Author Topic: Open Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 3842 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** November 13, 2014, 08:04:41 PM »

Open Letter to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Rev. Father Pfeiffer,

I would like to communicate to you in a public correspondence how much I admire your fight for the Faith and Tradition and your resistance to a deal with modernist Rome. It was only by accident that a couple years ago I stumbled across your you-tube video of May 27th, 2012 during the same week that it was published. It was this video and the subsequent events of that summer which opened my eyes to the problem, which persists, of the leadership of the SSPX. Your courage in speaking was especially inspiring to me, and I listened to your sermon several times that week.

Since that time many things have changed, which are not even necessary for me to describe here. The principal fact which is now different from that year is that there are now literally dozens of priests who have left the SSPX or have been dismissed due to their disagreement with a compromise to the modernist Roman authorities, the primary of these priests being His Excellency Bishop R. Williamson. Within recent days there seems to be a disagreement between yourself and at least one or two other resistance priests, so much so that it has been perceived by the faithful and published in the public forum, as well as receiving attention in a recent “question and answers’ session in Canada. *

Because it seems odd to the faithful that you would remain quiet about this issue, I feel compelled to address it in this letter. It seems that the true point of disagreement between yourself and other resistance priests is due to your position regarding SSPX Masses. It seems that you first began to promote your position of "red-lighting" (prohibiting attendance at) all SSPX chapels collectively at least as early as March 10th, 2013 in a sermon where, not specifying if you were being objective or subjective, you stated that all SSPX priests are "guilty" of "wickedness of doctrine" and that it is no longer permitted to the faithful to attend any SSPX Mass because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics. The basis for this generalized prohibition of the SSPX Masses was the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay, which was later reported by Fr. Morgan in Catholic Family News to have not only been withdrawn but also "renounced".*

With these brief details which I have laid out thus far, I find myself obliged to ask you in the public forum, as these details have all received a great deal of public attention among traditional Catholics and also due to the confusion and division which have resulted, several questions which I will enumerate so as to elicit a more precise response and clarification that may serve to foster unity among Traditional Catholics if possible.

1) If Bishop Fellay has publicly renounced the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, is there some new reason why the faithful are obligated to avoid all SSPX Masses collectively? Are you still claiming that all SSPX Masses are to be avoided or do you prefer the position which has been deemed more prudent by other resistance priest which calls for caution of SSPX chapels on a case by case basis (yellow-lighting)?

2) I currently only attend Masses offered by resistance priests but know several priests who are offering Masses in the SSPX chapels and preach very strongly against modern errors, Vatican 2, and the New Mass and have a solid doctrine. If there is certainly the Traditional Faith and Sacraments being offered by individual SSPX priests (and no one doubts this) and the 2012 April 15th Doctrinal Declaration was renounced, does your "red-light" position not conflict with that position of the Society which has always been that where there is solid Catholic doctrine and Traditional Sacraments one may attend Mass?

3) What is your position towards the numerous other resistance priests who claim that there are many good priests in the SSPX and do not prohibit their faithful from attending SSPX Masses? Do you also consider these priests as being "guilty" of deceiving the faithful or allowing the faithful to be in communion with heretics? Do you also prohibit the faithful from attending these other resistance priests' Masses, as would be the logical conclusion?

4) Because of the recent conflict perceived by the faithful between another priest who had recently left the SSPX to help the resistance and yourself, do you not feel that you are possibly jeopardizing the growth of the resistance or even de-motivating other priests from leaving the SSPX and helping the resistance?

5) The biggest concern currently among the faithful regarding yourself, it seems, is that you allow an associate, Pablo, to run your copyrighted Our Lady of Mount Carmel chapel website and post calumnies against His Excellency Bishop Williamson and at least one other resistance priest. Because it is not like your character to remain silent on issues of this type, it raises even more concern. Do you choose to not denounce Pablo and his slanders against a prince of the Church and other priests because of "human respect"? Have you chosen to not speak on this matter because you agree with Pablo and share his views at least to some extent?

Reverend Fr. Pfeiffer, because I respect you and admire you as a priest and also for the sake of clarity, I hope you will respond to these questions that I have outlined, especially those regarding attendance at the Masses of resistance priests' Masses who do not "red-light" SSPX Masses and the opinions expressed on your chapel website regarding the good bishop.

