|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2019 0:20:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2019 0:34:28 GMT
The Recusant - Issue 49
An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerrilla war for the soul of Tradition!
“Born of liberalism and modernism, this Reform is poisoned through and through. It begins in heresy and ends in heresy even if not all its acts are formally heretical. Hence it is impossible for any informed and loyal Catholic to embrace this Reform or submit himself to it in any way whatsoever. The only way of salvation for the faithful and the doctrine of the Church is a categorical refusal to accept it.” - Archbishop Lefebvre, November 1974 Declaration
“While the new religion is false, it’s dangerous, it strangles grace and it’s helping many people to lose the Faith: at the same time, there are still cases where it can be used and is used still to build the Faith.” - Bishop Williamson, Mahopac, New York, 2015
Editorial
Dear Reader,
Pray forgive the slight hiatus between this and the previous issue! We apologise also for disappointing any of you who were hoping that this newsletter was gone for good! Sorry, no such luck! The demands of 21st Century working life, combined with our ancient computer finally giving up the ghost (it had been playing up for a while - frankly I’m amazed it lasted that long!) combined to delay this issue even more than it would already have been. In the meantime, the Resistance is fortunate to have the website The Catacombs and I would like to thank them for proving a reliable online presence to fill the void. Long may it continue to do so.
You may not have had a Recusant to read for the past year, but the crisis in the Church has not gone away, and nor has the Resistance. If anything, the situation is worse than ever before. So how are we doing on the cusp of 2020? Let us take a quick look.
Pope Francis has not had any kind of ‘road to Damascus’ conversion, at least not yet. One hears plenty of grumbling about him from souls still in some way connected to the conciliar church. It is true that he seems to have more a penchant for Synods (the latest one being the Amazon Synod) than his predecessors; but other than that is he really so very different? The next time a ‘conservative-novus-ordo’ acquaintance complains about Francis, you might want to point out that both Benedict XVI and John Paul II weren’t great either. What’s that? Pope Francis celebrated an ‘inculturated’ Mass with semi-naked bodies doing a pagan dance around the altar? So did John Paul II, more than once. Pope Francis accepted some sort of pagan native dress? That’s nothing - John Paul II let himself be given the mark of Shiva by the Hindus, and Pope Benedict XVI had himself blessed by a Rabbi. Pope Francis put a beachball on the altar? John Paul II kissed the Koran, let pagans use Catholic churches for their rituals and let a statue of buddha be placed on top of the tabernacle. Francis says communion can be given to “remarried” divorcees? Benedict XVI gave communion to the notorious Protestant “Brother Roger” of Taizé, in full public view and in front of the world’s media. We could go on. Doctrinally it is the same story. When Pope Francis says that everyone goes to heaven or that Catholics shouldn’t try to convert others, he is just repeating what JPII said again and again during his 27 years of Pontificate. Take for instance the constantly repeated insistence by both JPII and Benedict XVI that Jews should not become Catholics because the old covenant is still valid “for them”(!) - that one heresy alone is so horrifying and scandalous that no Catholics but the most ignorant or craven ought to have had anything more to do with either of them. Pope Francis is merely following in the footsteps of his unhappy predecessors.
Here is one final point on Pope Francis. Consider. How did the Church end up with a man like Jose Maria Bergoglio as Pope? The reason is that it is a direct consequence of the two previous Pontificates, plus Paul VI too. From the late 1960s onwards there have been a proliferation of men like him: the Kungs, the Rahners and Schillebeeckx’s, the Congars and de Lubacs, and yes, the Ratzingers and the Bergoglios. They all started out as priests. During Pope Pius XII’s reign they had to keep their heads down, but in the late 1950s they became less afraid and began to come out of hiding under John XXIII; at Vatican II they ran amok. Then they all gained influential positions in the Church, seminaries and universities, newfangled pastoral and liturgical commissions and so on. Some went on to become bishops and Cardinals: there were so many of them, it was bound to happen if they weren’t kept in check. Some, like Fr. Josef Ratzinger (made a Cardinal in the 1980s) spouted modernism in a layer of high-brow faux-intellectualism. Others, like Bergoglio, did not. Bergoglio himself has not changed however. From a priest, he rose to become an auxiliary bishop in the early 1990s, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires. And during all that time, at no point was he ever reprimanded, censured, held back from promotion or even given so much as a slap on the wrist. None of them were ever punished in any way. Hans Kung was eventually told he couldn’t hold a University teaching position any more, but even that wasn’t properly enforced. During all that time, how many excommunications did John Paul II hand out? None? Ah no, he did hand out one (well, sort of, though not really). Archbishop Lefebvre. That’s right, he found the one flower still growing in the garden of Mother Church and did his best to pull it out, but left all the other thousands of weeds growing there. So many weeds were there, that even a non-believer could have seen the mathematical inevitability: sooner or later a Bergoglio or someone like him would become Pope. So if we want to know who to blame for Francis, look no further than John Paul II, the great hero to many novus-ordo Catholics, the man virtually guaranteed that we would end up with someone like Pope Francis.
But enough about Francis. It has been said before that he is a good thing in that at least his modernism is more obvious, and I agree. Nevertheless, it is tragic to witness. But given that the modernism, the offence to Almighty God and the harm done to souls is more obvious than ever before, where is the reaction? The SSPX right now ought to be bigger and more prosperous than ever before. But alas, the opposite is the case. Closure of chapels, merging of congregations, making excuses, loss of initiative and drive, all appear to be the order of the day at the SSPX. How is that the case? What on earth is going on?
You see, the SSPX gave in. It surrendered on a doctrinal level and accepted the teaching of Vatican II. Say what you like, but unless you can explain to me what other way to read the ‘Doctrinal Declaration’ (the more so, when taken together with all we have seen since then), then you must admit that it is true. The doctrinal surrender of the SSPX cannot be denied. We declare that we accept the doctrine contained in Lumen Gentium. What do you take that to mean? I take it to mean that the SSPX accepts the doctrine contained in Lumen Gentium.
What about those who were not asleep in 2012, and who spoke out against the danger? Where are they? Well. Some are still resisting. Some gave up. Others appear to have been hoovered up into the counterfeit created by the Church’s enemies. We call it the Fake Resistance, but in reality it is something far more dangerous than that. It ought perhaps better to be called the anti-Resistance, since that is its true purpose and raison d’etre.
Thus the front line of the fight for all of civilisation and for the Church itself, insane though it may sound, passes between the Resistance and its malevolent counterfeit. Not convinced? Consider. Politics, culture and the morals of whole societies were decided upon the outcome of the struggle between the Church and the world. After the Council, the struggle of the SSPX against the conciliar Church decided the issue of the fate of many souls in the conciliar church, even though they did not know it. The issue of the Resistance will decide the issue of the SSPX which in turn will decide the issue of the ‘conciliar church’ which in turn affects the world around it.
Still not convinced? Very well. Ask yourself the following questions. Answer them privately, not in front of anyone else, but with absolute honesty, in the silence of your own heart:
1. Is it a small or trifling matter, a matter of little consequence, whether the large part of Traditional Catholics stays faithful to Tradition or, by a series of many little compromises, slowly but surely gives in to modernism?
2. If it is not a small, trivial matter, but rather a matter of some considerable importance, is it not reasonable to suppose that the enemy would go to some effort to ensure this (to him) satisfactory outcome, and not leave things to chance?
3. If we may suppose that the enemy does not see it as trivial, but attaches some importance to the outcome; if we may suppose that he would therefore not leave the issue to chance, but has been working secretly for the ‘de-Traditionalising’ and gradual ‘modernism-ising’ of the SSPX, what do you think are the chances that he would not foresee that a portion of priests and faithful would break-off in order to resist this process and carry on as they were before? Especially given that the SSPX itself began in just such a way a mere 40 or so years prior, does it seem remotely likely that an enemy who spent 40 years worth of careful planning and preparation to neutralise them would not have seen the same thing happening again, and would not have prepared for it accordingly?
4. If, as seems likely, the enemy can in all probability be supposed to have foreseen this eventuality and to have planned for it, the only questions remaining are questions of detail: who, when, where? etc. How would he plan to stop people joining a break-away Resistance? What would he put in place to prevent it? What would that look like? Well, if we look at the recent efforts made by the enemy against Tradition, we may get some sort of an idea. Straight-up condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX in the 1970s gave place to the formation of a counterfeit-Tradition in the form of the Indult Mass, the Fraternity of St Peter and other so-called ‘Ecclesia Dei’ groups. The change of tactic was clever, it worked fairly well. Now look at the Resistance. In 2012, 2013 and 2014 we went through the straight-up condemnation phase. Now, we can see the emergence of a counterfeit controlled opposition. How can one identify the counterfeit? The same way that the Ecclesia Dei counterfeit could be identified. Forget the external trappings, the Tridentine Mass, forget how the individual souls involved in it see themselves. Look at the leaders, and in particular, look at their doctrine, what they teach about Vatican II and the New Mass. Look also at what their goals appear to be. What exactly is the goal of Bishop Williamson, in his own words? What is Bishop Zendejas’s goal, in his own words? Where do they stand in relation to Vatican II, the New Mass, the conciliar church? If you are unsure, please refer to past issues of the Recusant. Bishop Zendejas teaches that the modernist error came after Vatican II, but not from it. Bishop Williamson teaches and promotes an acceptance of the New Mass which would have had every one of his followers up in arms had it come from the mouth of Bishop Fellay. He decries any organisation or structure through which the apostolate might grow and more souls be reached, but at the same time he holds a secret authority over the priests and bishops who are with him. All three of the bishops he has consecrated agree with his teaching about the grace flowing from the New Mass and the bogus Novus Ordo ‘eucharistic miracles’. All three have acquiesced to the promotion of Fr. Abraham. All three have had a direct part in persecuting priests guilty of nothing more than objecting to such scandals and novelties as these.
In February 2009, the Morgon Capuchin Fr. Jean wrote a letter decrying the sellout of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay and his fellow-travellers. An abridged translation can be found at the website traditioninaction.org but we have now located the original and translated all of it (see p.26). Very interesting reading it makes, too. What is of particular interest, and stands out today perhaps more than it did at the time, is that after talking at some length about subversives who have infiltrated the SSPX, towards the end of his letter Fr. Jean says:
So far, I have been unable to find further details of what he says here. But it is such a bold and straightforward statement, made so openly - he is not just hinting at it - that one has to ask if there is any truth to this, or why he would say such a thing. On its own, it might easily have been dismissed. But taken with all that we have seen in recent years, it fits like a glove.
What’s going on with Fr. Pfeiffer?
Fr. Pfeiffer, alas, is responsible for the re-emergence of a certain Ambrose Moran, one-time priest of Toronto Eparchy (a Catholic Eastern-rite diocese) in the 1970s before they rejected him for reasons which are still unclear, and who claims to be, among other things, royalty, an Archbishop-Patriarch (he refers to himself as “his Beatitude”, a title higher in dignity to that of “your Eminence”, and wears a pallium, a vestment which can only be worn by an Archbishop after it is presented to him by the Pope!), a Ukrainian and a former close friend, confidant and designated successor of the late Cardinal Slipyj, chosen by him to go secretly into Russia in the 1970s (despite being able to speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian and there being no evidence directly connecting the two men). Conversely, he also claims never to have had anything to do with the schismatic Orthodox, despite there existing clear proof that he has had far more than a passing acquaintance with them. The man is a Walter Mitty. He appears to be the eastern-rite equivalent of the many garage bishops so prevalent in America, about whose validity one can never quite be sure. I might add, however, that there is many a garage bishop whom I would take as validly consecrated long before I accept Moran as a bishop. Who knows where he really stems from. The only thing of which we can be certain is that he is a vain, self-absorbed fantasist and that one cannot trust a single word he says. (Those who wish to know more may wish to take a look at: www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/10/Ambrose-Moran-Findings.pdf )
What is regrettable is that so much attention has been wasted on a man so little deserving of it. Moran, consciously or otherwise, seems to suck the life out of everything, he is like a black hole for attention and energy. That he likes to talk about himself is bad enough; far worse is when we end up wasting our time talking about him. When he left the scene in 2015 that ought to have been the end of it. Thanks to the ill-advised actions of Fr. Pfeiffer, however, he returned, and is now still at large, something for which Fr. Pfeiffer, alas, seems not to want to accept any responsibility. And yet it was Fr. Pfeiffer who, for reasons best known to himself, managed somehow to convince himself (with no new evidence, I might add) that Walter Mitty was ‘for real’ and spent an awful lot of time and energy promoting him wherever he went. Almost nobody appears to have fallen for it, thank God. And if the Resistance faithful have recoiled in horror from the prospect, we can thank God that the smears of our enemies have been proven untrue once again: we are not the followers of Fr. Pfeiffer, and indeed we never were, any more than we were the followers of Bishop Williamson five or six years ago.
If this whole episode seems disappointing or disheartening, let us keep things in perspective. It is disappointing, but no more than that. It is not as though Fr. Pfeiffer has been promoting attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass, or preaching that there can never again be any structure in the Church. Nor has he been teaching that Vatican II is fine just so long as it is “in the light of Tradition” (or indeed, that Tradition should be seen in the light of Vatican II...!) Fr. David Hewko’s decision no longer to reside at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Kentucky is less a doctrinal rift than a decision not to live under the same roof. Fr. Hewko himself has described it in terms of “Paul and Barnabas”. What’s more, the entire situation only came about due to the constant pressure caused by the immoral, mafia-like behaviour of Bishop Williamson and his unofficial suffragan bishops, denying confirmations, minor orders and even holy oils to a priest convicted of no canonical crime and guilty of nothing worse than causing offence and incurring the unfavourable opinion of certain corners of the internet. Fr. Pfeiffer is an extraordinary man and a great priest who has done more for the Resistance than a hundred of his confreres. In fairness, he now claims to have distanced himself from Walter Mitty, though it looked rather half-hearted to many and is the second time he has said this. Still, we hope and pray that one day this little dramatic rift can somehow be mended. But in the meantime, if we take Archbishop Lefebvre as our guide, then even Walter Mitty’s involvement with the schismatic Orthodox alone (never mind all his other lies) puts him well beyond the pale. Therefore we will continue to have nothing to do with him. In the meantime, we are very fortunate to have Fr. Hewko, another great priest and a true son of Archbishop Lefebvre, whom we are happy to support. Finally, I ought to add a word to one man in particular who has been proved right all along in this business, Mr. Tony La Rosa. You were right, Tony. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Church. I’m sorry I ever doubted you. Please keep fighting the good fight.
Stick with Archbishop Lefebvre
In the meantime, perhaps this is a good time to remind ourselves what we are fighting for and why. We are the people who don’t want any novelty at all, we just want to keep what was handed on to us and to hand it on in turn. Archbishop Lefebvre is our principal benefactor, he it was who gave us Catholic Tradition, the Faith of Our Fathers and who showed us the way, primarily by his own personal example, as well as his words. The SSPX no longer hand on what he gave them: they know better and have come up with a “new and improved” formula which involves accepting the “legitimately promulgated” New Mass, the Lumen Gentium teaching about Collegiality, the new Vatican II Code of Canon Law and ultimately reconciling “Tradition” with every Vatican II novelty and error, even those which you are allowed to moan about as you reconcile them (“but they’re just so difficult to reconcile!”). In reality this is no different to Cardinal Ratzinger’s “hermeneutic of continuity” and is therefore not new at all but is a rather old, tired and hackneyed formula, since it involves marrying the Church to the revolution. That is not what Archbishop Lefebvre taught them. But they know better. He told them not to entertain even the possibility of an agreement with an unconverted modernist Rome, to be suspicious of any request for “dialogue” and to put the discussion at the doctrinal level, demanding of the Roman authorities “Do you now accept the teaching of your predecessors, the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Pascendi of St. Pius X…?” and so on. They knew better.
The Fake Resistance also know better. Archbishop Lefebvre got it wrong, you see. He was just too stuck in the past, too wedded to hierarchy, to structure, to the out-dated concept of seminaries as the Council of Trent foresaw them, something whose era is now past (yes, I have had heard this last one said with a straight face!). He also was too harsh when it came to the New Mass (you may remember, dear reader, an attempt to show that Archbishop Lefebvre would have agreed with Bishop Williamson’s Mahopac advice, even though they had to go all the way back to early 1974, and even then he doesn’t say what they need him to say!), not to mention too harsh when it came to the Indult Mass, the Society of St. Peter (“They are betraying us! They are shaking hands with those who are destroying the Church!”), whereas the current advice of Bishop Williamson is to “be content to go to the least contaminated Tridentine Mass…” I could go on. They too know better than Archbishop Lefebvre.
The sedevacantists of course also know better than him, they knew better all along, though to give them their credit where it is due, they at least have openly admitted as much from the start and are not guilty of dissembling in the same way as the SSPX and Fake Resistance. Well, who does that leave? That leaves anyone who is unimpressed with novelty, wherever it comes from, anyone who simply wants to carry on with Catholic Tradition unmarked, unstamped with the particular mark of whichever priest or bishop feels that his own passing whim or fancy matters more. We just want Catholic Tradition. You can keep all your other nonsense, thank you very much. Sedevacantism is as much a post-conciliar novelty as all the other rubbish, as is the insane “Benedict is still Pope” theory of Fr. Kramer (do pray for him).
Archbishop Lefebvre handed on to us only Tradition, he did not give us any novelty of his own making. Twenty eight years after his death, he has become little more than a footnote to history and has been abandoned by almost all his spiritual descendants, to whom his memory is meaningless. Almost all. But not quite all. We are still here. And we and whomever God raises up to replace us will still be here long after the novelties are gone and forgotten. You’ll see.
- The Editor
|
|
|
|
Post by bethcline on Oct 27, 2019 3:12:36 GMT
Well said! And darn good to be hearing from you again! Thank you, immensely!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bethcline on Oct 27, 2019 4:05:20 GMT
Please forgive me, but I may have spoken too soon, Greg. I've reread your portion concerning poor Fr Pfeiffer and although I agree with some of it, I disagree wholeheartedly with much of it, namely:
1. The reason you stated for Fr Hewko leaving is incorrect. Please reread his statement concerning this. It was Fr Pfeiffer's recklessness and imprudence and his inability to make rational decisions regarding major issues, specifically his aggressive promotion and choice of a con man (bishop?).
2. You stated, "Still, we hope and pray that one day this little dramatic rift can somehow be mended." Dramatic rift? That's rather flippant. I, for one, will not be found on any train heading back to OLMC and/or Fr pfeiffer. I treasure my immortal soul far too much to place it in the care of Fr Pfeiffer who intentionally hoodwinked us.
3. You claim Fr Pfeiffer has no doctrinal error. Well, I don't know the correct terminology for what that priest did but I do know it's serious enough to stay just as far away from him as you would from the others you mentioned.
There is far more but I'm not diving into all of these issues again. I feel as though they have been discussed in their entirety already. I am ready to move on.
I almost get the impression you are promoting Fr Pfeiffer. Am I wrong?
Please disregard my previous post. I spoke too soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael1 on Oct 27, 2019 11:47:12 GMT
I agree with Beth. I felt sick in the stomach when l read your justification about Fr. Pfeiffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Oct 27, 2019 12:15:41 GMT
Excellent issue! