Fr. Pfeiffer has a lot of nerve!
The things he's said and done against +Williamson represent a FULL SCALE WAR AGAINST HIM.
You mean "full scale war"against his errors.
Well, what are we supposed to do when a bishop teaches error? –stick our heads in the sand?
We denounce Bishop Fellay’s errors, but we cannot denounce Bishop Williamson’s errors?
We have to condemn error wherever it comes from.
“The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall.” (from article below)
On Condemning ErrorThe following translated article explains why error must be refuted (wherever it comes from) and also
shows why the SSPX, which once performed this duty, should be doing it today.
Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Critical Ministry of the Society by Father François-Marie Chautard
The Chardonnet No. 239 (June 2008)
Even if we have to work from the inside, can we not keep
a respectful silence on the modern errors spread by the authorities while preaching sound doctrine?
Actually,
respectful silence is only morally possible in order to avoid a worse evil. The story of St. Pius X provides us with an example with L’Action Française, when he felt that a condemnation was inappropriate and would have resulted in far more inconveniences than advantages. However, in the present case,
the circuмstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (neglect for the common good of the Faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of error (the apparent ostracism by the visible society of the conciliar Church).
So the answer lies in one word:
the good of the Faith. The good of the Faith today involves the condemnation of error for two reasons:
- to keep it yourself. Experience proves, unfortunately, that
it is not enough to preach the Truth, but that errors also need to be condemned.
-
to prevent the fall of those who might be tempted to succuмb to it. Let us add the following arguments which weigh in the balance and show that
a true love of the Faith cannot be combined today with a respectful silence:
1. The Truth requires the condemnation of error:
"preachers of truth must do two things, namely exhort in sacred doctrine, and refute contradiction" (1).
2.
The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall: "
In case of necessity, where the Faith is in danger, anyone is bound to proclaim his faith, either to instruct or encourage the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers "(2)," if the Faith were endangered, superiors should be rebuked by inferiors, even in public. Hence Paul, who was subject to Peter, rebuked him for this reason "(3).
3.
The Truth is better evidenced by distinction from error and the condemnation of it (4).
4. The Truth must not be hidden through fear of criticism which will always exist whatever happens:
"It is better to cause scandal than to abandon the Truth " (5).
5.
The practice which consists of only searching for traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner which only detects traditional passages)
is basically the same which supports ecuмenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (so as to not risk harming an agreement which would favor reconciliation).
6. The rational foundations of our position are based on the betrayal of Rome and Her abandonment of Tradition.
Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead gradually to forgetting the reasons for our combat and to fall imperceptibly into the combatted errors.
7.
The best service that we can give Rome is to not be silent on the conciliar errors and to stand firm. What would one say of a wife or of children who would not warn their husband and father, if he started down a deadly path? Wouldn’t this be not love, but a servile and cruel cowardice?
8. This clarity of exposition and hence this condemnation of error is made more necessary because of the i
ncreased confusion in the Church and in particular in traditional circles. This confusion is explained by:
- the bone of contention,
Ecclesia Dei, which after more than 20 years, does not cease to carry out its goal: to upset convictions and divide forces.
- a range of
increasingly varied doctrinal nuances and therefore a greater confusion of minds, minds that are struggling to form an idea of the situation, which was not the case when both "camps" were well-divided;
-
a youth which did not experience the combat of the veterans, did not have to position itself, and therefore
needs more precision; -
a loss in some people of the habit of fighting, and with it, of reflecting on the reasons for it, since the last crisis, dating back to 1988, allowed convictions to be renewed.
9. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead first to believing that the crisis is reaching its end, then in a short time, to not understanding the refusal of the authorities of the Society in concluding an agreement with Rome, and t
hus diminishing this force of resistance.
That being said on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether those who rally have at least kept their starting positions.
Notes(1) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, Lesson 3, No. 72.
(2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.
(3) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. II.q.33, a.4, ad 2.
(4) This is the procedure of St. Thomas which puts forth objections, the assertion of the Truth, and the answer to the objections.
(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezechiel.
Source : http://laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/20ansapres/critique/critiqu
Topic: The Charitable Anathema: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Refuses "Invitation" (Read 8713 times)