Author Topic: Fr. Pfluger in U.S soil (Read 6953 times)

AntiFellayism · « **on:** August 16, 2012, 08:44:06 PM »

I' had a chance to attend the conference given by Fr. Pfluger in Sanford-FL and what I can tell you, in case if you don't know by now, we are definitely left to the whims of liberals and the dream of being the new Messiah of God's Church, my dear friends!

It was over an hour conference and nothing important nor clear was stated by this SSPX's high authority priest; as a matter of fact the closing of it was sort of awkward because the attendants as well as his own self noticed a void of any meaty or useful information regarding SSPX-Rome's relation... What a waste of time.

There were a few correlated points worth of mentioning though:

a) Fr. Pfluger's criticism toward Bishop W.

b) as well as toward Bishop Tissier

c) the confirmation of heated discussions of bishops Tissier with Fellay (contradicting +F and all the "cordial development" of the GC meeting.)

d) and finally the admission of the various confused and disorganized replies from Rome during the "doctrinal talks", including a maneuver of trying to mix texts of different dates so we could accept the Council.

His criticism toward the two bishops was basically the same: "Should we refuse to talk and come up with a plan of relation with Rome just because they are modernists?"

And he went ahead to give a couple of examples so he might "prove" the bishop's mistake in thinking likewise:

1) The Fathers of the desert wouldn't stop the pagans coming to them just because they were not catholics.

2) The Dominicans wouldn't refuse to preach to the Albigenses, etc.

But what he tremendously fails to realize is that in these cases it was the superior showing the true path to the inferiors and not the other way around.

Fr. Pfluger naively thinks the SSPX is the Savior of the Church so we need to show to modernists in Rome, including the Pope, the necessity of Tradition... but doesn't he know Rome DOES know tradition and just CHOOSES not to follow?

They don't believe in it, period.

Again, it is the superior who form the inferior, therefore the Pope can only be reformed by God through Our Lady.

But this has been forgotten in SSPX's circles..

KYRIE ELEISON

Oh, and least but not least he also mentioned we don't go out telling all the protestants they're going to hell, we have to live the "now" (sic) and understand that even in our country we have some laws (i.e abortion) that we have to live with which won't be vanished overnight. I guess he was trying to excuse the ridiculous and lethal compromises made by the SSPX thus far.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2012, 08:52:03 PM »

Quote

Oh, and least but not least he also mentioned we don't go out telling all the protestants they're going to hell, we have to live the "now" (sic) and understand that even in our country we have some laws (i.e abortion) that we have to live with which won't be vanished overnight. I guess he was trying to excuse the ridiculous and lethal compromises made by the SSPX thus far.

Oh, we have to "live with" legal abortion. What a nauseating statement!

The leaders of the SSPX are starting to look like members of organized crime.

wallflower · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2012, 08:52:16 PM »

Quote from: AntiFellayism

But what he tremendously fails to realize is that in these cases it was the superior showing the true path to the inferiors and not the other way around.

Fr. Pfluger naively thinks the SSPX is the Savior of the Church so we need to show to modernists in Rome, including the Pope, the necessity of Tradition... but doesn't he know Rome DOES know tradition and just CHOOSES not to follow?

They don't believe in it, period.

Again, it is the superior who form the inferior, therefore the Pope can only be reformed by God through Our Lady.

But this has been forgotten in SSPX's circles..

KYRIE ELEISON

Very well said. Excellent points.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2012, 08:54:40 PM »

Saying we have to "put up with" (which means he wants us to acquiesce to it and not complain too loudly, etc) a modernist hierarchy , legal abortion, etc, this is total betrayal. A total sellout.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2012, 09:18:24 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Oh, we have to "live with" legal abortion. What a nauseating statement!

How are we not "living" with it? What he is saying is that traditional Catholics are being too intolerant of legal abortion - that's the implication.

These hard-hearts are wearing out our patience. We don't have to live with them. Of that I'm certain!

