Author Topic: Red-Lightism is Schismatic (Read 23416 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** November 18, 2014, 06:23:38 AM »

More than the Pablo episode, which clearly shows very bad judgment (at least) on the part of Father Pfeiffer (at worst Father Pfeiffer is a formal accomplice in everything that Pablo does), I am alarmed by "Red-Lightism".

To state that one cannot assist at SSPX Masses, and that staying home alone without the Sacraments is preferrable, is essentially saying that the SSPX is not Catholic for all intents and purposes.

I defy Father Pfeiffer to name one aspect of the SSPX that is not Catholic, something that would essentially render the SSPX heretical and outside the Church.

At worst some of them say that Vatican II CAN be reconciled with Tradition using tortured theological constructs.

That is the same dogmatic, schismatic, home-aloneist lunacy that has plagued sedevacantism and poisoned the well for so long. Except that IMO it's even worse. You see, Father Pfeiffer claims that it's not Catholic to even WANT to be reconciled with the man that Father Preffer claims we know for certain is the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father. How on EARTH can that attitude of his ever be reconciled with Catholicism?

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2014, 08:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

More than the Pablo episode, which clearly shows very bad judgment (at least) on the part of Father Pfeiffer (at worst Father Pfeiffer is a formal accomplice in everything that Pablo does), I am alarmed by "Red-Lightism".

To state that one cannot assist at SSPX Masses, and that staying home alone without the Sacraments is preferrable, is essentially saying that the SSPX is not Catholic for all intents and purposes.

I defy Father Pfeiffer to name one aspect of the SSPX that is not Catholic, something that would essentially render the SSPX heretical and outside the Church.

At worst some of them say that Vatican II CAN be reconciled with Tradition using tortured theological constructs.

That is the same dogmatic, schismatic, home-aloneist lunacy that has plagued sedevacantism and poisoned the well for so long. Except that IMO it's even worse. You see, Father Pfeiffer claims that it's not Catholic to even WANT to be reconciled with the man that Father Preffer claims we know for certain is the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father. How on EARTH can that attitude of his ever be reconciled with Catholicism?

This has bothered me, too, in the past few weeks.

I guess before it didn't affect me as much; Father knew I was attending my SSPX chapel and he didn't argue with me or try to change my mind. Smart man!

Basically when you don't think about something, you can accept (or "learn to live with") all kinds of lunacy.

But I've been thinking about Red-light a lot these past few weeks, and I feel exactly as you do.

Anyone who can point to an SSPX chapel with a validly ordained priest, valid form and matter used, altar boys, all the proper equipment, sermons preaching the Catholic Faith with ZERO error -- and write that WHOLE PACKAGE OFF as non-Catholic is just...detached from all reality.

Oh, but it serves his purpose! If people could all quit their perfectly-acceptable-for-the-moment SSPX chapels, then demand for Father's SSPX-MC would skyrocket overnight! Imagine his power and influence as he becomes in charge of the only source of Sacraments for the United States and beyond!

Don't get me wrong; I was all for his organization before. But you have to be fair and Catholic the whole time. You can't resort to cult tactics.

Again, I must point out -- I had nothing against Fr. Rostand, Fr. Wegner, et al. I only opposed them for their evil tactics, injustices, ambition to be better than +Lefebvre, unjust expulsions, and in the case of some priests, actual errors in theology and/or morality ("5 children is prudent today")

If I oppose those PRIESTS OF GOD for their errors and evil, how can I ignore the errors and/or objective evils of another PRIEST OF GOD, just because I "like" the latter? Is that good or just?

And you're right about the similarity to various sedevacantist cults. Sedevacantist groups, being more isolated and having less competition, become cults more often. If I ever was visiting a sedevacantist chapel, I would be very wary for this reason. Sedevacantism I can tolerate. Cult behavior I cannot. Yes, I realize that not ALL sede chapels are cults. Whatever chapels the sede's here on Cathinfo attend must be fine -- after all, I don't think we have any cult members here.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2014, 09:05:21 AM »

Now will the red-lighters who down-thumbed Ladislaus' post please come OUT OF the woodwork and explain HOW exactly the position is not schismatic.

