Author Topic: Interview with Fr. Pivert (Read 1990 times)

BaldwinIV · « **on:** August 12, 2025, 04:40:47 PM »

Interview with Fr. Pivert

- for mobile viewers: easier to navigate on https://dubia.cc/en/docs/pivert/interview-2025

In this interview, Fr. François Pivert discusses his personal history with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX),
including his ordination by Archbishop Lefebvre and his eventual departure. He explains his reasons for leaving, focusing on the SSPX's drift towards modern Rome, its acceptance of the new Code of Canon Law, and its silence in the face of error.

The conversation covers a wide range of topics, including a critique of the Second Vatican Council and the
Novus Ordo Mass, his views on Sedevacantism, the nature of the current crisis in the Church, and practical
advice for traditional Catholics on Mass attendance, vocations, and maintaining the faith in difficult times.

Fr. Pivert's Departure from the SSPX

Fr. Pivert: I was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1980, there were already problems, and so I was ordained before the end of my studies, and I'm a lawyer, I'm a lawyer, and I became a priest after being a master-at-law. Resistance, it began, it began, there was always a society, priest wanting to approach Rome, and all the priests understanding the situation. I think no more than 20% of priests understood Archbishop Lefebvre and his positions, and what was the real problem with modern Rome.

You see, yes, they agreed with Archbishop Lefebvre, but they didn't understand profoundly the roots and the consequences, mainly perhaps the consequences. We were protected by Archbishop Lefebvre, we had the insurance with him of having protection and not too many problems. At his death, unfortunately, the priests who wanted to approach a new Rome became the leaders of the society, and slowly but surely, they took advantage, they overcame the society, and they directed the society toward Rome.

First, they accepted the new canon law, new code, it's not law, it's not law, but it is called canon law, the new code of modernist law. But of course, they didn't tell it. I discovered they had used the new code, and it's like Vatican II.

Nothing is clear, all is ambiguous. But when I discovered the new code, it was a real problem. Then we discovered they were agreeing with a new Rome, and they signed an agreement with a new Rome, and so I decided to leave.

But before leaving, I wanted to enlighten as many people as possible, and I published a book of the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre. I knew Archbishop Lefebvre very well, I have a good memory for that. As a lawyer, I have a good memory for that.

And I had difficulty finding in all the conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre the topics we had to publish. And of course, society was very angry, and perhaps even furious against that. They couldn't condemn the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre, and they wanted to condemn me.

It was difficult. After that, I published a trial, the process of a trial against a good priest, and it was the occasion of denouncing their way of practice, and to reveal what they didn't want to be known, and to reveal what was behind the curtain. And they were more and more furious against me.

Interviewer: If you want to say what are the toughest attacks against you, or the biggest problems you were encountering when you denounced the truth in the SSPX, where you wanted to publish about Archbishop Lefebvre?

Fr. Pivert: I published it without any permission. I didn't ask for permission. And I published the book, 4,000 copies. Yes, 4,000 copies. It's a lot.

Interviewer: And how was the reaction?

Fr. Pivert: They couldn't condemn the book because it was teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre. So, they attacked me, first because I had disobeyed, which is not a problem. And after that, they tried to say I had not understood Archbishop Lefebvre, that he wanted an agreement with Rome, but it's completely false. I gave a complete conference. He wanted to maintain the faith.

Interviewer: Someone asked, how is the book called you published?

Fr. Pivert: Monseigneur Lefebvre, nos rapports avec Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre, our relations with Rome. Action with Rome, not action, can't find the word.

Interviewer: We can post it later and afterwards. (here)

Fr. Pivert: And I have one question. You can find it in French, yes. And we are translating it in as many languages as possible. I receive a very good, very good preface of Archbishop Viganò, and we are translating it in all languages.

The New Code of Canon Law and Vatican II

Interviewer: And I wanted to ask, you were talking about the new canon law. What are, in your opinion, the biggest errors of this modern canon law?

Fr. Pivert: It's like Vatican II, it's modernism from the beginning to the end.

Interviewer: Like the Second Vatican Council?

Fr. Pivert: Yes, it is Vatican II in practice. The council is theory and canon law is practice. With the equivalent of human rights, that means Christian rights, you put the rights of man before rights of God.

And it's not only rights of God, but it upsets the church. Faithful are the main part of the church, and hierarchy is only here to disserve faithful. The truth is that church is for glory of God, of the cult, of mass. Hierarchy is the main part of church because of mass. And faithful come behind the flock, comes behind the pastor, arrives at the foot of the altar, at the foot of the cross, and the foot of God. And after that you hear, that's the true church.

From the word of God, through mass, faith, teaching, is the pastor leading the flock. In the new code, all is completely set. And the code, the council, has been made by John XXIII for the code. The council was a preparation of the code, because for them, practice is more important than theory.

Interviewer: And are there good books or websites to see the difference?

Fr. Pivert: I'm writing a book.

Interviewer: And when will it be published?

Fr. Pivert: As soon as possible. And the more evident problem in the new code is about marriages. They wanted to free people whose marriages were failed. It was impossible, of course, because divorce doesn't exist in the church. And they wanted to find a way of freeing people without divorce, and they find a way of annulment. An annulment, normally an annulment, is because we see a marriage is null for different reasons, but it is rare.

Now they invented nowhere a new possibility of nullity of marriage. And so they give annulments over annulments, a lot of thousands of thousands, millions of annulments, and people can marry again. Because for them, all the aim of life is self-achievement. And if you are not happy in marriage, you can't achieve yourself, and so your marriage is not a marriage.

Interviewer: And this goes against the doctrine of the indissolubility of a marriage. Of course. You cannot resolve it. Of course.

Fr. Pivert: The aim of marriage is children's education, and for them, the aim of marriage is self-achievement. Children deserve the achievement of their parents, instead of parents educating children in the face of the glory of God. Completely different. Completely.

The State of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)

Interviewer: Maybe there's also a question now. Someone asked, do you believe the society of Saint Pius X has stayed too far from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre to return, or is there still hope that it might once again fully embrace its original principles?

Fr. Pivert: We haven't returned. They have to return. Yeah, sure. The new Rome has to return to faith, to tradition. They left. We didn't leave.

Interviewer: And do you think, is it possible that the SSPX will find its true origin again, like they will find to Archbishop Lefebvre?

Fr. Pivert: They do what they want, but are not in their place. For many years, for 10 years now, they're on the wrong path, and they don't seem to want, they want to come back. Perhaps one priest or other, perhaps, could react, understand what is the problem, and come back. But it will be only unity by unity, and one by one. Because the society, it is elected, Father Pagliarani, to, how do you say that, to quiet, to quiet consciences. The conscience of…

Interviewer: That the people don't think and don't question.

