Author Topic: Fr Pfeiffer v Bishop Williamson? (Read 14057 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** March 13, 2013, 08:53:30 PM »

Another thread features a sermon of Fr Pfeiffer telling Catholics they may no longer attend SSPX chapels.

Bishop Williamson, Fr Ringrose, etc. say otherwise.

Another observation:

Fr Pfeiffer seems not to consider that there are those of us unwilling to turn the SSPX over to the accordistas, whereas he would have us run out the back door because accordistas are coming in the front.

How has a war ever been won by surrendering?

Just a couple thoughts.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:03:27 PM »

And, uh, you disagree with....what?

Bishop Williamson should obey Fr Pfeiffer, perhaps?

We are guilty accomplices of Menzingen if we don't abandon our perfectly orthodox local chapel?

No.

I don't need someone in another locale to tell me my faith is in danger here when my doctrine is better than most priests'!

I don't need the Jedi mind trick to attempt to convince me I am part of the problem when I was practically the first person on the Internet that started screaming "fire!" After Bishop Fellay's 2012 Candlemas sermon.

A red light is overreaction.

When heresy and scandal come to my chapel, or a deal is signed, or I am given the boot, I am done.

But not before.

A coward is afraid to fight.

To just bow out of the chapel?

That serves Fr Rostand more than anyone else!

Machabees · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:22:15 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Another thread features a sermon of Fr Pfeiffer telling Catholics they may no longer attend SSPX chapels.

Bishop Williamson, Fr Ringrose, etc. say otherwise.

Another observation:

Fr Pfeiffer seems not to consider that there are those of us unwilling to turn the SSPX over to the accordistas, whereas he would have us run out the back door because accordistas are coming in the front.

How has a war ever been won by surrendering?

Just a couple thoughts.

Seraphim,

In your above statement, isn't there a "time gap" between them, according to the relative events that took place in each of those times?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:24:05 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim
Another thread features a sermon of Fr Pfeiffer telling Catholics they may no longer attend SSPX chapels.

Bishop Williamson, Fr Ringrose, etc. say otherwise.

Another observation:

Fr Pfeiffer seems not to consider that there are those of us unwilling to turn the SSPX over to the accordistas, whereas he would have us run out the back door because accordistas are coming in the front.

How has a war ever been won by surrendering?

Just a couple thoughts.

Seraphim,

In your above statement, isn't there a "time gap" between them, according to the relative events that took place in each of those times?

Does the question imply that Bishop Williamson now gives the SSPX in entirety a red light?

Machabees · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:40:21 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Seraphim
Another thread features a sermon of Fr Pfeiffer telling Catholics they may no longer attend SSPX chapels.

Bishop Williamson, Fr Ringrose, etc. say otherwise.

Another observation:

Fr Pfeiffer seems not to consider that there are those of us unwilling to turn the SSPX over to the accordistas, whereas he would have us run out the back door because accordistas are coming in the front.

How has a war ever been won by surrendering?

Just a couple thoughts.

Seraphim,

In your above statement, isn't there a "time gap" between them, according to the relative events that took place in each of those times?

Does the question imply that Bishop Williamson now gives the SSPX in entirety a red light?

No. Read my post again.

I am saying that there is an obvious "time gap" between their statements when each of them had said it. What Bishop Williamson, or Fr. Ringrose say now after this new treasonous 2012 Preamble of Bishop Fellay, I have no idea.

To join Fr. Freiffer's "new" sermon this week in tearing apart this Preamble, and arriving at his conclusion as he did, is a separate event from when the other two had made there comments based on what they knew at that time.

Is that not true?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2013, 10:45:40 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Seraphim
Another thread features a sermon of Fr Pfeiffer telling Catholics they may no longer attend SSPX chapels.

Bishop Williamson, Fr Ringrose, etc. say otherwise.

Another observation:

Fr Pfeiffer seems not to consider that there are those of us unwilling to turn the SSPX over to the accordistas, whereas he would have us run out the back door because accordistas are coming in the front.

How has a war ever been won by surrendering?

Just a couple thoughts.

Seraphim,

In your above statement, isn't there a "time gap" between them, according to the relative events that took place in each of those times?

Does the question imply that Bishop Williamson now gives the SSPX in entirety a red light?

No. Read my post again.

I am saying that there is an obvious "time gap" between their statements when each of them had said it. What Bishop Williamson, or Fr. Ringrose say now after this new treasonous 2012 Preamble of Bishop Fellay, I have no idea.

To join Fr. Freiffer's "new" sermon this week in tearing apart this Preamble, and arriving at his conclusion as he did, is a separate event from when the other two had made there comments based on what they knew at that time.

Is that not true?

Don't know.

According to Menzingen, Bishop Williamson has had a copy of the Preamble in his possession (otherwise how could he leak it to the 37?).

If he says red light, then red light.

But until then....

AJNC · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2013, 11:15:44 PM »

Where I am in India the priests have not been pushing any Accordista agenda. In fact nothing much at all has been said to our small group about the Rome-SSPX talks. From time to time the priests do speak up against ecuмenism and other conciliar novelties. There is no need for us to leave at the moment - and for us there is nowhere else to go.

Zeitun · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2013, 12:00:06 AM »

I believe at the Post Falls conference towards the end +W was asked what the laity should do in the current situation and he replied to read anything on true doctrine, the works of ++Lefebvre, and I think he said that SSPX masses where liberal sermons were preached had to be avoided.

