This one was given on October 3rd after Mass by Fr. Chazal. This is the day that
Fr. Pfeiffer was oficially expelled from the SSPX, and notice, he makes no
mention of the fact in this impromptu talk. I don't know if he had been aware
yet, perhaps not, but this is one of his best speeches, IMHO.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20858&min=9&num=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbsr-FzzYs&feature=youtu.be SSPX
Fr. Joe Pfeiffer
&
Fr. Francois Chazal
'BETRAYED'
BY:
Neo-SSPX
3rd October 2012
[This (apparently) was an impromptu moment, when a small group of the
faithful, gathered in a private home in Singapore after Mass by Fr. Chazal,
in the living room, were given a 30-minute talk mostly by Fr. Pfeiffer (Fr.
Chazal's comments are shown in parenthesis), in response to someone
asking them why they had said Mass in the street in Manila two weeks
before this, and reporting that "Fr. Salvador said you both [had been]
given permission to say Mass in the Church." Fr. Joe said that was not true,
and immediately went on to explain his accusation. Then, by the time
'yours truly' [chrstnoel1] had the camera going, it had been about 5 minutes
gone. Hence, the 'missing link' of the conference. (Explained by chrstnoel1)
-- That is, 'hence,' the reason for this talk happening, since it was not
announced in advance, nor had these two Frs. had the chance to specifically
prepare this presentation.
IMHO -- these conditions allow a rather unique opportunity to observe a
"live" example of the abilities these two gifted orators have, to be capable
of organizing a most complex delivery practically on demand, without any
specific rehearsal. -- Some priests would never attempt such a thing,
especially on camera! Some priests always use a written copy they have
prepared. Some even go so far as to practice specific gestures they will
make as they preach. Not here. This is the "real deal." Note: some words
are indecipherable in the recording, and others I have had to play over
many times to take my best guess at what is being said. It is especially
challenging when both priests are talking quickly at the same time, and at
those times I have made no attempt to indicate which words are spoken
simultaneously along with which other words. Read this transcript and
watch the video at the same time, and see if you don't hear more than what
I have written here.]
[First 5 minutes are missing as this was not a planned speech.]
...Really horrible people.. What good does that do to us? We are not in
South Africa, and the South Africa problems have nothing to do with
Singapore. We have to tell you, 'These are the issues of faith, these are
the issues of morals, these are the troubles that you are dealing with right
here, right now, in this place.' So obviously as members of the Society
of St. Pius the tenth (hereinafter SSPX) and Catholic tradition, as priests of
Catholic tradition, we have a more grave obligation to point out the
errors and weaknesses within our community than we do outside the
community. We have an obligation to point out the serious..
change, that is
going on within the Society of St. Pius X, that is a
shift towards liberalism.
In the letter of September 22nd, which Fr. [Shmidtberger?] put out last week
and read out all throughout the Asian universe, says that there's always
been liberal priests and there's always been conservative priests, and 'He
who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.' In other words, we've
always known there's been priests liberal [sic] in the Society, so what's
the problem?
Well, that's a very big problem.
It's kind of like on a ship.. in which you say, we've always known there is
a guy in the bottom of the ship punching holes in the bottom of the ship -
- - - - what's the
problem!?
The problem is, if you allow someone to punch holes in the bottom of the
ship,
the ship's going to sink!! So, you're going to have to go down, and
take that sailor who's punching holes in the bottom of the ship, and you've
got to put him in the brig.
You can't say:
Well, we've always known [that's been goin' on. (?)] That's why we had
the last seven ships sank, and now we're on ship number eight! I mean,
come on, what's the problem?!?!That's no answer! [For the record, go to
TrueTrad.com to see a chronology of the other shipwrecks.]
2:00
So, and also, as if to say, well, there's always been liberal priests, it's just
individual priests that are the problem. This is not what we're talking
about. If it was only individual priests that were a problem, then it would
not be backed up by the superiors -- [it] would not be increasing,
increasing, and increasing -- [it] would not be the case that those priests
who are holding the traditional line of the SSPX are more and more
sidelined, more and more set aside, more and more punished, more and
more silenced.
Look at this: at the crisis of the last 4 months. Many priests have spoken
out about the deal with Rome. One of them's Fr. Laisney...... Is Fr. Laisney
being exiled? Is Fr. Laisney being silenced? Is Fr. Laisney being punished?
