CathInfo.com

Catholicam,

You are right when you say the SSPX is not the Church and can fail.

I have been with the Society for around thirty-two years now. During this time I heard countless times how the Society was becoming liberal, modernist, extreme and who knows how many other things.

I heard (when I was in the Seminary) that the Archbishop was selling us out. I also heard that he had been a liberal before the Council and still had some liberal tendencies.

I heard (when I was in the Seminary) how the Society was going to accept the Novus Ordo any time now.

I heard the Archbishop was lacking sound theology by laity and priests alike.

I heard (when I was in the Seminary) the complaint over and over again that the Archbishop needed to consecrate Bishops immediately (1978).

I heard that the Archbishop was guilty of compromise by dialoging with Rome.

I heard (by some priests of the Society) that the Archbishop privately believed that there was no Pope and would only publicly acknowledge the Pope to keep the support of the people.

I heard (by a priest of the Society) the Archbishop was guilty of heresy concerning Baptism of Desire.

I heard it all.

Now, when I look at those who were making these accusations I see that they, almost without exception, have gone off the deep end.

No, the Society is not the Church, and yes, the Society can fall away. But, before I listen to anyone claiming impending doom, an abdication, a betrayal, an unfaithfulness to Archbishop Lefebvre, a lack of theological or doctrinal clarity, etc., etc., I only have to look at the Society’s past. I know that this is only my opinion, but I have not seen any deviation from the mission of the Society as understood by Archbishop Lefebvre by the current Superiors of the Society.

There have been problems in the Society to be sure (there have always been problems that needed to be addressed and (eventually) corrected), but never the predicted calamitous results from those problems.

QUOTE
They are only a group within the Church who are likeminded with us.


You are mistaken here; The Society is much more than a likeminded group. They are a legitimately erected religious Society of priests. The Archbishop created the Society for the continuation of the priesthood and the preservation of the Faith.

Now, if you believe as I do, that God chose the Archbishop to defend the Faith and to restore and continue the priesthood by the establishment of the Society, then we should become more interested in praying for the Superiors in their efforts to continue the Archbishop’s work. We should not be constantly trying to find “evidence” to support our opinion of how the Society is failing based upon our “own” understanding of what the Society’s mission is and how the Society is supposed to be fulfilling that mission.

The conference was recorded. It is for sale from the Immaculata Bookstore here in St. Mary’s for around $15.00 + tax, shipping, handling. It is a two disc set on the relations between Rome and the Society – disc 1, Bishop Williamson (the media storm) and a sermon on temptation – disc 2.

I think you misunderstand Fr. Pfluger. Having attended the conference and then re-listening to it today (my memory needed a good bit of jogging), I can tell you there wasn’t (isn’t) a contradiction. The main theme of Fr. Pfluger's talk was the imprudence of the comments and their consequences.

There are two points he is making at this point of the conference:
•   1) There are some who consider the h0Ɩ0cαųst the new Sacrifice and Redeemer. Instead of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jєωιѕн People and the Sacrifice is the h0Ɩ0cαųst – the first quote you gave.
•   2) The historical accuracy of numbers, method and intention (Hitler’s) are not the issue. This is not the fight – the additional quotes I provided.

Concerning these points:
•   1) If the question put to the Bishop had been something like; “Do you accept the redeemer as the Jєωιѕн people and the sacrifice as the h0Ɩ0cαųst?” Then the Bishop would have been defending the Faith from an attack on the Faith; the type of attack Fr. Pfluger is referring to. The defense of an attack like this could have been done by re-iterating the Catholic Doctrine of Redemption. The question of the historical accuracy need never have been addressed since, accurate or not, the Jews are not the redeemer nor is the h0Ɩ0cαųst the sacrifice.

•   2) This is not what happened. The Bishop was asked a question concerning his opinion on the historical accuracy of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. It had nothing to do with a question of the Faith and need not have been answered. Now the Society is being attacked because of a question of historical accuracy and of anti-Semitism rather than a question of Faith.

I realize that you are of a different opinion. That is your prerogative. But please do imply a compromising or a weakness of Faith on the part of the Superiors because they do not agree with you.

As for me, I will follow the opinion of the Bishops of the Society over the laity or a few priests.

It must be remembered that even Bishop Williamson believes the issue to be historical and would never have made the comments had he known the result of them –
QUOTE
Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…„I believe“…„I believe“…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.


Are you suggesting that you know more than the Bishop (and the Society) on this matter?

Like I said some place else; If this issue of the h0Ɩ0cαųst is of such importance why did the Archbishop never address or acknowledge it?


john

Tele, to me it seems that Norwitch is saying, "None of these people, Krah included, are hiding the fact that they are Jєωιѕн".