I would consider that red light.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2013, 01:33:58 AM »

Quote from: Zeitun

I believe at the Post Falls conference towards the end +W was asked what the laity should do in the current situation and he replied to read anything on true doctrine, the works of ++Lefebvre, and I think he said that SSPX masses where liberal sermons were preached had to be avoided.

I would consider that red light.

Yes, a red light for places where liberal sermons are preached.

I would agree with that.

I don't think I could take my family to Fr. Vernoy's chapel in FL, for example.

AJNC · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2013, 01:48:29 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I don't think I could take my family to Fr. Vernoy's chapel in FL, for example.

So amazing! Fr Vernoy started out in India and was a staunch anti-conciliarist and a zealous priest. He was also popular with the faithful in the Philippines I was told. Fr Wailliez was similarly disposed when here. As far as I am concerned, they were among the better priests who were sent here. Really disappointed now.

Ethelred · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2013, 03:15:58 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Zeitun
I believe at the Post Falls conference towards the end +W was asked what the laity should do in the current situation and he replied to read anything on true doctrine, the works of ++Lefebvre, and I think he said that SSPX masses where liberal sermons were preached had to be avoided.

I would consider that red light.

I understood the good bishop in the same way as Zeitun did (and Matthew, too I think).

Quote from: Matthew

Yes, a red light for places where liberal sermons are preached.

Yes, that's the point.
Because there's still some noble exceptions, i.e. when some resistance priests (still being in the SSPX) still hold a SSPX chapel, we can go there. Of course, as the good bishop said many times, we've to be very careful now about the increasing "concilar circuмstances", because the Neo-SSPX is on the slide and the situation can get only worse.

Also Machabees' objections to Seraphim's wrong impression are correct: we have yet to see the good bishop's official statement about the leaked answer of Bp Fellay from 15 April 2012. Surely he'll work up this in an upcoming Eleison Comment, but so far he didn't say anything in contrast to Fr. Pfeiffer's newest sermon (Sunday, 10 March 2013).

From all we know so far, Bp Williamson and Fr Pfeiffer are in the same boat, and the brave father listens to the wise judgement of the bishop in the end. No need to divide them virtually.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2013, 06:37:25 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Zeitun
I believe at the Post Falls conference towards the end +W was asked what the laity should do in the current situation and he replied to read anything on true doctrine, the works of ++Lefebvre, and I think he said that SSPX masses where liberal sermons were preached had to be avoided.

I would consider that red light.

I understood the good bishop in the same way as Zeitun did (and Matthew, too I think).

Quote from: Matthew
Yes, a red light for places where liberal sermons are preached.

Yes, that's the point.
Because there's still some noble exceptions, i.e. when some resistance priests (still being in the SSPX) still hold a SSPX chapel, we can go there. Of course, as the good bishop said many times, we've to be very careful now about the increasing "concilar circuмstances", because the Neo-SSPX is on the slide and the situation can get only worse.

Also Machabees' objections to Seraphim's wrong impression are correct: we have yet to see the good bishop's official statement about the leaked answer of Bp Fellay from 15 April 2012. Surely he'll work up this in an upcoming Eleison Comment, but so far he didn't say anything in contrast to Fr. Pfeiffer's newest sermon (Sunday, 10 March 2013).

From all we know so far, Bp Williamson and Fr Pfeiffer are in the same boat, and the brave father listens to the wise judgement of the bishop in the end. No need to divide them virtually.

There is no wrong impression.

Bishop Williamson does not give the SSPX a red light.

Wessex · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2013, 08:05:40 AM »

This is a period of transition. If Merzingen is determined to modernise, the process will hit different places at different times and at different intensities depending on local sensitivities. Soon, Bp. Fellay will be visiting the UK now that his fellow bishop has gone. I suppose Bp. Williamson has to try and manage the broad range of resistance in response to how reforms manifest themselves in the districts and parishes. This gives folk time to decide for themselves what their immediate and long-term options are. If they have families, they can plan their eventual exit without too much trauma. Singletons have more freedom to react quickly to events.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2013, 08:44:01 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

This is a period of transition. If Merzingen is determined to modernise, the process will hit different places at different times and at different intensities depending on local sensitivities. Soon, Bp. Fellay will be visiting the UK now that his fellow bishop has gone. I suppose Bp. Williamson has to try and manage the broad range of resistance in response to how reforms manifest themselves in the districts and parishes. This gives folk time to decide for themselves what their immediate and long-term options are. If they have families, they can plan their eventual exit without too much trauma. Singletons have more freedom to react quickly to events.

Precisely why Bishop Williamson has not given the sspx a carte blanche red light.

Everything depends on local conditions.

Ethelred · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2013, 08:56:19 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Ethelred
Also Machabees' objections to Seraphim's wrong impression are correct: we have yet to see the good bishop's official statement about the leaked answer of Bp Fellay from 15 April 2012. Surely he'll work up this in an upcoming Eleison Comment, but so far he didn't say anything in contrast to Fr. Pfeiffer's newest sermon (Sunday, 10 March 2013).

From all we know so far, Bp Williamson and Fr Pfeiffer are in the same boat, and the brave father listens to the wise judgement of the bishop in the end. No need to divide them virtually.

There is no wrong impression.

Bishop Williamson does not give the SSPX a red light.

Not yet in general because he didn't comment the leaked Doctrinal Preambel from Bp. Fellay yet.
Let's wait until he does comment it. We're on edge for it.

Only then we can compare Fr. Pfeiffer's drawn conclusions from the leaked Preambel with the Bishop's not yet publicly drawn conclusions from that leaked Preambel; which is what Zeitun was saying I think.