Fr. Pivert: Yes. The conscience of priests were a bit worried as a new way, not the new way, because from the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, leaders of the society are following this way. But they hide it. This way was hidden. And slowly, slowly, and they thought they would be sure of their groups. They discovered, they announced what they're making, and people were a bit disturbed.

So, after Father Schmidberger, and mainly Bishop Fellay, who is a liar, a liar, a hypocrite, he, how do you say that, a traitor, he's a traitor of his priests. You see, priests enter the society following Archbishop Lefebvre for keeping faith, for giving faith to faithful. And Bishop Fellay worried them slowly towards the new Roman modernism. And so, when the priest discovered that, they were to be afraid, and the society elected a simple priest as a Pagliarani, which is very silent, quiet, not disturbing anyone. But the ship follows the main road and the sea.

Interviewer: And what do you think are the biggest errors of the society of St. Pius X?

Fr. Pivert: The silence. And that's what it is very difficult to understand, because silence is not an error. It is not a fighting error. It's an easier way to fall in error when you do not know it. When error is not denounced, it's an easier way to fall in error. When you have a trap which is hidden for a minute, and always, always, so-called good Christians were the first responsible of the problems in the church.

Heretics are less dangerous than liberals. The liberals look like good people, good Christians, and you don't think there is a problem. With heretics, you know there is a problem. With sovietics, you know there is a problem. With the nαzιs, you know there is a problem. With the liberals, what is the problem? They are kind, they have a lot of friends, they have a lot of rich friends, they know, yes, what is the problem? The problem is that that their liberalism, their friends, all that, hide the trouble.

Interviewer: And also, do you think, I have read that, for example, Bishop Fellay said we can interpret the Second Vatican Council according to Cardinal Ratzinger's understanding of continuity. What do you think about this?

Fr. Pivert: You have to interpret, the truth is the truth, it must be clear. When you have to interpret, you are not in the line of God, you are in the line of the devil. Who either lie or want to be ambiguous, because ambiguity is like a trap.

Interviewer: Do you think it's an intended ambiguity?

Fr. Pivert: Intentions, I don't know, but what is the result, that I see. Once there is a war against me, I don't want to judge his intentions, but I do not want to be killed by him.

The Deeper Crisis in the Church

Interviewer: There are also a lot of questions left, for example, and by the way, you can also look in the camera if you like, but you don't have to. What do you believe is the fundamental cause of the crisis? The fundamental cause, what is the fundamental reason for the crisis?

Fr. Pivert: Of the church or of the society?

Interviewer: You can answer both if you like.

Fr. Pivert: Of the church is as ancient as the world. You have a church and anti-church. When faith is strong, anti-church is weak. And when faith weakens, anti-church is stronger. Now, faith weakens and the enemies of the church get more and more stronger. There is nothing new. Nothing new.

And the crisis of society? Liberalism. Liberalism, which is not an error, which is a vice. Very often, we do not want to denounce vices. We want to be objective. We want to make like, to obey Saint Augustine, be against sin, but not against sinners. But when there is a vice, you are obliged to denounce the vice, as we are obliged to denounce errors. And liberalism, the vice of liberalism, is to want to be in peace with God and with his enemies. And the society wants to be in peace with his conscience, of the Latin mass, of good catechism, of good schools, without Muslims, and good schools of good, well-educated people.

And they want also not to have problems with the world, with governance, with academy, with the world. How can you have no problem, neither with the right path, neither with the left one, neither with God, neither with his enemies. It's impossible. You have to choose. It's a sign of contradiction from the beginning. Simon said that to the Holy Virgin, this kid will be a sign of contradiction. He will divide the world. The world now will be divided between those who follow him and those who are against him. And this division is a sword which will enter your heart, your polymory, which enters the heart of a holy Christian.

Interviewer: And do you think that the Christians and also the society, they don't want to sacrifice their silence? They don't want to fight? And that is like a problem. They don't want to fight with the world?

Fr. Pivert: That's an evidence. It's an evidence. They try to avoid any problem. It's an evidence. Why did they speak with Rome? Why did they ask for an agreement with Rome? Why did they approach with Rome and then Pope Benedict? Because when you are against the Pope, you have problems with governments, you have problems with your friends, you have problems with family. They do not want to have problems with family. When there is an anniversary, half of the family goes to the new mass, half goes to the old mass. That makes problems. If we could be together, if the old mass was allowed, so the whole family would be together. That doesn't resolve the problems of faith.

It's not only a problem of mass, it's a problem of faith, and it's a problem of the spirit of faith. It is a problem. You see, very often, faith is only understood like a link with God. It's also a light on our paths. Faith doesn't only link us to God. It's a light for our lives. It's a light for our paths. And liberals refuse this light. They want to keep the link with God, but they do not let faith enlighten the path.

Interviewer: Someone also asked, how do you think this crisis differs from other crises in church history?

Fr. Pivert: Liberalism is a very new problem. It's a very new problem, because before you had truth against error. The two parts were, it was easy to see them. Now you have a confusion, confusion over error and truth on practice and practice. You can have faith and leave like people do not have faith. It's a complete confusion. And Ratzinger, future Pope Benedict, told that church always fought against liberalism. For two centuries. Before, it was fighting against errors. For two centuries, fought against liberalism. And at least, happily, at the Council of Vatican II, liberalism entered the church slowly and smoothly. So that, I suppose, not to make a problem.

Interviewer: And which popes would you say we would have to read to understand the warnings for the infiltration?

Fr. Pivert: Pope Pius X. Mainly Pope Pius X. He's a saint. The others are not.

Interviewer: And why do you think Pope Pius X was the central figure? Why was he like the central pope to warn us?

Fr. Pivert: Yes, with an encyclical against modernism. [Pascendi.] Pascendi, yes. And the letter against the Sillon democracy. You see, democracy in the state, it's the same problem as democracy in the church. And you may read, yes, the syllabus.

Interviewer: Syllabus of error of Pius IX. Yes. And Gregory XVI, like Mirari Vos.

Fr. Pivert: Of course, but he's very strong, but very short. You have no explanation. And Leo XIII? Leo XIII, it's a very complex pope, because he also had a good teaching. But he wanted to be more or less in accordance with the Masonic governments. He asked French people to make an agreement with the Masonic government. He was paid in return and returned by a very strong persecution of all religious in France. That is a fruit of agreement with the devil. He's not honest. We are honest, isn't we? We are always honest.

Interviewer: And what do you think, because a lot of people think, oh, he was a good pope and etc. He was conservative.

