This was also posted in Traditio dot com
( use the usual world wide web ). I don't know
where their source is from, as there's no reference.
But it says  "leaked out ", so someone has a
hard copy. I also don 't know if this is the same docuмent
that we on  ( dot com) reported on last fall,
after having received from Father Robinson  a copy of a letter he
had sent to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, decrying the fact that he, Fr. Pfeiffer,
Had "signed" the oath of allegiance to the "pope" and the
"Nervous Disorder".
     To that letter, Fr. Robinson had attached the oath of allegiance.
I will pull it out and repost it, here.

Fr. Pfeiffer signed an oath of allegiance to the pope and accepted that some novus ordo masses could be valid.  So?  
Is this someone's skewed interpretation of the Oath Against Modernism?  I believe the SSPX priests have to take it before they're ordained.  "Allegiance" does not mean unconditional, blind obedience.  Allegiance has to do with loyalty or fidelity.  It would pertain to the Holy Office of the Pope, not to the Pope as a man.  "Valid" is not synonymous with good or licit.  If something is valid, it is real or authentic.  A Satanic mass can be valid if it is offered by a real priest.  It certainly is not licit or good, however.  There is no reason why Fr. Pfeiffer could not sign such an oath.  If he did, he has not violated it, rather he has shown his loyalty by speaking out when the Pope has strayed from sound doctrine.  If he didn't care, he'd remain silent.  Fr. Pfeiffer is not a Sedevacantist.  (I know that disappoints some CI posters.)  The simple fact is that Fr. Pfeiffer has no way of judging every single novus ordo mass, whether it is valid.  Only God Himself is privy to that information.  Fr. Pfeiffer shows mercy over rash judgment and humility over pride in accepting the possibility that some novus ordo masses may be valid.
So far as the information coming from Traditio, I too, wouldn't trust much of anything on the site.  They have a bitter, vindictive spirit about them.  It sounds to me as if someone has an ax to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer and is too wimpy to confront him one-on-one.  
As for this Fr. Robinson, he was either mislead or is in error himself regarding the nature of obedience.  I'm curious now, if Fr. Pfeiffer responded, and how?
Heh! Heh!  The plot thickens!---- :detective:

Patience!  The truth will come out sooner or later.  I wouldn't rely on Traditio for it, however!

Yes Viva Cristo Rey. Would all priests signing the Declaration (see my other posts today) headed by +W, have allowed Father Pfeiffer's signature just below +W's if it would have been otherwise?

There is a difference between b Fellay oath to fidelity and Pope Pius x 's oath against modernism.  Who cares what Fr. Phieffer signed.  

Father Pheiffer is giving Obedience to God. Not Fellay.  
Father Pheiffer loves God , Our Blessed Mother and the true Church and Mass.

Father Pheiffer is Catholic and an American.   With God and Our Blessed Mother he leads the Resistance.  

He's a humble and down to earth manly priest who wants to lead our souls to Heaven.

OK, ok, OK ! Viva and Frances; no one was, and least of all myself,
Castigating  Fr. Pfeiffer in my post, above. I was commenting on a report
Of some " Oath " required by Bp Fellay which was recently revealed.
     I wanted to find the source, as did thr initial poster.
     In tbat context, we discussed a letter of Fr. Robinson to Fr. Pfeiffer
which exoriated him for failing( supposedly) to honor the oath of loyalty
to Benedict XVI (and the new mass), which, so stated Fr. Robinson, Fr. Pfeiffer
had freely signed.
     Now, did Fr. Pfeiffer sign it? Most likely-- just ask him if you think he did not. On that score,
I doubt Fr. Robinson is wrong. And most likely, either Fellay or Rostand were probably
Insisting all the priests sign it. Can you imagine any priest being told to sign " this oath from the Superior General" REFUSING to sign it, and then joining everybody in the dining room for meals?NOT!
     So, lets wait til we get some confirmation as to this new oath, who authored it, who has to sign it, and what it really says. Fair ?

.

From page 1:

Thanks Frances.

I just wonder why +ABL never required the SSPX priests to sign a loyalty oath to the Pope?

Good question.  And for reasons perhaps you have not considered, Incredulous.

This oath of fidelity thingy goes way back.  It is something that the
Freemasons practice and have practiced for a long time.  But that's not
the key issue, just a point to ponder and not forget in all this.

The Jesuits under St. Ignatius Loyola took vows of poverty, chastity and
obedience, as well as a "fourth oath" of personal obedience to the Holy
Father Himself.  They did not use the terms "fidelity" or "allegiance" --
those have been applied to this concept only recently - that is, post Vat.II.

Don't forget about the Freemasons.