Francisco · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2012, 10:21:21 PM »

This very interesting item on the General Chapter was posted on IGNIS ARDENS by DUMB OX. It should be placed side by side with Fr Pfluger's comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some information of interest received by email from a friend overseas:

"Here are a couple of interesting extracts from the weekly bulletin of Max Barrett, the longtime chauffeur of Archbishop Lefebvre, and to whom the Archbishop dedicated (at least in French) his last work, Spiritual Journey.

July 22, 2012.

RELATING TO THE GENERAL CHAPTER, AND THE STATEMENT OF MENZINGEN OF JULY 14, M. BARRETT WRITES:

QUOTE
I received a communiqué, for which I can guarantee the source, but cannot reveal the author – for obvious reasons!

A PART OF THE COMMUNIQUÉ READS:

QUOTE
Mgr. Fellay found himself in a minority at the General Chapter (which was only consultative) as several sources have indicated, including Vatican Radio. Thus, he did not have the support that he was counting upon for his Roman policy, although all the superiors were nominated by him. However, in all likelihood, he will continue with it [the Roman policy -ed] whatever the costs. Notwithstanding the triumphalist and soothing tone of the communiqués, the exchanges were extremely heated and the atmosphere very strained. It would appear that the declaration which will be sent to Rome will not be too bad, but it risks being, above all else, a way of tranquillizing the opposition temporarily, before renewing the negotiations with Mgr. Di Noia and Mgr. Muller (who love us so much!) The risk in sending this declaration to Rome is that in this way we will return once again to a game of ping-pong.

M. Barrett comments, in part, on this statement:

QUOTE
This is why one would be extremely naive in believing that peace, a serene and salutary peace, is going to reign in our communities during this status quo, because, unfortunately, the spectre of a ralliement will remain forever present.

A few comments:

1. Have you intel on the question relating to Vatican Radio? It seems incredible that a normally accurate commentator, such as M. Barrett, would countenance such an assertion by a source without having knowledge of it.

2. The idea that +Fellay was in a minority at the General Chapter seems incongruous in the light of the news that the Declaration of the Chapter, and its conditions for a canonical solution with Rome, was voted 40-0 according to Menzingen.

However, I understand from a clerical source close to Menzingen that the Declaration of the Chapter was NOT voted on as a complete statement, but rather was voted line by line. One assumes that the voting was conducted on the basis of a simple majority. If this is so, it signifies that the 40-0 vote made public by Menzingen is perfectly true, but potentially hides a deeper level of disunity on the key and less felicitous phrases in the Declaration. It means that some of the most controversial points may have just scraped through and more solid demands been scrapped by a mere vote or two.

One further piece from Max Barrett of interest in regard to the general methodology used by +Fellay and his fellow-travellers in recent years.

QUOTE
Where is that blessed time when, by the fortune of his travels, Mgr. Lefebvre rested his suitcase in our house – as he did elsewhere no doubt – and, in all simplicity, at the kitchen table read a letter received from the Vatican, and invited us to read it with him! On that day, the table was well-stocked, because we had the habit of inviting several friends during his visits. He did not demand of them any kind of “security” before commenting upon it, and I have no memory that his remarks were in any way favourable to an agreement with Rome! For him, for his friends, there were no secrets! No ambiguity! Everything was crystal clear! His written correspondence, which we are preserving piously, did not lend itself to the least dispute. It was straightforward, transparent, direct! It avoided all 'rumours'!

Just one comment on this beautiful paragraph. During the halcyon days of the Archbishop, there was no oath of secrecy at the General Chapter. The Archbishop WANTED to hear what his leadership thought, frankly and honestly, without any hint of coercion or manipulation. This oath of secrecy, so cherished by +Fellay, was introduced to the SSPX only in 2006.

Although it was formally proposed by Fr. Ramon Angles, the inspiration was undoubtedly that of +Fellay. Moreover, it is to be noted that the very same Fr. Angles was present at the July meeting of the General Chapter, not as a voting member, but in order to justify “canonically” the sanctions laid against +Williamson by +Fellay.

We see, therefore, that not only is +Fellay deviating from the course plotted by Archbishop Lefebvre, but even from the transparency and solidarity espoused by the Archbishop in relation to his confrères and faithful.

