Author Topic: FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL  (Read 2734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chrstnoel1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 643
  • Reputation: +514/-12
  • Gender: Male
FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
« on: October 04, 2012, 04:29:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Fathers conference given after Fr. Chazal Mass.

    3rd October 2012.

    @ Youtube




    God Bless.

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 06:48:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you.  


    Offline Seraphia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    • Reputation: +431/-0
    • Gender: Female
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 08:37:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you! So much to watch I can barely keep up.  :applause:

    Offline Francisco

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1099
    • Reputation: +823/-6
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #3 on: October 05, 2012, 03:21:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: chrstnoel1
    The Fathers conference given after Fr. Chazal Mass.

    3rd October 2012.

    @ Youtube




    God Bless.


    Chrstnoel1 - is there a newsletter going that gives news about these two priests and their travel and Mass details?

    Offline chrstnoel1

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 643
    • Reputation: +514/-12
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #4 on: October 05, 2012, 08:26:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Francisco
    Quote from: chrstnoel1
    The Fathers conference given after Fr. Chazal Mass.

    3rd October 2012.

    @ Youtube




    God Bless.


    Chrstnoel1 - is there a newsletter going that gives news about these two priests and their travel and Mass details?


    Am afraid not. Only thru emails or cell phone. You need to talk Fr for the details.
    Send me a PM and I could furnish you the info. Won't be appropriate to have it posted on CathInfo. God bless.


    Offline Sienna629

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 345
    • Reputation: +363/-5
    • Gender: Female
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #5 on: October 05, 2012, 02:04:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: chrstnoel1
    The Fathers conference given after Fr. Chazal Mass.

    3rd October 2012.

    @ Youtube




    God Bless.


    Thank you so much for making these videos available to us.

    We are very grateful and wish God's blessing on you and the good Fathers.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #6 on: October 06, 2012, 09:53:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Fr. Pfeiffer explains a lot in this speech. It's not a "sermon" but an extra speech,
    given in a private home where the altar is set up in the living room.

    Around minute 8 he describes a new situation that has arisen, whereby he and
    any other SSPX priests who are speaking out against a regularization at this time
    with Rome are being called "effective sedevacantists." They can pray for the Pope
    in their Mass, they can acknowledge the Pope is validly elected, they can have a
    picture of the Pope on the wall in the vestibule or in their office, but the fact that
    they are not in favor of making a deal right now makes them a kind of "anonymous
    sedevacantist."

    Is this why the name "Feeneyites" is on Matthew's list, because someone has
    accused them of being anonymous sedevacantists?


    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Groups-personalities-complete-map-of-Sedevacantist-world



    Fr. Chazal is there as well, around minute 14 he makes a few comments.

    A transcript of this would be very good to have. A chronology and the effects of
    logic on these data points is given, such as how something that is not being
    explained must have happened after July 30th and not before, but before
    September 27th, for +Fellay to have said then that there will be no deal for the
    time being.  Min. 21:00 He said it was because of what had taken place between
    June 13th and July 30th, but if that were the case, there would have been some
    announcement by July 30th, but there was not. No announcement that the "deal is
    off" came until after July 30th.

    24:00 Fr. Chazal: we are more and more following the New Code of Canon Law.

    Through all these sermons and speeches, I'm getting the impression that these
    two fine priests are telling us everything they can, as soon as they figure it out,
    based on objective reality, however, the leadership of SSPX is being very
    secretive, and not telling us what is going on, even for months at a time, such
    that even a year or more can go by without our knowing what has taken place.
    We have an information lag, therefore, which evokes a lot of slowness in the
    thinking of the faithful, and that's why Menzingen accuses us of spreading
    "rumors" without identifying what the rumors are.


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #7 on: October 07, 2012, 02:48:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Transcription in process.  This is a timely item, because it explores the
    incongruity of the official line from Menzingen compared to the logical
    sequence of events that have transpired. As such, it is not really
    meet matter for a sermon, but better fitting for a lecture such as this.

    It answers a lot of questions soundly that Fellayites have been attempting
    to answer with nonsense and equivocation and innuendo.

    Fr. Pfeiffer talks pretty fast so it's easier to get the point when you see it
    in writing.

    The 6 conditions are shown up to be what they are: bad, and worse than bad.

    Sorry it's not done in time for Sunday Mass .............

    especially in Korea!!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline chrstnoel1

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 643
    • Reputation: +514/-12
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #8 on: October 07, 2012, 03:42:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat



    Fr. Pfeiffer explains a lot in this speech. It's not a "sermon" but an extra speech,
    given in a private home where the altar is set up in the living room.

