal — but isn’t ambiguity the language of Modernism, after all? It seems that no one is entirely immune to it. I just wish these men would recognize that they are doing exactly what the Conciliarists want, put aside egos and wounded pride — at least in public — and close ranks for the coming fights which could very well be worse than what we’ve seen so far.
Glornt, Culpability ought to be admitted internally when applicable. Bp. Williamson has sown…and reaped…of his own choosing. Failing to “check in” even to the extent of scheduling? A month before another Society bishop was already inbound for confirmations in South America? One could as well argue any and all actions were excused by “need” but the onus is on the one acting to prove it — can all of Bp. Williamson’s actions be cleared or is it just possible that he is acting a bit off the reservation? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 73 times, and shame on me for playing the fool. Nobody runs up this kind of a track record and walks away scott-free. Something more than “necessity” is needed for the actions that are just random flipping the bird at his superiors – and being a bishop in the Society is not a “rank” issue; ABL didn’t consecrate for rank but for the sacrements. In any society of consecrated life, one acts in accord with the rules, even when they are only rules, not divine law. It’s an issue of bending our wills, stubborn as they are. The confirmations were an act of defiance, done to use the sacrament as a tool for his own ego, and that should give all of us pause.
Eleison Comments
Number CCLXX (270)
15 September 2012
“REBELLIOUS, DIVISIVE”
The seventh chapter of the Gospel of St John has a special lesson for today: who are the real rebels against authority, and who are the merely apparent rebels ? Who appears to be dividing the people of God, and who is really dividing them ? Things are not always what they appear. It is necessary always to “Judge not according to the appearances, but judge just judgment” (Jn. VII, 24).
John VII is close to the end of Our Lord’s life on earth. The Jews are seeking to kill Jesus (verse 1), but Our Lord nevertheless goes up to Jerusalem and teaches in the Temple (14). The crowd is already divided (12), and so the effect of his teaching is that some people (40) recognize in him the prophet (cf. Deut.XVIII, 15-19), while others (41, 42) refuse him that recognition because he is from Galilee. So there is division and dissension. Now division as such is blameworthy, so who is to blame ? Certainly not Our Lord, who is merely preaching the doctrine of his Father in Heaven (16-17). Nor can that part of the crowd be blamed which accepted the divine teaching. Clearly the blame for the dissension lies with the Temple authorities and that part of the crowd that was refusing the Truth.
Similarly in the 1970’s and 1980’s Archbishop Lefebvre divided Catholics by teaching and practising the truth of Catholic Tradition, but what Catholic that now boasts of being Traditional blames him for that division ? Clearly the blame for the division of the Church lay neither with the Archbishop nor with those who followed him, but mainly with those Church authorities who were twisting the true religion, like the Temple authorities in Our Lord’s own day. Again and again the Archbishop pleaded with them to “judge just judgment” by confronting the central problem created by their Conciliar adultery with the modern world. To this day they refuse that confrontation. Again and again their only answer has been, “Obedience !”, “Unity !”. Does not their lack of arguments as to the basic questions of truth suggest it is they who are the true rebels and dividers of the Church ?
Yet dissension as such is not a good thing, and both Our Lord and Archbishop Lefebvre knew ahead that dissension would follow on their teaching. Why then did they still go ahead ? Because souls can be saved with dissension (cf. Lk.XII, 51-53), but they cannot be saved without Truth. If the religious authorities are misleading the people – and the Devil works especially hard on them because of their power to lead many other souls astray – then the Truth must be told to bring people back on the path to Heaven, even if dissension will be the result. In this respect Truth is above authority or unity.
And where is that truth in 2012 ? Vatican II was a disaster for the Church – true or false ? The Church authorities who brought about Assisi III and John-Paul II’s “beatification” are clinging to Vatican II – true or false ? And so if the Society of Pius X puts itself under those same authorities, they will use all their prestige, and the power over the SSPX that it will have given them, to dissolve its resistance to Vatican II – true or false ? So the SSPX runs a grave risk of losing steadily whatever will it still has to resist that prestige and power – true or false ? As Romans say, “Rome can wait” !