Because I can't imagine how it's not.

Fr. Pfeiffer's reason is "Communicatio in sacris" which is communion with non-Catholics or heretics.

He actually thinks the SSPX is non-Catholic!

He also told me that the SSPX was "lower" than the FSSP. He actually had me going for a while. But now that I see the fruit, I'm firmly rejecting the seed. I no longer believe that.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2014, 09:16:45 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
I defy Father Pfeiffer to name one aspect of the SSPX that is not Catholic, something that would essentially render the SSPX heretical and outside the Church.

As if Father is here on this forum reading your challenge?

If he is, and attempts it, he will instantly get kicked off, as so many others who have attempted it here.

Pretty safe place to make a challenge, Ladislaus!

First of all, YES, he probably reads CathInfo.

I've had FIVE priests over to my house. (Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Trinh, Fr. Voigt and Fr. Zigrang came over for a visit once) Guess which one brought computer equipment with him? Fr. Pfeiffer brought a laptop and iPad. And he was very quick to ask about my home's WIFI internet access. He ordered plane tickets for Toronto at my dining room table. And when we needed alternate directions to the airport in the middle of the night, out came his iPad and we were on the road in no time flat. He was an absolute pro.

Seriously -- he gets around on a Tablet better than I do, and I'm a software developer for a living -- a bona fide "computer guy".

Fr. Pfeiffer is no luddite or "off the Net" sort. Not even close. To claim otherwise goes against all reality and evidence.

And now that you mention it Nado, that's another thing --

Father is about as accessible as the President of the United States.

I can't call him, I can't e-mail him, or contact him in any way. Or, more precisely, I can't expect a response. People can write to the President too -- but they can't expect a personal response.

Last time I tried, his phone voicemail was full so I couldn't leave a message (I can forget about him actually picking up the phone! who do I think I am?)

I write e-mails and they all go unanswered.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2014, 09:21:28 AM »

Quote from: Nado

If he is, and attempts it, he will instantly get kicked off, as so many others who have attempted it here.

He will instantly get kicked off?

Why is that, Nado? Please tell me.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2014, 09:39:06 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

Matthew said:

"Yes, I realize that not ALL sede chapels are cults."

So does that mean that as Catholics, we are permitted to swing each Sunday between subjection to and rejection of the Pope?

What the heck are you talking about?

If this is some kind of attack on the Recognize and Resist position, please take it to the Crisis subforum where it belongs.

We're not talking about Recognize & Resist vs. Sedevacantism here.

You have to go somewhere for Mass!

We're talking about schism and cutting off other Catholics. In other words, the "dogmatic" or schismatic versions of the above positions.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:02:50 AM »

When I say schismatic, I use the term in the sense "of a schismatic mindset". I'm sure that if you were to ask Father Pfeiffer directly, he would answer that yes, those who adhere to the SSPX are Catholics, at least I pray to God that he would.

Now remember, the canonical definition of schism is refusal of submission to the Holy Father OR refusal to be in communion with other Catholics. In other words, you can be in schism for refusing communion (expressed most directly by communicatio in sacris) with other Catholics.

To refuse to go to their Mass, so much so that you would not meet your Sunday obligation even when there's an opportunity to attend an SSPX Mass, that CLEARLY involves a dangerously schismatic attitude or mindset against the SSPX.

Let's take a pre Vatican II example. Let's say I felt that the priest of my local parish was too liberal for my tastes. Let's say that I could not get to any other Mass on Sundays (maybe I didn't have transportation and lived in a remote rural area). Would I be allowed to miss my Sunday obligation because I considered this priest a "danger" to my faith? Absolutely not. You would sin mortally if you missed Mass in that situation. You could go to your bishop and go after this priest. You could even call him out in public among your fellow parishioners and call him out to his face. But you would still be obliged to consider him Catholic and to fulfill your Sunday obligation to attend Mass there. If you felt that his sermons were modernistic and could harm the faith of your children, you could leave the church for the sermon and then come back in for the rest of the Mass. In fact, if you wanted to make a statement, you could sit with your entire family in the front pew, and then all get up as a group and walk out when the sermon starts. Now I'm not talking about a priest who spouts open heresy from the pulpit. But since when has any SSPX priest promoted heresy in his sermons? I've gone to SSPX chapels in the past year, and I've heard edifying sermons about St. Pius X, St. Therese of Lisieux, about perserverence in prayer, etc. How has ANY of that lessened my faith?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:04:43 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Anyone who can point to an SSPX chapel with a validly ordained priest, valid form and matter used, altar boys, all the proper equipment, sermons preaching the Catholic Faith with ZERO error -- and write that WHOLE PACKAGE OFF as non-Catholic is just...detached from all reality.

This sums it up very well, Matthew.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:06:03 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
I defy Father Pfeiffer to name one aspect of the SSPX that is not Catholic, something that would essentially render the SSPX heretical and outside the Church.

As if Father is here on this forum reading your challenge?

Obviously a rhetorical question. But perhaps one of the Pfeifferites would pass along the challenge.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:08:51 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm sure that if you were to ask Father Pfeiffer directly, he would answer that yes, those who adhere to the SSPX are Catholics, at least I pray to God that he would.

Based on what Matthew just posted, now I'm not so sure.

I think that we need to openly ask Father Pfeiffer this question. Father Pfeiffer, are the SSPX Catholic? If he says "no", then I would advise anyone to avoid the Boston sect like the plague. If he says "yes", then what prudential considerations would require one to miss Sunday Mass rather than attend an SSPX chapel?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:11:39 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Again, Ladislaus, you are safe to ask the question knowing it won't be answered, because people know they will be banned for answering that question. Safe, for you to ask, and you, perhaps, can get the warm & fuzzies thinking nobody has the answer.

I am an open-minded person. So is Matthew. If you can make a compelling, rational case for why the SSPX are not Catholic, I am all ears, my friend. I am not afraid of the truth, regardless of where it leads. Basically, however, Father Pfeiffer has produced nothing along those lines.

I welcome your answers.

1) Are the SSPX Catholic?

2) If not, why not?

3) If yes, then what principle would justify failing to satisfy one's Sunday obligation rather than assisting at SSPX Masses?

I'm all ears.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:11:52 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

When I say schismatic, I use the term in the sense "of a schismatic mindset". I'm sure that if you were to ask Father Pfeiffer directly, he would answer that yes, those who adhere to the SSPX are Catholics, at least I pray to God that he would.

Now remember, the canonical definition of schism is refusal of submission to the Holy Father OR refusal to be in communion with other Catholics. In other words, you can be in schism for refusing communion (expressed most directly by communicatio in sacris) with other Catholics.

To refuse to go to their Mass, so much so that you would not meet your Sunday obligation even when there's an opportunity to attend an SSPX Mass, that CLEARLY involves a dangerously schismatic attitude or mindset against the SSPX.

Let's take a pre Vatican II example. Let's say I felt that the priest of my local parish was too liberal for my tastes. Let's say that I could not get to any other Mass on Sundays (maybe I didn't have transportation and lived in a remote rural area). Would I be allowed to miss my Sunday obligation because I considered this priest a "danger" to my faith? Absolutely not. You would sin mortally if you missed Mass in that situation. You could go to your bishop and go after this priest. You could even call him out in public among your fellow parishioners and call him out to his face. But you would still be obliged to consider him Catholic and to fulfill your Sunday obligation to attend Mass there. If you felt that his sermons were modernistic and could harm the faith of your children, you could leave the church for the sermon and then come back in for the rest of the Mass. In fact, if you wanted to make a statement, you could sit with your entire family in the front pew, and then all get up as a group and walk out when the sermon starts. Now I'm not talking about a priest who spouts open heresy from the pulpit. But since when has any SSPX priest promoted heresy in his sermons? I've gone to SSPX chapels in the past year, and I've heard edifying sermons about St. Pius X, St. Therese of Lisieux, about perserverence in prayer, etc. How has ANY of that lessened my faith?

I fully agree with Ladislaus' clarification.

I meant "schismatic mentality" as well.