Now, according to the General Chapter, those priests who spoke out about
the issues are going to be silenced and punished. Well, that would mean
that those priests who spoke out in favor should be silenced, and those
priests who spoke out against should be silenced. But we are discovering,
only those priests who spoke out
against are being
seriously threatened, silenced, expelled, living in fear. (Fr. Chazal = transfers) Yeah,
and all the transfers. So..
There are so many punishments happening, only for the one side. And the
other side:
nothing. We're dealing with a liberal shift within the SSPX that has been going on for
several years - it's not something new - but, it has become
open in 2012,
because in 2,012 the
superiors have begun to be open.
Bishop Fellay said, on May 11th, 2012 in his Catholic News Service
interview, the United States Catholic, liberal news service, "What we would
have condemned, many things we would have condemned as 'errors of the
Council,' were in fact NOT errors of the Council, but they were
misunderstandings of it." In other words, what the SSPX taught before [as
being an] error of the Council, was in fact
not an error of the Council.
What are some of those things? What condemnation, whatever did
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre teach that was wrong? He just said ABL
taught something wrong. Well, okay, what was it?
Which were the "errors of the Council" that we used to teach were errors of
the Council, and were not errors of the Council? Now, he's been asked
that question, many times, Bishop Fellay, since May 11th, 2012, to the
present. And
he has not yet answered it. On June 14th, 2012, Fr. Hewko, a
priest in America, called Bishop Fellay, and said, "Your Excellency, you're
shaking the whole Society of St. Pius X. There is a worry and a discord
throughout the whole of the Catholic Tradition in the world because of your
ambiguous statements. You must clarify them!" He said, 'Oh, I know, they
were taken out of context.' They were taken out of context?! Okay, then
explain HOW they were taken out of context, and clarify the truth.
'Everything will become clearer at the General Chapter.' That was on
June 19th.
June 20th, the next day, Fr. Hewko received his first expulsion notice.
[It must have been drawn up before the phone call was concluded and
urgent delivery to Fr. Hewko.] Within 14 hours of the phone call, and all
smiles with Bishop Fellay.. within 14 hours, he received his first letter of
expulsion -- Canonical warning.
Now, July came.. July went.. There was no clarification of that May 11th
statement. (it's one of them ??) And even to this day there is
still no
clarification. What were "the errors of the SSPX of the past," that are
condemning errors of Vatican II, when they were not errors of Vatican II?
The main condemner of errors of Vatican II was the founder of the Society,
Archbishop Lefebvre, who wrote the book,
I Accuse the Council! Now,
all of a sudden, it's not so serious any more. No clarification. No answer.
When we mention these things in our letters, in our conversations with our
superiors, they do not give, and still have not given, an answer.
We're dealing with very serious, theological problems.
Now, he says this new idea, new theology, practical sedevacantism, trying to
accuse us of being sedevacantists, another 'new angle of the neo-SSPX.' Fr.
Schmidtberger says, that if you pray for the Pope, put the picture of the
Pope in the sacristy, and you.. and you mention the Pope's name in the
Canon of the Mass, and you say he's the Pope, that doesn't mean you're not
a sedevacantist, that's not enough - to accept the Pope; because if we
continue in this irregular situation, that's gone on for so long, we will be
become 'practical sedevacantists.'
In other words, we'll be secret sedevacantists, we'll be like 'Anonymous
Christians,' we'll be '
Anonymous Sedevacantists.' We won't KNOW
we're sedevacantists, but we'll actually BE sedevacantists!
It's absurd!! But that's the
new teaching. 7:46
Because the irregular situation has gone on for so long, in the February
2nd sermon in Winona,
Archbishop Lefebvre said, I mean, Bishop
Williamson Bishop Fellay said, in his sermon at Winona, Minnesota,
we're this irregular situation in which we find ourselves, has gone on
for so long, that we're beginning to think it's regular, and this is terrible.
Well, what's the problem??
The problem is, the Pope has made the irregular situation. The Pope is the
one who created a very irregular situation in the Church:
when the vicar of Christ began to profess heresy,
and the Vicar of Christ began to lead souls to hell,
and the Vicar of Christ opened the evil Council of Vatican II,
and the Vicar of Christ continued to promote that Concil,
and the Vicar of Christ instituted a new mass,
and the Vicar of Christ continued this new mass, with all the new theology
that goes along with it,
leading to the damnation of millions of souls. And for a Church, that is dedicated to the salvation of souls, that's VERY
IRREGULAR.
How do we regularize the situation?? The
Pope has gotta become regular.
We're already doing what we're supposed to be doing. We can't say, well,
it's gone on so long, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It's an old saying, 'if
you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' And that's what's happening now in the SSPX.