Fr. Pivert: He was weak. He was strong in doctrine, but weak in practice. Weakness is the first step of liberalism. First step. I do not want to condemn Leo XIII. He has a good doctrine, but he was weak.

Interviewer: And Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII?

Fr. Pivert: It's better not to speak about them. XI is better not to speak about him. And XII's good teaching, of course, good teaching, yes.

Infiltration and Satan's Role

Interviewer: Okay, and how do you think, it's also a question for me, how was it possible that the Church was infiltrated? And also someone asked who infiltrated the Church, who helped?

Fr. Pivert: Why would it be impossible? It was infiltrated. He's human. He's human, sure. How was it possible that Adam, the first man with so many benedictions of God, exceptional knowledge of truth, grace, faith, virtues, how is it possible he fell in sin quite immediately? Men of today are not stronger than him.

Interviewer: Yeah, that's a good example. Also, maybe Judas or Satan, they also were in a good situation, but betrayed God.

Fr. Pivert: Satan was the first angel. Judas was the chosen one of the twelve chosen. So why couldn't be Church infiltrated? It's always a way of acting of Satan. Infiltrate. Yes, to infiltrate, to lie. To disturb, to blind.

Interviewer: And would you say are there special organizations like Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or other organizations who infiltrated the Church or planned it?

Fr. Pivert: I'm not sure it is very necessary to study that. Because we... That's Satan wants. We look after his complices instead of looking after him.

Interviewer: That makes sense. And what do you say, how do we see Satan and on what should we especially focus?

Fr. Pivert: Paralysis? Black religions? Blasphemies? Communion in the hand? Mass said back to God and toward faithful? And also the silences of the hierarchy? They do not speak against abortion. They do not speak about heresies. They do not speak against end of life... Euthanasia? Euthanasia. In France. They were completely nude. Completely. That is Satan. And we haven't... It is dangerous to study too much the complices of Satan. Even the Jews. It is not... Not to study too much the Jews. We have to study God. And when you know God, you know what is false. You know what is sin. You know what is against him.

Practical Advice for the Faithful

Interviewer: Also maybe it's... There was a very practical question. What would you advise Catholics who are unable to attend masses offered by the resistance, since they, unfortunately, they are nearly no priests in Germany?

Fr. Pivert: It's impossible not to have mass. I mean that even if you are a thousand of kilometers far from a mass, bodily, by your mind, you may be present. A sister, religious sister, who was imprisoned in Romania by communists, told after her liberation, she never missed mass in the camps. And the interviewer was pleased, of course. And she said, obviously, we had a holy communion, spiritual communion. We prayed. Oh, we had a sister. It was more difficult for her. So we have cantiques, songs, loud voice prayers, that helped her.

And there is a book, published also in English, firstly in English, in Chinese first and English after that, Rose Hu, a Chinese woman, young woman, imprisoned. She was 22, 23, 24. She was imprisoned for 27 years. First, very quickly, when she was imprisoned, she encountered a religious woman. I don't know. My friend, if you want to survive, with your faith, of course, not left, if you want to keep faith, you will, first, make a rosary with what you can find, with pieces of bread, with pieces of wood, with a string. We will make a rosary. You will pray the rosary then. You will keep a time for meditation daily. You will have spiritual communion daily. And you will have examination of your conscience each evening.

Interviewer: And which authors would you recommend for, like, I don't know, meditating, like St. Francis de Sales or for meditation?

Fr. Pivert: Mystery of the Rosary. You meditate them and you pray them. That's enough. It's a false problem to think we can sanctify ourselves if we have no sacramental mass. If we are not in front of the altar, if we do not see the priest, we can by our mind transport ourselves near altar by faith we are near the Lamb of God offering himself in heaven. We have that in apocalypse. Lamb of God offers himself for in heaven for interceding for us and God for us. Sacraments are instruments. They bring grace but they are not grace.

And humanity of Christ is an instrument. Sacraments are instruments of humanity of of God. Humanity is an instrument of his divinity. So sacraments are instruments of the instruments an instrument of God. So it is it is it is useful more than useful because Christ wanted sacraments so it's useful but it's an help. Sacraments are signs and a sign is made so that we see a reality behind faith we know this reality. It's for helping us. And when God wants we are in pain in difficulties we have no priest we are in prison we are old a lot of old people in their bed for many many years without priest without nurse it's common that it's common.

Interviewer: Would you also say for example Japan was more than 200 years before?

Fr. Pivert: 250 years. 250 years. And the almightiness of God could give them sufficient grace if they were like at the right faith and the right practice etc. And and great part of them fell in error, but not because of lack of sacraments, because their priest had not had time enough to teach them about the moral. It was a problem of teaching. But they survived without sacraments without without concrete sacraments. You have always spiritual sacraments. Spiritual baptism desire gives grace, contrition gives grace, spiritual communion the real communion teaches real man. And there was also another question because it is that God never can ask we put our faith in danger and with silent priests we are in danger because we and you will not see the traps. If it is a society unfortunately it is a society. I would prefer not to have to speak about her but the society of Saint Pius the 10th have a lot of priests who are mute. And the best of them are not completely mute but they are obliged to be silent on some problems because if they speak too loud they are thrown away.

The Novus Ordo and Modernism

Interviewer: And what do you think which topics or which things we have to mention that they get thrown out? What is your experience which you maybe from other priests have heard?

Fr. Pivert: The teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre firstly. It is forbidden now the society to publish the works of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is unjust towards him and to others. And also the problems, the errors of hierarchy. Hierarchy is bad. The best of them are silent. The worst of them are complicit of Satan. We must call a wolf a wolf. A wolf is not a sheep.

Interviewer: And what do you think are just for some maybe if they don't know what in your opinion are the biggest errors of the Novus Ordo? Or what are the problems of the Novus Ordo?

Fr. Pivert: Novus Ordo is a how do you say that? It's the emerged part of the iceberg. The main problem is in doctrine. Not only in doctrine but on the importance of faith. And as I was saying to you before faith is not only a link with God. It is also light for our way. And when this light is off you fall in the darkness.

Interviewer: So deep. And would you say that the communion with hand like that the particles fall to the ground, Christ falls to the ground, that was like planned?

Fr. Pivert: It's sacrilegious. But those sacrilegious are the most shocking consequences of modernism. But the root is more important than consequences. And if we focus on the consequences without seeing the root we will throw away consequences for some time but not forever. Because the weed will grow again.

Interviewer: Someone also asked, maybe it's about roots, what do you think would help the society to heal? How can it be healed?

Fr. Pivert: By our prayers? You can do nothing. It's very difficult to heal the society. Perhaps you can awake a priest. It's very difficult. Very difficult. You did also speak with priests? I think that the best way of helping good priests is to show them the example of true Christianity. Of true Christians who are not afraid of speaking, not afraid even about persecution.