Another point (I don't think anyone has brought up) -- even the "worst" of the priests, who say nice things (or even less-than-scathing things) about Vatican II are not going to damage the Faith of a bunch of TRADS who have been taught the truth for XX years. In other words, even if you call that "error" it's pretty weak error. Not directly heretical.

It's like some Trads have a hair-trigger response. A housekeeper for a person who attends an SSPX Mass where the priest says "Vatican II is 95% correct" must be avoided like a person with Ebola!

Um...no. You could go to that Mass YOURSELF, PERSONALLY and still not be "infected" or have your Faith damaged, much less destroyed. Is that how weak our Faith is? One over-optimistic or imprudent statement crashes the whole thing down? Give me a break.

Our Faith isn't made of blown glass. If it were, we Catholics wouldn't be permitted to live in the World, or hold jobs in the World, which is a million times worse than any SSPX chapel.

Like Ladislaus said, we're not talking about open heresy in the pulpit. When you hear your open heresy, then we'll talk. Even then, it would be "Yellow lighting" which is exactly what I advocate right now.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:17:32 AM »

Personally, I think some Trads are carrying baggage.

Namely, they didn't "wake up" to the errors of Vatican II when they should have. They didn't see things clearly right away. Maybe they went along with Vatican II and/or attended the Novus Ordo for years.

Now, with the SSPX teetering on the brink, starting to make the first concrete steps of compromise with Vatican II, it's like another Vatican II. In other words, a second chance!

They are resolved to show God "This time I'll be more faithful, Lord -- watch this!" and they embrace a red-light position in a fit of emotion and zeal. Their heart no doubt overflows with NIFs (Nice Internal Feelings -- copyright +W)

I've seen this happen first-hand. It makes lots of sense, from a psychology standpoint. It's classic over-compensation.

It also makes sense why someone like me would be more "objective" about the whole thing, since I have no such baggage. I was born into Tradition even though I was born in the 70's. I have nothing to "make up for"; so I am patient, planning to leave the SSPX only when the time is appropriate.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:21:30 AM »

I had the blessing of going to Mass this morning before work at my kids' school in Akron. Father Leo Carley is an independent priest originally ordained in the early 1960s for the Diocese of Scranton PA. There were about 30 school children in there. And I started to think about the fact that half of the school kids don't even attend Father Carley's chapel on Sundays. About two families attend the CMRI chapel. About two other families go to the Motu Mass in Akron. Yet Father Carley gives them all Holy Communion and offers them a school where the tuition is basically free ... completely subsidised by the chapel. On paper he asks for $1200 for one kid, $2000 for 2, and $2500 for 3+, but he's never kicked anyone out for not being able to pay. It's almost as if these fees are suggestions. One of the teachers at the school attends the Motu, another one St. Therese chapel in parma (SSPV sedevacantist). SSPV are not dogmatic sedevacantists and consider the SSPX to be Catholic Not even the SSPV (I have a ton of respect for Father Jenkins) RED-LIGHT THE SSPX; they give them a very mild yellow. Of course they red-light CMRI, but that's a side topic.

My point is that it's so refreshing to see a Traditional Catholic Ecuмenism (LOL) at that chapel, a humble priest who grew up as a farm boy and doesn't take it upon himself to decide who's Catholic and who isn't, and who does what he does out of love for souls. These older priests who grew up Catholic during "normal" times might be used as a gauge to understand a true Catholic attitude. But I'll get back to the topic of Traditionalist "exceptionalism" on another thread.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 18, 2014, 10:22:32 AM »

Quote from: Nado

I will say this, I wouldn't go to an SSPX Mass for the reason that, not only do they have some doubtful priests moving around among them due to acceptance of the new ordination rite, but they also accept the new baptismal rite, which is itself doubtful, and increases the chance of invalid priests moving around in the Society since the mid-90's, when such candidates became of age to have been ordained.

We're not talking about your questions regarding the validity of the New Rite. That has nothing to do why the Boston sect red-lights SSPX.

Not even the most rabid sedevacantists challenge the validity of the New Rite of Baptism (when performed according to the prescribed rites). You sound more like a sedevacantist than a Pfeifferite. As Matthew pointed out, this is not an SV vs. R&R thread. Take that elsewhere.