CathInfo.com

I just listened to part of Fr Pfieffer's talk.  Early in, after Father rants about the New Mass being evil, he says THE NEW MASS IS VALID!

I was totally shocked at his stance as I did not know he believed that way.  I am now officially turned off to  the Resistance!  
If this is what he believes, there is no purpose for the Resistance at all.

There is also no purpose for the SSPX, if they have that stand!  What are they fighting against?  Go back to the Novus Ordo!
The Church has only one true mass.  The true mass of the centuries   or the Novus Ordo!  One is not valid.
The sede position, which is the position all of the people had that left the Novus Ordo Church in the late 60's had,  has  made sense throughout the years and even makes more sense today!

I guess that must be  the conclusion the Resistence group at St Marys  came to, as I hear they became sede.


 :surprised:

You are mistaken. All of the people who left the N. O. in the late 60's did not all believe that the pope was not the pope. Many of my friends were among those people. They prayed for the pope always. They were happy to follow ABL because he always said that the pope was the pope until it was decided by Church authorities otherwise.

We cannot just decide we don't have a pope, for ourselves. It is the teaching of the Church that a competent body of bishops must make the declaration that the pope is not the pope. We can't be faulted for praying for a pope that may not be a pope but we can certainly be faulted for failure to pray for a pope who is, just on our own authority. Which we do not have anyway.

Where have you been all these years? ABL, who was an extraordinary theologian, always taught that the N.O. was valid if everything was done properly by a validly ordained priest. This has been the position of the SSPX and the great traditional canon lawyers and theologians such as Fr. Gregory Hesse. ABL, every priest of the SSPX, Canon Hesse and others, always taught also that it was a poison to the soul, especially if one knows better, and should be avoided. He allowed for attendance at funerals and weddings if one did not participate. All Bishop Williamson is doing is saying what he and the SSPX has been saying for decades.

The purpose of the SSPX's existence is to continue a pure traditional priesthood and offer traditional Masses, Sacraments and teach traditional catechism to the faithful. I don't understand your confusion. Have you been to a N.O. Mass? Can't you see why we should reject it, even though perhaps valid?  :scratchchin:

Quote from: Pilar

Quote from: covet truth

I made it through about 30 minutes of this conference.  I couldn't bring myself to spend another hour listening to him.  What was worse, the audience didn't challenge him on anything he said.  When asked about needing a Bishop for ordinations, confirmations, etc., his reply was, "God will provide".  What?  In other words, we have a Bishop that isn't to our liking, therefore, God will provide one who is!  Sure, He will.

I don't think that it is that Bishop W. isn't to his liking. I think that Bishop W. is being attacked by Fr. P. because the Bishop disagrees with him on several things and refuses to consecrate him or ordain his seminarians.

Fr. P. has lost his moorings. He is leading these poor souls astray. And what is that nervous noise he keeps making during his talk?! He needs a rest.

There is a seminarian there that left from La Reja at the direction of another well-known resistance priest who is a strong supporter of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Williamson will have no problem ordaining him, I think, but I would hope that they get him out of that seminary. Especially since he was mentioned in a negative light in a recent Fr. Chazal letter to Fr. Pfeiffer that was published online.

I am so sorry Centro, I may be tired, who was mentioned in a negative light, the seminarian?