The main danger now is perhaps to be afraid. If we are afraid, we do not want to suffer. We do not want to lose friends. We do not want to lose, to have a problem and so on. And when we show the example of good Christians who are not afraid because they have confidence in God. I'm sure it's the best we can do in favor of good priests that helps them to fight. And the error when they saw that Romans want to approach tradition. They should have to give them the complete tradition. Explain them the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre. Explain them St. Thomas Aquinas. To give them tradition. To give them morals. Instead of that, they are more and more mute. So not to be rejected. Exactly the contrary that was to do.

Sedevacantism and the Resistance

Interviewer: And some people are going to Sedevacantism and also some of them think that resistance is Sedevacantism. What would you say to these people? And what do you think personally about Sedevacantism?

Fr. Pivert: The top of the church, they are faith. After that you have church. After that you have magisterium. And for keeping magisterium in fidelity you have the Pope. The extraordinary magisterium. Yes, the Pope arrives at the fifth rank. First faith and church, magisterium and tradition. The Pope is a servant of them. And so if people think that this man can't be a Pope when they see what he does, why not? But Sedevacantists, Sedevacantists, their error is that they want to resolve the problem of the Pope before resolving all other problems.

When the Pope is dead the church is not dead. When faith is dead, church is dead. Where in a country faith dies, church dies. When in a country when bishops died, dies. When bishops die, church doesn't die. When the Pope is dead, church is not dead. So that shows the Pope is very important but he is only a part of the church.

Interviewer: They try to focus only on one problem and not on all problems and they make this one problem the most important one.

Fr. Pivert: Yes, a secondary problem. I'm sure that will shock a lot of people that I think that the Pope is a secondary problem. But it's truth. When you read the teaching of Vatican I and it is inspired by Holy Spirit for modern world, for modern people. Modern people want to know where is the truth. In Vatican I you have a mind where you can think. If you think, you know that God exists. But it's not enough. Holy Trinity. You know Holy Trinity by Revelation. Where do you find Revelation? In Holy Scripture? In Tradition? Yes, Father, but Holy Scripture, I know there is a list, but Tradition, where do I know it? And I'm still answers in ordinary history, you know. When what is believed always by everybody and anywhere. Canon of St. Vincent of Lérins. It is way of recognizing Tradition.

When you have that, you have ordinary Magisterium. And this Magisterium is infallible. It's infallible because the Church is infallible because God is infallible. The Sedevacantists, they how do you say? They turn the truth about that. It's very simple, you have the teaching of the Church it's infallible. And when there is a problem, but only when there is a problem, the Pope has been instituted by God, by Christ instituted to solve the problems and only when he exerts his extraordinary Magisterium, he is infallible. And so I do not remember the question.

Interviewer: What do you think about Sedevacantists? Would you also say someone can go to a mass of Sedevacantists? A lot of people ask about this.

Fr. Pivert: And so Vatican I teaches clearly that we have to follow our knowledge of God, natural one. This tradition, Magisterium, and fifthly when there are problems, the Pope. And if they put the Pope in the first place, it is a complete upset of theology of Church. And that's the problem.

Interviewer: Yeah, so it's a very rare situation that a Pope speaks ex cathedra. It's only in very rare situations. And what would you say if a Pope teaches a heresy in a letter or something else? Because Sedevacantists say he loses his office or something like this.

Fr. Pivert: He teaches heresy. You have not to follow him. He be or he not be. He is or he isn't a Pope. That's not your problem. That's not, yeah. You are not in charge of Church. You are in charge of you, of your family, of your friends, and you don't need to know if Pope is Pope or not to teach catechism, to know faith, to have the light of faith on your way. You don't need that. Let the bishops solve the problem of the Pope. They won't. There is a crisis in the Church. They won't. When God shall want to put an end to this, he will say stop.

Interviewer: And do you personally name the Pope in the Mass?

Fr. Pivert: Yes.

Interviewer: And what would you say to people who say it's a heresy to name the Pope or it's a schismatical act?

Fr. Pivert: It can't be a heresy. Heresy is error against truth, against faith. He's not engaged and it can't be. And others say it is schismatic. The Pope is schismatic. We are not. So perhaps he does not belong to Church. It is not our problem.

Interviewer: Would you say it's more safe to name him? It's more probable that he is the Pope?

Fr. Pivert: Yes, there is less scandal than to name him by someone on the seat of Peter. And we pray for them. Because in the canon, we pray for the Pope. We do not declare we are in unity with him. And Sedevacantists say, no, you don't know *una cuм*, that means you are in accordance with him. No. That's true. But I do not want to speak too much about Sedevacantists, because they oblige us to accuse the Pope. And that makes us forget the main point, which is faith. And humility. The humility to- you see, when Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to resolve a problem, he was aware he couldn't resolve the whole problem of the Church without the Pope. He didn't declare the Pope was or wasn't Pope. He consecrated good bishops. And good bishops ordain good priests, or are supposed to ordain good priests. That is our job. We are not in charge of resolving the problems of our diocese.

Guidance for Vocations and the SSPX

Interviewer: And someone asked, he would love to hear, how young men should proceed if they want to become priests, since they presumably shouldn't go to seminars like Zaitzkofen or Ecône. So what should young people do?

Fr. Pivert: Bishop Williamson [said to?] Father Marcel De la Croix, who is with me, find an old cork, and be told by him, and I will ordain you. Why a cork? Because it is black. An old one is not very beautiful. And a cork, cork, cork, is not very pleasant. But it is true, we can't have seminars now, because each one needs his own formation, being aware of what he had already received, his needs. We can't give formation for anybody indistinctly. So if some of you who are listening to you, to me, if some of you want to become priests, they go and see one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Williamson, Bishop Williamson, and ask them, what to do? It's impossible to have a seminar now, it's impossible. Each vocation is a miracle.

Interviewer: And what would you say, in which countries is the situation better to become a priest, or easier?

Fr. Pivert: To become a priest? Which country? China. Why not? Sure.

Interviewer: But do you think that in France, or in, I don't know, Poland, or Brazil, it's maybe easier?

Fr. Pivert: There is no answer to your question. The best country, it is the one where you will find the formation you need. If it's in Brazil, go in Brazil. In France, go in France. You have an ancient cork, you listen to his, what do you call that? Sermons? No, when a cork, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, you listen to him. If it's in France, in France. In Poland, in Poland. Sure.

Interviewer: And someone also asked, what do you think about Eastern Catholic rite? Should people go there?