In Christo Rege
Michael Fuller

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/open-letter-to-fr-joseph-pfeiffer.html?m=1

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2014, 01:23:21 PM »

I hope you get a response, Mr. Fuller.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2014, 01:24:07 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I hope you get a response, Mr. Fuller.

Thanks.

Pilar · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2014, 08:42:50 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Open Letter to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Rev. Father Pfeiffer,

I would like to communicate to you in a public correspondence how much I admire your fight for the Faith and Tradition and your resistance to a deal with modernist Rome. It was only by accident that a couple years ago I stumbled across your you-tube video of May 27th, 2012 during the same week that it was published. It was this video and the subsequent events of that summer which opened my eyes to the problem, which persists, of the leadership of the SSPX. Your courage in speaking was especially inspiring to me, and I listened to your sermon several times that week.

Since that time many things have changed, which are not even necessary for me to describe here. The principal fact which is now different from that year is that there are now literally dozens of priests who have left the SSPX or have been dismissed due to their disagreement with a compromise to the modernist Roman authorities, the primary of these priests being His Excellency Bishop R. Williamson. Within recent days there seems to be a disagreement between yourself and at least one or two other resistance priests, so much so that it has been perceived by the faithful and published in the public forum, as well as receiving attention in a recent “question and answers’ session in Canada. *

Because it seems odd to the faithful that you would remain quiet about this issue, I feel compelled to address it in this letter. It seems that the true point of disagreement between yourself and other resistance priests is due to your position regarding SSPX Masses. It seems that you first began to promote your position of "red-lighting" (prohibiting attendance at) all SSPX chapels collectively at least as early as March 10th, 2013 in a sermon where, not specifying if you were being objective or subjective, you stated that all SSPX priests are "guilty" of "wickedness of doctrine" and that it is no longer permitted to the faithful to attend any SSPX Mass because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics. The basis for this generalized prohibition of the SSPX Masses was the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay, which was later reported by Fr. Morgan in Catholic Family News to have not only been withdrawn but also "renounced".*

With these brief details which I have laid out thus far, I find myself obliged to ask you in the public forum, as these details have all received a great deal of public attention among traditional Catholics and also due to the confusion and division which have resulted, several questions which I will enumerate so as to elicit a more precise response and clarification that may serve to foster unity among Traditional Catholics if possible.

1) If Bishop Fellay has publicly renounced the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, is there some new reason why the faithful are obligated to avoid all SSPX Masses collectively? Are you still claiming that all SSPX Masses are to be avoided or do you prefer the position which has been deemed more prudent by other resistance priest which calls for caution of SSPX chapels on a case by case basis (yellow-lighting)?

2) I currently only attend Masses offered by resistance priests but know several priests who are offering Masses in the SSPX chapels and preach very strongly against modern errors, Vatican 2, and the New Mass and have a solid doctrine. If there is certainly the Traditional Faith and Sacraments being offered by individual SSPX priests (and no one doubts this) and the 2012 April 15th Doctrinal Declaration was renounced, does your "red-light" position not conflict with that position of the Society which has always been that where there is solid Catholic doctrine and Traditional Sacraments one may attend Mass?

3) What is your position towards the numerous other resistance priests who claim that there are many good priests in the SSPX and do not prohibit their faithful from attending SSPX Masses? Do you also consider these priests as being "guilty" of deceiving the faithful or allowing the faithful to be in communion with heretics? Do you also prohibit the faithful from attending these other resistance priests' Masses, as would be the logical conclusion?

4) Because of the recent conflict perceived by the faithful between another priest who had recently left the SSPX to help the resistance and yourself, do you not feel that you are possibly jeopardizing the growth of the resistance or even de-motivating other priests from leaving the SSPX and helping the resistance?

5) The biggest concern currently among the faithful regarding yourself, it seems, is that you allow an associate, Pablo, to run your copyrighted Our Lady of Mount Carmel chapel website and post calumnies against His Excellency Bishop Williamson and at least one other resistance priest. Because it is not like your character to remain silent on issues of this type, it raises even more concern. Do you choose to not denounce Pablo and his slanders against a prince of the Church and other priests because of "human respect"? Have you chosen to not speak on this matter because you agree with Pablo and share his views at least to some extent?

