Author Topic: NEW Father Pfeiffer sermon July 15, Wolves in Sheeps clothing (Read 7187 times)

JuanDiego · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2012, 04:01:09 PM »

:applause: I'm so glad to hear a sermon that "tells it like it is" instead of the long, boring sermons I've been hearing. I for one needed to hear Fr stand up and speak plainly about how the dear Mexican traditionalists have been treated for attending Fr Chazals mass. If Bp Fellay puts Fr Pfeiffer out after this sermon it will just confirm all that Fr said in his sermon on how there is a lack of charity in the dealings with the faithful. As he points out, toughness should be first against opposition to the faith not against the people just trying to do there best.
EXCELLENT SERMON.

Incredulous · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2012, 12:30:16 AM »

Quote from: JuanDiego

:applause: I'm so glad to hear a sermon that "tells it like it is" instead of the long, boring sermons I've been hearing. I for one needed to hear Fr stand up and speak plainly about how the dear Mexican traditionalists have been treated for attending Fr Chazals mass. If Bp Fellay puts Fr Pfeiffer out after this sermon it will just confirm all that Fr said in his sermon on how there is a lack of charity in the dealings with the faithful. As he points out, toughness should be first against opposition to the faith not against the people just trying to do there best.
EXCELLENT SERMON.

Agreed.
This sermon should be sent to all the SSPX priests.
They need to listen to straight talk about their crisis, not DICI double-speak.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2012, 01:18:24 PM »

Many thanks for uploading it, Cristera.

I have watched the video as far as the part about the priest offering the Traditional Mass and who doesn't believe in the Real Presence.

Last year the SSPX had a pilgrimage at Knock Shrine in Ireland. Raymond Cardinal Burke was offering the 'extra ordinary form' at the Shrine also.

Of course I went to the Mass offered by the Society but afterwards stuck my head around the door to see the Cardinal. The Church was packed with majority just present because the Cardinal was offering the Mass.

Earlier a smaller number attended the Mass offered by the SSPX but were the better for doing so. As far as I'm aware no SSPX regulars attended the Cardinal's Mass.

Whilst a majority of Catholics went with the Cardinal, I was glad to be part of the minority on that day.The Cardinal went back to saying the Novus Ordo the day after.It was just a show Mass.

A criticism I have is the SSPX offering Mass where the Novus Ordo is celebrated.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2012, 03:24:35 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

A criticism I have is the SSPX offering Mass where the Novus Ordo is celebrated.

John is absolutely right, it is nefarious!!! The church is to be reconciled after it has been violated!

CAN. 1173.
§ 1. In violata ecclesia, antequam reconcilietur, nefas est divina celebrare officia, Sacramenta ministrare, mortuos sepelire.

CAN. 1173.
§ 1. In a violated church, before it has been reconciled, it is nefarious to celebrate the divine office, to minister the Sacraments, or to bury the dead.

Quote

nefarious [nɪˈfɛərɪəs]
adj
evil; wicked; sinful

[from Latin nefārius, from nefās unlawful deed, from nē not + fās divine law]

nefariously adv
nefariousness n

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** July 18, 2012, 03:43:02 PM »

Yes, but is celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass the same as violating a Church? That is the question.

After all, we're talking about the Mass being promulgated by the mainstream Catholic Church and the Pope.

A defective Mass that tends to destroy the Faith? Maybe.
A sacrilege in se (fundamentally, in itself)? That's a different story.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #6 on:** July 18, 2012, 03:57:12 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Yes, but is celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass the same as violating a Church? That is the question.

I refer to it as the "Nefarious Ordo" :smile:

Domitilla · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:00:46 PM »

I am certainly no theologian; however, the NO Mass is man-centered; it is referred to as a "sacred meal" rather than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Since it could certainly be a "defective Mass that tends to destroy the faith", it could be construed as false worship which is a sin against the First Commandment. A Roman Catholic is on much safer ground to worship at the Tridentine Holy Mass.

In the words of St. Alphonsus de Ligori: "We have but one soul to save; one God to love and serve; one eternity to expect. Death will come soon, judgement will follow; and then, Heaven or Hell forever."

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:19:34 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

I am certainly no theologian; however, the NO Mass is man-centered; it is referred to as a "sacred meal" rather than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Since it could certainly be a "defective Mass that tends to destroy the faith", it could be construed as false worship which is a sin against the First Commandment. A Roman Catholic is on much safer ground to worship at the Tridentine Holy Mass.

In the words of St. Alphonsus de Ligori: "We have but one soul to save; one God to love and serve; one eternity to expect. Death will come soon, judgement will follow; and then, Heaven or Hell forever."

Except it is critical to know what that canon actually means, as in what is the definition of a "violated church."

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:21:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

A defective Mass that tends to destroy the Faith? Maybe.
A sacrilege in se (fundamentally, in itself)? That's a different story.

Good point.

But let me make my small points to see if the novus ordo mess is actually a sacrilege. I know Matthew was once an SSPX seminarian so his knowledge is pretty hefty especially when compared to mine (I'm now just starting to read my first Archbishop LeFebvre's "They Have Uncrowned Him") So, here goes:

Throughout all those years where the novus ordo had "for all" instead of "for many" and with the near complete removal of the Offertory, does that rise to the level of sacrilege?