Fr. Pivert: It isn't the problem of the rite, it is the problem of the faith. Are those priests modernist, or not? A lot of them are modernist.

Interviewer: And would you say it is possible to find also non-modernist priests there?

Fr. Pivert: There are very few. There are very few non-modernist priests. There are very few.

Interviewer: How would you say to recognize a modernist?

Fr. Pivert: By his fruits. His fruits. It's in the gospel of today. An apple tree, you have apples. And you say that he has spines. You have spines. So you recognize him to the fruits. Not only to the words. But also to the fruits. It's not difficult to speak. To act is difficult.

Sacraments and Spiritual Life

Interviewer: And how long did you need to recognize that there was a problem in the SSPX?

Fr. Pivert: It was very quick. But I needed several years to know what to do. I didn't want to leave my fellow priests without... That's why I published the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre. Before that, I helped the society, being a lawyer for France. I was in charge of canon law in France. And also, with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and fellow priests, I was in charge of canon law for the whole society. And I thought I could help society to remain on the good path. And as I saw, the society was brought away by the spirit of the world. But I had the hope I could resist. Not only resist, but help the society. After years and years, I discovered she didn't want my help. She wanted not to tradition the sons of Archbishop Lefebvre. Because I think I'm the true son of Archbishop Lefebvre. They didn't want that. They wanted novelties. So, after helping her with good canon law, I thought I could help her by the light of Archbishop Lefebvre. And when I discovered that my role was at the end, I went away.

Interviewer: One question also to this topic. What would you recommend to a priest who is still in the SSPX and he sees problems, but he does not know what to do?

Fr. Pivert: He knows. The problem is not he doesn't know. The problem is does he want. He knows.

Interviewer: And what should he do?

Fr. Pivert: Claim the truth knowing he will be rejected. If he fails to be rejected, he will not claim the truth. And that is a problem.

Interviewer: And someone asked also, what is your prediction? Will the resistance grow in the future and expand or will it stay small?

Fr. Pivert: Resistance is not an institution. It's a spirit. And this spirit will always grow in quality, perhaps in number. But resistance is not an organization. We have no organization. We have no institutions. Because the church is firstly a spirit and the institutions are in order to serve the spirit. And many people want to find in resistance a new institution, a new organization, faithful instead of the SSPX which was not faithful. It's an error. We do not propose any organization. You are in front of your own responsibility. Each one has to be aware and act in charge of his responsibility.

Interviewer: I have also two questions. What is your answer to both objections? The first is that we are too radical. That's the first objection. Like we are extremists. And the second objection is that we are fake resistance. So some people say we are fake resistance. Some say we are going too far.

[

BaldwinIV · « **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2025, 05:08:22 PM »

[continued]

Fr. Pivert: Dog barks and caravan goes. Let the dog bark. That means extremist.

Interviewer: What does it mean?

Fr. Pivert: Jesus was an extremist. Heaven is for violent people. It is Jesus Christ. And only violent people can gain heaven. So let the dogs bark.

Interviewer: And what would you say if someone says we are fake resistance? The real resistance is I don't know. We are what? Fake resistance. Some call us fake resistance. A fake resistance.

Fr. Pivert: Let the dog bark. You know if you are fake or not. God knows. Don't take care of that. You will always have liberals who attack us like that. Extremist. Fake what you want. Vagus. Without bishop. Without seminary. They do what they want. They are alone. They will end quickly. They have no child. They are too hard. You want to go on? The problem is not we have no bishop. The problem is that our bishops do not please to these people. That is not the kind of bishop they want. So they say we have no bishops. But of course we have bishops.

Interviewer: Someone also asked a question a lot of people ask. Is it better to attend an SSPX mass than not to go to mass at all?

Fr. Pivert: It is better not to put faith in danger. And in the SSPX not only mass but frequentation. Pilgrimages. You have sermons. You have sacraments. You have all spirit. Which is dangerous. I told you that liberals are more dangerous than heretics. A heretic you see him. It is now when all heresies have been condemned. It is difficult to find a new one which has not been condemned. Heretics you know him. He is from the party of Satan. And faithful are faithful. But liberals you don't know if they are, where they are. And so that's why the society is very very dangerous. You will be attracted toward liberalism. It is easy to be liberal. You have nothing bad to do. You have only not to be too extremist. As they say. As they say. SSPX is dangerous. Very dangerous. And so God doesn't allow us to put our faith in danger.

Interviewer: Would you say that every SSPX priest is dangerous to go to his mass? Or are there some SSPX priests where you could go to mass?

Fr. Pivert: Is it more dangerous to put one finger in danger? Two fingers? Three fingers? Five fingers? The head? The complete legs? The best ones have cut one finger. I don't want. Because after the first finger they will cut the second, the third. And those priests they are not alone. You attend the mass of that priest. But there is another one who comes to the chapel. And you confess to another one. And if you are married you are obliged to put the children in the school. So... So do you think... I'll answer your question. I'll answer another way. Not to think about if it is dangerous or not. But is it possible to save ourselves without sacraments? Or no more sacraments than one mass a month, one mass a year? Yes, it is possible. It's possible. People in prison, Rose Hu, no mass during 27 years. Japanese, no mass. There are two sacraments. Baptism and marriage. Only once. For, two and a half centuries. That's possible. If you fear to leave FSSPX it's because you think you can't live without sacraments. When you have understood you can live without sacraments, do not fear any longer to leave the society. And you will be freed. You will be discharged of the weight on your shoulders.

Interviewer: And what would you answer to the objection? We were also speaking about it beside this recording that some people say we are saying to people to stay away from sacraments. We are stealing their grace. We are stealing the grace from other people. And they will, I don't know, get lost. And we are the cause of their getting lost.

Fr. Pivert: I do not understand that.

Interviewer: It's also difficult for me to say it in English but people say it's better for me to have a sacrament than not to have a sacrament. They want this sign this visible sign to cost it what it wants.

Fr. Pivert: But you said spiritual sacrament, spiritual communion St. Thomas Aquinas teaches it's a real communion. So if you have a real communion where is the problem? Where is the problem? I think the problem is more in knowing the truth. How can I keep faith if I have nobody to teach me? It's more important. Yes it's more important to keep faith to keep truth not to to be wrong in knowledge of catechism and immoral, moral. There you need some. Sacraments you have, and you have true holy communion when you have spiritual one.

Interviewer: You have, yes. And which priest would you recommend or do you know who gives like online catechism of a faith?

Fr. Pivert: I can't recommend one. I know one who is a good Sedevacantist but he's Sedevacantist. All good of the SSPX, I told already to you that those priests of the SSPX they avoid the real problems. I have my sermons. It's not a complete course of catechism but I have my sermons on my site. That can help. I advise you to study catechism of Council of Trent, not only catechism of holy Pius X. Perhaps it is time now.