It was an example of the Two Swords in action: priests and faithful, led by their General, seeking the greater glory of God and His Holy Church. It was all carried out in the open, in the light of day. Now + Fellay acts in the shadows and the dark (his reply to the three bishops is just one example and an admission of this fact), and it leads not to transparency and solidarity, but suspicion, distrust and disunity. God rest the soul of Archbishop Lefebvre!"

Max Barrett's newsletter (in French) may be found here:
http://tychique.net/pdf/Courrier_N_421.pdf

Top

Incredulous · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2012, 10:46:21 PM »

Quote from: AntiFellayism

I' had a chance to attend the conference given by Fr. Pfluger in Sanford-FL and what I can tell you, in case if you don't know by now, we are definitely left to the whims of liberals and the dream of being the new Messiah of God's Church, my dear friends!

It was over an hour conference and nothing important nor clear was stated by this SSPX's high authority priest; as a matter of fact the closing of it was sort of awkward because the attendants as well as his own self noticed a void of any meaty or useful information regarding SSPX-Rome's relation... What a waste of time.

There were a few correlated points worth of mentioning though:

a) Fr. Pfluger's criticism toward Bishop W.

b) as well as toward Bishop Tissier

c) the confirmation of heated discussions of bishops Tissier with Fellay (contradicting +F and all the "cordial development" of the GC meeting.)

d) and finally the admission of the various confused and disorganized replies from Rome during the "doctrinal talks", including a maneuver of trying to mix texts of different dates so we could accept the Council.

His criticism toward the two bishops was basically the same: "Should we refuse to talk and come up with a plan of relation with Rome just because they are modernists?"

And he went ahead to give a couple of examples so he might "prove" the bishop's mistake in thinking likewise:

1) The Fathers of the desert wouldn't stop the pagans coming to them just because they were not catholics.

2) The Dominicans wouldn't refuse to preach to the Albigenses, etc.

But what he tremendously fails to realize is that in these cases it was the superior showing the true path to the inferiors and not the other way around.

Fr. Pfluger naively thinks the SSPX is the Savior of the Church so we need to show to modernists in Rome, including the Pope, the necessity of Tradition... but doesn't he know Rome DOES know tradition and just CHOOSES not to follow?

They don't believe in it, period.

Again, it is the superior who form the inferior, therefore the Pope can only be reformed by God through Our Lady.

But this has been forgotten in SSPX's circles..

KYRIE ELEISON

Oh, and least but not least he also mentioned we don't go out telling all the protestants they're going to hell, we have to live the "now" (sic) and understand that even in our country we have some laws (i.e abortion) that we have to live with which won't be vanished overnight. I guess he was trying to excuse the ridiculous and lethal compromises made by the SSPX thus far.

Thank you for this report AF.
Fr. Phluger is quite stange, isn't he?

Incredulous · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2012, 10:50:00 PM »

Quote from: Francisco

This very interesting item on the General Chapter was posted on IGNIS ARDENS by DUMB OX. It should be placed side by side with Fr Pfluger's comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some information of interest received by email from a friend overseas:

"Here are a couple of interesting extracts from the weekly bulletin of Max Barrett, the longtime chauffeur of Archbishop Lefebvre, and to whom the Archbishop dedicated (at least in French) his last work, Spiritual Journey.

July 22, 2012.

RELATING TO THE GENERAL CHAPTER, AND THE STATEMENT OF MENZINGEN OF JULY 14, M. BARRETT WRITES:

QUOTE
I received a communiqué, for which I can guarantee the source, but cannot reveal the author – for obvious reasons!

A PART OF THE COMMUNIQUÉ READS:

QUOTE
Mgr. Fellay found himself in a minority at the General Chapter (which was only consultative) as several sources have indicated, including Vatican Radio. Thus, he did not have the support that he was counting upon for his Roman policy, although all the superiors were nominated by him. However, in all likelihood, he will continue with it [the Roman policy -ed] whatever the costs. Notwithstanding the triumphalist and soothing tone of the communiqués, the exchanges were extremely heated and the atmosphere very strained. It would appear that the declaration which will be sent to Rome will not be too bad, but it risks being, above all else, a way of tranquillizing the opposition temporarily, before renewing the negotiations with Mgr. Di Noia and Mgr. Muller (who love us so much!) The risk in sending this declaration to Rome is that in this way we will return once again to a game of ping-pong.