Then in the SSPX today, if one “judges not according to the appearance but just judgment”, who is it that is being truly “divisive”? Who are the real “rebels against authority” ? Those who criticize such a risk of blending Catholic Truth with Conciliar error, or those who are promoting it ?
Kyrie eleison.
As John Wayne said in McClintock: “Now, let’s all calm down…” ( ‘course, that was just seconds before he slugged the guy, anyway! )
Feathers have been ruffled, sure.
Sensibilities slam-dunked? Yep!
And who started it? The bishops and priests of the Society who have maintained EXACTLY the positions of Abp. LeFebvre, consistently, without erasures or compromises?
I am actually pretty neutral on many of the issues in the kerfuffle since I do not have intimate knowledge of the folks involved. All I know is what I read in the funny papers. So, the following is advice I’d give to a corporate client contemplating a major deal….
As I’ve said many a time here, H.E. Richard the Lionhearted is a handful. He is not going to be appointed Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Vatican, anytime soon. But, the man speaks clearly ( the exact opposite of the SG! ) And, I’ve yet to see ONE thing about theology, philosophy or the war within the Church, to which he has eloquently addressed himself, with which any reasonable, literate Catholic could substantially disagree.
+Fellay has been running the show and, under him, it’s been a PR nightmare, a managerial flop and a political morass – a matter I’ve spoken to here a few times. His Excellency has to be honest with himslef about that. Then, he needs to sit down with +Williamson and iron matters out. The Society needs a new modus vivende. As Glornt and others point out, the future is precarious and a united front is essential.
Therefore, I retract earlier positions I’ve taken ( heat of battle, moments of pique aside ) in which I called for resignations all around, including in Rome. The men in place are the men in place. The philosophical gulf between His Holiness and Their Excellencies is probably unbridgeable. Nevertheless, if anyone could convice the Holy Father or the rightness, the clarity and the necessity of the positions of the SSPX, it is none other than H.E. Richard the Lionhearted. Himself. Alone. Mano a mano with the Holy Father. No Muellers or DiNoias or Levadas in the room.
Will that ever occur? By the light of natural reason alone – nope.
What then?
What we got. Unless Bp. Fellay determines that you really do have to put your best man in the quarterback slot on third and long.
Peace, out!
Amen
Response to Father Couture
Dear Fr. Couture,
In Answer to the Second “canonical monition” and after taking counsel from a Canon Lawyer, and other priests, it is necessary to note the following:
1. It is soley within the competence of the Superior General to give Monitions of expulsion to the members of his order. Lower authorities do not have the competence. (e.g District Superiors can punish only within their districts in regard to their district) Hence the Superior General is the correct authority to both admonish and expel his subjects according to Justice and the law.
Therefore, the two “canonical monitions” sent from the District of Asia go beyond the competence of the District. Expulsion of members, especially perpetual members of the SSPX belongs to Superior General alone. To date, I received no communication either of praise or correction from the Superior General. Therefore I remain, according to the law, a member in good standing in the SSPX.
2. No specific crime is indicated in the monition, hence no delict exists since “odiosa sunt adstrigenda.” no one can be punished for “scandal and spiritual damage” as you claim in your second monition, but only for specific acts which can thus be exposed by the prosecution and answered by the defendant before an impartial tribunal–which tribunal does not exist.
The 2 “canonical Monitions” are invalid on the grounds of exceeding the competence of the one issuing it and on the grounds of lack of clear accusation of crime. On either ground the case of expulsion should not only be thrown out of court, but should not be allowed to be tried.
3. I have received a positive command from you to be completely silent on anything that either is or may be perceived to be a criticism of the Superior General and his current direction. This last week, Bishop Fellay seems to have reversed his current and now says that he was deceived and erred in a dangerous way in the past few months. Does this mean that those in favor of the current that flows to Rome should now be silenced? Does this mean that now I can criticize compromising with Rome? Now I can say no deal with Rome until Rome converts? (Yesterday this must have been wrong since yesterday the SG had a different idea. But today it is true since today the SG has changed his mind.) Does Truth evolve? Your answer must be “Not so but distinguo in the Superior YES in the subject NO” This is mitigated modernism, Truth evolves for the modernist period, but for you and the neo-SSPX truth cannot evolve in mere mortals or mere popes, but only in “the Superior General.” Your place in the fight for Tradition is thus undermined and completely unstable since it rests on the cult of a man instead of the Divine Cult of God in His Church and in His unchanging Faith.
