Please....

I haven't been to Mass in months. I heard that Father Hewko was going to be having Mass somewhere near Chicago, and I'm more than willing to go there to assist at it with my family. Could someone PM me and let me know when he's going to be there again, and where it is and at what time? Thank you.

PFT (her husband, and 6 children)

Please....

I haven't been to Mass in months. I heard that Father Hewko was going to be having Mass somewhere near Chicago, and I'm more than willing to go there to assist at it with my family. Could someone PM me and let me know when he's going to be there again, and where it is and at what time? Thank you.

PFT (her husband, and 6 children)

Don't you fear dieing outside the state of grace?

I don't know about you, but if I routinely went without confession for 3-4 months at a stretch, I would not like my chances for salvation.

Fr Pfeiffer can say what he wants, and he will have to answer for those he is influencing, but to me it seems the percentages and probabilities of being damned are much higher taking his advice than remaining in your SSPX chapel at present.

Pretty sure Bishop Williamson would back me in this.

I call 'em the way I see 'em.

If there is no heresy in your chapel; if there is no danger to your faith; if there is no heretical precondition attached to attendance at an SSPX chapel, then it is incredibly reckless to remove yourself.

If any of those conditions does apply, then that is another story.

My church was run by Father Hector Bolduc before he died. The SSPX descended like vultures onto the Church, and took it over. First they brought in Father Duverger, who lied about the missal that was being used, and the lie was continued by Father Rostand when he confirmed it. Now, they've put Father Themann as the parish priest there, and I cannot subject myself to the continual dangerous arguments he poses to defend the Society. There is absolutely no way I am going to Mass there anymore. There is an indult mass here, and I will not go to that either, because Father Bolduc advised us not to. The place where the indult is said is also a place where the Novus Ordo is said, and it is right on the very grounds of the Bishop's residence. The only reason that church was put there in the first place was to drag people away from Saint Michael's which WAS the second oldest independent Traditional Catholic church in the country. The only older one is Saint Athanasius.

I feel like I'm going into an enemy warcamp when I go into that Church. So much is different, and my husband doesn't "want to make a scene" by walking out on the sermon, et cetera. I cannot go there. To go there would endanger my soul, and the souls of my children. I absolutely refuse to compromise.

Father Bolduc was going to GIVE the Church over to Father Pfeiffer, but he refused it, because he had too many other places to be, et cetera, at the time. So, now, the SSPX has taken it over. I am sad that he didn't say yes, but I understand that Father Bolduc wanted him to promise something he couldn't-- to make sure there was Mass here every Sunday, as he had promised Henry Beemster when it was entrusted to him.

The people here can't wrap their minds around having mass once or twice a month I suppose, being that we were spoiled all those years when Father was alive. Now, the neo- SSPX has it, and they really don't care to hear the arguments as to why things are wrong with it. I've been met with so much hostility from certain of the board members, and I will not compromise my principles. It is -entirely painful- not being able to go to that place which I've been going since I was 16 years old, but I know how serious this is, and Father warned us about times getting worse. He said it would be better for families to just come and pray together at the Church on Sundays rather than have the SSPX take over, but the board members he chose were easily manipulated by the likes of Fr. Duverger and Fr. Rostand, and now Fr. Themann, that I feel like all of them (save one) have gotten lobotomies the way they're thinking. It's like all those years they didn't listen to one thing Father said.

Yes, I take what you're saying gravely. Every single point I've gone through in my head, and it all comes down to this: "Obedience to God first," and that is always as it will be.

Does anybody else but me feel like not going to a SSPX Mass does not mean that one cannot go to confession elsewhere?

PFT did not respond to that concern, and I am not assuming that this means that the family is not going to confession, but if and when I decide that the light goes from yellow to red where I attend Mass I do not plan to miss going to confession.  

In years past I had to travel on business and I found some N.O. Priests that were solid confessors (and some that were not, so I had to pick up, walk out, and go elsewhere to repeat my confession).

Well, this can of worms is open for business.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Yes, I take what you're saying gravely. Every single point I've gone through in my head, and it all comes down to this: "Obedience to God first," and that is always as it will be.

