I posted these docments together because they arrived on the same email.
However I now realise that the second one, Fr Ortiz' "comment on the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble proposed by His Excellency Bishop B. Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, to Cardinal Levada", is worthy of its own post and should not be buried in the Australia Fr Pfeiffer report.
So I will start a new thread for that purpose.
Meanwhile I would love to hear a report from anyone who was present at Fr Pfeiffer's meetings at any of those Australian cities, as no member of our family was able to attend.
My son and I attended Fr. P's talk in Pakenham, Vic. about two weeks ago. There were about 30 people present from Tynong SSPX. Some of them assisted at his Mass prior to the meeting. Last Sunday, however, a priest at Corpus Christi gave a rather frightening sermon after which many people are closing ranks against any suspect that attended the meeting, or promoted 'resistance' literature. I made a brief summation of how it appeared to me.
Father -
i) gave his personal view on what he considered to be correct community behaviour.
He listed ten points, then elaborated on each point with additional points. I was horrified by all the adjectives used to describe his judgement of the behaviour of the 'dissidents.' I cannot remember them because they were so horrible. I actually tremble when I try to remember them.
ii) did not clearly identify what seems to be troubling him, but spoke obliquely about
'dissidents'.
iii) gave this view from the pulpit as priest to a captive audience quoting passages from selected saints. Generally they amounted to being 'obedient'.
iv) spoke down to us in the pews - laypeople not under the vow of obedience.
In sum, he presented a non-religious view of correct 'community' behaviour but as a PRIEST instructing a religious community (if you can make sense of that.)
Four questions came to mind.
(a) Specifically, what particular community was he addressing?
(b) Lay people cannot listen to both sides of an argument?
(c) Afraid to test the spirit?
(d) Blind obedience!
BRIEF HISTORY
Bishop Fellay -
sacked a fellow-bishop (How does one sack a Bishop?)
sacked good priests (how does one sack good priests?)
I had a conversation with a student (about l4 years old) a few weeks ago. She said they have to answer questions on evolution as fact if they want to pass their State exams. That the priests teach them the truth in private.
A lovely middle aged couple who have hosted priests in their home was phoned by one such priest who had gone to a different State. He said if they attended the meeting their friendship would be finished. Then he added that he would also refuse them Communion if the situation arose. The gentle wife had to try to get her head around this call as and when it came. She though he was ringing up as his usual friendly self.
When I began to try to come to grips with this whole thing it occurred to me that the priest could have invited 'suspected persons' around for a cup of tea and we could have talked it all over openly and in friendliness with him. Because you see, layfolk just see priest against priest, bishop against bishop, post-conciliar popes against pre-conciliar popes. Surely, if given the chance, this could have been put to Father X because, after all, it is the salvation of souls that is at issue here.
A quote from Christian Order (November 2012) came to mind..
"How very many Catholics living amongst the ruins of the Desolate City of God choose to 'not know' in order to live without fuss in compromised "serenity," adopting the "official (revolutionary) version of things" and becoming part of the effete "connective fabric" of post-conciliar life. Contrariwise, how very few, especiallly clerics, possess the faith and grace that enabled the saints and martyrs to live beyond such worldly parameters.".