This is disappointing:
It would seem that Bishop Williamson is coming under the influence of Fr. Pfeiffer, rather than the other way around.
Bishop Williamson's position was the more balanced of the two conflicting opinions on SSPX Mass attendance.
To say that, as a general rule, one ought not attend SSPX Masses is an unfortunate slide toward the erroneous Fr. Pfeiffer position.
Natural enough, I suppose, since Fr. Pfeiffer is in the leadership position.
But as His Lordship said when he was here in St. Paul:
"Those who do not act the way they think, will begin to think the way they act."
Bishop Williamson should have condemned Fr. Pfeiffer's "red light" long ago.
For one reason or another, he did not.
And so now he endorses it.
With qualifications, but nevertheless...
How to gauge the chapels of the neoSSPX ? :scratchchin:
Wouldn't it be interesting to take an anonymous poll of their priest and see who are really 100% behind Msgr. Fellay ?
Most of them are validly ordained, many holy, but there is something lacking in their character that keeps them there.
Every priest has his own story and reason, but the longer they stay under the Fellay regime, the greater the risk to their priesthood.
My friend takes the next step and says... "the greater the risk to their souls".
Pretty easy to gauge, actually:
Unless the SSPX betrays the Faith in official policy (e.g., as the 1984 indult required acknowledgement of the doctrinal uprightness of the NOM in order to avail oneself of the indult);
Or, unless the priest preaches error from the pulpit;
Then you must attend.
But the concern at present is not the positive teaching of error, but the omission to condemn the errors of Vatican II and the Roman modernists (per the branding campaign, and Cardinal Canizares' appeal to focus on spirituality and virtue, rather than condemning the heretics).
But I doubt very much the omission is sufficient to abstain from Mass, since it would be a very remote threat, and dangerous only over extended periods of time.
It is a shame that the sword has been dropped, for sure (though our priest is having a conference on Vatican II between the Masses today, which I was not able to attend).
If there was/is a deal with Rome, that threat would become more proximate, but even this is only a possible future contingency, remote in time, and by no means certain.
The problem with Fr. Pfeiffer's position is that it places souls in immediate danger (violation of the Sabbath without justification).
Yes, he thinks there is justification, but his rationale is easily refuted:
1) We cannot attend FSSP Masses because they have officially compromised on doctrine (i.e., accepting the errors of Vatican II);
2) But Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration also officially accepts the errors of Vatican II;
3) Therefore, we also cannot any longer attend SSPX Masses.
Leaving aside a critique of the various passages Fr. Pfeiffer thinks accepted Vatican II, or violated the Faith, the simple fact is that the Declaration is NOT OFFICIAL POLICY.
Therefore the attempted justification/command to abstain from SSPX Masses (built completely on this illusory premise) vanishes.
If President Obama sponsors a bill which gets shot down in the Senate, can we still pretend it is the law of the land, and take actions based on something that never became law?
Similarly with the Declaration.
The only concern (unless Rome starts warming up to Bishop Fellay again) is the branding campaign; the slow conditioning of priests and faithful not to hate Vatican II so much.
Over time, this will facilitate the coveted agreement with a still-modernist Rome, and when that happens, the SSPX will be swallowed up and dissolved into Conciliarism.
But even this is not a doctrinal issue; it is an incredibly scandalous and imprudent political strategy; a move away from Archbishop Lefebvre's combat against error; designed to bring about an end which will be the SSPX's undoing, but not against the Faith.
Topic: Eleison Comments: Horrible Falls III (Read 14327 times)