Interviewer: Maybe we make two another questions. Someone asked, should one not go to confession of SSPX?

Fr. Pivert: For that you have to see what to do. Confession is a real sacrament. With confession we receive grace again. Depends of your... the church give more freedom to people. The main, the main way of not committing sin is to have a good friend, confident. If you have a good friend confident it is a very good way of not sinning. Very often, very often confessors are not good friends. Sometimes they are, but very often they are not. Very often they give a solution without, give, not always, without giving, how do you say, medicine. So, have good friends. For praying together, for having confidence. And the Rosary. Who prays Rosary will not lose his soul.

Interviewer: And someone asked how does the view about consecration line of priests, are they valid and should someone study this special topic?

Fr. Pivert: Bishops have the policy of consecrating, consecrating again eventual bishop and to ordain again priest so that people on such an important subject have no doubt. For the theoretical answer... have no... the practical one, be sure that good priest of the fidelity resistance if they come from, will be ordained again. So I think it's time now to end.

Conclusion and Final Prayer

Fr. Pivert: Thank you for your time. I am very pleased for that. We could do that again because it's not necessary to be together in the same place. It's better when we see people. I see my beautiful face but I do not see the face of our friends. But we could arrange some other questions and all friends listening to me, if you have questions you send them to Konstantin, you send them. You have all the new way with internet and so on. You ask your questions, you will transmit them to me and we will try to answer.

Interviewer: We are very happy. There were like 10 people listening, it was very spontaneous, now are 5 left. But we will make a recording and show it also other people. And we end with a prayer.

Fr. Pivert: In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecuм. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.

Interviewer: Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

Fr. Pivert: God bless you.

Interviewer: Thank you.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2025, 09:08:42 PM »

Thanks for posting, Baldwin. Nice looking website.

Seraphina · « **Reply #3 on:** August 13, 2025, 03:55:22 AM »

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. 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. Like Bp. Williamson (RIP), it is too late for seminaries, the only way to form priests is by an individual finding a bishop, one of those consecrated by Bp. W., to be his apprentice. 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). 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?
Making spiritual Communion and having perfect Contrition for Confession, are sufficient. Read the missal, pray the Rosary, say daily prayers. For spiritual counsel, confer with a close friend. That’s it.

What of the person who has no one? Like Fr. Pfeiffer in the past, Fr. Pivert cites the Japanese keeping the Faith 250 years organized into secret home chapels, and the case of a woman imprisoned 27 years in solitary confinement. I guess except for CI, that’s me.

He also in so many words rejects the positions of Fr. Chazal and Bp. Sanborn, although their names are not mentioned.

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!

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Is Fr. Pivert a member of any organization and does he use a particular bishop?

trento · « **Reply #4 on:** August 13, 2025, 12:49:13 PM »

Could it be a translation problem? Only Confession is a real sacrament? What on earth! Reading this on face value already indicates many problems with the positions of Fr. Pivert, the main one, a priest being a loose cannon reporting to no authority.

MiserereMei · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2025, 03:30:28 PM »

It's a language issue. His English is not very proficient. He was close to + Williamson. He has a web page.

BaldwinIV · « **Reply #6 on:** August 13, 2025, 05:05:35 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on August 13, 2025, 03:55:22 AM

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.

Quote

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").

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Seraphina · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2025, 03:03:57 AM »

Thanks, Baldwin, for clearing up some of it, but it seems like a hopeless, confusing mess so far as saving one’s soul. If a priest has a wrong belief or intention and he doesn’t vocalize or otherwise communicate it, I’m guilty of his sins? If his sin of intention is by omission, I’m still guilty so I must stay away if I cannot download his mind? This is ludicrous!
I’m not responsible for a priest’s sins unless it is obvious, ie. he states heresy, he promotes evil practices in public.
He says to flee the live cannon when he is one, himself?
So, someone like me, if I have a chance to save my soul, must remain entirely isolated religiously speaking after getting someone, anyone, I guess, to lay baptize me. After that I pray my Rosary, say daily prayers, confess to God alone, hope I have perfect contrition, make spiritual communions, and do the best I can, all solo. Then I’ll possibly make it to Heaven?
That makes no sense unless I truly am in solitary confinement, deprived of all spiritual helps.
I don’t know French beyond a pre-K level, like numbers, colors, days of the week, and internet translations are fairly useless. I’ll not even bother with Fr. Pivert’s website.
After reading letters like this, I feel like there’s no hope, so why bother?
Adopting Fr. Pivert’s program is far more dangerous to me than any SSPX chapel or priest, or any brand of Traditionalism, Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationist, FSSP, indult, etc. He recommends Bp. Williamson with whom I regularly corresponded and conversed for some 20 years. Never once did H.E. leave me feeling like I was predestined to go to Hell. In fact, the direct opposite. And it wasn’t because Bp. W. was “old fashioned.”
With all due respect, I think I’ll be avoiding Fr. Pivirt’s writings.

girlytrad · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2025, 10:29:48 AM »

I'm so tired of people who will take something sketchy that Bishop Williamson said and make that as the Truth. I get that if you have a weak conscience and catechism, then you want to take the easiest route, but Bishop Williamson himself said "if I am wrong, cut my head off" . He wanted people to think for themselves.

So if you want to go to the SSPX, then go and leave us all in the resistance alone. We want to preserve the Faith, pure and undefiled, and compromisers like you just weigh us down.

Benedikt · « **Reply #9 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:02:22 PM »

Quote from: girlytrad on August 15, 2025, 10:29:48 AM

Quote from: girlytrad 2025-08-15, 8:29:48 AM
I'm so tired of people who will take something sketchy that Bishop Williamson said and make that as the Truth. I get that if you have a weak conscience and catechism, then you want to take the easiest route, but Bishop Williamson himself said "if I am wrong, cut my head off" . He wanted people to think for themselves.

So if you want to go to the SSPX, then go and leave us all in the resistance alone. We want to preserve the Faith, pure and undefiled, and compromisers like you just weigh us down.

Honestly, this is the most level-headed post on the forum. It tells people to think for themselves and defend the Faith without getting caught up in every rumor or offhand comment.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #10 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:40:16 PM »

Quote from: girlytrad on August 15, 2025, 10:29:48 AM

I'm so tired of people who will take something sketchy that Bishop Williamson said and make that as the Truth. I get that if you have a weak conscience and catechism, then you want to take the easiest route, but Bishop Williamson himself said "if I am wrong, cut my head off" . He wanted people to think for themselves.

