If this is serious, why are you posting private emails on this forum? I don’t think Fr. Pfeiffer wanted the whole world to see thisBecause there are several deluded and ignorant souls who still don't know the deal with Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer yet. The truth must get out.
Because there are several deluded and ignorant souls who still don't know the deal with Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer yet. The truth must get out.That’s fine, we disagree then. I’d be furious if someone forwarded/posted an email I sent them which addressed sensitive dealings between them and myself.
By the way, you could say the same thing about the Bishops letters back in May 2012. (The letter of the Three to the One, and the letter of the One to the Three.) That was basically the birthday of the Resistance. Those letters were technically private correspondence, and were leaked by an SSPX priest in England. And I would allow such to be posted ALL OVER AGAIN if I had the chance.
There are higher and more important causes than "privacy".
And of course, one could also cite the consecration of bishops against that theory (which would be the last thing one sent on such a mission would do).
The cheese has slid completely off his cracker.:laugh1:
I’d be furious if someone forwarded/posted an email I sent them which addressed sensitive dealings between them and myself.I get the point, but email communications are the furthest thing from private. Goggle knows all...
The cheese has slid completely off his cracker.This made me laugh instead of . . .
OK, did he actually HIMSELF write "Composer of Compost" beneath his name? Did he typo his own name? Is this letter 100% genuine and original or has it been altered?
If even 90% of this is real, Father Pfeiffer needs :pray:
... and possibly the intervention of an Exorcist.
I am pasting this in verbatim. Not a single letter or space has been added or changed. I got this e-mail from Fr. Chazal. -MatthewThe email in the OP is 100% as I received it. Fr. Chazal forwarded it to me.
On Dec. 31, 2019 I came to Maasin Leyte to finish my 46th consecutive year on this earth in front of the Blessed Sacrament (My first 3 years I was not able to do so)
Seems like Fr Pfeiffer needs some lessons in punctuation and grammar. There is one notable thing in his letter: removing the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle leaving the laity with the impression Our Lord was present? That's scandalous if true.
I'd give Fr. Chazal the same benefit of the doubt.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is not proof they're innocent. The question remains, did Fr. Chazal or or +W knowingly remove the Blessed Sacrament without telling the laity? No accusations on my part, just wondering if they have an explanation. Please deny (or not) so people can know.
That Is worth two puffs of gas from the south end of a north-bound cow.
I'm no expert on Canon Law, but isn't sanity a requirement of being made a bishop?It's certainly a requirement for being allowed to confect sacraments, whether priest or bishop.
:incense:... "Broadstairs Palace." ... forcibly confined to the dungeon---surely every palace comes equipped with one---....
I'm just waiting for Pfeiffer to claim St. Michael came down from Heaven and conferred the bishopric upon him.Or maybe "pope" michael.
OPEN LETTER TO FR PFEIFFER...and forget Pablo.
Dear Fr Pfeiffer,
...and forget Pablo.Well, bishop Williamson told Fr. Pfeiffer that if the bishop were to help Fr. Pfeiffer then pablo (Mr. Hernandez the "lay exorcist") had go. The other condition was that Fr. Pfeiffer had to stay put and tend the seminary (no more travelling the world). Seems to me like a reasonable trade.
Well, bishop Williamson told Fr. Pfeiffer that if the bishop were to help Fr. Pfeiffer then pablo (Mr. Hernandez the "lay exorcist") had go. The other condition was that Fr. Pfeiffer had to stay put and tend the seminary (no more travelling the world). Seems to me like a reasonable trade.
The problem is two-fold:
1. Fr. Pfeiffer won't accept anyone telling him what to do, not even a bishop Fr. Pfeiffer seeks to place himself under. This has been a problem since his SSPX days. It is why fr. Pfeiffer got "rid" of Moran the first time. Moran declared, from the pulpit, he had jurisdiction over OLMC.
2. Fr. Pfeiffer has become ensnared by the warlock Pablo.
It is against canon law for a priest to go a long time without a superior. "Long time" is not defined, but certainly eight years would count as a long time.
It is against canon law for a priest to go a long time without a superior. "Long time" is not defined, but certainly eight years would count as a long time.
So then "refusing to ordain his seminarians" actually translates into "refusing to ordain [them] on Father Pfeiffer's terms". So it is Father Pfeiffer himself who has led those seminarians into a no-man's land.Clearly.
You can't normally just shop around for a superior.These are not normal times in which we live, but surely there is good reason for requiring priests to have a superior. Perhaps one reason is for checks and balances, so they don't go crazy like Fr. Pfeiffer has done. There are very many bishops around and every priest should be able to have a superior.
As for the events in Maasin, again an inverted accusatory behavior.
The pfeifferites wanted me out of the chapel, tampered with the locks, removed altar cards, missal and candlesticks, and tampered with the tabernacle.
Mrs N, the owner, who wants me to stay wrote a letter for them to cease and desist, and this behavior made sure most of the group is not defecting, even if the group is down to thirty, all iin all.
Same as June Mark, they can all witness that the lock was tempered, replaced with another lock. We removed that lock, then they put theirs back on, witholding the keys, so the door of the Tabernacle doesn t shut.
Consequently i told repeatedly before each sermons i regret i cannot reserve the Blessed Sacrament in those circuмstances. We blew the candle, and everybody knows there is no Blessed Sacrament, since spies are sent to monitor what i am doing.
Therefore there was no idolatrous practices, so called. Mrs N is bed ridden and won t be with us for long, It is not her fault if the place is not well protected.
The place was never too canonical anyways, we never minded because of the crisis, and the incoming final solution by a new building is coming soon.
But a red line has been crossed. A month ago, Fr Pfeiffer consecrated the Blessed Sacrament and left the Tabernacle open, without keys. I was baffled and immediately removed the Blessed Sacrament.
The local pfeifferites now go to the diocese latin mass, which is a total sham. I am not surprised Fr Pfeiffer took their lies based on frustration of us not being thrown out and keeping the good elements of the group.
As you can see on the picture, we are finishing a proper Church in Maasin to replace the present inadequate premisses. Fr Pfeiffer won t be able to invite himself over there.
I hope the ordination of June Mark will take place there.
German and Jєωιѕн (αѕнкenαzιc): from an agent derivative of Middle High German pfif(e), German Pfeife ‘whistle’, ‘pipe’, hence an occupational name for a pipe player.
Is Pfeiffer a crypto-Jew? That might explain his madness and apparent diabolical spirit at the cult circus in KY, other than the possibility that the Mexican warlock has some sort of control file on him besides a spell.
FR. CHAZAL RESPONDS:Rendering tabernacles useless...
Pfeiffer surname meaningThe Pfeiffers admit to a Jєωιѕн bloodline from the mother’s side.
https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=pfeiffer
German and Jєωιѕн (αѕнкenαzιc): from an agent derivative of Middle High German pfif(e), German Pfeife ‘whistle’, ‘pipe’, hence an occupational name for a pipe player.
Is Pfeiffer a crypto-Jew? That might explain his madness and apparent diabolical spirit at the cult circus in KY, other than the possibility that the Mexican warlock has some sort of control file on him besides a spell.
The Pfeiffers admit to a Jєωιѕн bloodline from the mother’s side.CathInfo has known this for years. So it's no secret.
The Pfeiffers admit to a Jєωιѕн bloodline from the mother’s side.
Well, bishop Williamson told Fr. Pfeiffer that if the bishop were to help Fr. Pfeiffer then pablo (Mr. Hernandez the "lay exorcist") had go. The other condition was that Fr. Pfeiffer had to stay put and tend the seminary (no more travelling the world). Seems to me like a reasonable trade.
The problem is two-fold:
1. Fr. Pfeiffer won't accept anyone telling him what to do, not even a bishop Fr. Pfeiffer seeks to place himself under. This has been a problem since his SSPX days. It is why fr. Pfeiffer got "rid" of Moran the first time. Moran declared, from the pulpit, he had jurisdiction over OLMC.
2. Fr. Pfeiffer has become ensnared by the warlock Pablo.
It is against canon law for a priest to go a long time without a superior. "Long time" is not defined, but certainly eight years would count as a long time.
:incense:+Bp. W. should keep all the items needed for an exorcism in his "Broadstairs Palace." Should Fr. Pf. make another surprise appearance, he should be forcibly confined to the dungeon---surely every palace comes equipped with one---and there exorcized by His Lordship.Can you share which Canon law this is or cut and paste it? Thanks.
I'm no expert on Canon Law, but isn't sanity a requirement of being made a bishop?
Well, no Traditional Catholic priest or even bishop has any CANONICAL superior anyway, which is what is meant by Canon Law. You can't normally just shop around for a superior.Is this also from the 1917 Canon law? Can you cut and paste it or tell me which one it is? Thanks.
Is this also from the 1917 Canon law? Can you cut and paste it or tell me which one it is? Thanks.
Sure enough -- Fr. Chazal was completely innocent. Canon Law requires that the Blessed Sacrament be under several keys: the tabernacle, the building itself, etc. If the tabernacle doesn't lock for whatever reason, the Blessed Sacrament must be removed. Fr. Chazal did exactly what he should have done in those circuмstances.Can you share which Canon law you are referring to? Thanks.
Why am I not surprised that the Pfeifferites were playing games, changing locks, messing with the tabernacle, etc. How do they look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night? They're clearly of bad will. They need to meditate on the shortness of life, and the great length of Eternity.
Can you share which Canon law you are referring to? Thanks.Quit being a gamma and Google it.
Can you share which Canon law this is or cut and paste it? Thanks.As noted, I am NOT well versed in Canon Law, however, I possess common sense and a sense of humor. Since I don't pretend to know Canon Law, my statement about sanity being prerequisite for a priest to be consecrated a bishop demonstrates the aforementioned attributes.
No specific Canon. All jurisdiction in the Church must derive ultimately from the Pope. One cannot be the superior of another Catholic without deriving said superiority from the Pope.
It is against canon law for a priest to go a long time without a superior. "Long time" is not defined, but certainly eight years would count as a long time.
Well, no Traditional Catholic priest or even bishop has any CANONICAL superior anyway, which is what is meant by Canon Law. You can't normally just shop around for a superior.
Is this from the 1917 canon law? Can you share which one it is?
Can. 265 Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.Thank you posting these canons, but I think these are from the 1983 code of canon law.
Can. 283 §1. Even if clerics do not have a residential office, they nevertheless are not
to be absent from their diocese for a notable period of time, to be determined by
particular law, without at least the presumed permission of their proper ordinary.
Interestingly:
Can. 561 No one is permitted to celebrate the Eucharist, administer the sacraments, or
perform other sacred functions in the church without the permission of the rector or
another legitimate superior; this permission must be granted or denied according to the
norm of law.
(Fr. Pfeiffer's "term" as rector was for six months, if I recall correctly. His term expired. He is no longer a rector.)
And:
Can. 608 A religious community must live in a legitimately established house under
the authority of a superior designated according to the norm of law.
(Where is the legitimate superior of OLMC? Fr. Pfeiffer and his entourage can claim all they want that b. Fellay is their superior, but it just ain't so.)
Thank you posting these canons, but I think these are from the 1983 code of canon law.Some do, actually.
Do you know if the SSPX and other traditional groups acknowledge the 1983 code of canon law?
Leonn, Traditional priests are in a situation (necessity/emergency) brought about by the crisis in the Church, where it is, generally speaking, morally impossible for them to be under the direct authority of their legitimate superiors, because those in authority are using that authority, not at the service of the Faith, but to destroy faith and morals. Bishop Williamson talks about this split between truth and authority again in his recent Eleison Comments.
This is the concern that the Resistance has with the SSPX, that it is now willing to place itself under this corrupt authority which is destroying the Church, and accept jurisdiction from them. This will place them in a position which they themselves had always taught will lead them to slowly but surely lose the faith, "it would mean our death" they repeatedly said.
Obedience is at the service of the Faith, and the Laws of the Church are for the salvation of souls: suprema lex, salus animarum, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.
"Canon Law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God" - Pope Pius XII, Address to the clerical students of Rome, June 24, 1939
You may find the following explanation useful. It is from the study by Fr Francois Pivert "Schism or Not" which was published after the 1988 Consecrations:
Canonical considerations excerpted by Fr Patrice Laroche SSPX from a study by Dr Georg May, President of the Seminary of Canon Law at the University of Mainz, entitled 'Legitimate Defence, Resistance, Necessity', drawn up in 1984:
"The 1917 Code of Canon Law spoke of necessity in Canon 2205.2 and 3; the 1983 Code of Canon Law deals with it in Canon 1324.4 and 1324.1 and 5... it is clear from the context that necessity is a state where goods necessary for life are put in danger in such a way that to come out of this state the violation of certain laws is inevitable. The Code recognises necessity as a circuмstance which exempts from all penalties in case of violation of the law (1324.4)... no latae sententiae penalty can be incurred by anyone who has acted in this circuмstance (1324.3)... In the Church, as in civil society, it is conceivable that there arrive a state of necessity or emergency which cannot be surmounted by the observance of positive law. Such a situation exists in the Church when the endurance, order or activity of the Church are threatened or harmed in a considerable manner. This threat can bear principally on ecclesiastical teaching, the liturgy and discipline. A state of necessity justifies the law of necessity. The law of necessity in the Church is the sum total of juridical rules which apply in case of a menace to the perpetuity or activity of the Church... The law of necessity also includes the positive authorisation to take measures, launch initiatives, create organisms which are necessary so that the Church can continue its mission of preaching the divine truth and dispensing the grace of God. The law of necessity uniquely justifies the measures which are necessary for a restoration of functions in the Church... In a situation of necessity the pastors of the Church can take extraordinary measures to protect or reestablish the activity of the Church. If an organ does not carry out its necessary or indispensable functions, the other organs have the duty and the right to use the power they have in the Church, so that the life of the Church is guaranteed and its end attained. If the authorities of the Church refuse this, the responsibility of other members of the Church increases, but also their juridical competence."
Some do, actually.
To help you:
1983 #265 is 1917 #111
1983 #283 is 1917 #143
1983 #561 is 1917 #484
1983 #608 is 1917 #597
Your comment poses a situation. The Resistance priests say that they must keep a distance from SSPX because it is now placing itself under Rome, who is misusing its authority to destroy faith and morals. What is to prevent a portion of the Resistance priests to keep a distance from other Resistance priests for a variety of reasons (e.g. not upholding the teachings of ABL as they interpret, and disagreements on discipline); for example, the situation that arose in the 1980s leading to the split between one portion of the Resistance clergy (now called Sedevacantists) and with another portion of the Resistance clergy (i.e. SSPX)Precisely, Leonn, this is exactly what is happening.
Precisely, Leonn, this is exactly what is happening.The chaos and especially, the divisions extending all the way through down to the Resistance, Sedevacantists, and even "independent" priests have left me without Mass, Sacraments, and anyone with whom to pray. I'm a sheep wandering alone in the wilderness and barren lands. Those representing themselves as shepherds have proven to be wolves.
This is the predicament in which we now find ourselves.
As Bishop Williamson keeps saying, "The Shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered".
Unity and authority in the Church come down from the Pope, and when he goes astray, all chaos breaks loose, as we can see.
It is worth reading the last two Eleison Comments about this which are posted on this site
It seems only a miracle will restore the Church now, and the message of Fatima gives us that hope.
Division, however, is the history of the Church. Look at the tens of thousands of sects that have split off all down through the ages, even in better times when authority was faithful. Likewise, it is the history of the SSPX. I think many people don't realise just how many divisions there have been, scarcely a year going by without some group leaving to the left or the right. So too now with the Resistance. Alas, when human beings are involved, it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Our consolation is that, even though the truth be overshadowed, God will never abandon any soul of good will that earnestly seeks Him. Let us take heed lest we fall, and be full of charity for our neighbor and our erring brethren in these confused times.
The chaos and especially, the divisions extending all the way through down to the Resistance, Sedevacantists, and even "independent" priests have left me without Mass, Sacraments, and anyone with whom to pray. I'm a sheep wandering alone in the wilderness and barren lands. Those representing themselves as shepherds have proven to be wolves.
Thank you St. Peter.I grow weary of assumptions on this forum and will not entertain them.
If the 1983 code and the 1917 code refer to the same canons, then they would be speaking about a situation where clerics are part of a particular church or personal prelature, and a diocese.
From what I understand, SSPX describes its places of prayer and worship as chapels and not as churches. It is not clear if the places of worship among other traditional groups (Independent, Sedevacantist, etc) are also called chapels or churches. Do you know if SSPX chapels fall under a diocese? Will the canon laws (Can. 265, 283 #1) apply to chapels?
The chaos and especially, the divisions extending all the way through down to the Resistance, Sedevacantists, and even "independent" priests have left me without Mass, Sacraments, and anyone with whom to pray. I'm a sheep wandering alone in the wilderness and barren lands. Those representing themselves as shepherds have proven to be wolves.Well said, Seraphina!
I grow weary of assumptions on this forum and will not entertain them.
If you want to know what the canons say and refer to, read them.
The SSPX was legitimately established as a missionary order. They sometimes forget that, and call their chapels "parishes". And, yes, canon law applies to them.
Fr. Pfeiffer, his group, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Raphael, etc, are "transient clerics" as they have no bishop and are not part of a properly established order, diocese, etc.