I applaud you for your firm stance.  Don't listen too seriously to what Sean says.  He is one of those who cries about the situation of the SSPX on forums, but then doesn't do anything about it; rather, he continues to show a unity of worship with priests who have refused to cry out, "Wolf!".  Sean's type of resistance is sterile.

By the way, Fr. Pfeiffer did not say that you cannot go to confession to an SSPX priest.  If you believe to be in mortal sin, then go to confession.  Fr. Pfeiffer emphasizes not going to an SSPX Mass because of the reasons he has given.

 

Am I then become thine enemy because I tell thee the truth?

Do you forget my position is likewise Bishop Williamson's position?

Does organizing a Bishop Williamson conference and constructing a basement chapel for our local resistance group also constitute part of my doing nothing?

The sloppy theology (if there is any theology at all) behind the reckless advice to abandon all SSPX chapels and imitate the 17th century Japanese is madness.

The Japanese had their priests taken from them.

In this case, you are fleeing your priests, but counting on some sort of extraordinary communication of sanctifying grace.

This is tempting providence.

I am not aware of any other priest on the planet giving the same advice.

If you fall for it, you likely place yourself in much graver spiritual danger than whatever objectionable things are happening at your local parish.

Just to clarify: Fr Pfeiffer throws up the red light because of what he thinks Bishop Fellay thinks, and might want to do in the future.

Not good enough to justify abstention from sacraments and Sunday obligation.

Once something is officially enacted, which by necessary implication requires my implicit assent, then the light is red.

Not before.

Sean,

Keep driving the ball right down the middle of the fairway!

My responses in red font.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Yes, I take what you're saying gravely. Every single point I've gone through in my head, and it all comes down to this: "Obedience to God first," and that is always as it will be.

I applaud you for your firm stance.  Don't listen too seriously to what Sean says.  He is one of those who cries about the situation of the SSPX on forums, but then doesn't do anything about it; rather, he continues to show a unity of worship with priests who have refused to cry out, "Wolf!".  Sean's type of resistance is sterile.

By the way, Fr. Pfeiffer did not say that you cannot go to confession to an SSPX priest.  If you believe to be in mortal sin, then go to confession.  Fr. Pfeiffer emphasizes not going to an SSPX Mass because of the reasons he has given.

 

Am I then become thine enemy because I tell thee the truth?

I don't believe what you say is true.  Your actions undermine the Resistance.

Do you forget my position is likewise Bishop Williamson's position?

I don't agree with Bishop Williamson's position.  His Excellency is looking at things from a more practical standpoint, whereas Fr. Pfeiffer's position is more based on principle.  With His Excellency's position (that is, if one's Faith is being threatened at an SSPX chapel by a positive contamination, then stay away), one can justify going to an FSSP Mass.  I have heard solid sermons from FSSP priests, but I would not attend their Masses.  On the other hand, Fr. Pfeiffer is saying that the SSPX priests have failed in their duty in denouncing the errors coming from their superiors.  This is serious enough to avoid having communion with these priests.  I agree with Fr. Pfeiffer.

Does organizing a Bishop Williamson conference and constructing a basement chapel for our local resistance group also constitute part of my doing nothing?

It is good to hear that you are doing more than just complaining on forums.  If you mentioned this before, then I apologize for missing or forgetting it.  However, your continued assistance at SSPX Masses undermines even this effort.  People may interpret that you more or less have a preference for a Resistance priest (you better not let Fr. Pfeiffer serve your chapel, though, because he may just tell your attendees not to go to SSPX Masses anymore).

The sloppy theology (if there is any theology at all) behind the reckless advice to abandon all SSPX chapels and imitate the 17th century Japanese is madness.

The sound theology is this:  Priests have a duty to teach the truth and to defend against error.  SSPX priests may be teaching the truth, but they are not defending against the errors coming from their superiors.  Therefore, they are being gravely derelict in their duty.  In the eyes of the most of the faithful, their silence is consent or at least indifference.  Hence the faithful follow the SSPX superiors like sheep.  Many in the Resistance realize the gravity of the SSPX priests' failure in doing their priestly duty and consequently will not unite with them in public worship.  Others in the Resistance will overlook or not understand this grave failure on the part of the priests and be only worried if it directly affects their own Faith in a negative manner.  Which position is more noble?