Reverend Fr. Pfeiffer, because I respect you and admire you as a priest and also for the sake of clarity, I hope you will respond to these questions that I have outlined, especially those regarding attendance at the Masses of resistance priests' Masses who do not "red-light" SSPX Masses and the opinions expressed on your chapel website regarding the good bishop.

In Christo Rege
Michael Fuller

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/open-letter-to-fr-joseph-pfeiffer.html?m=1

This is one of the very best posts I have seen on this forum! Bravo, Mr. Fuller! :applause:And thank you, Centroamerica for posting this great find!

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2014, 10:15:07 PM »

Because I believe that this letter will possibly receive several updates, I will continue to post them in the public forum and also add them to the original blog post- see the original link.

Here is the first update added which comes from another resistance priest. You may have to read more than once to catch the point which is that even if the Society were all unanimously heretics, which they are not even any where close to being, the act of assisting their Masses would not technically be communicatio in sacris. What continues here as you can also find in the original blog post is this priest's correspondence.

Update #1: a resistance priest responds

Dear Michael:

This is to complement what you rightly say in your letter.
About the supposed communicatio in sacris that would be committed by those who attend SSPX Masses, it is unreasonable to say that, you couldn't even say that one would have committed this transgression actively and formally attending the new Mass.
From the course on canon law in my seminary:

"Communicatio in sacris" with non-Catholics:
The Church never practices the dogmatic tolerance (ie, theological and religious) for the non-Catholic sects, because that would be nothing more than the indifferentism condemned by the Church [1].
The "communicatio in sacris" is forbidden (cn 1258.)
-The attendance and active participation "in sacris" or taking part in the functions of non-Catholics, is prohibited in any manner whatsoever (. Cn 1258 § 1), provided that such participation means any approval of the other forms of false worship, produces scandal among Catholics, is dangerous to the Catholic faith involved, and confirms the non-Catholic in its error.
- By "non-Catholic sacred function" any sacred function is to be understood: assemblies, sermons, sacraments, liturgical, religious burials, etc. All of these are prohibited with religious intention, even if the prayers are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching. It is not lawful to hear their preaching, receive their sacraments (baptism gr v: 985 cn, 2nd, marrying a non-Catholic minister speech, hearing mass in a schismatic church, etc....).
- The "passive" assistance is the only physical presence of a Catholic in a non-Catholic religious function, and can be tolerated as long as there is no danger of perversion or scandal (cn 1258 §. 2).
- It is tolerated for serious reasons (if in doubt must be approved by the Bishop), by reason of a civil office or taxed honors (cn 1258 § 2.).
NB: The ban on actively attending the sacred functions of non-Catholics was lifted at the time of Vatican II.

It is a legal monstrosity to extend this crime to other circuмstances as described in the law, and the law requires that the sacred function that is attended is "non-Catholic", so attendance at the New Mass may be sin under certain circuмstances. It can never be considered a crime or sin of communicatio in sacris, even less so would this be the case with attending a Society Mass.

God bless you.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2014, 10:02:03 AM »

Quote: If it is the same principle being applied, why would the same term not apply?

Response from a priest of thee Resistance who is a lawyer:

Because there is a basic principle of universal penal law (including criminal canon law): "nullum crimen sine lege praevia poenali" (no crime without a pre-existing criminal law). The communicatio in sacris is a sin and a canonical crime. In order for the canonical crime of communicatio in sacris, canon law requires certain specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the rite is "non-Catholic". This requirement is sine qua non. The Tridentine Mass is not a non-Catholic rite, so one can never commit the crime of communicatio in sacris assisting a true Tridentine Mass.

Another basic principle of universal criminal law is this: "odiosa sunt restringenda" ( the unfavorable must be restricted). The crimes must be interpreted restrictively. According to this elementary principle of law throughout the world, it is prohibited to qualify as crime the actions similar to a crime. The crimes are described accurately by the law. The crime of communicatio in sacris is described in the canon 1258. So Fr. Morgan says "the closest we can find ... case is the case of the so called Communicatio in sacris", and he does not say: "this is a case of so called Communicatio in sacris".