Fr. Pfeiffer, his group, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Raphael, etc, are "transient clerics" as they have no bishop and are not part of a properly established order, diocese, etc.I recently separated from our chapel of one priest named by you here, and we are wondering if you can give us some advice on the problems with "transient clerics" so that we will be armed in the future and not get duped again. The most noticeable problem was that the lone priest leader seems to take on a role that he is the only and high authority and all must fall into line with all his OPINIONS no matter what, or else. This has also been almost radically the situation that is expected by all the sheep in the group, or else. It became very uncomfortable in that the sheep seemed to be choosing to be under the emotional control of the priest without thinking in a healthy ways for themselves. Also, the sheep knowing the mindset of the priest in all things, would seek validation from the priest by all the ways a child would do so with their teacher, sports coach, or other leader they wish to impress.
The chaos and especially, the divisions extending all the way through down to the Resistance, Sedevacantists, and even "independent" priests have left me without Mass, Sacraments, and anyone with whom to pray. I'm a sheep wandering alone in the wilderness and barren lands. Those representing themselves as shepherds have proven to be wolves.
I recently separated from our chapel of one priest named by you here, and we are wondering if you can give us some advice on the problems with "transient clerics" so that we will be armed in the future and not get duped again. The most noticeable problem was that the lone priest leader seems to take on a role that he is the only and high authority and all must fall into line with all his OPINIONS no matter what, or else. This has also been almost radically the situation that is expected by all the sheep in the group, or else. It became very uncomfortable in that the sheep seemed to be choosing to be under the emotional control of the priest without thinking in a healthy ways for themselves. Also, the sheep knowing the mindset of the priest in all things, would seek validation from the priest by all the ways a child would do so with their teacher, sports coach, or other leader they wish to impress.
It reminds me of people in protestant sects that I have talked to who nearly always regard their elders, pastors, etc.
as the end all authority no matter what is the situation. I always refer to this type of situation as that their leader is like unto a pope to them.
Thank you very much for your help to further reflect on "transient clerics" from anyone else here at Cathinfo who has any advice to share.
We obviously need to respect our priests, and they do have a certain amount of authority that comes merely from their exalted state due to their Ordination and operating in persona Christi. But they do not have any canonical or doctrinal authority. So, for instance, if a priest preaches something from the pulpit I don't agree with, I might talk to him about it, but I will not go around the parish rabble-rousing against the priest. So, for instance, if a Priest is R&R, while I am sedevacantist, I'm not going to go around his chapel promoting sedevacantism, or leave pro-sedevacantist pamphlets all over the church, etc. If someone asks me my opinion, I would give it honestly, but I would not cause issues at the chapel. But I do not feel any obligation to become R&R myself, since he doesn't have any authority to impose his opinion on consciences. That's where his authority ends, IMO.I agree. Also remember that their jurisdiction is very limited, so they cannot act as a regular parish priest.
When all else fails, try the Roman Catholic Church. It is indefectible and the good priests within are far superior to those without.
Are you saying that Traditional chapels aren't part of the Catholic Church, outside of which one can't be saved?
In other threads you were asking people where the One True visible Church (with the Four Marks) is to be found.
As the moderator of this forum, I demand an answer: Where do you go to Mass?
Praeter has stated before that he doesn't believe that priests without explicit jurisdiction can validly hear Confessions. So, for instance, he would hold that the Confessions heard by Resistance priests are invalid.
Several CI members have a problem with poche (and he drives them nuts), because he attends the Novus Ordo. But that doesn't bother me nearly as much as those who SEE the Crisis in the Church -- they believe in the Crisis -- yet they reject the whole Traditional Movement on principle, and attend the Novus Ordo (or stay home alone, not attending Mass anywhere). Such people vocally criticize the Trad movement as being illegitimate, and not an option for Catholics.What about people who go to eastern rite chapels? FSSP? Latin mass in the diocese?
Those who merely attend the Novus Ordo out of ignorance and/or stupidity can't drive me nuts, or I'd be nuts! After all, there are close to a billion "Catholics" most of which attend the post-Vatican II protestantized Mass. If I let them get to me, I'd be insane already.
What bothers me is those who claim to see the Crisis, and by all calculations SHOULD BE a Traditional Catholic, attending Mass at SOME Traditional Catholic chapel somewhere -- pick a group. But yet they don't. They reject the legitimacy of the Traditional Movement, talking about jurisdiction, the visibility of the Church, etc.
There is no "group" I believe in more strongly than the Traditional Movement, which started immediately after Vatican II. That is the group I identify with, and will defend to my dying breath. That is why I supported the SSPX for a long time, and why I support the Resistance today. They were/are merely faithful branches, sane and prudent implementations, of that movement.
What about people who go to eastern rite chapels? FSSP? Latin mass in the diocese?
I see no reason per se why there’s any inconsistency between any of these and belief in a crisis.
Even if it’s not the right answer, I could see someone with no good options thinking some/many NOs are better than absolutely nothing also not being inconsistent with that belief
Those who stay in the Novus Ordo, FSSP, diocesan Indult, etc. at least don't have a problem with the Conciliar Church. They see no major Crisis, just a few "implementation hiccups" that took place at Vatican II. So their truck/commerce with the Conciliar Church is understandable.I assumed praeter was more of an indult leaning type, whether he attends the post Francis sspx or not. Am I wrong about him?
The group I describe -- dogmatic home aloners -- who stay aloof from the whole world of Tradition, despite a full acknowledgement to the Crisis in the Church and the evils of Vatican II, is sick and boggles my mind. It's the worst kind of error.
I recently separated from our chapel of one priest named by you here, and we are wondering if you can give us some advice on the problems with "transient clerics" so that we will be armed in the future and not get duped again. The most noticeable problem was that the lone priest leader seems to take on a role that he is the only and high authority and all must fall into line with all his OPINIONS no matter what, or else. This has also been almost radically the situation that is expected by all the sheep in the group, or else. It became very uncomfortable in that the sheep seemed to be choosing to be under the emotional control of the priest without thinking in a healthy ways for themselves. Also, the sheep knowing the mindset of the priest in all things, would seek validation from the priest by all the ways a child would do so with their teacher, sports coach, or other leader they wish to impress.Transient clerics can have many issues. This is why the Church, in her wisdom, says there should be none of them.