We've been fighting liberalism for 40 years. We can't beat 'em, so we might
as well join 'em!
That's the underlying principle. That's a new principle.
It's a very serious problem.
We are pointing out a very serious problem. And so many priests
agree with us. So many.........
............. But they
totally disagree with us ...................
They agree with us because they say we're speaking the truth.
They agree with us because our ideas are right.
But they completely disagree with the fact that we're
actually saying it. (Audience chuckles. Fr. Chazal stands up: Some of them do agree that
we say it, but they say that - it's not in my time to be with you saying it.)
10:00
That's right. Others tell us that. Other priests have told us that. I think
you're doing the right thing, but it's not my time to do that.
But the fact is, it is a difficult time. Some are confused, and they're not
sure. Because .. there is a problem within modern tradition. And that is,
the cult of the person. In modern tradition, we have associated the Catholic
Faith with the person of Bishop Fellay: he's holy, he's spiritual, he has an
18-year track record that's really good. We trust him. He knows better than
[we (do)]. And so, whatever he says, goes. What did he say? I don't know, he
doesn't know me but whatever - I fully [believe it].
Well, we don't know what he says. He's in silence. He's hanging out in
Menzingen. We - we don't know what he's saying. Now there has to be the
truth: there has to be the truth that we follow. We're not followers of a
person, a human person, other than Jesus Christ. We are the followers of
the truth, and now, we've become the followers of a person -- I trust Bishop
Fellay, he wouldn't do the wrong thing... -- But the Pope did the wrong thing.
Pope Paul VI did the wrong thing. Pope John Paul II did the wrong thing.
Pope Benedict XVI has done the wrong thing. Now if the popes, who are
vicars of Christ, are capable of doing the wrong thing,
a fortiori, all the
more, a lowly Superior General is capable of doing the wrong thing.
We follow him when he goes in the direction of truth. We cannot follow
him when he goes in another direction. That's very simple; it's very clear.
He's going in another direction.
And it is not an answer ..................... imagine that the husband comes home:
Are you cheating on me? --- Why, what evidence do you have??
Oh, it must be okay, then.
I don't think that's gonna work! You have to say, "No, I'll always love you,
I would never do that, I'll always love you, I always come home after work,
bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla."
You can't just say, "What evidence do you have?" That usually means, your
wife is going to dump you! That's what that normally means.
So, there has to be a better answer than, "I was misunderstood." All he has
to do is clearly enunciate the truth. Which is not being done.
And then, what happens at the General Chapter, July 14th, 2012? Official
declaration is made, in which we
ask for the liberty -- As Fr. Chazal
pointed out: their dates are definitely not good. July 14th is the day of the
storming of the Bastille, and the opening of the French Revolution, and its
declaration of liberty, equality and fraternity, and so on the anniversary
they declare liberty for the SSPX. And on July 14th we ask for these six
conditions, and the first one is the most wicked condition. And that
condition is, we ask for, as a condition to go in with Rome, the 'liberty to
profess the truth' -- which NO Catholic has a right to ask for!!
When you're a baptized Catholic, you have an OBLIGATION to profess the
truth. You don't have a 'liberty to profess the truth,' you have an
obligation to profess the truth! When you ask for the liberty to profess
the truth, you're asking for the liberty to profess the truth as an opinion.
The truth is not an opinion. The truth is the truth. Period. No opinion. The
truth is not an opinion. That first condition is extremely wicked.
And the second part of it said, the first said the freedom to profess the truth,
and the second part said we have the freedom to criticize, and even accuse
the promoters of the errors of, errors or novelties of liberalism, Modernism,
and Vatican II. We're condemning the people.
It is the practice of the Church to condemn first the heresies, first the error.
And it's said so carefully, that it's not clearly said that we want to condemn
the errors, but rather the promoters. It allows itself the interpretation that
Vatican II does not have errors in it. And this, I pointed out to Fr. Coture in
a conversation to him, a few months ago, I said, "Lookit, Michael Matt:
Michael Matt is an independent observer. Michael Matt read the same
declaration that you promoted and that we read, and Michael Matt interprets
it and has written an article. And Michael Matt says, that, look, they didn't
condemn Vatican II as having errors. And it's very good that they didn't
condemn Vatican II as having errors. Because if they did that, that would
mean that the Holy Ghost wasn't in the Council, and that would be terrible.
And Fr. Coture told me, oh, no, that's an interpretation of another man.
That's not our interpretation.
Do you know what happened?