The Japanese had their priests taken from them.

Yes.  However, the SSPX priests have abandoned the faithful to the wolves.  It is not enough for a shepherd to give the sheep green pastures on which to feed (truth), they must also protect them from the attack of the wolves (those promoting error or placing the Faith in harm's way).

In this case, you are fleeing your priests, but counting on some sort of extraordinary communication of sanctifying grace.

The SSPX shepherds are not protecting the sheep from the wolves; therefore, we need to place our trust in those shepherds that will protect us from the wolves.

This is tempting providence.

By defending the Faith?

I am not aware of any other priest on the planet giving the same advice.

There are others.  For example, when Fr. Ortiz came to Toronto, he made it clear that the SSPX priests are committing a grave sin of omission, which is enough to stay away from their chapels.

If you fall for it, you likely place yourself in much graver spiritual danger than whatever objectionable things are happening at your local parish.

Several of us have been out of the SSPX for months and we have been at peace since.  Our resolve to combat the nonsense coming from the SSPX superiors has grown even stronger.

Just to clarify: Fr Pfeiffer throws up the red light because of what he thinks Bishop Fellay thinks, and might want to do in the future.

Bishop Fellay has said and done enough to show us where he stands.  He has fundamentally changed the principles of the SSPX as the Superior General.  This is enough to take a public stance against him.  Since the SSPX priests have had more than enough time to take this public stance and have failed to do so, we take it that they agree with their Superior General, are at least indifferent to his new stance, or too scared to do anything about it.  In any case, their lack of action is unacceptable for the defense of Catholic Tradition.  Therefore, the red light makes sense.

Not good enough to justify abstention from sacraments and Sunday obligation.

More than enough.

Once something is officially enacted, which by necessary implication requires my implicit assent, then the light is red.

Not before.

The six conditions of the General Chapter, the defence of or lack of action against Bishop Fellay's April 15/12 Doctrinal Declaration, the slow poisoning of the minds of priests and faithful over the last several years, Bishop Fellay's lack of repentance over the tremendous damage he has done, the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, the persecution of the priests and faithful who have spoken out, and on and on and on - these are not enough?  Oh my!

These things you mention are sufficient to justify a resistance, yes.

But to punish yourself with sacramental deprivation?

No.

I don't remove myself from the reception of grace simply because i am upset by the things you have mentioned.

I continue resisting them, while simultaneously upholding my Sunday obligation.

Quote from: [code

SeanJohnson]

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

My responses in red font.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Yes, I take what you're saying gravely. Every single point[/code] I've gone through in my head, and it all comes down to this: "Obedience to God first," and that is always as it will be.

I applaud you for your firm stance.  Don't listen too seriously to what Sean says.  He is one of those who cries about the situation of the SSPX on forums, but then doesn't do anything about it; rather, he continues to show a unity of worship with priests who have refused to cry out, "Wolf!".  Sean's type of resistance is sterile.

By the way, Fr. Pfeiffer did not say that you cannot go to confession to an SSPX priest.  If you believe to be in mortal sin, then go to confession.  Fr. Pfeiffer emphasizes not going to an SSPX Mass because of the reasons he has given.

 

Am I then become thine enemy because I tell thee the truth?

I don't believe what you say is true.  Your actions undermine the Resistance.

Do you forget my position is likewise Bishop Williamson's position?

I don't agree with Bishop Williamson's position.  His Excellency is looking at things from a more practical standpoint, whereas Fr. Pfeiffer's position is more based on principle.  With His Excellency's position (that is, if one's Faith is being threatened at an SSPX chapel by a positive contamination, then stay away), one can justify going to an FSSP Mass.  I have heard solid sermons from FSSP priests, but I would not attend their Masses.  On the other hand, Fr. Pfeiffer is saying that the SSPX priests have failed in their duty in denouncing the errors coming from their superiors.  This is serious enough to avoid having communion with these priests.  I agree with Fr. Pfeiffer.

Does organizing a Bishop Williamson conference and constructing a basement chapel for our local resistance group also constitute part of my doing nothing?

It is good to hear that you are doing more than just complaining on forums.  If you mentioned this before, then I apologize for missing or forgetting it.  However, your continued assistance at SSPX Masses undermines even this effort.  People may interpret that you more or less have a preference for a Resistance priest (you better not let Fr. Pfeiffer serve your chapel, though, because he may just tell your attendees not to go to SSPX Masses anymore).

The sloppy theology (if there is any theology at all) behind the reckless advice to abandon all SSPX chapels and imitate the 17th century Japanese is madness.

The sound theology is this:  Priests have a duty to teach the truth and to defend against error.  SSPX priests may be teaching the truth, but they are not defending against the errors coming from their superiors.  Therefore, they are being gravely derelict in their duty.  In the eyes of the most of the faithful, their silence is consent or at least indifference.  Hence the faithful follow the SSPX superiors like sheep.  Many in the Resistance realize the gravity of the SSPX priests' failure in doing their priestly duty and consequently will not unite with them in public worship.  Others in the Resistance will overlook or not understand this grave failure on the part of the priests and be only worried if it directly affects their own Faith in a negative manner.  Which position is more noble?

The Japanese had their priests taken from them.

Yes.  However, the SSPX priests have abandoned the faithful to the wolves.  It is not enough for a shepherd to give the sheep green pastures on which to feed (truth), they must also protect them from the attack of the wolves (those promoting error or placing the Faith in harm's way).

In this case, you are fleeing your priests, but counting on some sort of extraordinary communication of sanctifying grace.

The SSPX shepherds are not protecting the sheep from the wolves; therefore, we need to place our trust in those shepherds that will protect us from the wolves.

This is tempting providence.

By defending the Faith?

I am not aware of any other priest on the planet giving the same advice.

There are others.  For example, when Fr. Ortiz came to Toronto, he made it clear that the SSPX priests are committing a grave sin of omission, which is enough to stay away from their chapels.

If you fall for it, you likely place yourself in much graver spiritual danger than whatever objectionable things are happening at your local parish.

Several of us have been out of the SSPX for months and we have been at peace since.  Our resolve to combat the nonsense coming from the SSPX superiors has grown even stronger.

Just to clarify: Fr Pfeiffer throws up the red light because of what he thinks Bishop Fellay thinks, and might want to do in the future.

Bishop Fellay has said and done enough to show us where he stands.  He has fundamentally changed the principles of the SSPX as the Superior General.  This is enough to take a public stance against him.  Since the SSPX priests have had more than enough time to take this public stance and have failed to do so, we take it that they agree with their Superior General, are at least indifferent to his new stance, or too scared to do anything about it.  In any case, their lack of action is unacceptable for the defense of Catholic Tradition.  Therefore, the red light makes sense.

Not good enough to justify abstention from sacraments and Sunday obligation.

More than enough.

Once something is officially enacted, which by necessary implication requires my implicit assent, then the light is red.

Not before.

The six conditions of the General Chapter, the defence of or lack of action against Bishop Fellay's April 15/12 Doctrinal Declaration, the slow poisoning of the minds of priests and faithful over the last several years, Bishop Fellay's lack of repentance over the tremendous damage he has done, the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, the persecution of the priests and faithful who have spoken out, and on and on and on - these are not enough?  Oh my!

These things you mention are sufficient to justify a resistance, yes.

But to punish yourself with sacramental deprivation?

No.

I don't remove myself from the reception of grace simply because i am upset by the things you have mentioned.

I continue resisting them, while simultaneously upholding my Sunday obligation.

May I assume then that you don't have a problem with going to an FSSP Mass where the Faith is being taught integrally?

Your question carries within it its own internal contradiction:

Since the fssp does not believe the v2 docs to contain errors, it is not possible to attend a mass in which the integral faith is upheld.