It's usually best to assume a person means what he says.

If he thinks the SSPX needs to continually re-position themselves, he says that the SSPX must continually change it's position as the situation in the Conciliar church changes.  

But, whatever he means, it certainly does not sound like it is built on stable ground.

In Bishop Williamson's latest comments he quotes Fr. Pfluger :

So “we must continually re-position ourselves,” somewhere between denying that there is any crisis of modernism at all in the Church, and denying Church reality, as does the “Resistance.”

What does Fr. Pfluger mean by the term "re-position"?

Marsha

To Father Pfulger & company,  Tradition is like a sliding scale depending on who they are trying to please and/or attract.  Depending on the circuмstance, the SSPX will simply present itself somewhere between what they see as the two extremes of Tradition.  They are no longer standing on principle anymore, which remains unchangeable, but rather on subjective strategies that will lead to a suitable conclusion for them.  It's what politicians do all of the time.  

Does anyone know where Bishop Williamson got the quote? I have been searching the internet and come up empty. I would like to read the entire article if it is available in English.

Marsha

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Pfluger-Interview

It's under #7.

Thanks for the info Mater.

Under #7 he says:  "But now we have to explain that we are no longer living in that time, that the situation has continued to evolve and that, therefore, we must continually reposition ourselves. The believers also realize that the crisis of the Church is not resolved, that it is even worse."

So if it is even WORSE, how can they even be thinking of finding a way to reintegrate with Rome?  Sounds like there is a giant disconnect somewhere.

Excellent comments below the translation on cor-mariae site.  I couldn't get the link posted by Br. Joseph to work, so went directly to their site and did a search.

Marsha

Bp. Williamson has, not for the first time, setup a straw-man fallacy; that the “re-positioning” of the Society is between tradition and conciliarism. This is, of course, completely false, but it amazes me how many Resisters actually fall for it.

The first thing here is understanding the questions: Are there not serious problems (of division) within the Society? How should the Society behave towards the Resistance, who are the cause of this division? Is not the average pew sitter equally to blame (for the division) because they are less zealous than the Resistance in the fight for the Faith?

There two contrary positions:
i) those who saw, in the Society, a Catholic haven from the fallout of VII. They are content with this ‘arrangement’ even though they know the situation is now far worse;
ii) those who believe “Rome is not Catholic” – with all the implications of that statement – and who refuse any contact with the Catholic hierarchy as a matter of principle.
It is between these two extreme positions that the Society is re-positioning herself: the complete inaction on the one hand - “we are not 88ers” (as Bp. Williamson once cried) and the extreme action (of schism) on the other.

The Society will not standby and watch the Church implode, nor will she take the practical sedevacanist/schismatic route of the Resistance. This is what Fr. Pfluger was saying.

Quote from: Marlelar

Thanks for the info Mater.

Under #7 he says:  "But now we have to explain that we are no longer living in that time, that the situation has continued to evolve and that, therefore, we must continually reposition ourselves. The believers also realize that the crisis of the Church is not resolved, that it is even worse."

So if it is even WORSE, how can they even be thinking of finding a way to reintegrate with Rome?  Sounds like there is a giant disconnect somewhere.

Excellent comments below the translation on cor-mariae site.  I couldn't get the link posted by Br. Joseph to work, so went directly to their site and did a search.

Marsha

Bp. Williamson has, not for the first time, setup a straw-man fallacy; that the “re-positioning” of the Society is between tradition and conciliarism. This is, of course, completely false, but it amazes me how many Resisters actually fall for it.

The first thing here is understanding the questions: Are there not serious problems (of division) within the Society? How should the Society behave towards the Resistance, who are the cause of this division? Is not the average pew sitter equally to blame (for the division) because they are less zealous than the Resistance in the fight for the Faith?

There two contrary positions:
i) those who saw, in the Society, a Catholic haven from the fallout of VII. They are content with this ‘arrangement’ even though they know the situation is now far worse;
ii) those who believe “Rome is not Catholic” – with all the implications of that statement – and who refuse any contact with the Catholic hierarchy as a matter of principle.
It is between these two extreme positions that the Society is re-positioning herself: the complete inaction on the one hand - “we are not 88ers” (as Bp. Williamson once cried) and the extreme action (of schism) on the other.

The Society will not standby and watch the Church implode, nor will she take the practical sedevacanist/schismatic route of the Resistance. This is what Fr. Pfluger was saying.

It was said before the "doctrinal talks" why the SSPX could not effectively defend tradition
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm

Now this has been proven true. They fumbled the "doctrinal talks" because they reject dogma in its literal (infallible) sense. Instead,  their  theologians have claimed for themselves an authority that belongs to the dogma itself (as Modern theologians do by "interpreting" dogma). They cannot see that when a dogma is defined by the Church, the matter is closed and that the only defense against the authority of Modernist Rome is the immutable universal truth of defined Catholic dogma. They are now left to "re-positioning" themselves. They had an opportunity to demand from Rome to make infallible declarations on what they want us to "submit mind and will" to. Previous to 1989, the Modernists controlled conservatives with the leash of (false) "obedience" and "authority" to obey man rather than God. Now they have the "1989 Profession of faith" (Professio fidei) to accomplish that.

In a recent interview with French magazine Famille Chrétienne, Archbishop Guido Pozzo replied to a question regarding the Vatican negotiations with the SSPX.

Jean-Marie Dumont : What is, therefore, the non-negotiable point?

Archbishop Guido Pozzo : That which is essential, that to which we cannot renounce, is adherence to the Professio fidei ...