This was a good one, FYI

www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com
Donations:  Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church
1730 N. Stillwell Road, Boston, KY 40107 USA

Duration 1:11:31
[Some material may be missing at the beginning]
YouTube video is now available:

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX (F.P.):  …So then, we were going to go over today – Actually, I was going to try and mention the first talk, we didn’t really go into it too much, because we’re going to start according to the battle plan, but basically, it’s the mystery of—we call it the “Negative Mystery of Tradition,” or, the “Negative Mystery of the Faith” not just of Tradition.  And the idea is that, “Why are we here?”

And it has to be said that the first practical reason why we’re here is:  that there is something wrong with where we’re supposed to be.  

So, the normal situation is that, as a Catholic, I am in my local Catholic parish.  And I am receiving the Faith, living the Faith, preparing to die in the Faith, spreading the Faith – in the parish.  Right here, the local parish is St. Benedict’s, just a couple of miles from here.  And this is where we’re supposed to live the Faith.  But there’s a problem.  

Why are we called “Traditional Catholics,” in our little chapels throughout the world, and in our SSPX and other independent chapels?  We’re not here purely for positive reasons.  Actually it begins with a negative reason.  We’re here because of a problem in the Church.

If the problem isn’t there, then we do not belong in a little hut in Boston, Kentucky.  We don’t need to be in a Holiday Inn.  We don’t need to be even in a big chapel that was built without the permission of the diocese, where we have them throughout the world.  [1]

We’re here because of something negative.  The bishop, who’s supposed to help me get to heaven, is helping us get to hell.  The bishop, who is supposed to be communicating the Catholic Faith, is not communicating it.  He is in fact communicating confusion and Modernism.  Therefore, I have to step away from the bishop—  Because he’s endangering our souls.  

And that is how “Catholic Tradition” began in the 1960’s and 1969, 1970.  [ii]

We SHOULD just be going to the Latin Mass and teaching the Catholic Faith along with every other Catholic.  We should all be fighting the devil and Modernism along with every other Catholic.  But when the other Catholics, and particularly the ones in authority, reject the Catholic Faith, therefore, we have to stand apart.  

That is why you say to someone who’s asking, “Why do you go to the Latin Mass?”  You say:  “Well, because the Newmass is BAD.”  

We don’t just go to the Latin Mass because the Latin Mass is good, we also go to it because the Newmass is BAD.  If the Newmass was also good—and the Pope clearly wants us to go to the Newmass, and there’s no doubt about that, and the bishop wants us to go to the Newmass, and there’s no doubt about that—we would have to go to it.  The only reason we don’t go there is because it’s bad.  

And that’s the principle, the negative mystery, the negative principle of Catholic Tradition.  We’re here because there is something bad there.  We want to be good, and if we want to fight the evil, and unfortunately there is something evil amongst our fellow soldiers, who are supposed to be wearing the same uniform that we do.  That’s the negative principle of Catholic Tradition.  

Now, 40 years later, what do we discover?  Why are we here in this Camp Crescendo?  Why are we, you know, once again, back in Holiday Inns?  Why aren’t we saying Mass in Winona?  People are calling us to say Mass in Winona, as I said the first Mass in Winona right across the hill from the seminary! – at Mrs. Rader’s [?] house, with 40 people there.  And, you know, because that was the place we had to go, to say the Mass.  Why are we doing that?  Because there’s something wrong.  We need to understand what that something wrong is.  

Just like you have to explain the overall battle between the Novus Ordo versus the Traditional – you’ve got to be able to explain what’s wrong with the Newmass – what’s wrong with the Modernist teaching in the Church today.  Therefore, we must stand against it, and even if the bishop doesn’t approve, we have to stand for the Catholic Faith even if they have got the churches.  As St. Athanasius said, “They have the churches we have the Faith.”  

Well, that principle is a true principle of the Faith, it’s always been true, it’s also true today, so we have to have an understanding, what has gone wrong in the SSPX, what has gone wrong in the new modernist direction, Modernist direction of tradition, and why we have to do what we’re doing.  In order to do that, we have to be able to show some of the things that are incorrect in the present hierarchy of the Society – show how it is against the Faith, and a danger to the Faith, or endangering the Faith, either one – and therefore we have to resist.  

So, Father is going to go ahead and go through some examples, and an unfortunate thing, about Father Gruner not making it last night:  Fr. Gruner was supposed to be here;  he was also bringing with him 50 copies of this book.  Well, since he didn’t come, the 50 copies didn’t come.  So, therefore, we’re going to try to find a way to make some copies anyway today, to give to you.  And so, we have the lack of a priest and the lack of the copies.  So we’ll try to take those and get those to you.  And now, Fr. is going to go over those…

Fr. David Hewko (F.H.):  We saw yesterday, ah, it’s not just rumor and “cybergossip,” these errors we are combating are right in front of the docuмents, just like Vatican II and all of the reforms came from the ambiguous docuмents of Vatican II, the Masonic tactic, so, the ambiguity in the docuмents, which we saw, the first one yesterday, which was the General Chapter statement—Fr. Pfeiffer developed the point on the paragraph that fails to mention the twofold Magisterium;  the Magisteria we’re dealing with now, since the crisis—Does anybody remember what they are?  

We’re hearing now, the Magisterium of the Church, the Church visible, is the true Catholic Church with the Pope, the bishops and the hierarchy.  We, the SSPX, are not in union under the Pope, therefore, we gotta get BACK IN, to be Catholic!  So, if there’s only one Magisterium, that is, Vatican II “in the light of Tradition,” then of course, we’re outside the Church and we have to get back in.  But, where’s the failure of distinction, what’s this distinction Archbishop Lefebvre always gave—anybody remember?  Just think of the first paragraph of the 1974 declaration:  “We cleave with all our heart to..”

~  [From audience] Eternal Rome..

F.H.  “Eternal Rome!  Catholic Rome of all time!  That’s what we are.  If you have the Faith, you’re not outside the Church!  Was St. Athanasius outside the Church when he was excommunicated by Pope Liberius?  No!  It was unjust, unlawful, null and void.  

So Eternal Rome, we adhere with all our heart to Eternal Rome, and we refuse modernist Rome, Conciliar Rome.  Fr. Pfeiffer developed that yesterday.  So, that’s in the General Chapter Statement, the error of the “only one Magisterium,” when we’re dealing with two Magisteria, and the Archbishop was very clear about this.  

