Have I understood correctly? Fr. Pivert says it’s too dangerous to the Faith to go to SSPX Mass, one should not use any of their priests even for Confession or other Sacraments because you cannot count upon them not being modernist.
No, he's French, it's a language issue. He has the faith, don't worry. I'll clear it up:
Yes, he doesn't want people to go to the SSPX, except for confession if it's absolutely necessary (mortal sin). "It's a real sacrament" - he meant "valid", i.e. that the SSPX at least has true apostolic succession. With the FSSP and Novus Ordo, confession is a doubtful sacrament because they use Novus Ordo bishops. So, don't go to them for confession.
The SSPX priests in Germany are very, very liberal. And completely silent on the Crisis (I heard only 2 sermons in 2 years, most people there don't have a clue about what Lefebvre actually taught). They also like JPII a lot. I still go to the chapels after the Mass, to meet up with people, but for the Mass itself, I pray the "Sanctification of the Sunday" and take spiritual communion. The problem is, as he points out, the silence, the Novus Ordites influencing people badly, etc.
St. Thomas teaches that (a) whoever communicates with a sinful, heretical or schismatic priest becomes a sharer of his sin (ST III Q82 A9). And the spiritual communion is equally graceful, given that no physical communion is possible without sin (STIII Q80 A1). So nobody is "deprived of graces" as some "trads" like to claim. There is a PDF of the "old" SSPX on how to do spiritual communion:
https://dubia.cc/static/pdf/SantificaoDoDomingoFSSPX.pdf - so I translated it into English here:
https://dubia.cc/en/sanctification. Alternatively one can also pray the Missal, of course.
We are supposed to boycott priest that have a concubine, how much more priests that are intentionally silent on the biggest error in the Church today.
He says Sedevacantists are also not to be used by the Faithful. But he also criticizes “independent” for not having a bishop because their chapels won’t last.
No, he said they (the "True Resistance", Hewkoists) are saying this about us, the "Fake Resistance". They say that our Fake Resistance chapels won't last, that our bishops are silent, that we don't have bishops, that we will fail, that we've already failed, etc.
With sedevacantists - he has no problems with them, the problem is the dogmatism. He explained (outside of the interview) that the pope only comes after Faith and Tradition. The pope is just the final, highest, authority - if some problem of discipline or dispute cannot be resolved at the local or episcopal level, then the pope steps in. Sedevacantists like to pull the rhetoric trick of "the pope has failed" = "the Church has failed" (the best option IMO is just "sub conditione naming").
In the USA, this is not legally recognized, therefore, in the eyes of the world and for all civil purposes, financial, legal, etc. it’s shacking up. Kind of makes a problem for the kids, right?
No, because one is the civil marriage, the other one is the religious marriage, which the state doesn't care about anyway. Civil marriage is required no matter what.
It is too late for any type of organization be it seminary, school, monastery, convent, fraternity. Catholics who cannot access him or priest(s?) who associate with him, should be content with baptism (implied lay baptism) and marriage (without a priest, the couple give the vows to one another before two Catholic witnesses).
This was the opinion of BpW - basically that it's more about the formation received, not so much the "seminary" itself. So the point is to "study" for the priesthood, not that you went to an XYZ seminary. He said, when he was in Econe (under Lefebvre), there were seminarians with wildly different levels of education and prior training. So he was ordained after only 4 1/2 years, instead of the regular 6 years.
I personally highly disagree with this view, I still think that traditional seminaries (Dominicans of Avrille, Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, HJM Seminary with Fr. Chazal, Hewkos Farm, Viganòs attempts) are necessary in the long run, but in the short run the option is "convince a bishop that you're good enough to be ordained", until proper seminaries exist.
The translation of the letter is very awkward, at times, makes no sense, as in, use of the work “cork.” I don’t think he means the wood of a tree shaped into the stopper of a wine bottle or used as a floatation device!
It's just 1:1 transcoded and cleaned up. I think he meant either "quack", i.e. someone who talks a lot or "cork" as in "someone who still has the old sprit, pre Vatican II". My problem with this is that these old quacks were the people who sold us out and, especially in Germany, they're either already dead or actively support the NO.
It's going back to BpWs story of how he was converted by one of those "old priests who still had the faith", so BpW had a bit of romanticism and thinks we can still do the same 60 years later. I don't think it's a good idea.
At dinner later he said "If you want to be a priest, go to one of the bishops like Bp Stobnicki, he will tell you where to go, what to do". He likes Bp Stobnicki a lot.
I hope that cleared up the worst translation errors. He is 72, was ordained by Lefebvre and has a website at
https://abbe-pivert.com
Topic: Interview with Fr. Pivert (Read 53705 times)