DICI.org took the English article of Michael Matt, written in an English
article of the Remnant, [I think it was the July 2012 Remnant] translated
it into French, and put it on the website of DICI.org, where it is right now,
the official organ of the SSPX, as a good take on the meaning of the
declaration of July 14th, 2012 -- which gives it the endorsement of the
SSPX as a correct interpretation of the docuмent.
That gives it the endorsement of the Society. An Indult man, who's not a
member of the SSPX, standing on the outside, reads the docuмent, and
says, "A-HAH! They didn't condemn the Council."
Guess what? They didn't. For the very first time in the history of the SSPX,
they didn't condemn the Council.
16:40
(Fr. Chazal = And unstop, someinawon tradidin answom {??}
(Two magisteriums. Two Romes. Two Churches.
(I think in '84 it was the same. Archbishop Lefebvre says watch out!
you got two of them and now, all you hear now is continues meeram,
continues magisterium, uninterrupted tradition.
(And they say it's some of St. Vincent of Lerins. St. Vincent of Lerins talks
about the correct magisterium. St. Vincent of Lerins says there is a
magisterium of the heretics. The heretics teaches something else that
faces* .. this true magisterium of the Church.
(But they're only talking about one magisterium now, which is
uninterrupted. It's a big problem, because we are not accustomed
any more, to deal with two opposite, contradictory organs of teachings.
Or sources of teachings. Archbishop Lefebvre was very adamant in
making that distinction. As long as Rome is teaching errors, it needs
to be covered by its name,* that it is another religion, another
magisterium. Bishop Williamson told (Guyorl Hulyos ?) "Your peanuts
are nice, your crackers are nice, you Cognac is nice, but we have two
different religions. It's a different religion that we chimp bing right
there. And we are stopping zing right now there is a different religion.
Both in the declarations and in DICi and in whatever comes out from
in the, the higher ups. Thee sometimes say that they are, it's a problem,
they are some tum me problems, but they are stop saying that you have
a different magisterium or a different religion or a different church.
Which it's facing* the magisterium of the Catholic Church, the uninterrupted
magisterium of the Catholic Church, the uh, Catholic tradition, the
Catholic doctrine, the Catholic, the eternal Rome. In a stam, and now
we have blurred in it. )
*[It seems to me that Fr. Chazal is using a literal English translation of a
French word that has a different connotation in French that what it carries
in English. A facade is architectural term that means a false front of a
building, and it is derived from French. Fr. says, "facing" or "faces," but
I think he means to say, "giving a false impression of" or, "showing the
facade of." There may be no single word in standard English that can do
what the single French word does so well in that language. Likewise, "to
be covered by its name" is not an English idiom, but may be a literal
translation of a French idiom, one related to the "false airs" or "in the
disguise" of a facade or
'faux' appearance.]
19:00
Fr. Pfeiffer =
Now is a backtracking apparently done a couple of weeks ago, what
was that conference that was called? Econe (???????)
(Fr. Chazal = Backtracking that is Bishop Fellay now he was wrong ..
and he was deceived as far as the April 15th declaration, that's right,
which was the basis for the declaration of the hoped-for agreement
of June 13th.
now we don't have the rest of the text. If he backtracks, he needs to
tell us what was the rest of the text. What was the rest of the text? )
Fr. Pfeiffer = one of the statements that bishop Fellay is supposed to have
made in that conference of Econe with the priests -- it was a verbal
conference. He said that ... he made a mistake in the judgment of the
Pope because he thought the pope was heading more in the direction of a
conversion or in a direction of realizing that there is something imperfect
about the council. But then he received a letter from the pope, in which
the pope said in his own hand, the letter .. that you must accept the
Council. And you must accept the new mass and that letter was on June
30th.
And so in September of 2012, bishop Fellay says, 'I made a mistake
because of this letter.' Now there is a historical math problem.
June 30th - he receives a letter from the pope. And in that letter he learns
that the pope fully demands that he must accept the council, and he must
accept the new mass without conditions, or there can be no acceptance of
the deal with Rome.
14 days later, on July the 14th there is a declaration put out by the
superior general of the SSPX and 40 priests who are the highest
members of the Society, and in that declaration it says,
'We have determined and approved the conditions of an eventual
canonical normalization.' This is after the June 30th letter. And there
are 6 conditions, of which 3 are bad, and the other 3 are worse, so
we have the 6 pathetic conditions.
Now these conditions are annunciated on July the 14th, 2012, which is
after June 30th.. on the Gregorian calendar. (!?)