So if you want to go to the SSPX, then go and leave us all in the resistance alone. We want to preserve the Faith, pure and undefiled, and compromisers like you just weigh us down.

It is precisely this non-Catholic attitude, condemned by today's gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican, that I despise.

I have no problem with others making the decision that for them and their family it may be a danger to the Faith to attend the SSPX and therefore to take the decision to make a clean break with the SSPX and sanctify the Sunday by praying at home when a Resistance priest is not available.

But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.

True Catholics should be overjoyed that any soul of good will would come into their midst. Did you despise Novus Ordo Catholics coming to the Traditional Mass when you were in the SSPX?

If you want to "preserve the Faith pure and undefiled", please tell me how I am endangering that by attending a Resistance Mass.

Archbishop Lefebvre gave us the principle which should govern our decision in this matter: we must not put our Faith in danger. In the early days of the Novus Ordo he even permitted his seminarians to attend the New Mass on their vacations and "didn't dare" tell the faithful not to attend Mass on Sundays. His attitude - not his principles - changed with time as it became clear beyond a doubt what a grave danger to the Faith the NOM represented. Can that be said of SSPX Masses, and in all circuмstances? It is in fact arguable that it can be said of your opinion that one should avoid the SSPX like the plague. For many Resistance Catholics (if you will allow us to consider ourselves such) this would mean almost never attending Sunday Mass. In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.

An attitude of humility, like the Publican's, is what we all need. Do what you need to do to keep the Faith. Consult a priest you trust. Be careful pontificating on what others should do, even if you are a priest, just as Bishop Williamson had the prudence to do. We are in a crisis, it's not always that simple.

Benedikt · « **Reply #11 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:11:50 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on Yesterday at 07:40:16 PM

Quote from: Plenus Venter 2025-08-16, 5:40:16 PM
It is precisely this non-Catholic attitude, condemned by today's gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican, that I despise.

I have no problem with others making the decision that for them and their family it may be a danger to the Faith to attend the SSPX and therefore to take the decision to make a clean break with the SSPX and sanctify the Sunday by praying at home when a Resistance priest is not available.

But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.

True Catholics should be overjoyed that any soul of good will would come into their midst. Did you despise Novus Ordo Catholics coming to the Traditional Mass when you were in the SSPX?

If you want to "preserve the Faith pure and undefiled", please tell me how I am endangering that by attending a Resistance Mass.

Archbishop Lefebvre gave us the principle which should govern our decision in this matter: we must not put our Faith in danger. In the early days of the Novus Ordo he even permitted his seminarians to attend the New Mass on their vacations and "didn't dare" tell the faithful not to attend Mass on Sundays. His attitude - not his principles - changed with time as it became clear beyond a doubt what a grave danger to the Faith the NOM represented. Can that be said of SSPX Masses, and in all circuмstances? It is in fact arguable that it can be said of your opinion that one should avoid the SSPX like the plague. For many Resistance Catholics (if you will allow us to consider ourselves such) this would mean almost never attending Sunday Mass. In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.

An attitude of humility, like the Publican's, is what we all need. Do what you need to do to keep the Faith. Consult a priest you trust. Be careful pontificating on what others should do, even if you are a priest, just as Bishop Williamson had the prudence to do. We are in a crisis, it's not always that simple.

One cannot attend a Neo-SSPX Mass or receive their sacraments and claim to be part of the true resistance. By participating, one publicly consents to a society that has submitted to Modernist Rome, embraced the errors of Vatican II, and formally aligned itself with the Conciliar hierarchy. True resistance is lived in full fidelity to +Archbishop Lefebvre, preserving the Faith as handed down, refusing to grant legitimacy to compromise, and remaining entirely outside every act of conciliar submission. Attendance is not neutral; it is consent, and consent nullifies resistance. Any claim to resistance while participating in their services is therefore logically and morally impossible.

BaldwinIV · « **Reply #12 on:** **Today** at 07:45:49 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on Yesterday at 07:40:16 PM

But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.

I didn't call anyone anything, but I cannot tell people to go to SSPX Masses. Neither could Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal (the video popped up in my feed recently, on the age-old question of "should we still go to SSPX Masses"):

Although I think Fr. Hewko himself is going too far with his "True Resistance" shtick, it's usually a natural consequence of having anything to do with the Resistance. Some of our German Resistance members were even publicly denounced from the pulpit by their SSPX priest (and the SSPX was even gleeful about "distancing themselves").

One of our new German Resistance members posted a (very, very mild) short TikTok edit of Bp. Stobnicki, and then some Russian layman and a social media Novus Ordo "Priest" reported our activities to the Menzingen hierarchy. Since our modernist enemies are not very smart, the Russian guy then posted the response E-Mail publicly on TikTok (

), which just confirms the Resistance position. Look at this trash:

"Should polemical or disrespectful statements be made there about the New Mass, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope Leo XIV, or other clergy, we expressly distance ourselves from this type of criticism.
Approaching others in this manner is not in the spirit of the society." - signed, Stuttgart.

Then two days after they "distanced themselves" from him publicly, they privately retracted back and tried to get him to go back in their chapel. I have been in abusive relationships and this is the perfect definition of gaslighting. They know what they are doing, they'll be nice to you UNTIL you try to go away.

They also don't like Fr. Hesse all too much, likely because he criticized their "Saint" JPII. Luckily some of his fighting spirit has passed on, but the priests here really like JPII and his "family planning" evangelism, etc. The chapel in Berlin even has an SSPX pilgrimage with a "New Mass" participation in it. Guess that's not a problem now. And we're talking about Berlin, aka Sodom Inc.

One of the priests in Berlin even told me that it's possible for abortion to not be a sin if the woman doesn't know beforehand that it's a sin. The whole "you need absolutely perfect knowledge otherwise it's not a sin" error is wild among the clergy, which is why they don't preach against the vices of the Novus Ordo Corona refugees. So, that's the level of "priestly training" that we're at now: keep the people in the dark so that they may "find out themselves what is sinful for them an what isn't". And then one of the priests in Berlin told us that it would be a grave sin to go to Resistance Masses because "they are preaching hatred" (???). Luckily the guy he told it to already knew what was up, but yeah. This is the current policy in Menzingen: liberal, sweet and soft - as long as you're not trying to leave. They're gone mate, they're gone.

I don't condemn others for going to the SSPX, but the problems will naturally arise, that's my experience. The SSPX hates the Resistance so much, because we show them a mirror of what they should have been. They hate our guts and I'm supposed to take "communion" from them, how can I stand before God with that. Silence is worse than heresy: silence is not an "error", but it is a grave, grave sin. Although I don't like Fr. Hewkos constant rhetoric, I can see where he's coming from. May God have mercy on my soul for being a German. I don't know why especially Germans always have to be the biggest modernists.