4. Fr. Chazal and myself made no predictions about the deal with Rome. Fr. Schmidtburger and Fr. lombardi announced it for the end of May. Then The Vatican for June 13, We only repeated what they said, so that the faithful would know. We are not the prophets of doom. We only preach what we SSPXers, including yourself, have consistently preached for the last 40 years. (i.e VII =Bad, eternal Rome=Good: Compromise=evil: Fidelity to unchanging Truth=Good: Deal with Rome before Rome converts=Bad: Deal with Rome w/o conversion=Wicked betrayal etc. cf. ABL ubique)
We let our yes be yes and our no be no. We operate in the open and resist Modernism and its protaganists “to the face.” Our fight is not with men nor even Menzingen, but with the Devil and his host.
If you were secure in your position of turning to Modernist Rome to make the SSPX another Novus Ordo appendage as the FSSP et alii, you would be able to defend this position in the light of day with clear arguments, and proofs of the supposed change of Rome, and of the clear difference of Rome today with the Rome of Vatican II errors. If you stood on Truth, you would not need to resort to threats and defamation to discredit those who disagree with the neo-SSPX.
Further our problem, Fr. Chazal and myself, is not only with a deadly wicked deal with non converted Conciliar Rome, but more importantly, our problem with the neo-SSPX is its modernist tendancies, promoted by the official organs of the SSPX such as Dici.org and SSPX.org which have mixed Novus Ordo and Traditional things together, (e.g. present banner of Dici.org showing Novus ordo ordinands then SSPX ordinands as if they are the same! article on bishops criticizing lack of Religious Liberty in Afganistan, explaining away the popes promotion of condoms for homosexuals and so on) without any clarifications, condemnations of the various selected acts of Modernist Rome.
Fr. Chazal and I are not disturbed by the threats of excommunication from our Order or from any unjust treatments connected thereto. We are not upset with those who malign and condemn us, many do so with good will, unaware of the danger to Faith, now present within the SSPX ranks and pews throughout the world. We also have happily worked under your direction over the past 6 years for myself, and 10 years for Fr. Chazal. You have been in so many ways good to us. Our problem is only with the danger to souls presented by the present unstable modernist direction of the SSPX
We continue “as we are,” priests of the SSPX at war with Modernism. We continue “as we are” loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, following his clear non-compromising Catholic plan of action for our times. We continue “as we are” in the work of spreading the Gospel with the Caritas Christi which urget nos.
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
London Airport Sept. 13, 2012
Um,
Marcel Vianney, are you Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, or is the above “Response to Father Couture” simply a quote. If the latter, would you care to share your source for this letter?
I am not, nor can I share my source.
If you can’t share the source, then we can’t authenticate it and it has to be considered nothing better than hearsay.
Most anything you read on a message board can be considered hearsay. But, this is most certainly not hearsay as my source is more than credible. Take it as you may. I’m only posting the response by Fr. Pfeiffer to Fr. Couture as these priests have no voice to the general public. I wasn’t asked by anyone to post this letter, nor was I asked to keep it secret. I believe these priests have been treated poorly. I’m not sure if they are going about everything correctly or not but can the same be said about HE +Fellay? In the end they are all human and can make mistakes. For anyone on here to say one side or the other is wrong is rushing to judgement I believe. None of us have all the facts. Yet I read by many posters that these priests are disobedient, wrong and arrogant. Faith is above obedience. If these priests think that the Faith is at risk then it is there duty to speak out. Again, without all the facts I believe it is a rash judgement to label these priests disobedient ect… Let us continue to pray for all our priests and bishops. They are constantly being attacked by Satan.
Marcel,
I have to say that I agree with your above comment. Certainly it is not for us to judge either these priests or their superiors as far as their moral guilt or innocence. For the defense of our own Faith, however, we must judge their public actions and determine what our own duties are.