(Fr. Chazal = after the deal is called off)
Now, the deal is called off June 13th, the letter is received June 30th,
and then we come out of the Chapter with an official declaration that
says we ... agree to have a deal with Rome ( and no explanations ),
then in September, you know what, thinking back on June 30th there
was this letter and .. I realized that I made a mistake!
Something happened between July 14 and September 27 - not between
June 30 and July 14th.
...........There is a problem..............
If he really did not want to 'deal' with Rome because of the June 13th
failure, AND he did not want to accept a deal with Rome ESPECIALLY
because of the June 30th letter, then this would have come out on July
the 14th.
It didn't.
They were still talking about a deal with Rome - we would accept a deal
with Rome and then, now in September in early October now, 'Ahh.. there
might not be a deal .. for any time .. in the foreseeable future!?!'
Something happened between now and then.
We're not getting the whole story.
When Archbishop Lefebvre operated, he operated completely and fully
in the open. He communicated with the utmost clarity, and everyone
knew what he was going to do and why he was going to do it. And if you
accepted that - accepted his reasons - fine; if you rejected that - rejected
his reasons - fine. But they were clear reasons why he was to consecrate
those bishops for Operation Survival - why it's beneficial for the Catholic
Church, and why it's necessary, and why he has an obligation to do it,
before God. And if they follow, they follow, and if they don't, they don't.
Now, it's different.
Now it is: the Superior General .. has the grace of state
the Superior General .. is special
the Superior General .. knows what he's doing
the Superior General .. doesn't have to tell us what he is doing
the Superior General .. doesn't have to explain
the Superior General .. has a special place
.. we must follow .. the Superior General.
This the mentality of a cult - not the mentality of the Society.
(Fr. Chazal = The other thing is following the Canon Law -
we are following the New Code especially when the matter is grave.
(The more the matter is grave, the more we should follow the old code,
to follow the truth and now we are using the New Code more and more.
when there is a grave problem in the Society, big cases, we do not deal
with the case we leave to Rome to the New Rome to deal with the case
and that's very bad. Now more and more when we are dealing with
marriage cases is going to rest on the New Code and The New Code is
very weak or very scandalous on the matter of marriage.)
24:50
Well, that's the fourth condition, a very bad condition.
There are six conditions. The first three are conditions where without
which we won't accept a deal with Rome. The next three are suitable
conditions, which are conditions that we are willing to accept the
opposite of - like it's suitable that you come to Mass wearing a tie but
if you don't come to Mass wearing a tie, that's fine. It's a suitable condition.
So we put 3 suitable conditions and the first one is we would like to have
a marriage tribunal of the first instance. Which means we [would] accept
all Novus Ordo annulments - that's a consequence of it.
In every marriage case when you get an annulment, there must be two
trials. The first trial it's called the Trial of the First Instance, and the
second trial is called the Trial of the Second Instance. In order to get an
annulment, an annulment must be declared legitimate in both trials. If one
of the trials considers it illegitimate, 'finished.' In order to be legitimate -
both trials.
So, in other words, if somebody passes a first court of the first instance
then it goes to the court of second instance.
So, if we only have a court of the first instance, then it can always be
overturned by the court of second instance, and then marriage tribunal is
basically useless. And then in regarding the second condition, we accept
that we'll be getting the local, Modernist bishops.
The second suitable condition is, that we would like to be exempted from
the bishops, which means we are willing to accept to put our faithful
under the local bishops. That's putting the sheep directly under the
mouth of the wolves. That we cannot tolerate.
Now, a couple of weeks ago, Bishop Fellay apparently said during that
conference, well, maybe it was a mistake.
(No, it wasn't ... (inaudible) )
Maybe it was a mistake and we should make it necessary conditions ..
(no he didn't say mistake, he said we should have placed it somewhere (??) )
It should be necessary conditions, so instead of being 3 suitable
conditions, instead of 3 necessary conditions, it should be 6 necessary
conditions.
[Followers of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermons may recall that this is the basic message
he gave immediately after the Declaration was first made public, that the
second set of 3, the "suitable conditions," were not conditions at all.]
(Fr. Chazal = but what's very grave is that now in the mouth of Bishop
Fellay, is General Chapter now, it needs to be interpreted now. That is, for
the first time Bishop Fellay admits there are mistakes in the General
Chapter. The first time in our history. but nothing has been changed in the
law, that is they have not put an amendment in the law they have not
changed the text of the General Chapter, so it remains, the error remains in
the text.)
(Man in audience says, "I think we have a problem.")
We had better pray: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost, amen....................
28:00
Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer sermons speeches (Read 4278 times)