M. Barrett comments, in part, on this statement:

QUOTE
This is why one would be extremely naive in believing that peace, a serene and salutary peace, is going to reign in our communities during this status quo, because, unfortunately, the spectre of a ralliement will remain forever present.

A few comments:

1. Have you intel on the question relating to Vatican Radio? It seems incredible that a normally accurate commentator, such as M. Barrett, would countenance such an assertion by a source without having knowledge of it.

2. The idea that +Fellay was in a minority at the General Chapter seems incongruous in the light of the news that the Declaration of the Chapter, and its conditions for a canonical solution with Rome, was voted 40-0 according to Menzingen.

However, I understand from a clerical source close to Menzingen that the Declaration of the Chapter was NOT voted on as a complete statement, but rather was voted line by line. One assumes that the voting was conducted on the basis of a simple majority. If this is so, it signifies that the 40-0 vote made public by Menzingen is perfectly true, but potentially hides a deeper level of disunity on the key and less felicitous phrases in the Declaration. It means that some of the most controversial points may have just scraped through and more solid demands been scrapped by a mere vote or two.

One further piece from Max Barrett of interest in regard to the general methodology used by +Fellay and his fellow-travellers in recent years.

QUOTE
Where is that blessed time when, by the fortune of his travels, Mgr. Lefebvre rested his suitcase in our house – as he did elsewhere no doubt – and, in all simplicity, at the kitchen table read a letter received from the Vatican, and invited us to read it with him! On that day, the table was well-stocked, because we had the habit of inviting several friends during his visits. He did not demand of them any kind of “security” before commenting upon it, and I have no memory that his remarks were in any way favourable to an agreement with Rome! For him, for his friends, there were no secrets! No ambiguity! Everything was crystal clear! His written correspondence, which we are preserving piously, did not lend itself to the least dispute. It was straightforward, transparent, direct! It avoided all 'rumours'!

Just one comment on this beautiful paragraph. During the halcyon days of the Archbishop, there was no oath of secrecy at the General Chapter. The Archbishop WANTED to hear what his leadership thought, frankly and honestly, without any hint of coercion or manipulation. This oath of secrecy, so cherished by +Fellay, was introduced to the SSPX only in 2006.

Although it was formally proposed by Fr. Ramon Angles, the inspiration was undoubtedly that of +Fellay. Moreover, it is to be noted that the very same Fr. Angles was present at the July meeting of the General Chapter, not as a voting member, but in order to justify “canonically” the sanctions laid against +Williamson by +Fellay.

We see, therefore, that not only is +Fellay deviating from the course plotted by Archbishop Lefebvre, but even from the transparency and solidarity espoused by the Archbishop in relation to his confrères and faithful.

It was an example of the Two Swords in action: priests and faithful, led by their General, seeking the greater glory of God and His Holy Church. It was all carried out in the open, in the light of day. Now + Fellay acts in the shadows and the dark (his reply to the three bishops is just one example and an admission of this fact), and it leads not to transparency and solidarity, but suspicion, distrust and disunity. God rest the soul of Archbishop Lefebvre!"

Max Barrett's newsletter (in French) may be found here:
http://tychique.net/pdf/Courrier_N_421.pdf

Top

Those were the good old days.
Now, we must face an SSPX that is heavily infilatrated with liars.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2012, 11:12:31 PM »

Time to smell the coffee...

+Fellay, Fr. Fluger, Fr. Nely, Fr. Schmizberger, Fr. Rodstein are traitors / enemies. Don't trust them with your soul (or the souls of your children) as far as you can throw them! They are not faithful sons of ABL... or more importantly The Church.

Our Lady of La Salette Ora Pro Nobis!

Viva Cristo Rey.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2012, 09:53:14 AM »

Traduttore Tradittore

With a "latinist / canonist" like "Fr. Attila" who needs enemies.