I’m sure that many people are reacting to this issue as strongly as they are due to a certain fear and a genuine concern for both these priests and the Society itself, and also in concern for the preservation of the Faith itself. We must all remember to maintain Charity and Prudence.
Oh, Marcel, could you at least tell us whether or not your source is a private or personal contact? Also, do you know whether Fr. J. Pfeiffer’s letter can be found anywhere else on the web?
Thanks
LucasB,
Fr. Pfeiffer’s letter can be found on Ignis Ardens. It was originally posted there by ‘Hollingsworth’. I believe he said it was sent to him by a priest. He also did not name the source. It eventually made it’s way to CathInfo. The letter can be verified as the one Fr. Pfeiffer sent to Fr. Couture.
Thanks, Marcel. It’s just that the way your post appeared was a little confusing and I wanted to verify.
Marcel, can you please publish the Canonical Admonitions themselves as well ? It would only be fair and balanced to do so. Thx.
Society of St Pius X – District of Asia
St Pius X Priory
286 Upper Thomson Rd
Singapore 574402
Tel. 65/ 6459 0792
Fax. 65/ 6459 3591
district@sspxasia.com
Public Announcement about
Fathers François Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer
September 9, 2012
Dear Faithful,
It is with great sorrow that I make this announcement.
Fathers François Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer, as of today, Sunday September 9
th
are no
longer allowed to celebrate masses in any of our mass centers in the District of Asia. Father
Chazal, after receiving the two normal canonical monitions and by coming back to Asia
against a formal order of Bishop Fellay, signifies by this that he has now officially left the
Society of St Pius X.
Father Joseph Pfeiffer has already received and ignored two canonical warnings and is about
to be expelled. We can still however pray for a miracle to happen in order to prevent this.
The reasons
1. “The deal” They continue to claim with certainty that the Society of St Pius X is about
to surrender to the modernist Rome: this prophecy was to be fulfilled first in June. It wasn’t.
Then it was to take place in July. It didn’t. Now it is supposed to happen in October, or
November. It won’t. But we hear from them that it will happen in 5 years, then in another
five years (cf. sermon of Fr. Chazal in Cincinnati, USA, on August 12, 2012). It will not.
They are like the false prophets (“Little Pebble”, etc.) announcing repeatedly – because,
obviously, it hasn’t happened! – the imminent end of the world. They lead the faithful with
the fear that this drama will surely happen. And they ignore all attempts to convince them
that the facts prove them wrong: the constant and recent statements on the part of Bishop Fellay that the Society of St
Pius X will not cease to condemn the errors of the Council and of the New Mass;
the absolute insistence of the conciliar authorities which have openly, in the last 2-3
months especially, stated clearly that the SSPX would never be recognized if it rejects
Vatican II and the New Mass.
So, as Bishop Fellay stated in his June 29
th
sermon, “we are back to square one”, which
means at the position we have had ever since 1974, with the Declaration of Archbishop
Lefebvre:
“We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of
the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the
eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of NeoModernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second
Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it…”
2. These priests have now, on their own initiative, started a resistance group in the USA
contrary to all their promises of obedience to God and to the Society of St Pius X (made in
front of the Blessed Sacrament). The real issue is therefore not a doctrinal one but one of
simple obedience.
3. Father Chazal has left his new assignment in France, and Father Joseph has refused to
return to Davao, Philippines (he was due to come back on July 7), and has announced that
his and Fr. Chazal’s real address was, as of August 12, in Boston, Kentucky, USA. Thus
they have abandoned their assigned post in the Divine Master’s vineyard, and have chosen
an apostolate of their own.
I might also add to these very grave reasons an attitude towards Our Blessed Lady which is,
to say the least, shocking: on one hand they claim that only Our Lady will bring about the
conversion of Rome to Tradition (which we also believe), but on the other hand they also
state that the last three rosary crusades were insults to Our Lady since what happened was
not perfect : “The Rosary Crusades are good instruments to measure our gullibleness and
the gullibility of our faithful … The 2007 and 2009 rosary crusades are a mockery of Our
Lady” (Fr. Chazal, War On)! They are expecting a miracle while at the same time refusing
the means to obtain it and ignoring the way Providence works in the conversion of souls.