I am not in communion with these traitors the same way St. Hermenegild chose death over taking communion from an Arian bishop. Liberalism and silence is worse than Arian heresy.

Quote

In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.

Not really, unless you go against St. Thomas saying that a spiritual communion isn't a real communion. I had this opinion, too, but I've discarded it. Anyone who will tell me that I will get lose the faith if I rather pray the Missal and Breviary for 2 hours rather than take communion from Fr. Liberal preaching about the new Carlo Acutis canonization, I will laugh in your face (yes, this actually happened).

Fr. Pivert said to me: What is way more important for keeping the faith are good, holy friends. Even confessors can't do much. There are people who go to Mass, but they read bad books, listen to bad music and keep bad company. Result is, nothing changes in their life or it gets worse.

My personal experience is that my faith went up drastically after I didn't go to Mass there anymore. I guess with all of the above, you can see why. Living in the desert is more fruitful for the faith than going to Mass with these traitors.

Benedikt · « **Reply #13 on:** **Today** at 11:35:39 AM »

Quote from: BaldwinIV on Today at 07:45:49 AM

I didn't call anyone anything, but I cannot tell people to go to SSPX Masses. Neither could Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal (the video popped up in my feed recently, on the age-old question of "should we still go to SSPX Masses"):

Although I think Fr. Hewko himself is going too far with his "True Resistance" shtick, it's usually a natural consequence of having anything to do with the Resistance. Some of our German Resistance members were even publicly denounced from the pulpit by their SSPX priest (and the SSPX was even gleeful about "distancing themselves").

One of our new German Resistance members posted a (very, very mild) short TikTok edit of Bp. Stobnicki, and then some Russian layman and a social media Novus Ordo "Priest" reported our activities to the Menzingen hierarchy. Since our modernist enemies are not very smart, the Russian guy then posted the response E-Mail publicly on TikTok (), which just confirms the Resistance position. Look at this trash:

"Should polemical or disrespectful statements be made there about the New Mass, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope Leo XIV, or other clergy, we expressly distance ourselves from this type of criticism.
Approaching others in this manner is not in the spirit of the society." - signed, Stuttgart.

Then two days after they "distanced themselves" from him publicly, they privately retracted back and tried to get him to go back in their chapel. I have been in abusive relationships and this is the perfect definition of gaslighting. They know what they are doing, they'll be nice to you UNTIL you try to go away.

They also don't like Fr. Hesse all too much, likely because he criticized their "Saint" JPII. Luckily some of his fighting spirit has passed on, but the priests here really like JPII and his "family planning" evangelism, etc. The chapel in Berlin even has an SSPX pilgrimage with a "New Mass" participation in it. Guess that's not a problem now. And we're talking about Berlin, aka Sodom Inc.

One of the priests in Berlin even told me that it's possible for abortion to not be a sin if the woman doesn't know beforehand that it's a sin. The whole "you need absolutely perfect knowledge otherwise it's not a sin" error is wild among the clergy, which is why they don't preach against the vices of the Novus Ordo Corona refugees. So, that's the level of "priestly training" that we're at now: keep the people in the dark so that they may "find out themselves what is sinful for them an what isn't". And then one of the priests in Berlin told us that it would be a grave sin to go to Resistance Masses because "they are preaching hatred" (???). Luckily the guy he told it to already knew what was up, but yeah. This is the current policy in Menzingen: liberal, sweet and soft - as long as you're not trying to leave. They're gone mate, they're gone.

I don't condemn others for going to the SSPX, but the problems will naturally arise, that's my experience. The SSPX hates the Resistance so much, because we show them a mirror of what they should have been. They hate our guts and I'm supposed to take "communion" from them, how can I stand before God with that. Silence is worse than heresy: silence is not an "error", but it is a grave, grave sin. Although I don't like Fr. Hewkos constant rhetoric, I can see where he's coming from. May God have mercy on my soul for being a German. I don't know why especially Germans always have to be the biggest modernists.

I am not in communion with these traitors the same way St. Hermenegild chose death over taking communion from an Arian bishop. Liberalism and silence is worse than Arian heresy.
Not really, unless you go against St. Thomas saying that a spiritual communion isn't a real communion. I had this opinion, too, but I've discarded it. Anyone who will tell me that I will get lose the faith if I rather pray the Missal and Breviary for 2 hours rather than take communion from Fr. Liberal preaching about the new Carlo Acutis canonization, I will laugh in your face (yes, this actually happened).

Fr. Pivert said to me: What is way more important for keeping the faith are good, holy friends. Even confessors can't do much. There are people who go to Mass, but they read bad books, listen to bad music and keep bad company. Result is, nothing changes in their life or it gets worse.

My personal experience is that my faith went up drastically after I didn't go to Mass there anymore. I guess with all of the above, you can see why. Living in the desert is more fruitful for the faith than going to Mass with these traitors.

Excellent post. Do you have the full email from Menzingen that you could share?

Seraphina · « **Reply #14 on:** **Today** at 02:33:30 PM »

Quote from: Benedikt on Yesterday at 09:11:50 PM

One cannot attend a Neo-SSPX Mass or receive their sacraments and claim to be part of the true resistance. By participating, one publicly consents to a society that has submitted to Modernist Rome, embraced the errors of Vatican II, and formally aligned itself with the Conciliar hierarchy. True resistance is lived in full fidelity to +Archbishop Lefebvre, preserving the Faith as handed down, refusing to grant legitimacy to compromise, and remaining entirely outside every act of conciliar submission. Attendance is not neutral; it is consent, and consent nullifies resistance. Any claim to resistance while participating in their services is therefore logically and morally impossible.

I do not care whether I am “part of the true resistance.” I care even less what others think about me in this respect. A priest whose main interest is the same as that of the Church, the salvation of souls by adhering to the dogma and traditions as handed down until V2, is a help to me. If that is not the case, or the priest refuses me for whatever reasons, I move on. If necessary, I make do without as I did for nearly three years during the c-sickness.
I did not do a great job of it, many days doing the bare minimum, but giving up wasn’t an option.

Author Topic: Interview with Fr. Pivert (Read 1990 times)

BaldwinIV

Interview with Fr. Pivert

BaldwinIV

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Plenus Venter

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Seraphina

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

trento

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

MiserereMei

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

BaldwinIV

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Seraphina

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

girlytrad

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Benedikt

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Plenus Venter

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Benedikt

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

BaldwinIV

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Benedikt

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert

Seraphina

Re: Interview with Fr. Pivert