Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Pablo on September 17, 2012, 01:02:47 PM
-
Dear Mrs. XXXXX,
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 Pontificuм 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
-
I write you now from my quarenteened Library in our house in Manila.
Fr. Pfeiffer resides at his Philippines priory and is not AWOL in Boston, KY as alleged by his detractors. Will they still insist on his expulsion for daring to speak the truth?
-
My apologies, for I found other things I would like to see how they look here, so
don't think this is unnecessary duplication, it's just proofing the copy, as they say....
If you must delete one or the other, I think the other would be less missed...
I'm pretty excited about this letter because it goes directly to the problem that
I have been facing with my friends who are reluctant to face these issues. Here
we have a short list of the doctrinal and practical compromises that have been
creeping into Society chapels worldwide, at a slow rate, such that they are not
perceived. I have some friends who are model traditionalists who have made
excuses to me over any individual, specific accretions in rubrics since the 40's
for example, and my reply to them is that any one of these, alone might not seem
like a big deal, but if you accept one, and then another and then another, pretty
soon you have a big pile of changes, and voila! a new religion is born!!!
Can someone please let me know if I can make a PDF of this letter to print out
and give to a few friends who really need to see it? I think I know people who are
a lot like "Mrs. 5X" (Is she really that HUGE?? hahahahahaha). I have made a few
typo corrections so have a look and let me know, okay?
:reporter: :drillsergeant: :whistleblower:
September 16th, 2012, Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Manila, Philippines
[Is this date correct?]
Dear Mrs. XXXXX,
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 [prevalently] 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's like a man visiting a brothel house but returns home without [committing] adultery: (Good, no?) But why did he not? 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..,
A married man is encouraged by an SSPX priest to separate from his wife. (Modernist advice.)
Many SSPX priests now promote NFP to many couples without grave reasons commanded by Pius XII. [Citation needed]
In France, SSPX priests (some are using Luminous Mysteries) and also doing marriages mixed with Indult and SSPX priest together. [Is this a concelebrated Novus Ordo service, or what??]
Some SSPX priests now say that it's OK to attend indult/Summorum Pontificuм 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 Vat.II is only "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 [quarantined] 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 [reconciliation], 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
-
For clarification, I would like to say a few things about this letter, and about the
two different versions I have offered to make a PDF for, so members can print it
out:
This dynamic letter contains a very crucial distinction that is key to understanding
our current situation. Fr. Pfeiffer is a student of St. Thomas Aquinas, and he is
familiar with the overriding principle, "We distinguish but we do not separate." It
gives me great joy to see this principle in action here to great potency and
promising effect. We shall see, however.
The distinction of which I speak is his points 1. and 2. at the beginning. It is a
two-fold problem, and we tend to be focused on the second part, but that second
part is merely a consequence of the first part, and it is therefore the first part
that is the real problem. It is the problem that the vast majority of Trad Catholics
on planet earth right now are reluctant to acknowledge. I had been noticing this
reality as I have been going around talking to others about it, which I am wont
to do anyway, and this curious, quasi-deliberate pollyanna outlook was bothersome
to me. But that was before I understood where it comes from. Now, thanks to Fr.
Pfeiffer, I am starting to get a real grasp of the situation. But I'm just starting.
I'm missing a lot of details, and I suppose that's partially my own fault for I have
not been prone to pay attention to all the half-baked bad news stories going on.
But Fr. gives us a short list of these:
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..,
A married man is encouraged by an SSPX priest to separate from his wife. (Modernist advice.)
Many SSPX priests now promote NFP to many couples without grave reasons commanded by Pius XII. [Citation needed]
In France, SSPX priests (some are using Luminous Mysteries) and also doing marriages mixed with Indult and SSPX priest together. [Is this a concelebrated Novus Ordo service, or what??]
Some SSPX priests now say that it's OK to attend Indult/Summorum Pontificuм 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 and 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 the 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 Vat.II is only "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.
[please forgive my notes in brackets, but I need resolutions to these notes]
Secondly, I would like to point out how it is much easier to refer to and discuss
and think about the various sentences above in this list when the items are
separated into mini-paragraphs of their own, instead of in a block of text as
follows:
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 Pontificuм 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.