And that’s why Fr. Ortiz has a great “Nine Points” that we should all really look into and read carefully because he develops this quite well…

We’re not visibly under the Pope, but we’re under the Pope of Tradition.  As soon as this Pope comes back to Tradition, or the next one, or the next one—there won’t even need to be an agreement.  We’ll fall right in, because he’ll have the Faith, we’ll have the Faith, no problem!  But so long as he does not hold the Catholic Faith of Tradition, we recognize him as Pope, obviously, but we cannot follow him into error.  We will lose our faith, lose our souls. [iii]

Second thing we saw was, the six Conditions.  We saw that briefly yesterday.  And we’re trying to get a copy of that to you.  It is studied in depth in this book, Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє?  This is a very good book, because it’s all the docuмents.  Because one of the attacks against the Resistance is, well, you’re always based on gossip and rumor and misinterpreting and exaggerating Bishop Fellay’s mistakes.  But here, this is cold, cold, beef, potatoes, and WINE.  There’s not much sugar.  It’s just the cold docuмents, right from Bishop Fellay, right from Rome, right from Archbishop Lefebvre, right from Bishop de Galarreta.  It’s very, very good.  

So, what I’d like to cover with this – and Fr. Pfeiffer will probably pop in too sometime – is some of the objections.  

So, we saw the General Chapter statement—it’s really in the docuмents, this change of doctrine, this change of position towards Rome.  It’s not rumor.  It’s really there.  

Does anybody remember the sentence, the deadly sentence in here?  

~  “We hope so!” [iv]

F.H.  “We determine and approve, with the essential Conditions, the eventual..”

~  Canonical agreement..

F.H.  “..canonical normalization.”  That’s his exact words;  which is the same as practical agreement, legalization, recognition, or canonical normalization.  So that’s right in the text.  The six Conditions, as we saw yesterday, are very flimsy.  Our being willing to put all our houses, all our brothers, our sisters, our priests, the Faithful, under the local diocesan bishop.  

Remember the Redemptorists from Scotland [v] and their paper, The Catholic, that went all over the world, and they used to come and give missions?  They didn’t have to call up the bishop of Spokane to ask permission to give a mission at Post Falls!  And these missions were fruitful, you know:  they preached in the style of St. Alphonsus Liguori, and they were very fruitful.  Well, when they made the agreement with Rome, they were straight jacketed and duct taped!  And now, this last August, 15th, they came under the local diocesan bishop.  They were put under the bishop.  So, all their battle for Catholic Tradition has all been compromised.  Because they made the agreement with Rome.  So now, they have legalization, but what are they doing for the kingship of Christ?  What are they doing for the salvation of souls now? [vi]  

So, these are the traps that are built into this, and this will be, that is why the Resistance is rising why we have to resist, because all these are just – it’s just all, losing your faith legally.  It’s like a legal apostasy!  And one thing, at the foundation of all these, we’ve always got to keep in mind, this is the heart of the fight right here.  [vii – Fr. is pointing to the white board, where he wrote “General Chapter Statement, 6 Conditions, Objections.” Now, he writes the word, FAITH.]  

The Holy, Roman, Catholic Faith.  What is the Faith?  

What is the Faith?  Is it an internal feeling?  As Bishop Williamson used to say, he used to call them the NIFs, the Nice Internal Feeling.  Is that what the Faith is?   That IS the Modernist definition of the Faith.[viii]   And Archbishop Lefebvre described in Fr. Dorvan’s [sp?] book, Pope John Paul II, and the same as with this Pope, they really believe the Blessed Trinity developed “later” – the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity – and only a couple of centuries after Christ, and because it “fit the need for Christianity.” [ix]  And “the doctrines of the Faith really come from the internal.”  

So, if this Pope, in all this Modernism, really believes as Vatican II says, that all the different religions are different expressions of the same Holy Spirit, then Assisi makes sense.  Then, to want Catholic Tradition in the Super-ecuмenical Church, makes sense.  It makes sense that he wants us back “in.”  

In the Modernist way of thinking, you have the thesis and the antithesis, you have the Hegelian dialectic.  So, the ultra-progressives push for altar girls and communion in the hand, and the ultra conservative Catholics don’t want to move that way, they want to keep tradition.  So, in the Modernist framework, as St. Pius X well described in Pascendi, they see this as necessary to bring about the clash which develops into a new, for example—a perfect example, which we’re on the verge of right now..  

You’ve got the progressives that want the Newmass.  It can’t be new enough!  You’ve got the traditionalists who don’t want to change the Mass.  But this necessary conflict brings out what’s going to come out this summer, under this pope:  the Hybridmass, which is the union of the traditional Mass ant the Newmass, and it’s going to bring out this new and wonderful “development of the Holy Spirit!”

•  And that’s DEADLY!

So, and we’ve always got to come back to this:  what is the Faith?  What unites us to Christ?  It’s the Faith of all time, which doesn’t come from inside.  The Faith is the submission of the intellect, prompted by grace – the will moved by grace, submitting to what God has revealed.  That’s the Faith.  And it is unity in the same doctrine – it is the true unity! – unity in belief, in the expression of the Faith, unity in the government, and the Pope, unity in the same sacrifice of the Mass, and unity in the seven sacraments.  

And that’s the definition in the catechism of the Church, unity of the believers in the Faith, in the Catholic Church of Tradition, based on revelation.  

So, all this push for unity [xi] with Modernist Rome:  Does Rome today have the same doctrine and the same faith?  Is this Pope promoting the same Traditional Catholic Faith of all time?  You tell me!  No!  Assisi?  That’s a mockery to the first commandment!  And there’s a whole list, all his heretical books that he wrote as a priest are still being pushed, printed and taught in the Modernist seminaries.  Has he recanted them?  Has he burned them all? – No! [xii]  —..Yes?  

~  Ahm, [xiii] I have a question about the hybrid Mass.  Is this mass – what place is this mass going to have?  Is it possible that they will put away the “ordinary form” of the mass and the “extraordinary form” of the Mass, and replace it completely with this “Hybridmass?”  

F.H.  We’ll see!  You never know what these Modernists are capable of.  It might be called the Super-Ordinarymass.  (laughter)  You never know.