It reminds me of people in protestant sects that I have talked to who nearly always regard their elders, pastors, etc.
as the end all authority no matter what is the situation. I always refer to this type of situation as that their leader is like unto a pope to them.
Thank you very much for your help to further reflect on "transient clerics" from anyone else here at Cathinfo who has any advice to share.
We obviously need to respect our priests, and they do have a certain amount of authority that comes merely from their exalted state due to their Ordination and operating in persona Christi. But they do not have any canonical or doctrinal authority. So, for instance, if a priest preaches something from the pulpit I don't agree with, I might talk to him about it, but I will not go around the parish rabble-rousing against the priest. So, for instance, if a Priest is R&R, while I am sedevacantist, I'm not going to go around his chapel promoting sedevacantism, or leave pro-sedevacantist pamphlets all over the church, etc. If someone asks me my opinion, I would give it honestly, but I would not cause issues at the chapel. But I do not feel any obligation to become R&R myself, since he doesn't have any authority to impose his opinion on consciences. That's where his authority ends, IMO.The problem I have had is not a sede having trouble at an R&R chapel, but an R&R having trouble at a sede chapel.
Those who stay in the Novus Ordo, FSSP, diocesan Indult, etc. at least don't have a problem with the Conciliar Church. They see no major Crisis, just a few "implementation hiccups" that took place at Vatican II. So their truck/commerce with the Conciliar Church is understandable.
It is not the norm for the adherents of SSPX chapels to call their chapels a "parish". Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to make the distinction, because he did not intend to set up a counter-church. If some SSPX adherents make the mistake of calling their SSPX chapel a "Parish," it's not the end of the world.Meg,
In a crisis situation, the regular and new code of canon law does not necessarily apply. I don't believe that the new code of canon law addresses times of crisis. Do you agree that we are in a crisis situation?
Some (certainly not all) who attend the FSSP do have a problem with the conciliar church, and the new mass, and they do see a major crisis. The issue of why they do not attend an SSPX or Resistance chapel may vary, but it could be that despite the crisis, they still think that they HAVE to be attached to the "official church." I'm just relating my experience of having attended an FSSP parish, though I wasn't very involved there.Assumptions get no one anywhere.
Or, they may have had a problem with the SSPX in the past (as I did), or maybe no other option is available where they live, such as no SSPX, independent, or Resistance chapel is available (or something like that).
Unless this Fr. Carley has been appointed by his diocesan NO superior, he should not be called a pastor.
---------
Is that enough examples for you?
It is clear most sspx chapels use the words churches, parishes and pastors in describing themselves. It is a big deal because it goes against what ABL taught and it goes against what the SSPX what created as: missionaries.
It is deceit, plain and simple.
The problem I have had is not a sede having trouble at an R&R chapel, but an R&R having trouble at a sede chapel.Assuming the R + R in question is comfortable in conscience assiting/communing in a sede chapel, what Ladislaus said would still hold. You don't go into someone's house and be disruptive. And these men *are* priests (even if you think they're illicit) so they're still due respect on that front.
It is clear most sspx chapels use the words churches, parishes and pastors in describing themselves. It is a big deal because it goes against what ABL taught and it goes against what the SSPX what created as: missionariesThey were always called Mission Centres
Please explain what you mean by the SSPX being created as "Missionaries," because I don't recall that Archbishop Lefebvre himself used that descriptor for SSPX.Research and read.
Assuming the R + R in question is comfortable in conscience assiting/communing in a sede chapel, what Ladislaus said would still hold. You don't go into someone's house and be disruptive. And these men *are* priests (even if you think they're illicit) so they're still due respect on that front.What I have found is that the sedes don't want anyone but sedes at their chapel, period.
Whether the R + R should go to the sede chapel is another question, and one I don't really even feel 100% comfortable answering for myself, let alone someone else
Precisely, Leonn, this is exactly what is happening.Thank you Plenus Venter. Your comment does help, but also causes much pain as I read it.
This is the predicament in which we now find ourselves.
As Bishop Williamson keeps saying, "The Shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered".
Unity and authority in the Church come down from the Pope, and when he goes astray, all chaos breaks loose, as we can see.
It is worth reading the last two Eleison Comments about this which are posted on this site
It seems only a miracle will restore the Church now, and the message of Fatima gives us that hope.
Division, however, is the history of the Church. Look at the tens of thousands of sects that have split off all down through the ages, even in better times when authority was faithful. Likewise, it is the history of the SSPX. I think many people don't realise just how many divisions there have been, scarcely a year going by without some group leaving to the left or the right. So too now with the Resistance. Alas, when human beings are involved, it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Our consolation is that, even though the truth be overshadowed, God will never abandon any soul of good will that earnestly seeks Him. Let us take heed lest we fall, and be full of charity for our neighbor and our erring brethren in these confused times.
Transient clerics can have many issues. This is why the Church, in her wisdom, says there should be none of them.
It is not the norm for the adherents of SSPX chapels to call their chapels a "parish". Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to make the distinction, because he did not intend to set up a counter-church. If some SSPX adherents make the mistake of calling their SSPX chapel a "Parish," it's not the end of the world.
In a crisis situation, the regular and new code of canon law does not necessarily apply. I don't believe that the new code of canon law addresses times of crisis. Do you agree that we are in a crisis situation?
The SSPX was legitimately established as a missionary order. They sometimes forget that, and call their chapels "parishes". And, yes, canon law applies to them.
St. Peter, what or who is a transient cleric? I have not come across this order. Are these independent priests?Leon, please read replies when you ask questions.
St. PeterIn a crisis of the Church, canon law is not thrown out the window! This is the asinine teaching of Fr. Pfeiffer.
St. Peter and Meg, you bring up two different views, i.e. the applicability and non-applicability of canon law in a crisis situation. Do you know the views of the Priest/Bishops with regards to applicability/non-applicability of canon law among different Traditional groups (SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantism)? Are only some canon laws applied while others are not applied? For example, CMRI and SSPX both appeal to supplied jurisdiction, but both diverge on their views about the Popes after Vatican II.
Thank you Plenus Venter. Your comment does help, but also causes much pain as I read it.Leonn, unity must be in the truth, the Faith, otherwise we might as well go with the One World Religion in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr (which is pretty much the same as saying follow Pope Francis!). What would we be 'united' in? The truth necessarily divides, those who reject it and 'split off' bring discredit to themselves, not the truth which they leave. It is there for all to find.
Our Lord says in Sacred Scripture “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt xii: 25). If the Resistance continues to divide and split, then in a short span of time, there will be no unity. And a similar situation will arise with those who currently attend SSPX and other traditional chapels. But it seems unlikely that Rome will lose unity, even though they have gone down the slippery slope of modernism. Isn’t unity one of the four marks of Our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. How should one explain this conundrum?
St. Peter, what or who is a transient cleric? I have not come across this order. Are these independent priests?
I have a feeling "Plenus Venter" is a priest -- just throwing that out there, so everyone makes sure to give him proper respect.Ha ha! God bless you Matthew, but it is not so!
Ha ha! God bless you Matthew, but it is not so!Well, if you have a background not unlike Matthew's, Mr. Venter, we'd still better show you respect! :incense:
I have a background not unlike your own...
Research and read.
The SSPX was set up as a missionary order. That is how it was able to have chapels (mission centers) all over the globe.
St. Peter
St. Peter and Meg, you bring up two different views, i.e. the applicability and non-applicability of canon law in a crisis situation. Do you know the views of the Priest/Bishops with regards to applicability/non-applicability of canon law among different Traditional groups (SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantism)? Are only some canon laws applied while others are not applied? For example, CMRI and SSPX both appeal to supplied jurisdiction, but both diverge on their views about the Popes after Vatican II.
He (or she) is making up a term -- no one else uses it.
There is already an official and widely-used term for what "St. Peter" is talking about: a vagus priest. It is a priest without a superior. No bishop, no religious order. A priest who wanders the earth, answering to no one but himself, offering Mass wherever the spirit takes him, or wherever he feels like it.
As someone else said: You don't throw out Canon Law, Church practice, prudence, and Tradition just because there is a Crisis in the Church. There are plenty of Traditional orders and Traditional bishops that a priest may choose from. He just needs to choose one!
I asked you about Archbishop Lefebvre referring to the SSPX as only as missionary order. For one thing, the SSPX has never been an 'order.' It was set up as a fraternity. There's a difference. Do you know the difference between orders and fraternities?Meg,
When did +ABL ever refer to the SSPX as a missionary order (your claim) or fraternity? You mention that calling SSPX chapels 'parishes' or 'churches' goes against what +ABL taught, but why should you care about what +ABL taught, since he did not teach that the SSPX is limited as a missionary fraternity?
Are you affiliated with the FSSP or the conciliar hierarchy? Or maybe just a disgruntled former SSPX adherent?
Meg,
I have a copy of the original statutes of the sspx set up by ABL somewhere, but I have neither the time nor the energy to find it for you. Forgive me.
These links may help you:
https://fsspx.uk/en/about/history
https://www.romancatholicman.com/understanding-concerns-sspx/ (especially near the end, for you)
Good luck in your research.
Those who stay in the Novus Ordo, FSSP, diocesan Indult, etc. at least don't have a problem with the Conciliar Church. They see no major Crisis, just a few "implementation hiccups" that took place at Vatican II. So their truck/commerce with the Conciliar Church is understandable.That isnt necessarily true. Have you listened to some of the sermons on Sensus Fidelium? Fai4 bit 9f anti-V2/anti-Modernist sentiment am9ng those priests. FSSP/Indult is a very m8xed bag. ( some Modernists, but also some priests and faithful who are very Traditional)
The group I describe -- dogmatic home aloners -- who stay aloof from the whole world of Tradition, despite a full acknowledgement to the Crisis in the Church and the evils of Vatican II, is sick and boggles my mind. It's the worst kind of error.
It's up to you to provide proof and post it, in order to back up your claim. I'm not going to research anything.If you want the information you will have to put in a little effort. Good luck to you.
What exactly is your motive for posting here? Are you trying to point out the excesses that exist in Tradition? If, so, then I, for one, am already aware of the excesses. One needn't go any further than this forum to see the problems that exist in Tradition. But one must be honest in their assessment of what constitutes excess (or error?).
Can. 265 Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.Are the other two priests you mentioned, Fathers Hewko and Raphael also in this same category of transient/vagus priests?
It was the same person who used the term transient clerics who also said "In a crisis of the Church, canon law is not thrown out the window! "
I agree with you 100% that there are plenty of legit orders and bishops around for priests to choose from, but it is not just about the priest choosing. The bishop/order must also accept the priest.
For example, Fr. Pfeiffer says his superior is b. Fellay. Fr. Pfeiffer can say it all he wants, but it doesn't make it so. B. Fellay has made it perfectly clear that fr. Pfeiffer is no longer sspx and no longer his subordinate.
Are the other two priests you mentioned, Fathers Hewko and Raphael also in this same category of transient/vagus priests?Yes, they are, for they have no superior and are not members of an order/diocese. The following are other transient clerics I am aware of: Fr. Vargas, Fr. Ruiz, "Fr." Poisson, Fr. Roberts, and "Fr" Cordaro.
Is Can.265 from the code of canon law of 1983 or of another?
Thank you very much for your help and God Bless you.
What is STAS?
I have it on good authority ( as in 100% certain) that Fr. Pfeiffer went to STAS Seminary last week( went into the chapel with his seminarians and was promptly kicked out) This after all of his attacks against the SSPX.
He’s gone crazy
I have it on good authority ( as in 100% certain) that Fr. Pfeiffer went to STAS Seminary last week( went into the chapel with his seminarians and was promptly kicked out) This after all of his attacks against the SSPX.Truly bizarre. Why would he do such a thing? It has been nearly eight years since he was kicked out. It seems to me that the point of his "Seminary" and existence is to criticize and prove the evils of the SSPX (and anyone else who doesn't agree with him), when it should be focused on spreading the Catholic Faith. Having traveled all over the religious landscape before discovering Tradition, I can almost predict with 100% certainty he will find himself with two to zero parishioners. When "church" splits occur, what holds the split off group together is "what is wrong with the place we left." If this remains the focus and unifying factor, it's doomed. The young people don't want to hear about the wicked people their parents left behind---to them it's ancient history, having no bearing on their present or future life. How long before one tires of beating a dead horse? So, the Society has gone down the Consiliar trail. Let it be and move on.
He’s gone crazy
I believe Fr. Pfeiffer's nephew may have received tonsure on Feb 2nd. That may have been the reason for his visit to STAS, although it was still a very bad idea.
Fr. Pfeiffer went to STAS Seminary last week( went into the chapel with his seminariansWas this a scheduled "field trip" for Fr Pfeiffer's seminary? Or did they have classes at the airport during layovers? :laugh1:
“Young people don’t want to beat a dead horse”You sound like a moron. Read what Fr. Pagliarani has actually said
That is the exact reason I heard for the SSPX not standing up against Modernist Rome. Young people were tired of hearing it....I can see that to a point, however the SSPX has totally lost the fight...now young people aren’t given anything to stand up for...no battle cry to defend the faith.
Hundred year old stories of apparitions, visions and Saints is no longer real to them. Before the SSPX gave them something to fight for. The barking dog has become a whimpering puppy.
You sound like a moron. Read what Fr. Pagliarani has actually said
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitpJzjx9vnAhU1hHIEHcLFC2wQxfQBCCgwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffsspx.news%2Fen%2Fchurch-its-head-50632&usg=AOvVaw1HbFtHwPFofHTDAGdGCxV0 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitpJzjx9vnAhU1hHIEHcLFC2wQxfQBCCgwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffsspx.news%2Fen%2Fchurch-its-head-50632&usg=AOvVaw1HbFtHwPFofHTDAGdGCxV0)
Think so?Who is this man to speak for young SSPXers? I’m a young SSPXer and I see his comments as ridiculous. ( I endorse the letter written by the 7 Deans on the marriage situation) Don’t broad brush.
Here are the words of a young neo-SSPXer who thought nothing of being married by a conciliar priest (?) in a conciliar church:
“This next generation is free from the bitterness and resentment that it's predecessors are carrying. We grew with a love of the Catholic Church, a sadness to see it sick and divided, but above all a willingness stand up and fix it! In the meantime, feel free to call out heretics left and right like a self-proclaimed pope. I'll be right there in to NO churches doing my little part to "Restore all things in Christ" like our patron's motto says.”
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
This young man obviously distinguishes between the old SSPX and the neo-SSPX (judging the former to be “bitter” and counterproductive, but the neo-SSPX no longer fighting, but “helping”).
To him, fighting modernism and modernists = bad for the Church.
Cooperating with them = good for the Church.
In 16th century England, this generation of authority divorced from truth (aka legalism) would have made him an Anglican.
Exactly the opposite of the “bitter” +Lefebvre.
It is very obvious that this young man (the product of legalism + branding) is typical of the majority mindset in the SSPX today (proven by observing how few oppose marital delegation by the conciliar bishops, and the near-absence of anti-modernist polemics by clergy or faithful, among many additional indicators), and he is the first to point out the difference between his generation of limp non-resisters, and the previous generation of fighters.
In my day, this type of fake trad was only found in the Ecclesia Dei communities.
That the SSPX has lost the spirit of combat couldn’t be any plainer.
They are castrated, defeated men, licking the boots of their conciliar authorities (recognizing, but resisting nothing) in their mania to “cure” their “canonical abnormality,” and this has resulted in them making the Resistance their greatest enemy:
Woe to him who stands in between legalization and the SSPX!
Who is this man to speak for young SSPXers? I’m a young SSPXer and I see his comments as ridiculous. ( I endorse the letter written by the 7 Deans on the marriage situation) Don’t broad brush.Do other young men at your parish share the same concerns you have about the marriage agreement?
Who is this man to speak for young SSPXers? I’m a young SSPXer and I see his comments as ridiculous. ( I endorse the letter written by the 7 Deans on the marriage situation) Don’t broad brush.Then you are at odds with the leadership and official positions of the SSPX (and if praxis is any indicator, with 99% of the SSPX clergy and 90% of the faithful).
You sound like a moron. Read what Fr. Pagliarani has actually saidSettle down young fella, I’ve been attending SSPX Masses for over 35 years....I remember when they shouted from the roof tops against the sacrilege committed at NO “ Masses”. I remember pilgrimages of reperation for the many sins and blasphemies committed against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, I’ll never forget +Williamson talking about the great sins of omission and that by NOT pointing out these sins and shouting them out to protect souls. Actions speak louder than words young fella. Until I see the SG leading a pilgrimage of all his priests demanding that the NO church stop the sacrilege of Communion in the hand, and allowing unconsicrated hands from touching the Sacred Species , then maybe, just maybe, I’ll start to believe the SSPX is truly returning to the true faith. Actions speak louder than words. Words without actions are like meat on a deadman’s grave!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitpJzjx9vnAhU1hHIEHcLFC2wQxfQBCCgwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffsspx.news%2Fen%2Fchurch-its-head-50632&usg=AOvVaw1HbFtHwPFofHTDAGdGCxV0 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitpJzjx9vnAhU1hHIEHcLFC2wQxfQBCCgwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffsspx.news%2Fen%2Fchurch-its-head-50632&usg=AOvVaw1HbFtHwPFofHTDAGdGCxV0)
Think so?Very good post.
Here are the words of a young neo-SSPXer who thought nothing of being married by a conciliar priest (?) in a conciliar church:
“This next generation is free from the bitterness and resentment that it's predecessors are carrying. We grew with a love of the Catholic Church, a sadness to see it sick and divided, but above all a willingness stand up and fix it! In the meantime, feel free to call out heretics left and right like a self-proclaimed pope. I'll be right there in to NO churches doing my little part to "Restore all things in Christ" like our patron's motto says.”
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
This young man obviously distinguishes between the old SSPX and the neo-SSPX (judging the former to be “bitter” and counterproductive, but the neo-SSPX no longer fighting, but “helping”).
To him, fighting modernism and modernists = bad for the Church.
Cooperating with them = good for the Church.
In 16th century England, this generation of authority divorced from truth (aka legalism) would have made him an Anglican.
Exactly the opposite of the “bitter” +Lefebvre.
It is very obvious that this young man (the product of legalism + branding) is typical of the majority mindset in the SSPX today (proven by observing how few oppose marital delegation by the conciliar bishops, and the near-absence of anti-modernist polemics by clergy or faithful, among many additional indicators), and he is the first to point out the difference between his generation of limp non-resisters, and the previous generation of fighters.
In my day, this type of fake trad was only found in the Ecclesia Dei communities.
That the SSPX has lost the spirit of combat couldn’t be any plainer.
They are castrated, defeated men, licking the boots of their conciliar authorities (recognizing, but resisting nothing) in their mania to “cure” their “canonical abnormality,” and this has resulted in them making the Resistance their greatest enemy:
Woe to him who stands in between legalization and the SSPX!
Settle down young fella, I’ve been attending SSPX Masses for over 35 years....I remember when they shouted from the roof tops against the sacrilege committed at NO “ Masses”. I remember pilgrimages of reperation for the many sins and blasphemies committed against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, I’ll never forget +Williamson talking about the great sins of omission and that by NOT pointing out these sins and shouting them out to protect souls. Actions speak louder than words young fella. Until I see the SG leading a pilgrimage of all his priests demanding that the NO church stop the sacrilege of Communion in the hand, and allowing unconsicrated hands from touching the Sacred Species , then maybe, just maybe, I’ll start to believe the SSPX is truly returning to the true faith. Actions speak louder than words. Words without actions are like meat on a deadman’s grave!The SSPX does not need to follow your standard to be a serious Traditional organization. They don’t need to shout anything from the rooftops. They condemn Vatican 2( religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality, etc) and that is 3nough. Being Catholic isn’t all about polemics
Do other young men at your parish share the same concerns you have about the marriage agreement?I have discussed it with priests and they all say I may hold the position I hold
Have you voiced your opposition to your Priest, District Superior or the General Superior?
The SSPX does not need to follow your standard to be a serious Traditional organization. They don’t need to shout anything from the rooftops. They condemn Vatican 2( religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality, etc) and that is 3nough. Being Catholic isn’t all about polemicsPrayer without works is like meat on a deadman’s grave. The law of prayer is the law of belief. When you no longer openly condemn sacrilege and abuse against Our Lords most Precious Body and Blood and openly accept priests and Bishops without requiring they repent of these past abuses of Our Lords most Sacred Species, you commit a grave sin of omission and greatly scandalize the faithful.
I have discussed it with priests and they all say I may hold the position I holdIt appears that they disagreed with your position.
It appears that they disagreed with your position.There’s only one other young man at my parish and I’ve never asked him about what he thinks on this. There are a number of faithful I know at various chap3ld who share my views. That’s why I said don’t broad brush
Now back to the other question, Do other young men at your parish share the same concerns you have about the marriage agreement?
There’s only one other young man at my parish and I’ve never asked him about what he thinks on this. There are a number of faithful I know at various chap3ld who share my views. That’s why I said don’t broad brush:laugh1: :laugh2: :popcorn:
One of our priests(fairly young) recently gave a conference after Mass condemning the New Mass. I’m sorry, but this narrative about the SSPX going liberal doesn’t hold up
The SSPX does not need to follow your standard to be a serious Traditional organization. They don’t need to shout anything from the rooftops. They condemn Vatican 2( religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality, etc) and that is 3nough. Being Catholic isn’t all about polemicsThank you for your previous reply about the marriage agreement. Now regarding you statement: "They condemn Vatican 2( religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality, etc) and that is enough."
Thank you for your previous reply about the marriage agreement. Now regarding you statement: "They condemn Vatican 2( religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality, etc) and that is enough."What I mean is that as long as they condemn those things, no other problems should arise that are of any importance. Part of condemning religious liberty, ecuмenism, and collegiality means NOT associating with people who accept them( ie Conciliarists ) Fr. Gleize has given solid reasons for opposing agreement with Rome( and he’s the one they sent out to talk to Rome.)
Would you like to qualify or expand that statement OR do you actually mean that as long as they (SSPX) condemns Vatican II and the problems within the counsel docuмents, that is enough?
There’s only one other young man at my parish and I’ve never asked him about what he thinks on this. There are a number of faithful I know at various chap3ld who share my views. That’s why I said don’t broad brush
One of our priests(fairly young) recently gave a conference after Mass condemning the New Mass. I’m sorry, but this narrative about the SSPX going liberal doesn’t hold up
I can understand disagreeing with some of the Society’s prudential decisions but to say it’s gone Liberal is disingenuous
Fortunately, someone wrote this:Divine Mercy devotions were a weekly thing at the SSPX chapel in Campbell, CA since before 1984. This was under Father Gregory Post. Now that this chapel has relocated to Los Gatos I don't know the routine.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/)
Divine Mercy devotions, selling books by Ratzinger and von Balthasar, the Flying Squirrel, raising money for the FSSP, etc, etc.
Nope, no liberalism here!
Divine Mercy devotions were a weekly thing at the SSPX chapel in Campbell, CA since before 1984. This was under Father Gregory Post. Now that this chapel has relocated to Los Gatos I don't know the routine.
Bump.Good bump reminder.
All he needs to do is to go sedevacantist. Then he'd have his choice of about a half dozen Thuc-line bishops who would consecrate him and ordain his seminarians ... although not all lines are genuine, and, knowing Father Pfeiffer, he would end up picking one of the shady ones.