How long has Fr Pfeiffer been of this opinion? Is this new or has he said before (publicly) that those who know should not attend the SSPX?

My impression is that this is new since the entire "doctrinal preamble" +F sent Rome was released.  At least, it's the first time I've heard him say it.

Quote from: Matthew

Last but not least, I stand much more horrified at the prospect of Home-alone Catholicism.

I don't know if you remember Cletus, Matthew, but he was a "home-aloner" who despised the Cekada-coined term.  He considered himself an anti-chapeler.  Frankly, his stories and his defense of why he did things the way he did was notably solid and eloquent.  He did not say no one could find what they needed at a chapel, but that he had only found corruption, disgust, and was unable to grow spiritually within the atmosphere of the trad chapels he had attended.

IMO, it is pretty clear that the majority of trad chapels are, in fact, spiritually-toxic halls for those inordinately attached to the mere externals of our holy religion.  The letter is often in place, and even held in very high esteem, but the spirit is hard to detect or, in some cases, nowhere to be found.

Godspeed :)

Gladius,

I agree and good post.  There are different types of "home-aloners."  Some are very good Catholics, they do not have a schismatic spirit and do not attend a chapel for either the reasons you state, or in some other cases, they are not convinced that epikeia would apply in the case of the consecrations and ordinations of the traditionalist clergy.

But, in the latter case, they realize that this is only their judgment and do not condemn others who do not agree with them.  In this, they have a Catholic spirit, as we can disagree on matters of judgment, just not on matters of Faith.

It seems to me though that the majority of them that I am familiar with hold to a schismatic mentality.  

Unless the Liturgy itself is harmful to the faith, the priest is extremely poorly-formed, or some other insurmountable obstacle is present...

So, in your estimation, ALL SSPX chapels and ALL FSSP chapels are still fair game? I know that is not what you think, so...  Is there some insurmountable obstacle present at some or many of them?  If so, what is it?

Frankly, it seems as if you are misreading my initial comment and going into the (default) "anti-sede" defense mode when there is no need.  I just meant to draw attention to the fact that the Cekada-coined term is a bit nonsensical and tends to be applied to many people to whom it does not accurately apply.

We have the advantage those before Vatican II didn't: being forewarned. Though unfortunately, very few people make use of it until it's too late.

For reference from SSPX.org.

Question 13
What are we to think
of the Fraternity of St. Peter?
 
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass.

Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).

The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

1. It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:

- to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, question 5),

- to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),

- to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,

- to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).

2. In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:

- they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,

- they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and

- note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).

They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

This being so, attending their Mass is:

- accepting the compromise on which they are based,

- accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and

- accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

I would say that, in the end, it would be a prudential decision -- some people would line up in one place, and others would line up in another place.

I would hope it is a decision influenced by prudence: in the beginning, middle, end...ALL along.

Let's just say I wouldn't leave my chapel *lightly*...It's not a family custom -- it's more than that.

Agreed.  However, we live in an era during which an atomic bomb went off within the spiritual order before either of us were even born.  I tend to get tired of the lack of latitude that is granted to those who do not see things as others might.  Traddies tend to grant themselves IMMENSE latitude, even while they change positions themselves due to a new understanding, while granting little to none to those with whom they disagree.  You are an exception to the rule and a good example for others, Matthew.  Carry on...

For reference from SSPX.org.

Question 13
What are we to think
of the Fraternity of St. Peter?
 
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass.

Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).

The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

1. It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:

- to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, question 5),

- to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),

- to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,

- to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).

2. In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:

- they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,

- they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and

- note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).

They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

This being so, attending their Mass is:

- accepting the compromise on which they are based,

- accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and

- accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

Great find!

(If I weren't already married to you, I'd be proposing marriage right about now.)

I wonder how long until District HQ tosses this article down the memory hole.

It basically spells out the reasons to not attend SSPX Masses!

Ah, the irony!