Quote

...Moreover, it is to be noted that the very same Fr. Angles was present at the July meeting of the General Chapter, not as a voting member, but in order to justify “canonically” the sanctions laid against +Williamson by +Fellay....

The fact that he is in the +Fellay entourage is proof enough that something is very rotten in Denmark / Menzingen.

Clint · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2012, 09:56:31 AM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: AntiFellayism

But what he tremendously fails to realize is that in these cases it was the superior showing the true path to the inferiors and not the other way around.

Fr. Pfluger naively thinks the SSPX is the Savior of the Church so we need to show to modernists in Rome, including the Pope, the necessity of Tradition... but doesn't he know Rome DOES know tradition and just CHOOSES not to follow?

They don't believe in it, period.

Again, it is the superior who form the inferior, therefore the Pope can only be reformed by God through Our Lady.

But this has been forgotten in SSPX's circles..

KYRIE ELEISON

Very well said. Excellent points.

Indeed, very well analized AntiFellayism. That is the bottom line of the conference. Though I was there at the conference, and don't know who AntFellayism is, I did not come to such a wise conclusion. Thanks for the lesson.

Since I was there, let me add some more observations but first:

Let me see how I can put this, We must always be careful that we don't personally dislike the people we write about, or else we will always interpret everything they say in the worst light. We must separate ourselves from these feelings in order to make proper analysis. Now, I know that many people here can't stand +Fellay, and are just waiting for him or a Fellay-ist to say anything and they jump on it like if it was the devil himself they were critiquing. We must detach ourselves from these feelings, they are no good for anything, they blind us. Detach yourselves from these feelings, and look upon this situation as a movie that you are watching. You have absolutely no control over this situation, actually no matter your position, even if you are Fr. Pflueger or +Fellay. God is in control. Now we, as the internet nobodies, are infinitely more limited as to what influence we can have . compared to Fellay, Pflueger, Rostrand etc. Before you write anything, make an effort to dump your feelings about the person you are critiquing.

My observations:

1) It is very difficult to understand Fr. Pflueger's English. Moreover, I think he has difficulty finding the right words to express himself. That, by itself, will make his conferences long and arduous for him and his audience.

He spent the greater part of the conference trying to explain what Rome believes, their faith, which is not the same as we believe. Basically, they have a different religion, and only a miracle could make them understand that. That took practically 70% of the conference. Rome believes in a religion where the function of the Church is to bring all peoples of all religions, athiests, and everyone, to behave peacefull to each other. That's the purpose of the Church.

Rome proposed that the SSPX sign a docuмent where they accept the Vatican II popes and magisterium as valid, and that they accept that Vatican II contains no errors, in other words they can't question anything about Vatican II. He said that Rome thinks that the SSPX is sedevacantes, and they don't believe the new rite bishops are valid bishops . Fr. Pflueger said there has never been any problem with the SSPX accepting the pope and bishops, but that is no way we could accept this third point.

The conference was long and I don't have time to continue, maybe later.

Clint · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2012, 10:24:35 AM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Traduttore Tradittore

With a "latinist / canonist" like "Fr. Attila" who needs enemies.

Quote
...Moreover, it is to be noted that the very same Fr. Angles was present at the July meeting of the General Chapter, not as a voting member, but in order to justify “canonically” the sanctions laid against +Williamson by +Fellay....

The fact that he is in the +Fellay entourage is proof enough that something is very rotten in Denmark / Menzingen.

Wasn't Fr. Angles accused of being a nαzι while he was at St. Mary's Kansas? I'd think because of that treatment, he would sympathize with Bp. Williamson's current situation.

Fr. Angles was more than likely an admirer of the nαzιs. An admirer the nαzιs because the German military were instrumental in Franco's victory in Spain, and that the German army * could have eliminated communism in WWII had the West really had the intention of eliminating communism. Many Spaniards (and Catholics from other countires) died in WWII fighting with the German army in Russia.

* the eliminating of the errors of communism is reserved for Our Lady

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2012, 11:19:41 AM »

Quote

Wasn't Fr. Angles accused of being a nαzι while he was at St. Mary's Kansas? I'd think because of that treatment, he would sympathize with Bp. Williamson's current situation

One should think so but he specifically would have us believe the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' was beyond discussion. It's not necessary to paste the note placed on the Irish SSPX District website a few years ago.