Removal of the leonine prayers? Not sacrilege, but definitely a downgrade, particularly in the way those prayers prayed for the well-being of the Holy Church.

How about Mass facing the people? A priest offers his sacrificial prayers in the direction of the One to Whom those prayers are offered. In the case of the Catholic Mass, it is Jesus Christ who these propitiary prayers/sacrifices are offered. When you turn the priest around, does the novus ordo think these prayers should be offered to the people? The people are there to worship and not to be worshipped. Not to mention that the change is just copycatting the style of a heretic group - the Lutheran church. Just my thoughts on this.

Even if changing the Canon from Latin to English is actually making a change in the prayers and possibly rendering them invalid, I don't know if this rises to the level of sacrilege. I could be wrong.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:45:30 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

I am certainly no theologian; however, the NO Mass is man-centered; it is referred to as a "sacred meal" rather than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Since it could certainly be a "defective Mass that tends to destroy the faith", it could be construed as false worship which is a sin against the First Commandment. A Roman Catholic is on much safer ground to worship at the Tridentine Holy Mass.

In the words of St. Alphonsus de Ligori: "We have but one soul to save; one God to love and serve; one eternity to expect. Death will come soon, judgement will follow; and then, Heaven or Hell forever."

I certainly wouldn't recommend anybody to attend the Novus Ordo. There are a few people that I'm praying for that they will jump out of the Novus Ordo camp.

I realise a day might arise where we are only left with the rosary and missal and no access to a valid Mass. Priests like Fr Pfeiffer need our prayers and support.

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:57:00 PM »

If my parish priest were to begin offering the Traditional Mass I wouldn't attend it though wouldn't have an objection meeting the priest. Their heart might be in the right place and be good on other issues but such priests would need to quit the Novus Ordo and all that goes with it.

There is one young Diocesan priest in Ireland. He would be regarded as conservative. He offers the 'extra ordinary form' every now and then. He believes in Medjugorje. Some priests in Ireland are changing their attitude towards the SSPX and Tradition.

There is very little interest in the Traditional Mass and Tradition in Ireland. Little pockets of support here and there.

Diocesan priests learning to offer the true Mass are often honey traps to weaken resistance. Father might say the 'Old Mass' on Sunday but says a 'Taize Mass' on a Thursday night.

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2012, 05:02:02 PM »

Quote

I'm now just starting to read my first Archbishop LeFebvre's "They Have Uncrowned Him"

An excellent book and with 'An Open Letter to Confused Catholics' should be included in the starter pack when you set out to "tradify" a newbie.

Sunbeam · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2012, 07:13:58 PM »

Ferdinand quoted as follows from Canon 1173 of the Codex Iuris Canonici (the 1917 Code of Canon Law) and from a translation of the same:

Quote

CAN. 1173.
§ 1. In violata ecclesia, antequam reconcilietur, nefas est divina celebrare officia, Sacramenta ministrare, mortuos sepelire.

CAN. 1173.
§ 1. In a violated church, before it has been reconciled, it is nefarious to celebrate the divine office, to minister the Sacraments, or to bury the dead.

The latter evidently comes from the English translation of the Code by Dr Edward Peters, where “divina celebrare officia” is rendered as “to celebrate the divine office”.

This is grammatically wrong and Dr Peters really should have known better.

What is wrong with it is that the expression “divina officia” is in the plural and not the singular. If it were the singular, the original text would have said “divina officium”.

Officium means: a duty, an obligation, a service.

To an English speaker “the divine office” refers to “the Breviary”.
Cf. The Catholic Encyclopedia: the divine office = the recitation of certain prayers in the Breviary.

Clearly, Canon 1173 is referring, not merely to the recitation of the Breviary, but to the celebration of divine services (plural) of all descriptions, and of course this especially includes the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Thus, Canon 1173 says that it is nefarious (wicked, iniquitous) to celebrate divine services in a church building that has been violated (defiled, desecrated), until it has been restored [viz: to its sanctified state].

What constitutes violation would be one or other of the four acts listed in Canon 1172, and the act that is most pertinent to the present discussion is No. 3: Impii vel sordidis usibus, quibus ecclesia addicta fuerit.

Dr Peters renders this as “Impious and sordid use to which the church was put.” But here again he errs in his translation, because (a) usibus is plural (uses) and not singular (use), and (b) vel does not mean “and”, but “or”.

A more accurate translation would be: Irreverent or sordid uses to which the church has been subjected.

If the celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae is objectively irreverent, then it defiles a church according to the meaning of Canon 1173.

Some of us have escaped the Novus Ordo Missae precisely because we came to recognise it as objectively irreverent (if not worse). In fact, at the heart of the supposed “Words of Consecration” there is falsehood, and we cannot worship God with a falsehood, for Our Blessed Lord said:

God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth. [John 4:24; Douay Rheims]

Infiguris · « **Reply #14 on:** July 18, 2012, 07:18:52 PM »

Quote from: Cristera

I need a transcript of the sermon to translate in French and possibly Polish.