Taking oaths of obedience is part of Catholic Tradition.  Then along came
Pope St. Pius X (at the time he wasn't known as "Saint" obviously) and
his Oath Against Modernism.  This was out of the ordinary.  I like to think
of it as "catching the devil by surprise" because it was something that was
unprecedented in the history of the Church.  Never before had a Pope
demanded of all the priests and superiors of religious orders and so on and
so on to take an oath "AGAINST" something.  It's like it was the
worst fears of the devil coming into reality, something the devil really had
hoped that no one would figure it out or come up with this plan.  But
come up with it, the Pope-Saint did!

And you should have seen all the fireworks!  The Modernists lined up for
miles pleading incessantly to the Pope to have mercy on them and to
grant them exempt from this most heavy of crosses to bear, and on and
on and on and on.  He was practically stymied in his other duties and
concerns because of the TSUNAMI of appeals to be exempt from having
to TAKE THE OATH.

But even so, the taking of the Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum
Antistitum) was a very successful project, and it endured many years,
all the way up to, well, up until the unclean spirit of Vat.II undermined
the interest in keeping it in force.  That's another story, which I have
already told before here on CI.

The Oath was abandoned in 1967, after the abominable Council, and
it was IMHO a necessary step to abandon it before the Newmass could
be instituted under the APPEARANCE of being 'promulgated' (which it
was NOT -- See elsewhere).  

But something else took its place, as it were.  So to speak, a replacement
thingy was put into effect, and this replacement thingy was not paraded
around in large font or bold type or bullhorn-announcement.  It was
quietly proffered, as it were, not promulgated, just like the Newmass
was not promulgated.  But it was different.  This replacement thingy
was not something that anyone was PUNISHED for not adhering to.  So
to that extent, it was proffered at a different level than the Newmass,
which indeed was imposed by force of censure, insult, penalty,
punishment, excoriation, derision, vitriol, exclusion, banishment and even
excommunication.  

The replacement thingy was called a "Vatican Statement."  And it has
been scrubbed from the files of the Vatican, and it has been forgotten,
as if 'tossed down the memory hole'.  It is only something that I am
aware of because I had the good fortune of a bad experience in 1999
in Hamilton, Canada.

Again, don't forget about the Freemasons.

It was a Pledge of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope (if I recall
correctly), who, at that time was the infamous Paul VI of infelicitous
memory, as Canon Gregorius Hesse told me so many times.  

And this newfangled thingy that HEBF is rumored to be pushing sounds
a lot like that thingy, from Paul-VI-of-infelicitous-memory.

One observation:  It seems Conciliarists become most upset if one dares to question "their system".  

Right again.  As do the Freemasons, about whom you should not forget.

For example, Msgr. Williamson has referred to Pat Buchanan as a sincere man, but that his real problem was, "... he still believed in the US 'electoral system'.".  +W implied Buchanan needed to stop thinking this way to find the truth.

At one point during a Vatican II, promulgation by Pope Paul VI, the notorious Msgr. Bugnini dared any Bishops or Cardinals to resist the Pope, claiming their action to do so would mean they did not believe Paul VI was the Pope.

Don't forget that Annibale Bugnini buried his mother in a Freemason
grave and his own mausoleum slab covers his remains with inscriptions
that are unquestionably Freemasonic symbols.

This event to which you refer touches directly on the replacement thingy
I was talking about, above, the Vatican Statement that was a Pledge
of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope.  In retrospect, it was an attempt
to forestall sedevacantism even before the sede trend had even begun,
or, perhaps it was right at the moment that it was beginning, and this
might explain why this Pledge was not heavy-handed, because then the
sede movement might have consequently garnered a greater following.

This is key to the Resistance right NOW!  

The Resistance is a force to be reckoned with because it strikes fear
and TERROR into the hearts of the Menzingen-denizens.  I have seen
this with my own eyes and I am therefore an eye-witness, for those
with eyes to see and ears to hear.  

It is precisely because of the effectiveness of the Resistance that
HEBF* would have any inclination whatsoever to ask such a thingy of
the SSPX priests.  

Now, this is not to say that we should pass judgment on any such
priest who signs the Pledge or Oath or whatever it's called.  

How different a world it would be if the Cardinals and Bishops would have had the courage to have done just that ?

True, again!

It is interesting to see Msgr. Fellay, a man willing to "sell-out" Catholic tradition, now interested in having his Order take a loyalty oath to the newChurch system ?

If the Vatican II warhorse, Pope Benedict, required the oath from the SSPX, it is truly reminiscent of Msgr. Buginini's previous defense of the newChurch system.

And it is reminiscent of Paul VI's contemporaneous reaction against
the forming of the sedevacantist movement, which no doubt struck
fear deep into his very soul.  

Can you imagine being the pope who endeavors to institute all those
changes only to find a significant faction of Catholics willing to stand
up and say, "You are obviously not Pope because of your actions!"?  