Let us nevertheless keep them in our prayers so that one day they may see the dead end road
they have chosen for themselves and those who will follow them.
In the service of Christ the King and His Immaculate Mother,
Fr. Daniel Couture
This would not be the Canonical Admonitions…
I don’t have them… clearly, but posted what was on the SSPX website so people could see what the letter was referring to.
Dear Mrs. XXXX,
The problem with the neo-SSPX is twofold. 1. A doctrinal neo-modernist shift, or doctrinal slide, combined with a consequent moral slide so that SSPX teaching and praxis are now prevelantly very different than 10 or more years ago. and 2. The determination to agree to be under modernist Rome’s authority if modernist Rome meets 3 of the 6 lame conditions of the General Chapter 2012. The 2nd problem is the one seemingly on hold for now, Why? because of Rome’s non-acquiescence at present to SSPX bad conditions. Hence, no change of SSPX problem number two.—that still remains the same. “we haven’t signed the deal.” True, but why not? Answer because Rome won’t let us. ( It is like a man visiting a brothel house but returns home without commintting Adultery. (Good?) but why, because the prostitutes wouldn’t accept his money. (Holy husband?)
The 1st Problem is the essential one from which the 2nd is only a consequence. This 1st problem has been developing over at least 12 years in the SSPX and grows daily. E.g. Married man is encouraged by SSPX priest to separate from wife. (Modernist advice.), Many SSPX priest now promote NFP to many couples without grave reasons commanded by Pius XII. In France, SSPX priests (some are using Luminous Mysteries) and also doing marriages mixed with Indult and SSPX priest together. Some SSPX priests now say that it is OK to attend indult/Summorum Pontificum Masses. SSPX pulpits in recent years almost never condemn the errors of Vatican II and the New Mass. Our Apostolic way is now cruel, cold, indifferent to the needs and cares of the flock much like the present norm of Novus Ordo parishes. Most Importantly, However, the official organs of SSPX such as Dici.org, and sspx.org are now promoting the “good things” coming out of Vatican and Modernist Rome without correction or Catholic Commentary. Bishop Fellay’s comments of the last several months excuse Vatican II of real error and heresy. Now VII only is twisted into heretical meanings by the bad guys after the Council. etc. etc. etc. and no longer heresy itself as we used to teach in the days of Archbishop Lefebvre.
On the Negative side, if there is no change in SSPX teaching, then why are those of us priests (about 50) who have spoken to our flocks openly about the grave dangers of Compromise with Rome and the death of Catholic Faith in our flock that would result from a false merger, still being silenced and or expelled? Why continue to command our silence about a deal that isn’t going to happen anyway? Maybe it is because Menzingen still intends a deal with Rome and needs to purge the remainder of the strong opposition against the deal, so that it can proceed forward in the near future with such a deal? I am still commanded to remain silent on criticizing a deal with Rome or anything related to such a deal. This silence includes not only direct criticism but also anything that may be perceived to be critical. Why keep myself and the other priests silent, if they now agree with us that there should be no deal with Rome?
I am now forbidden even to celebrate private Masses in any of our Churches in my District of Asia. Fr. Couture instructed the priests of the Philippines to refuse Fr. Chazal and myself absolution, if we go to confession to them. They must have recourse to Bishop Fellay to absolve us. (Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction and cannot give it to them anyway). I write you now from my quarenteened Library in our house in Manila. Another priest is in the Atrium working on his computer, lest he catch the contagion of being in the presence of a Leper like myself. We cannot eat meals with the priests in the refectory–but out of charity they bring food to us in our place of confinement. The brothers of the house are instructed not to speak with us. The back of the Church has a notice of our “self expulsion” because of our presence here. Is all this a sign of reconcilliation, peace and harmony? The priests, with one exception do not wish to speak to us. These priests are our SSPX confreres.
Fr. Chazal and I are not upset at these things. We are at peace. However, they are signs that our confreres are agitated, and not at peace themselves. Christ said “do good to those who hate you.” These are signs to us that the problems of our Society which we love with all our hearts are not diminishing at this time. Hence, we must continue to speak out under the banner of Our Holy Mother Mary, upon whose protection we wholly depend,
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
This is also posted by someone on cathinfo.com.