    Around minute 8 he describes a new situation that has arisen, whereby he and
    any other SSPX priests who are speaking out against a regularization at this time
    with Rome are being called "effective sedevacantists." They can pray for the Pope
    in their Mass, they can acknowledge the Pope is validly elected, they can have a
    picture of the Pope on the wall in the vestibule or in their office, but the fact that
    they are not in favor of making a deal right now makes them a kind of "anonymous
    sedevacantist."

    Is this why the name "Feeneyites" is on Matthew's list, because someone has
    accused them of being anonymous sedevacantists?


    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Groups-personalities-complete-map-of-Sedevacantist-world



    Fr. Chazal is there as well, around minute 14 he makes a few comments.

    A transcript of this would be very good to have. A chronology and the effects of
    logic on these data points is given, such as how something that is not being
    explained must have happened after July 30th and not before, but before
    September 27th, for +Fellay to have said then that there will be no deal for the
    time being.  Min. 21:00 He said it was because of what had taken place between
    June 13th and July 30th, but if that were the case, there would have been some
    announcement by July 30th, but there was not. No announcement that the "deal is
    off" came until after July 30th.

    24:00 Fr. Chazal: we are more and more following the New Code of Canon Law.

    Through all these sermons and speeches, I'm getting the impression that these
    two fine priests are telling us everything they can, as soon as they figure it out,
    based on objective reality, however, the leadership of SSPX is being very
    secretive, and not telling us what is going on, even for months at a time, such
    that even a year or more can go by without our knowing what has taken place.
    We have an information lag, therefore, which evokes a lot of slowness in the
    thinking of the faithful, and that's why Menzingen accuses us of spreading
    "rumors" without identifying what the rumors are.




    Hi Neil,
    When I recorded this it wasn't meant to be a conference or discussion. With Fr. Joe, it can be a guessing 'game' when that happens.

    Anyway, a faithful asked Fr. Joe why, he and Fr. Chazal, did the Mass on the street in Manila. "Fr. Salvador,  said you both were given permission to say Mass in the Church."  

    Fr. Joe said that it was not true and immediately went on to explained, which by the time 'your truly' had the camera going, it was like 5 minutes gone. Hence, the 'missing link' of the conference.

    Hope this can be of help with your transcript?? :reading:

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #9 on: October 07, 2012, 09:25:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Here is my offering for your approval, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal, to whom I am
    obliged for the honor of making this transcription for their faithful and therefore
    my friends..................................








    http://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 (no?) before Mass 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. 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
    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.]




    ...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 withoug sin, let him cast the first stone.'  In other words, we've
    always known there has 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!  

    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 preists 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
    us.  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, 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 document.  

    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 document, 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
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline chrstnoel1

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 643
    • Reputation: +514/-12
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #10 on: October 08, 2012, 12:06:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat


    Here is my offering for your approval, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal, to whom I am
    obliged for the honor of making this transcription for their faithful and therefore
    my friends..................................








    http://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 (no?) before Mass 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. 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
    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.]




    ...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 withoug sin, let him cast the first stone.'  In other words, we've
    always known there has 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!  

    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 preists 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
    us.  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, 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 document.  

    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 document, 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


    Thanks Neil for the above. May God Bless you for all your hard efforts. Oh BTW, it was given after Mass and yes, in Singapore.


    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #11 on: October 08, 2012, 05:32:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Many thanks for this video and the transcript. The resistance continues and will continue.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #12 on: October 09, 2012, 11:59:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're welcome.  I hope the transcript can be of use.  It has some pretty good
    stuff in it.  

    I think it's a great example of Fr. Pfeiffer's talents.  His use of words is geared
    to his style of speaking, such that the literal transcription might not carry the
    same impact or significance, without the pauses, pitch of voice, and emphasis.

    Sometimes even arm movements and turning from right to left or stepping
    forward and back helps to make the point.  So I hope the spacing that I used,
    or ALL CAPS or emphasis and stuff will help to show what he was trying
    to communicate.  

    I'm afraid the day may come when the videos are no longer available, but
    perhaps someone can archive the transcripts, wherever they are, and
    keep them for future use.  I think I'll put this one in the Library.....
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline JMacQ

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 325
    • Reputation: +615/-3
    • Gender: Male
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #13 on: October 09, 2012, 01:31:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great work, Neil.

    THANK YOU.



    May Our Lady reward you.
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
    Praised be Jesus ad Mary!

    "Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta"

    Offline Emerentiana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1420
    • Reputation: +1194/-17
    • Gender: Female
    FRs. JOE PFEIFFER FRANCOIS CHAZAL
    « Reply #14 on: October 09, 2012, 01:50:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.  



    This statement is totally absurd and false!  A Vicar of Christ (a true one ) would NEVER do these things!
    If I had to believe that we have a  True Pope who is doing these things, I would not be a Catholic!

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16