Tell me, how would you compare, for example, the practice of SSPX priests and
Indult priests together, conducting a marriage ceremony, with the changed outlook
on what is "coming out of the Vatican" these days, by looking at this block-text
paragraph directly above, which is what Pablo produced here?
Don't get me wrong, I do not fault Pablo for this format, because he is doing a
great thing by providing the material. I'm asking if anyone is like me here and
would like to see a more expanded view in this letter.
-
It's an incredible letter. And Fr. Pfeiffer sees things so clearly. We must thank the dear Lord for the priests of the "resistance", and pray that we are sent more such priests for the salvation of souls.
:cry:
-
It's an incredible letter. And Fr. Pfeiffer sees things so clearly. We must thank the dear Lord for the priests of the "resistance", and pray that we are sent more such priests for the salvation of souls.
:cry:
Yes, I think there are a LOT more priests on the way, from what I can see. Young
people these days are aware of how things have gone wrong, and I see God's
grace starting to move hearts.
I'm looking for someone to give me the green light on one of these versions of
Fr. Pfeiffer's letter, so then I'll upload a PDF for everyone to print, who wants to.
I don't want to have any mistakes in it, so I'd like to know the correct date to
put on it, or should I just say "the week of Sept. 9th?" I figure if this is coming to
us as a "leaked" docuмent, it might have been setting around for a few days or
weeks even. Or I could say "prior to Sept. 16th?" Should I put CathInfo on it, or
not? Should I put Pablo the Mexican, or not?
I will leave out the bracketed comments/questions, and will delete brackets on
my spelling corrections.
Does Matthew have anything to say?
-
This is an appalling way to treat a priest who is a member of a religious community. Even a seriously troubled priest, if he is not dangerous, should receive more consideration than this.
-
I believe this letter to be a phony. Oh yes, it is presented to the forum as an actual response to a so called "Mrs. XXXXX", however its substance is not as a priest would write, but an emotional person who is trying to inflame its readers and draw pity on the author. In paragraph one, the comparison with the brothel and prostitutes is certainly one that a priest would not use. A priest would write with a nature of humility and penance, however this so called letter contains neither.
The letter may very well be a composite of message points expressed to its presenter "Pablo". I do not doubt Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal are prohibited from eating or talking with the other priests or brothers while where they are presently housed. I don't doubt these fine priests are forbidden from saying Mass in the chapels of the SSPX (and I must say, I find the factual aspects of their "captivity" deplorable) We know from the letter of Fr. Couture that this is the case. Nevertheless, I know of no priest who would allow his private correspondence to be released on an internet forum even with the addressee "X'd" out in such a way as this. Goodness, is this the only this priest can get his message out, through a so called letter to a 3rd party? No so.
In addition, there are numerous grammatical errors in the letter. If it was a valid letter initially, it need only be copied verbatim or if done online, copied and pasted. Priests who make their way through the SSPX seminaries have linguistic skills that far exceed most of us due to their rigorous training and certainly above what is presented in this letter.
The word is a powerful tool for both the good and bad. Keen minds know how to use it well, however, when our emotion runs away with us (even for good and valiant intentions) Godly wisdom is sometimes left in the wake.
-
I believe this letter to be a phony. Oh yes, it is presented to the forum as an actual response to a so called "Mrs. XXXXX", however its substance is not as a priest would write, but an emotional person who is trying to inflame its readers and draw pity on the author. In paragraph one, the comparison with the brothel and prostitutes is certainly one that a priest would not use. A priest would write with a nature of humility and penance, however this so called letter contains neither.
The letter may very well be a composite of message points expressed to its presenter "Pablo". I do not doubt Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal are prohibited from eating or talking with the other priests or brothers while where they are presently housed. I don't doubt these fine priests are forbidden from saying Mass in the chapels of the SSPX (and I must say, I find the factual aspects of their "captivity" deplorable) We know from the letter of Fr. Couture that this is the case. Nevertheless, I know of no priest who would allow his private correspondence to be released on an internet forum even with the addressee "X'd" out in such a way as this. Goodness, is this the only this priest can get his message out, through a so called letter to a 3rd party? No so.
In addition, there are numerous grammatical errors in the letter. If it was a valid letter initially, it need only be copied verbatim or if done online, copied and pasted. Priests who make their way through the SSPX seminaries have linguistic skills that far exceed most of us due to their rigorous training and certainly above what is presented in this letter.
The word is a powerful tool for both the good and bad. Keen minds know how to use it well, however, when our emotion runs away with us (even for good and valiant intentions) Godly wisdom is sometimes left in the wake.
I must admit, that while I would agree with the general tenure of the letter, I was rather surprised, if not shocked, that a priest like Fr. Pfeiffer should have used any reference to a brothel. Was this letter truly written by Fr J Pfeiffer?
-
I believe this letter to be a phony. Oh yes, it is presented to the forum as an actual response to a so called "Mrs. XXXXX", however its substance is not as a priest would write, but an emotional person who is trying to inflame its readers and draw pity on the author. In paragraph one, the comparison with the brothel and prostitutes is certainly one that a priest would not use. A priest would write with a nature of humility and penance, however this so called letter contains neither.
The letter may very well be a composite of message points expressed to its presenter "Pablo". I do not doubt Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal are prohibited from eating or talking with the other priests or brothers while where they are presently housed. I don't doubt these fine priests are forbidden from saying Mass in the chapels of the SSPX (and I must say, I find the factual aspects of their "captivity" deplorable) We know from the letter of Fr. Couture that this is the case. Nevertheless, I know of no priest who would allow his private correspondence to be released on an internet forum even with the addressee "X'd" out in such a way as this. Goodness, is this the only this priest can get his message out, through a so called letter to a 3rd party? No so.
In addition, there are numerous grammatical errors in the letter. If it was a valid letter initially, it need only be copied verbatim or if done online, copied and pasted. Priests who make their way through the SSPX seminaries have linguistic skills that far exceed most of us due to their rigorous training and certainly above what is presented in this letter.
The word is a powerful tool for both the good and bad. Keen minds know how to use it well, however, when our emotion runs away with us (even for good and valiant intentions) Godly wisdom is sometimes left in the wake.
I must admit, that while I would agree with the general tenure of the letter, I was rather surprised, if not shocked, that a priest like Fr. Pfeiffer should have used any reference to a brothel. Was this letter truly written by Fr J Pfeiffer?
LOL. If this letter seems shocking, you would be really amazed if you ever cracked open a bible.
-
Don't forget that when Scripture speaks of fornication or adultery or unfaithfulness
in regards to the practice of religion or the priest of the Church, it is saying that
any corruption of the Faith or corroboration with false religions or "serving of idols"
is the unfaithfulness tantamount to adultery. One is unfaithfulness to one's spouse
and to God in the sight of God, the other is unfaithfulness to God directly and in
His face, as it were, an open insult to the Highest Almighty in His presence. The
analogy of a brothel, then is perfectly appropriate.
In years to come we will look back and see how we should have recognized this
opportunity to make some improvements. It all depends on us now; what will we
do? Fr. is one priest. He is doing what he can with what he has to work with. Do
you think he should somehow be doing more? The Menzingen-denizens have been
caught knocking at the door of the unfaithful NewRome, where the unclean spirit
of Vatican II reigns supreme, where the Faith of our Fathers is subject to spiritual
prostitution, and the door was opened, but they would not allow a transaction to
take place ............. yet.
Tell me, for where the good Father was reluctant to draw the necessary conclusion,
I won't be so restrained: if you were that man's wife, the man who tried to do a
"deal" with the prostitutes, and you heard about his charade, would you be then
eager to trust your husband in what he says about the failed "attempt at a deal?"
Are we going to just sit on our laurels and wait for the next attempt? Are we going
to repeat the mantra, "EGBOK, EGBOK, EGBOK?" Are we going to presume that
our virtue consists in remaining "faithful" to what they would lead you to believe is
the same Society founded by the holy Archbishop who left it in the hands of a
mixed bag of priests, some of whom apparently had ulterior motives? Or, are we
forbidden from accepting the notion that anything could be wrong here?