He did NOT want that kind of idea to begin to pick up speed on the track!!




P.S. Don't forget the Freemasons.. because they have not forgotten you!

Taken from the SOSS ave Our  SSPX  site, which was posted there last year.Recently, Traditio dot com, one of the first Traditional Catholic websites, posted an item which stated that SSPX priests are required to take an oath supporting the pope and the new mass. Upon inquiry, we have realized that the oath referred to is the one detailed below. As was stated in an earlier post on this thread, the original , hard copy of this oath was provided to us by Fr. Kevin Robinson, so we feel if is very reliable. He (Fr.Robinson) was referring to the oath in a letter he wrote to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, exoriating him for his "resistance" sermons and writings, and reminding him (Fr. Pfeiffer), that "remember you also took this oath (attahed)?"

"
THE OATH REQUIRED OF SSPX PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS
     As detailed by an SSPX priest, this oath is required of all SSPX priests. It was never required by Archbishop Lefebvre-- it couldn't be required by him, because it is full of intellectual dishonesty! One can not say that the principal public prayer and act of worship to Almighty God is valid, and yet at the same time promise to never say it!! Archbishop Lefebvre called the novus ordo a "Bastard mass", when, coupled with the conciliar churchs' "bastard sacraments", constituted their "new religion"-- a religion which Bp. Fellay has apparently adopted, but which the Archbishop had "no desire to belong(to)"  
    The inherent contradictions in this oath become all the more clear in the light of Fr LeRoux' announcement at Auriesville Shrine, in New York last May, 2012, that "Our priests obtain their mission from the local ordinaries!." I was flabbergasted by his statement-- yet he told me "yes-- that is true-- we receive our mission from the diocesan ordinaries !"  Well-- the Archbishop didn't believe that at all! The Archbishop KNEW that the SSPX priests received their mission ( as true Catholic priests) from Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Apostles, through the Church's Magisterium, and through himself, as a true Bishop, faithful to the Church's teachings. That The Society's official position is the priests of the SSPX receive their mission through Bishops who are NOT in union with the Catholic Church, who, in many cases, DO NOT BELIEVE the Catholic faith, who,in most cases, see the Vatican Council II and the novus ordo mess as a rejection of Vatican Council I, of St Pius X, and of Church teaching for two thousand years , is a phenomenal leftward move for the Society. So, this oath plants the seed of confusion and intellectual dishonesty right in the heart of the seminarians and the young, moldable priests.
                     DECLARATION OF FIDELITY

    (To the Positions of the Society of St Pius X)


I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize Benedict XVI as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecuмenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.

  I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However,
considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.

    I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs" in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.

    That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am
threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.

    Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the  liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make  exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of  Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.

  In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the
obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.

Signed ________________________"




There-- now you have it! Debate away. "The new rite is in itself bad"; "the liturgical reforms of (the pro-communist) John"cast down the bastions"XXIII are legitimate"; " I recognize Benedict XVI as pope of the Holy Catholic Church (funny-- he doesn't recognize himself as pope-- and he never really did. He believes in collegiality, a cardinal; virtue of the Council, where the bishops decide their beliefs). And his replacement on the chair? He doesn't believe he's the pope either-- he refused the mantle of the pope, and he insists he's the "bishop of Rome."
   At any rate, with respect to Fr. Pfeiffer, or any other priest "signing" this poorly worded pile of double-speak and modernistic intellectual nonsense, how would they NOT sign it, when presented this docuмent by their superior? Unless you were already on the way out the SSPX door, you'd sign it. How would you tell a crazed Fr.Rostand that "I decline" to sign that stupid "Declaration of Fidelity", but I'd still like a nice position and a pleasant chapel to serve in, with nice families and convenient schedules. Not likely to happen.
    We see, Fellay and Co. have been softening up the opposition for a long, long time (this is what the bomber pilots did before the ground forces move in-- the soften up the opposition). They have used the 2000 pilgrimage to Rome, the Cor Unums, the Rosary Crusades, and the Superior General's missives to get everyone in line and accept this deal they were arranging. That's why Fellay was in such a tizzy when the letter of the Three Bishops broke out! That's why they went into overdrive to shut down the internet sites, claiming that the faithful have "no right to know what's going on in the workings of the Fraternal Society." And that's why Fellay said he could accept a split in the Society-- he knew he was causing it!
    Just as an example: Bishop Williamson was at the 2000 pilgrimmage in Rome-- the famous back-drop for the "oh so enthusiastic" meeting and dinner with Cardinal Hoyos, and the subsequent "smiles all around and Masonic handshake with the pope" photo op. Had Bishop Williamson THEN REALIZED that Fellay was working overtime to sell tradition down the drain, would he have attended the pilgrimage? Consider that.