~  Because, it seems like, just like that one fact, they might want to bring on another mass, that that could be yet another huge – it already will be, but it could be an even bigger threat than a lot of people think, to the SSPX, joining with Rome..

F.H.  True.  And many think – most people think it’s a great thing, this combining Novus Ordos and…

~  I think, Benedict XVI thinks it was a big mistake to so quickly do the Novus Ordo, that his idea of incremental changes.. (F.H.  Yes, it is true..) Because the 62 Missal incrementally changed and then we’ve seen some incremental changes in the Novus Ordo, and then over time, over maybe 20 years, then there’ll be little difference in this..

~  There’s an article in Catholic Family News that talked about the “Hybridmass” and it talked about the Pope saying, stating that if they had started all over again, they would have changed the Mass over 20 years, (Fr. H.  Yes..) and the slowness would have kept it all together. [xiv]  

F.H.  Yes.  That’s another thing behind this.  These principles of change, in the General Chapter’s Six Conditions … [tape skips] … you can see that.  But in fact, a revolution has taken place;  which is shifting from doctrine first, the faith first over unity, to unity over faith.  This is what we’re covering now.  Are we united with Rome in doctrine and the Faith?  Well, when Rome and the Popes speak traditionally?  Of course!  But when they’re speaking as Modernists, we must refuse.

The government, we’re under the same pope, the visible head, but we reject his errors;  we cannot follow him.  It’s like the President is president:  he’s a so-and-so, we all know that—but he’s still president.  So we acknowledge his authority but we can’t follow him in his perversion.  

Are we united with Rome in the same sacrifice?  Does Rome have the same sacrifice of the Mass, Modernist Rome?  Absolutely not.  So how could there—and sacraments!  Do we have the sacrament of Reconciliation, are we’re going to sit down with Fr. Pfeiffer face-to-face, and discuss your sins?  No!  You kneel down as a penitent.  That’s what Confession is.  You go to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and you accuse yourself!  So, they’ve gutted out the meanings of the sacraments, as Pius X said that they would, keep the same label on the pill bottle, and fill it with a different, poisonous content.  So, I ask you:  are we united with Rome, modernist Rome, in any of these? – under any of the distinctions we just made?  We’re not.  

So how can there be a practical agreement with men who don’t even hold these, and not only just don’t hold them, they’re positively destroying, and wrecking the Mass, the Sacraments, the Faith, and Positively most bishops, well, they don’t have the Faith.  They don’t even have this.  And priests:  there are many of them do;  in spite of Novus Ordo, in spite of Modernist Rome.  But as a whole, modernist Rome–  this is why Archbishop Lefevre said, “There can never be a practical agreement unless it’s built on the true Faith of Tradition, the Catholic Faith of all time.”

And that’s what we have got to have clearly in our minds!  No agreement until Rome converts to Tradition.

Re-read, re-see, review the great 1988 Consecration sermons.  You can look that up: ‘88 Consecration sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre.  See it “live” and hear the translation, and three times in that sermon he says it:  We will refuse any agreement with Rome until Rome comes back to Tradition.  Three times, a three-piece suit. [sp?]  Ad nauseam, really–

So let’s cover a few objections.  One of them comes up quite often and it’s very deceiving.  And that is –  

“But Archbishop Lefebvre, he signed most of the docuмents of Vatican II.  So what’s wrong??  What’s wrong with Bishop Fellay saying 95% of Vatican II is acceptable, since Archbishop Lefebvre said, ‘Well, it’s not all the docuмents are bad’.”  He said that in the 60’s, Archbishop Lefebvre.  He said it even in the 70’s.  

So, “What’s wrong with the Society working out these,… surmountable obstacles – to make an agreement with Rome, and Vatican II can be dealt with?—and just see everything in the light of Tradition?!”  

And the answer to that is, as one of our fellow priests in the Resistance made a very good point:  let’s just take a 9th grade wrestler.  He’s wrestling in 9th grade.  He develops, and in 10th grade he learns more moves;  11th grade he learns the moves of his enemies.  And by 12th grade, he’s ready to graduate into better wrestling, let’s just say.  

Archbishop Lefebvre wrestled with the Modernists, the beasts:  Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Cassaroli, Pope John Paul II.  He dealt with them face to face.  And in wrestling with this slick dragon, he learned.  By the end of his life, in his last conference—in 1990, he has a great conference, which is available.  It’s out there.  And it’s called, “Two Years After the Consecration.” [xv]  

Two years after.. he will die in 1991, March 25th, a significant date.  But even less than a year before he dies, this is what he says:  It’s vary important to bring this back to people who always say, “Well, Archbishop Lefebvre, he sat as part of the Council.”  He said, later in his life, he said, “The more I study the docuмents of Vatican II, the more I hear, the more I…”—and here’s his words, and these words were actually quoted to Bishop Fellay by the three Bishops.  Here he says:  “The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church,” (including this pope) “..and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors..”

Now, open brackets, it’s not in your – superficial errors— I don’t know if you’ve been following, but it’s been a lot on those SSPX websites, this Giardini, this new critique on Vatican II – he calls it “superficial” errors, and that’s become the Society’s new attack on Vatican II, that it’s just “superficial errors,” but it’s not.

Here’s Archbishop Lefebvre’s saying:  “It’s not just superficial!  Nor a few particular errors, such as ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegial structure.”  That’s what he always did say.  He always attacked those, but now, he says, “In my old age after wrestling with this dragon, I come to see..” here it is! – “..but rather it is,” (Vatican II) “..is a total perversion of the Spirit, [xvi] a whole new philosophy, founded upon subjectivism.  It is very serious, a total perversion.  That is really alarming.”  

So, Archbishop Lefebvre, in this conference, he says all of Vatican II, the whole thing is based on subjectivism, modern philosophy, which is condemned by St. Pius X, the Pope in tradition, and the whole thing is perverse.

The whole thing is deeply perverse, because it’s based on that.  And what is this modern subjectivism, but that the faith comes from within.  “The faith [xvii] comes from within.”  While the Catholic, and that’s why – “since the Faith comes from within,” then any expression of the Faith fits the picture.  Any revelation of the Holy Spirit through other religions is included – it’s all-inclusive – in the Vatican II Super-Ecuмenical Church.  