Speaking of "cracking open a book," you ought to crack open AA-1025 the
Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle, by Marie Carre; TAN Books, $6 each, 5 @ $4 each,
100 @ $3 each.
About 20 years ago, I met Protestants who asked me, with trepidation, if there
was any problem going on in the Catholic Church. For them, you see, they might
be unwilling to be Catholic, but they still claim to be Christian, and they take
comfort from being assured that Everything's Going to Be O. K. in the great,
unassailable megalith institution. They derive stability by proxy, so to say, they
borrow their peace of mind from afar, and without permission, as it were. I told
them that yes, there is a big problem in the Catholic Church, and they were
distraught. Today, if I were to tell them that there is a big problem in the SSPX,
they wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Too many Catholics I speak to don't
know what the SSPX is.
I'm sorry but too many Catholics today remind me of those Protestants of 20
years ago. Because when I tell them there is something wrong in the SSPX, they
go into shell-shock. They grope at possible explanations for how I must be mis-
informed. They blame it on the unreliability of the Internet. Actually, I've got to
hand it to the Protestants, because they took the bad news 20 years ago at face
value. At least they didn't murmur (as far as I knew at the time) that no, no, it
couldn't be so.
-
Neil Obstat, you will not disagree there is a lot of chicanery going on right now as the devil wants to seek, kill and destroy. He always has. I have a disdain for so called leaked docuмents. Some in the fight take zeal in producing fresh meat for forums to feed on. This is not an emotional battle, but a spiritual one however emotions can get the best of us all. If Pablo says this letter is genuine at is stands and was written by Fr. Pfeiffer himself, so be it. Given the docuмent as it was posted, I believe it to be phony, a compilation, call it what you will. My opinion.
-
Neil Obstat, you will not disagree there is a lot of chicanery going on right now as the devil wants to seek, kill and destroy. He always has. I have a disdain for so called leaked docuмents. Some in the fight take zeal in producing fresh meat for forums to feed on. This is not an emotional battle, but a spiritual one however emotions can get the best of us all. If Pablo says this letter is genuine at is stands and was written by Fr. Pfeiffer himself, so be it. Given the docuмent as it was posted, I believe it to be phony, a compilation, call it what you will. My opinion.
Nickolas, I have no doubts that people seem to have a heightened inclination to
sin lately, as if the devil is in overdrive, racing toward the finish line, so to speak.
As regards this letter, I regret it does not have more credibility. There must be an
explanation, but at least for now, we don't have it. We could waste a lot of time
with speculation, but to what purpose? That could be the source of more spinoff
rumors. What we do know is that Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal are both in quasi-exile, a
sort of quarantine within the priory at Manila, reduced to saying Mass on the street
because they're forbidden from saying Mass in the SSPX chapels. And, at least so
far, the faithful have not invited them into their homes to say Mass. The
Menzingen-denizens are terrorizing the faithful into non-support of these good
priests! So they are not able to openly say what they want to say, which would
include this letter's contents. As a private letter to a private person (Mrs. XXXXX),
however, it cannot be pinned specifically to Fr. Pfeiffer, as it could be getting
around by some kind of mistake. No? There we go with speculation again.
There is something else to support my previous post's message about faithfulness:
Don't forget that when Scripture speaks of fornication or adultery or unfaithfulness
in regards to the practice of religion or the priest of the Church, it is saying that
any corruption of the Faith or corroboration with false religions or "serving of idols"
is the unfaithfulness tantamount to adultery. One is unfaithfulness to one's spouse
and to God in the sight of God, the other is unfaithfulness to God directly and in
His face, as it were, an open insult to the Highest Almighty in His presence. The
analogy of a brothel, then is perfectly appropriate.
In years to come we will look back and see how we should have recognized this
opportunity to make some improvements. It all depends on us now; what will we
do? Fr. is one priest. He is doing what he can with what he has to work with. Do
you think he should somehow be doing more? The Menzingen-denizens have been
caught knocking at the door of the unfaithful NewRome, where the unclean spirit
of Vatican II reigns supreme, where the Faith of our Fathers is subject to spiritual
prostitution, and the door was opened, but they would not allow a transaction to
take place ............. yet.