Whilst on topic of Fr Angles, I'm sure everyone is aware that he is pro-agreement.

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2012, 11:40:59 AM »

Quote from: Clint

Quote from: wallflower
Quote from: AntiFellayism

But what he tremendously fails to realize is that in these cases it was the superior showing the true path to the inferiors and not the other way around.

Fr. Pfluger naively thinks the SSPX is the Savior of the Church so we need to show to modernists in Rome, including the Pope, the necessity of Tradition... but doesn't he know Rome DOES know tradition and just CHOOSES not to follow?

They don't believe in it, period.

Again, it is the superior who form the inferior, therefore the Pope can only be reformed by God through Our Lady.

But this has been forgotten in SSPX's circles..

KYRIE ELEISON

Very well said. Excellent points.

Indeed, very well analized AntiFellayism. That is the bottom line of the conference. Though I was there at the conference, and don't know who AntFellayism is, I did not come to such a wise conclusion. Thanks for the lesson.

Since I was there, let me add some more observations but first:

Let me see how I can put this, We must always be careful that we don't personally dislike the people we write about, or else we will always interpret everything they say in the worst light. We must separate ourselves from these feelings in order to make proper analysis. Now, I know that many people here can't stand +Fellay, and are just waiting for him or a Fellay-ist to say anything and they jump on it like if it was the devil himself they were critiquing. We must detach ourselves from these feelings, they are no good for anything, they blind us. Detach yourselves from these feelings, and look upon this situation as a movie that you are watching. You have absolutely no control over this situation, actually no matter your position, even if you are Fr. Pflueger or +Fellay. God is in control. Now we, as the internet nobodies, are infinitely more limited as to what influence we can have . compared to Fellay, Pflueger, Rostrand etc. Before you write anything, make an effort to dump your feelings about the person you are critiquing.

My observations:

1) It is very difficult to understand Fr. Pflueger's English. Moreover, I think he has difficulty finding the right words to express himself. That, by itself, will make his conferences long and arduous for him and his audience.

He spent the greater part of the conference trying to explain what Rome believes, their faith, which is not the same as we believe. Basically, they have a different religion, and only a miracle could make them understand that. That took practically 70% of the conference. Rome believes in a religion where the function of the Church is to bring all peoples of all religions, athiests, and everyone, to behave peacefull to each other. That's the purpose of the Church.

Rome proposed that the SSPX sign a docuмent where they accept the Vatican II popes and magisterium as valid, and that they accept that Vatican II contains no errors, in other words they can't question anything about Vatican II. He said that Rome thinks that the SSPX is sedevacantes, and they don't believe the new rite bishops are valid bishops . Fr. Pflueger said there has never been any problem with the SSPX accepting the pope and bishops, but that is no way we could accept this third point.

The conference was long and I don't have time to continue, maybe later.

Your post seems fair enough to me, Clint.

I just don't think I allowed any attached feelings to creep into my report at all but if I did I'll be glad to correct or rephrase anything sounding that way.

But then again I don't know if your reply was meant to be a response to my first post.

BTW thanks for reminding us he has said that in Rome they think we are sedes.

He did say that but I just don't buy it. I think Fr. Pfluger is being naive once again. Rome knows very well who they are dealing with, but of course pretending we are sedes/schismatics/heretics/or anything else will allow them to treat us as such... got it?

Let's not be fooled, the Pope knows the SSPX and the reason of its existence way better than +Fellay.

Clint · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2012, 12:45:40 PM »

Quote

I just don't think I allowed any attached feelings to creep into my report at all but if I did I'll be glad to correct or rephrase anything sounding that way.

But then again I don't know if your reply was meant to be a response to my first post.

You are correct.

Quote

BTW thanks for reminding us he has said that in Rome they think we are sedes.
He did say that but I just don't buy it. I think Fr. Pfluger is being naive once again. Rome knows very well who they are dealing with, but of course pretending we are sedes/schismatics/heretics/or anything else will allow them to treat us as such... got it?

Excellent observation