It makes sense.  That’s why it makes sense that Pope Benedict XVI wants Tradition “in,” because he accepted the Anglicans a couple of years ago.  Did they have to renounce their errors?  Did they have to make a public abjuration of their heresies?  NO!  They just had to make a vague profession of faith.  But it fits his new philosophy.  For the Catholic, this is a very simplistic way of—there’s a lot more to it, but it’s not that difficult..  

The WILL receives from God, and the mind is illumined by God’s grace, and the study of the Faith.  We studied the Faith, that is, Scripture and Tradition, summarized in your catechism.  You read that.  Faith comes by reading – it comes by hearing, says St. Paul, but you study the faith, you study what God has revealed, God moves the will – and the mind, moved by grace, submits to what God has revealed.  So God gives it.  Credo IN unum Deum, which is in Accusative, [xviii] which means it’s an act of faith that takes you right into God …but to the Modernist, it’s just, you know, subjective.  There’s a little more to it with this pope.  It’s a little more complicated, but we’re not going to go into that, here.

So, that’s the first objection.  Here’s another objection.  I’m sure you’ve heard this one.  
Question to Archbishop Lefebvre:  “Some people say, ‘Yes, but shouldn’t the Archbishop have accepted an agreement with Rome’?”  

Put this to now:  “Bishop Fellay should accept an agreement with Rome – why?  Because once the SSPX had been recognized, the suspensions lifted, he would have been able to act in a more effective manner inside the Church – whereas now, he has put himself outside.”  

Have you heard that recently?  It’s even in that letter, the “Response to the three Bishops.”  We should get into the Church.  But I heard this from many good priests of the Society:  

“Why do you want to fight from the gutters, when you want to go face-to-face and we could convert Rome?  We can get inside the Church, and work on the bishops, work on the fellow priests, and convert from within!”  

Does anybody see?  Anybody see, I mean, do you agree with that?  Should we do that?  What’s wrong with it?  Sounds great, sounds apostolic!  

~  Like a bad apple!  Like a bad apple that ruins the rest of the gunny sack.  Do you want to put yourself in with the bad apple?  I don’t…

~  But we’re not the principle.  The pope is the principle so he’s going to create the effect.  We are not a principle so we do not create the effect.  We are the effect.  So what we can control is the principle under which we choose to place ourselves under, unfortunately, it’s not in persons anymore, except for our comradery and the authority of you priests, but it’s in the faith.  Now it’s in the raw faith.  That’s the principle.  

F.H.  That’s well said.  It’s well said.  

~  The superior make the subjects, the subjects don’t make the superior.

F.H.   Yes.. Yup.  Here it is.  You’re hitting on all of it, and here is what the Archbishop says.  It’s very applicable to now:  “Such things are easy to say!”  This is Archbishop Lefebvre in 1989, in an interview with Fideliter magazine.  “To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church, what does that mean?  Firstly, what Church are we talking about?”  And respond with that. When people say, “We’ve gotta get inside the Church,” well, tell them, Father X, Y or Z, or your cousin, or your– tell them, “Well, what Church are you talking about?”  If it’s the Conciliar Church, we’re going to be – destroyed.  And if it’s the Catholic Church, well, the Pope’s not even got the Faith, so how can it be a “union” with one who doesn’t even have the Faith?  

I read on:  “Firstly, what Church are we talking about?  If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we must struggle against the Council for 20 years..” Now 42!  “..because  we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order to supposedly make it Catholic.  That is a complete…” —Can anybody fill in the blank?

~  Line of bull…(laughter)

F.H.  That’s the Kentucky way of saying it!  (laughter)  Illusion – Archbishop Lefebvre – let’s get inside – Archbishop Lefebvre says, no, “That is illusion!”  Why?  Now, you’re talking:  this is Archbishop Lefebvre!  I mean, Apostolic delegate to Dakar;  he met with Pius XII;  he was superior general of the largest missionary order in the whole Catholic world!  You don’t think he knew what it was like dealing with superiors and subjects and the whole politics within the politics!  I don’t mean politics in the BAD sense.  There is politics which is, honest dealing with people.  You have to deal with that everywhere you go in this – in THIS life.  Why is it a “COMPLETE ILLUSION?”  He said:

“It’s not the subjects that make the superiors, it’s the superiors who make the subjects.”  

So, if we put ourselves in agreement with men, who do not hold the faith, and in fact are wreckers of the Faith, sure, we may have our pocket – SSPX recognition in pocket, but it’s not going to last too long.  

St. Peter’s Society:  I told you this before.  They elected Fr. Bisig.  Rome stepped in, at their General Chapter, at their election, and said, “No!  We want this wet noodle.”  And he was put in charge, and St. Peter went swiftly into the Newmass!  Even though all their priests don’t say it, nor many of them accept it, but now they can’t preach against it, because many of their own members say it, and promote it!  

So, to seek our own pocket is also not the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, and that’s another objection you’ll hear:  

“Well, we should be recognized out of justice!  We’ve been excommunicated all these years – let’s have justice done!”

All right – we get our name, our justice, our legalization, but what’s that do for the whole Church?  The Church is still on fire – the whole house is still on fire – we might have our own room and closet.  [In the previous talk at minute 50, transcript page 14, this analogy was used, that the Church is on fire and the SSPX is one room in the house.]  

And that’s the mind of the Archbishop:  we have to fight for the whole Faith, the whole Church!  And that’s his great Apostolic mind, and that’s where he picks up the sword of combat!  We must combat the errors destroying mother Church! —and not just be happy with having a healthy finger when the whole body is diseased with cancer!  We have to fight that the whole body gets healthy, that is, the whole, Roman Catholic Church, Mother Church, the Spouse, the Bride of Christ.  

So, he says here it’s a complete illusion, because of that great principle:  It’s not the subjects that make superiors, it’s not the kids that make mom and dad, it’s mom and dad that form the children.  It’s the men on top that form us.  So if we put ourselves under men who are destroying the Faith, we’re not going to last long.  

And that’s what Dom Thomas Aquinas in Brazil – he’s a great, great priest, great priest.  Thank God for him.  He was pressured two years ago, by Menzingen to retire!  I only found that out recently, but in hindsight, now you know why!  Because Father Thomas Aquinas stood strong when his abbot, Dom Gerrard in France, made the agreement with Rome.  He did not go with it.  And Brazil held strong.  