Tell me, for where the good Father was reluctant to draw the necessary conclusion,
I won't be so restrained: if you were that man's wife, the man who tried to do a
"deal" with the prostitutes, and you heard about his charade, would you be then
eager to trust your husband in what he says about the failed "attempt at a deal?"
What did ABL have to say about this?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre question the validity of the new rites of Mass, ordination
and episcopal consecration?
1. “This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution
is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards.
Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a
bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether
they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the
Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the
seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a
crowd of some 12,000)
2. “If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of
modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention
inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the Catholic Church, evidently
we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a
sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24,
1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
3. “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige
Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who
better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed
contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favor of
the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977)
4. Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre personally conditionally re-ordained many priests
who had been ordained in the 1968 rite and re-confirmed those purportedly confirmed
in the new rite or by the new bishops.
-
Nickolas, you really ought to take a gander at this other letter from Fr. Pfeiffer to
Fr. Couture. It has some of the same typos as this one to Mrs. XXXXX:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Joseph-Pfeiffer-letter (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Joseph-Pfeiffer-letter)
-
Neil Obstat, I appreciate the effort and your hard work on this forum. Thank you.
-
The same problem we had in 1965, during
"one of the gravest crises in Church history,"
is the same one we're still having
RIGHT NOW in the SSPX!!
Vatican II B
-
Neil Obstat, I appreciate the effort and your hard work on this forum. Thank you.
You're welcome. I hope someone can benefit from my ramblings. I want to post
them somewhere, and CI is just about the only place where I can let off some
steam without being crunched for it :smash-pc:
Here's more on this theme, the similarities between what's going on now with
what went on during Vat.II, which is by the way, contained in the letter at hand
so it's not off-topic..........................
Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2012 10:47 PM
Subject: Problem SSPX now
Dear Mrs. XXXXX,
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 [prevalently] 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.
In fact, what I have to say pertains to the entire letter, not just the opening
paragraph, in principle.....................
(BTW: those of you bent on whining over "leaked" docuмents can forget it
this time. THIS IS NOT LEAKED. I WROTE IT. End of story.)
The False Friends of Lefebvre
~ The adaptation of the Catholic Church to worldly thinking before, during and
after Vatican II has wrought havoc on the Church in her practice of the Faith,
and seems to have affected her expression of her immutable doctrine.
**Regarding the SSPX today, this same adaptation is taking place when we
observe +Fellay's new worldliness in accommodating Modernist Rome in many
ways.
~ This adaptation of the Church to worldliness boils down to a policy not to
criticize Communism, not to condemn error at large, and to rely instead on
"the infinite mercy of God" as announced in John XXIII's opening speech of
October 11th, 1962 -- the "Golden Jubilee" of which will be celebrated in Rome
in only 3 weeks' time from NOW, Sept. 19th, 2012.
** Regarding the SSPX today, this same adaptation of the SSPX to the worldliness
of today's NeoRome Vatican boils down to a policy of not criticizing the errors
of Vatican II, literally (read the resolutions of the GC) but only those who promote
them. This is a soft-boiled boil-down, but a boil-down nonetheless. The SSPX
would attempt to go into Rome and rub shoulders with the heretic Modernists and
thus "convert" them from good example, or whatever. Nonsense.
~ Those who would not subject themselves to the innovations of Vat.II were
punished immediately with heavy-handed tactics.
** The Menzingen-denizens practice consistent punitive measures against any
SSPX clerics or even faithful, who resist the new ways being promoted.
~ The Conciliar Church, through its SILENCE about the Errors of Russia and
errors of the world at large became an arm of the Soviet state, and of
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and of international Jєωry, whose principles it would serve by not
condemning error.
** The Menzingen-denizens, through their enforcement of these new
unannounced, SILENT POLICIES, would become an arm of NewRome, even
without making any kind of overt "deal," or sell-out. Therefore, one must
wonder if no hidden or quasi-private deal has actually been made -- only this
time, NewRome is much too sly to have made it public, much as they attempted
to keep the Vatican-Moscow Agreement hidden, but the news of it leaked out
anyway.