Therefore, it is a serious mistake, a true legal aberration, to qualify as communicatio in sacris the attendance of Tridentine Masses of the SSPX or other Catholic congregations because priests who celebrate are liberal.
Attending Masses of certain SSPX priests can be a sin for certain people in certain circuмstances, but it can not be a sin and a crime of communicatio in sacris for anyone.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2014, 05:24:53 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics

I know I've heard it myself (or read it?), but could you point me to any sermon or writing in which Fr. Pfeiffer makes reference to communicatio in sacris? Thanks!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2014, 05:36:55 PM »

Even if +Fellay had not renounced the declaration, there's absolutely nothing "heretical" about it. People don't even know what the term heresy means. Point out a defined dogma that the declaration rejects.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2014, 06:39:15 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Centroamerica
because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics

I know I've heard it myself (or read it?), but could you point me to any sermon or writing in which Fr. Pfeiffer makes reference to communicatio in sacris? Thanks!

Due to various incorrect statements being stated by Fr. Pfeiffer regarding Traditional priests I do not want add it publicly and have sent the source to your inbox.

Thank you,
Mike

Centroamerica · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2014, 07:16:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Even if +Fellay had not renounced the declaration, there's absolutely nothing "heretical" about it. People don't even know what the term heresy means. Point out a defined dogma that the declaration rejects.

Thanks for pointing this out. There are those die-hard supporters of Fr. Pfeiffer who do not want to renounce their Communicatio in sacris position and argue that it was never renounced. That is why I have posted the following, not that I don't see an obvious problem with the leadership of the SSPX, I certainly do, and I believe that the wisest thing for Bishop Fellay to do is step down as Superior General and welcome back all the resistance priests, giving Bishop Williamson and other senior priests top positions in the Society, hopeful yes, expecting NO.

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/bishop-fellay-on-doctrinal-declaration.html

Bishop Fellay Speaks on the Doctrinal Declaration

The text comes from a conference +Fellay gave at St. Michael's School in England, on 2nd June, 2013.

The conference was recorded and then transcribed and published in print in the Autumn 2013 edition of the British District magazine Mater Dei.

"Once again, what is spreading on the internet in the past few months is a total misrepresentation of my position. Take 'Ignis Ardens' or 'The Recusant' and all these things; they are totally out of it. Nothing to do with reality. Sorry! When they say there are some points which may give that idea - I probably and certainly was not clear enough. I would never write again the letter which i wrote to the Pope and the Cardinal in April in the way I did. I would never, because it is clear that it was a failure [c'etait rate - said in French]. I did not find the right words. That's why I said to DiNoia: 'We take it back, we renounce' - not only withdraw. It cannot be the base for a future work. We have to take another way".

Lady in audience
"Can you address the question I presented about the retraction of the statement"?

+Fellay
"That's precisely what I am saying now. I said 'renounce,' please!"

Lady in audience
"Will you retract it?"

+ Fellay
"Which is the same!"

Lady in audience
"I think there is a legal distinction, my Lord. I think that your retraction means that you would need to issue another statement explaining exactly which parts of Vatican II you can accept, like the Primacy of the Pope, and making utterly clear, to avoid any ambiguity, which parts of Rome the SSPX rejects at the moment. That would be a retraction. Not just a verbal announcement but a new statement.

+Fellay
"This is done! It's over! This thing has nothing to do.... It's over"!

Lady in audience
But there is still ambiguity and, although we're much relieved by your withdrawing this statement last year, there are still murmurings and disquiet about the situation. If you were to make it completely unambiguous by retracting the statement and issuing a new one then we would all know where the SSPX stands. We wouldn't need to have any further deliberations with Rome or with the press or anybody.

+Fellay
There is no necessity for any kind of deliberation. This statement is non-existent. Full stop. Sorry, there is someone behind you...".

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2014, 07:34:50 PM »

Yellow light means caution;......

Don't comment on the spammed threads because it will be difficult for the moderator to weed them all out....

Centroamerica · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2014, 08:09:08 PM »

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/the-grave-error-of-fr-pfeiffer.html