And in 2002 and 03, when Campos fell, to a compromise with Rome, who held strong?  Fr. Thomas Aquinas:  “Our Monastery will not go with this!”  And now, who’s been speaking out, and publicly putting out letters?  Fr. Thomas Aquinas, against this new agreement with Rome, and so now, he’s – you know, doing what he’s always done, thank God.

But it’s the Society, the SSPX that is changing its position.  And that’s scary.  

Now, recently, I’m just told the recent Angelus had an article that has these General Chapter statements, and a bunch of articles saying – even mentioning the two Magisteria,

So in a way, right now, because of the Resistance, they’re coming out with the, you know, the old SSPX teachings more and more, recently.  But don’t fall for it!—until they put the conditions in the window, where they belong, [xix] and put the General Chapter statement back to – at least back to the one in 2006.  

And you can write to Bishop Fellay and tell him that!  We love the SSPX, we want to stand behind you, but get rid of these two things, straighten it out, and then we’ll believe all your talk about there’s no agreement that’s going to happen.  

And here’s the rest of what he says.  So, “Let’s get inside the Church!”  Now, “It’s an illusion!”  Why?  “Because subjects don’t make the superiors, the superiors make the subjects.”  And he goes on here:  “Amongst the whole Roman curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped!  I would have been able to do nothing.  I could have protected neither the faithful nor the seminarians.”  

So, this touches on the three surrenders.  We make an agreement with Rome you surrender – major decisions, of the SSPX to the Pope.  And is the Pope going to support the Catholic Tradition in the combat against Modernism?  No.  Not now.  Not when he’s doing it himself – Assisi.  

We’re going to also surrender [tape skips] Saint Peter’s.  They stepped in, and put their own man in.  

And then for future bishops [xx] – who will be the bishops?  It’s going to be Rome that decides.  And if you remember, that was the wrestling match with Rome with Archbishop Lefebvre when he says, “Give me a bishop,” and he had to make it clear:  “one of our bishops, so I’ll know that Catholic tradition will continue.”  And Rome, with Cardinal Ratzinger, kept playing ball, and pool, and sneaky moves and he said, “These men are not honest.  We cannot deal with them.”  

Another objection, is:  

“Aren’t you afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you Him,..” speaking to Archbishop Lefebvre, “..little by little the split will grow wider, and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the ‘visible Church’?”  

So, “Aren’t you afraid…” – this is what Bishop Fellay addressed to the three bishops as well:  

“Aren’t you afraid of the schismatic mentality?  The longer this goes on, the more  schismatic mentality we’re going to become.”  Well, not if you teach your children the crisis, not if you teach them the catechism, not if we have to deepen our understanding of what we’re fighting for.”

~  Seems like that sound bite started to come out in 2009 – the sound bite on you know, we’re getting too far away now, at some point we’re not gonna be able to dock.  I think it’s been going on, for what now, about 3 years?  

F.H.  No, longer.  This is 1989, when Archbishop Lefebvre was dealing with that question.

~  But the Society’s shift – I know it’s longer than 2009, but that’s when they started pushing sound bites out, to start working the faithful around this idea, because I remember the first time I got hit with it and I thought, this what? Doesn’t fly – didn’t sound right. It didn’t sound right.

F.H.  Well, here’s what he says, it’s beautiful.  The Archbishop is – it’s beautiful how he answers, and this is how we’ve gotta answer ourselves.  Because you’re going to hear this also.  “You’re being schismatic!  The Resistance is, Practical Sedevacantists!”  We haven’t changed!  Bishop Williamson isn’t a practical sedevacantist!  This has always been with the SSPX position!

Here it is [ABL]:  “This talk about the ‘visible Church,’ on the part of Dom Gerrard and Mr. Madurant,[sp?] is childish.  It is incredible that anyone can talk about the ‘visible Church’,” meaning the Conciliar Church, as opposed to the Catholic Church [the latter of] which we are trying to represent and continue.  “I’m not saying that we ARE the Catholic Church.  I’ve never said so.”  (SSPX)  “No one can reproach me with ever having wished to have set myself up as a Pope.  But we truly represent the Catholic Church, such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did.  It is we who have the four marks of the visible Church:  One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.  That is what makes the visible Church.”  

So again, he comes back to:  “You’re being schismatic!” – [respond to that with], “Well if it’s schismatic against the Conciliar Church, well, yes we are.” “You’re rebellious against the Conciliar Church?”  “Yes, we are.  But the Catholic Church, One, Holy, Roman Catholic, of Tradition:  we belong to, with all our heart.  We’ll die for it.” [xxi]
Here’s a few more statements.

All right.  Let me just read this, and I’ll throw it out to you, and see what you answer:  What do you say to this?

“The Pope says that the Council (Vat.II) must be viewed in the large tradition of the Church, that it must be understood in the context of the Church.  These are statements with which we fully agree without a doubt.”  

Shall I read it again?  

~ Uh-huh.  
~ This is Bishop Fellay?  

F.H.  Yes, this is Bishop Fellay in the CNS Interview, but think about what he’s saying, that the Pope says that the Council must be viewed in the large tradition of the Church,..

~  He’s saying the pope is the “living Magisterium:   it’s a Magisterium issue.  The question is, WHAT, now.  It’s definitive issue, on:  what’s the Magisterium?  We’re moving away from the traditional definition, and we’re moving into the Vatican II, which recalls those 5 conditions that they tried to hit you guys with several years ago, one of which was explicitly that you had to adhere to the “living magisterium” – it was a little crisis in the SSPX those years ago (F.H.  Yes.) 5 years ago, maybe..

F.H.  Yes, and I read on,

“..that (it) must be understood in the context of the Church.  These are statements with which we fully agree without a doubt.”

That’s called, “ambiguous language,” ambiguism.  [Ambiguity]

Here’s another one:  

“Many people understand wrongly the Council.  The Council presents a – religious freedom that is a, or, that is – a religious liberty that is a freedom that is very, very limited.”  

Now, what did Archbishop Lefebvre say about religious liberty?  And here it’s very clear, because Menzingen tried to justify this a couple of weeks ago, saying that “No,” that, Bishop Fellay meant only Religious liberty in the United States, in a very limited context.  But here’s the text!  And if you hear it, he’s very clear he’s talking about the religious liberty of the Council.  

And what did Archbishop Lefebvre say about the religious liberty of the Council?  Is it JUST a “super heresy?”  

~  He said it’s a veritable apostasy, right?

F.H. Yeah.  “A veritable apostasy!”   It’s a perversion, a total insanity!   He’s quoting the popes who condemned false religious liberty!  

So it’s not just “…very, very limited.” [xxii]  This is Very, Very Serious Language, here!  

And that, I repeat, for the hundredth time:  For a Society priest to talk ambiguously on matters of doctrine?   It’s like a Navy Seal SOLDIER going into his mission with a SQUIRT gun—he just cannot be doing that.  He knows that he’s not supposed to be doing that.  And we have been trained to battle Modernism, and we all know that one of the Modernist’s great tactics is ambiguous language – a sentence or phrase that can be taken in two ways.  

Again, the famous one in Vatican II, there’s many of them, but here’s just one:  Vatican II declares that Latin is to remain the language of the Church.  Next paragraph:  However, when bishops see fit, they may use the vernacular.  There you have a built-in contradiction, a built-in ambiguity, and what happened after the Council?  Do you still have Latin?  

And now, Latin’s only coming back, it’s being [used] like salt, sprinkled on many parishes liturgies throughout the world, along with “pro multis,” [xxiii] and, “The Lord be with you..  And with thy spirit,” now they’ve gone back to – it’s all this appearance of becoming more traditional and more conservative. [xxiv]

And that’s even more deadly because Catholics are getting – traditional Catholics are getting sucked into this idea that, “Well, this pope IS really traditional.”  

~ More ambiguity! [xxv]  

F. H.  Yes.  And if you read what Fr. Laguérie said – Fr. Laguérie, in 2005 – he  founded, along with Fr. [Paul] Aulagnier, le Institut du Bon Pasteur,  the Good Shepherd Institute.  And they really believed with the election of Pope Benedict XVI that we would now have a traditional pope. [xxvi]  And he said, “Bishop Fellay cannot justify his position anymore.  Bishop Fellay expelled him, because why?  Because he wanted an agreement with Rome!  

It’s true!  Bishop Fellay was holding strong there, for some years, and he expelled them because they wanted him to go with Rome, and he said, “No! — because this is dangerous to the Faith!”  And now, the very arguments that THEY were using, now are the arguments that HE’S using with the leaders of the Society to GO IN with Rome! [xxvii] I read on.  Here’s another one.  

“After the discussions, we found out that the errors that we believed were sourced from the Council and in fact, are not sourced from the Council but result from a general interpretation which has been used.”  

So what’s that to do with Archbishop Lefebvre?  If the errors we’re combating were not really from the Council, then, we’re wasting our time.  And uh, it’s the Council errors, the errors right in the Vatican II docuмents, that are the poison.  

So, these are just a few – a few of the common objections.  What about you, have you heard any – in all this recent crisis – have you heard any objections that you might want to repeat, that maybe Fr. Pfeiffer and I and Fr. Voigt might be able to help iron out? [xxviii]

~  Father? (F.H.  Yes?)  This is not exactly in answer to this question, but it’s an observation.  We have people like Guardini [sp? cit?] coming on the scene now, and we’re all supposed to run towards him, because he sounds a little like we do.  What we’ve lost is our principle of ALL OR NOTHING.  We’ve lost the principle of it, if there’s even a little bit of a taint, and you have to throw the whole thing out.  We have lost that understanding, now, we tend to run like cattle!  We ran in 2007 when the Pope supposedly “freed the Mass.”  We ran when he supposedly lifted the excommunications.  We keep running to a sound that sounds like us, but It’s not us.  So we’re misidentifying with things that we should not identify, and then, once we misidentify it, then we want to unite with it.  

F. H.  Yes.  Guardini[sp?] he’s the one that calls – he’s been showing up a lot in our SSPX website.  He’s quoted a lot because he’s the one that says, “Vatican II has superficial errors.”  But I just read to you Archbishop Lefebvre saying, wait a minute.  It’s not just superficial errors.  The errors are serious, they’re deep, and they totally pervert all the docuмents of the Council.  Do you follow?  

~ Yes.

F. H.  So, Guardini [sp?] is the one who’s saying that, plus, what I think you’re hitting on is Fr. Chazal’s speech about this Bishop Williamson speech about this. – Any good Cardinal Piee,[sp?] Louis Boingyow, [sp?] these great anti-Liberals, they describe a Liberal – a Liberal is one who wants to feel part of the unity, let’s just say, whatever the “unity” is.  A Liberal in his heart wants to feel part of the gang.  In a way, it’s kind of a part of nature.  Call it, “part of fallen nature,” (and it’s) – and even on the noble side of nature, it’s a good thing.  But the Liberal wants unity at pretty much any cost.  But the Catholic Liberal wants to unite the modern world principles with the Church.  And that’s what’s deadly.  And that’s IN THE COUNCIL itself:  Gaudium et spes says that the Church must adapt to modern principles [xxix] to deal with the modern problem.  And that’s deadly.  

So, a Liberal wants to feel united, and that’s part of the problem.  We feel like we’re—since there’s a new definition of the visibility of the Church, which is to be under the Pope, and the lack of distinction of the true Magisterium, [xxx] the Conciliar Church and the eternal Rome, the Roman Catholic Church of Tradition.  We refuse the Conciliar Church and we want to be under eternal Rome.  

But since this distinction now is not made anymore, and you don’t hear anymore about the Conciliar Church from the leadership;  all you hear about is, we gotta belong to Rome, be under the Pope, so it makes sense in that picture, that – Hey!  If we’re outside the Church, we want to be united to it!  We don’t want to become schismatics, obviously!

It’s an error in the thinking, and it’s a bit too much MUSH in the heart, I suppose.  The Liberal Catholic, as Pius IX said, he wants to feel united with the world.  And now the SSPX wants to feel united with Rome – but which Rome?  And this is where Bishop Fellay, aided by a miracle, [xxxi] he has to come back, and if he doesn’t – we’re — then the SSPX is done.   It’s in trouble.
 