~ There was a kind of reduction of religious activity to external rites, and the
preaching in churches was curtailed to not criticize Vat.II or the errors of Russia
or even errors at large in the world. A separation was begun whereby one could
believe one thing at Mass on Sunday, but then when he goes home and to work
during the week, he would not have to act according to his Sunday beliefs.
** The Menzingen-denizens dare to preach the Gospel of Jesus at Mass, and
then proceed to enforce their punitive measures against the faithful and strong
priests who resist the accordista agenda, in contradiction to the very Gospel they
had preached on Sunday.
~ The Catholic Church became the Church of Silence, not denouncing
Communism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or Zionist Jєωry, but instead promoting a universal
feelgoodism that culminated with Assisi I, II and III. While all the attendees at
these gatherings practiced indifferentism, they were told, "This is not indifferentism."
Christianity behind the Iron Curtain was the Church of Silence.
** It was precisely over the embarrassing news of the +Williamson interview with
the Sweedish journalist that +Fellay seemed to break ranks with the longstanding
practice of teaching the Faith, and the SSPX backed away to become the Society
of Silence on all things "anti-Semitic," the errors of Vat.II, false ecuмenism,
religious liberty, and collegiality. We were in the summer of 2009 when these new
policies came to light and were implemented Society-wide, by the iron fist of
Menzingen.
~ Priests who would not conform to the NewChurch, by continuing to say the
Canonized Traditional Latin Mass, were expelled, exiled, kicked out, and mocked
openly from the pulpits of the world. It would seem that the CTLM had been
abrogated. But lo, years later B16 would clarify that no, the Mass was never
abrogated --- so that whole charade was a big LIE all along!
** When JPII issued his fake "excommunications" of the 6 bishops in 1988, it would
seem they had been, well, excommunicated. But now we find out that they could
not have been excommunicated for they did not commit any ecclesiastical crime.
So 4 of the 6 were "lifted," which is a HALF-TRUTH, and as we learned in St.
Thomas 101 the other day, "A half truth is a whole lie." All 6 should have been
ANNULLED, if it were to be the truth, and therefore this is a WHOLE LIE. But the
erstwhile Joseph Ratzinger, seminary student, flunked St. Thomas, so we can't
altogether blame his lack of comprehension on him. No, wait, as Obama said so
prolifically, "Yes, We Can!!"
~ The Church of Silence was effectively transformed into an organ of Soviet
Russia, with all the expelled, kicked-out or marginalized clerics replaced with
Modernist sympathizers like Casaroli, Sodano, Wojtyla, Montini, Bertone,
Ratzinger, et. al. Just as in the Council, when it didn't matter what the doctrine
would be, so long as Modernists staffed the important posts in the Council, so
John XXIII had hauled in even the very men who had been under suspicion with
Pius XII, and made them key players at the "Pastoral Council." (It wasn't going
to be a dogmatic council, so these guys wouldn't matter.)
** Once +Fellay had seized power in the SSPX, he systematically replaced all
his District Superiors and otherwise capitulants for the Chapter with yes-men
who would kow-tow to his modernizing whims, whatever they may be. You see,
it didn't matter what the doctrine would be, so long as they would comply like
robots.
~The Conciliar Church would not make the necessary Consecration of Russia to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but would instead go, "Let's NOT and say that we
DID." So they said that Russia was consecrated, but the word, "Russia," was
never used. So that's another Big Lie.
** As applies to the SSPX, the fabled Rosary Crusades of +Fellay BEGAN with
the overt, excellent intention of the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, all at the
same time worldwide. Then what happened? The Church of Silence kicked in,
and before you knew it, no more mention of the Consecration, but rather only
the conversion of Rome, or the lifting of the excoms, or regularization of the
SSPX, or that all our wives might stop having headaches, or whatever it was.
Instead, the pre-arranged lifting of the excoms was trotted out as a "miracle!!"
~ The Church of the Council would no longer condemn error, but instead would
open herself up to the world, in a "positive" presentation of her teaching to "men
of good will," and Paul VI called the result "a veritable invasion of the Church by
worldly thinking."
** This latest chapter in the Society has yet to be written...................
-
Reverend Father Joseph Pfeiffer is a true hero.