But to seek this agreement with Rome when it’s not a unity of the Faith – it’s just deadly, but that’s what Liberal Catholicism is.  It’s exactly what it is, while the True Unity, of course, is, you see the truth, and you unite it to the Catholic truth of all time, because it is precisely the Catholic Tradition.

So, those are just a few objections that I wanted to cover.  And you’re going to hear many more – many more will come up.  Yes, sir..

~  Hence,[?] I heard our current situation being likened to the semi-Arianism that followed Arius.  And St. Bother – or Basil, in that same time period (F.H.  Yes)  it was the period of transition from Arianism to repressed variation of the Church or in semi-Arianism period? (F.H. Yes) Have you heard that objection?  

F.H.  Yes – do you mean Fr. Iscarus?  

~  I don’t know ah, what’s his (other voices) Iscara’s arguments

F.H.  Well Bishop Tissier, he blasted that one out of the park in his sermon this past summer.  But, I think the better example is St. Athanasius, because he was in that period also.  Then Pope Liberius signed a semi-heretical docuмent, semi-Arianism.  And he signed it because it sounded good, it could be interpreted in a Catholic way, but he’s the first pope to not be sainted, and Athanasius, of course, was excommunicated, exiled five times, had to run for his life many times.  

The famous story, of when he was dressed up, tithing on the dock, waiting for the monks to come down the Nile River to pick him up, and to take him into exile, and the soldiers of the emperor were chasing him down, and they came running down the beach, and they came out on the dock, and they saw this man, a bearded man dressed up in fisherman’s clothes, and they said, “Have you seen Bishop Athanasius?  Where is he?  Have you seen him?”  And uh, St. Athanasius, he looked up the river and he looked down the river and he said, “Well, he’s not – I haven’t seen him, but look down that way, maybe you’ll find him, but he’s not far off,” he says.  So they took off, and the monks came and picked him up.  And he was in exile there for six years.  

So yeah, I think it’s a fair comparison.  We are in a new phase of the revolution.  Because after Vatican II you had the – – it’s like the Rock n’ Roll revolution:  the long hair, cutoff blue jeans, the whole horrible scene:  Woodstock – absolutely repulsive, and they glorify that today, Woodstock.  You have the – or, the French Revolution, the blood, the guillotine, the bƖσσdshɛd, the mess;  Vatican II, the smashing of the altars, smashing the communion rails – nuns and priests exodusing—you have that Big Crash, just say, right after these revolutions.  

And after the French Revolution, then came Napoleon, and Napoleon established the principles of the modern world with a suit and tie on.  Obama is the perfect expression of what’s going on now in the Church.  The guy is – it’s a total revolution.  And he’s opening the persecution of the Catholic Church in this country.  

You’d expect such a guy to have long, Afro hair, and earrings all over the place, tattoos everywhere, cutoff jeans and T-shirt, and smoking Marijuana.  That’s what you’d expect, but he’s not.  He’s clean-cut, shaven, suit and tie.  

That is the revolution we are dealing with in the Church, NOW.  Pope Benedict XVI is of Vatican II, he is Modernist, he is our pope and I pray for him.  But he doesn’t have the rainbow vestments;  he’s not up there saying… [tape skips] …restoring some conservative things.  He’s very deceptive.  He’s got a lot of Catholics – including, sadly– our own superiors in the Society are being DUPED by this:  it looks traditional, but it’s not.  It’s, you know, Rock n’ Roll music, it’s [like] the Rock n’ Roll musicians that are singing revolution, promoting all kinds of vice—but they’re dressed casually, and they’re not all that wild, on the outside.

So that’s the conservative revolution, that we are in now;  we are in this stage.  That’s why – we have to resist this crushing of our Catholic Faith, endangering of the Catholic Faith – brought about by this General Chapter Statement, pushing for the agreement;  it [the Statement] approves it, it determines to go for it.  And we have to refuse that, because we know what that means.  We will lose our faith, we will lose the Mass, we will lose the priesthood – the sense of the priesthood.  

So, anyway, I guess that’s long enough.  

F.P.  Yeah, we’ve gotta take a little break here, but I think the objection we’ve, was  referring to was the Fr. Iscara argument, which was – about dealing with the heretics gently, and in a conciliatory way, and not being too negative with them, so that we can “win’em through honey,” so to speak – just to one side [two voices] on the side of justice, so bring them over slowly towards the tradition, ah, you know, rather than hit them with the sledge hammer.

~ That’s exactly it.  

F.P.  That’s Fr. Iscara’s argument.  What’s he going to answer that? (inaudible)  What’s the answer to that?  

F.H.  Well, Bishop Tissier, he did touch on that, in his sermon in the summer at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, he did mention that.  But like I said, we have the example of St. Athanasius, in that same period of time, “Did he think that way?”  Did he think that—

F.P.  The argument is if St. Basil thought that way, that St. Basil tried that peaceful way.  
But that’s the objection, the answer that he gave, that kind of do, make a statement that could be rejecting of the moment [?] to..

F.H.  Right, well, oh, St. Basil, he was in the east, and he knew St. Atanasius was preaching.  He knew other saints at the time, St. Eusibius of Sanazoda, St. Hilary of Portiers–.  There were numerous saints at that time that were openly preaching against Arianism.  So maybe you can justify himself, [?] because he was actually founding a monastery, St. Basil.  He was writing a rule for monks, so that may have been more his focus.  How can we say?  Since other dogs were barking against the wolves, he could focus on building the fortress..

F.P.  St. Basil, the truth is,  St. Basil did bark against the wolves.  The famous story of St. Basil’s example was one of the Arians was, you know, the Arian King – St. Basil was known for being a nice, and gentle individual.  Then one of the Arians said some Arian, semi-Arian type things, and St. Basil stood up and ah, BLASTED him.  He just attacked him..  It wasn’t a king, it was a duke or not the emperor, but it was a lower official, and he said, “Boy, I can’t believe you did that,” and he says, You have stood up—  St. Basil said to him, he says, “You have faced many and have knocked them down, but now you see what it is to stand against a bishop of the Church.”  

And Basil blasted him.  The argument that Basil didn’t do that, is actually not really accurate. [xxxii]  Note that Bishop Tissier pointed that out:  in his sermon of June 17th, he mentions specifically St. Basil, and he said St. Basil attacked the heretics.  St. Basil did not try – he attacked clearly the heresy, and also in answer to that one of the Filipino priests, Fr. Suaelo [sp?] in the Philippines, you know, we read that – I was in the Philippines at the time when that docuмent came out.  Fr. Suelo says, even if, let’s suppose it was true, St. Basil said, wrote something that would have two different interpretations, or said, would be nice to them.  

At that time people would have a brain, and knew there was only one truth, and that there’s only one clear truth and St. Basil’s promoting that clear truth.  They knew where he stood and that he was promoting the clear Catholic doctrine.  There was no doubt about where St. Basil stood, there was no confusion as to St. Basil’s teaching.  He said, sometimes you hit a guy with a sledge hammer, and sometimes you just hit him with a boxing glove.  Even if it was true, at that time, Arians knew, they were Arians, they knew that Basil was Catholic, and they knew that they were enemies on doctrine.  

But nowadays, people don’t believe in truth.  Nowadays, people don’t know there is such a thing as truth, so if the new Basil doesn’t tell them clearly that they’re wrong, and that this error is wrong, they’ll say, “Oh, well, Basil has changed his mind.  Basil’s not Catholic anymore.”  And that’s what’s happening now.  

See, right now, the majority of Catholics [tape skips] I’ve spoken to many of the bishops, priests, you know – one priest I spoke to says the Latin Mass in Connecticut.  He says, “Hey, I’ve heard you guys are making a deal with the Church!  Welcome to Home, sweet Rome!”  You know, I said, “Actually you’re talking to the wrong guy;  I’m one of the guys that ah, (laughter) tell that to the guy up the road, but, I’m not the one you should be telling that to. (laughter) So, anyway, he says, “Oh, oh, okay.”  What of the one billion Catholics, they see that the present re-union of the Church – read the Wall Street Journal, read what the Catholic newspapers are saying and what the people think:  ‘Society is coming back, from excommunication [tape skips, plus coughing] to back in the Church.’  ‘The Society is returning to Rome.’  

They’re not saying the Pope is coming to Tradition – the Pope is becoming Catholic.  That’s not what they’re saying.  So it’s going to cause grave confusion.  

Just like the case of, not Mattheus, in the book of Eleazar – Eleazar in the Book of Macabees.  For he – in the Book of Macabees, Eleazar is an old man, he was told to eat (what do you call it,) pork, which of course was against the law of God, the law of the Jews.  He said, “No.”  So they were going to kill him.  They were very highly impressed that this 80 year-old man was being so strong, so they said, “Look, we like you.  We’ll tell you what:  We’re going to give you chicken.  And, we’re going to tell the young men that you ate pork!  So that way, you’re not breaking the law of God.”  And he said, “If I were to eat chicken, it would be a scandal, because even though I am not eating pork, the young men will think that I, an old, wise man, am eating pork and I will scandalize them, and they will turn from God.  And besides, it is not worthy of my gray hairs. – I’m gonna die anyway, it might as well be today!” [paraphrasing]

So that he – it’s called “simulation,” that he refused, even though, technically, he was going to be eating chicken, he was technically martyred because he wouldn’t eat chicken, but he was martyred because, even though he had no problem eating chicken – he probably had it for breakfast that morning – it was the fact that they would BELIEVE that he was eating pork, and the fact that they would believe [that he had capitulated], was sufficient for him to say, “No.”  

And in the Church today, one of the arguments, and why it’s important for us to stand up [is], we are endangering the faith of those who would come to Catholic Tradition.  We’re endangering their faith.  There are many souls who would come to us.  In 2009 it was a  big difference from 1988.  In ‘88, the priests of the Society stood up and said, “Excommunicate us too!  How come you only excommunicated 5, ah, 6?  We feel left out.”  And so they wrote letters:  “Please excommunicate me, excommunicate me, excommunicate me, excommunicate me!  Because I feel left out – I’m hurt!”  That’s what they wrote.  

And what happened?  There was a massive growth of Catholic Tradition!  Because the people knew, the Pope is condemning Tradition, these are standing for Tradition;  I want to be traditional.  One of them was Fr. Beebow; [sp?] who was at that time, thinking of leaving the priesthood.  He couldn’t take the Newmass.  

He couldn’t take it anymore.  He was trying to say the Indult Mass once in a while;  he was taking a job as a night watchman, he said, “I’m going to have to leave the priesthood,” and then he saw, on the news, “Excommunicated Archbishop,” and he said, “If he’s excommunicated, he can’t be that bad!”  (laughter)  And now, he’s been taking care of our parish for 20 years.  And I lived with him for 9 years.  And so he’s one example, and there are many others.  

In 2009, when this excommuni— when we had the condemnation of Bishop Williamson, and what happened was, “He’s a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier,” so, the WORLD condemned him.  And then, you know, the lesbian Merkyl [sp?] condemned him.  And then the Pope condemned him.  And then, Bishop Fellay condemned him.  And the Society condemned him.  So there weren’t two sides.  As a result, it only caused harm.  Had he been defended, then many people would have converted at that time.  Because they would see clearly, there are two sides.  

It was the First Major Fight in which there were Not Two Sides!  

Before 2009, whenever there was a fight, it’s us against them.  In 2009, the Pope:  left hook!  Bishop Fellay:  right hook!  “We’re working together, against the common enemy.”  That’s what happened.  And next thing you know, we’ve become friends.  Just like on Good Friday morning, Pilate and Herod, who had been enemies of each other, became friends.  And that is what really began to happen in 2009.  

F.H.   What was the first sentence of the CNS interview?  

F.P.   ‘I don’t see it that way, a fight.’  Bishop Fellay says that ah, ‘People think it’s SSPX vs. Rome.  I don’t see it that way.  It’s not SSPX vs. Rome.’  Whereas, Archbishop Lefebvre DID see it that way.  

And so the conciliatory argument is causing great harm to souls, because we’re making a conciliation with those who are destroying souls today.  Therefore, people will think it’s okay to go with them.  

It’s a scandal.  It’s the true definition of scandal, to cause people to fall.  

In any case, we should take a station break here.  So ah, we’ll just say a quick prayer .. [xxxiii]






[footnotes to be added later - they are primarily for the aid of translators, to
be sure you can get the colloquial meanings of phrases, grammar and syntax,
but also have a few minor comments, not so much as the previous conference]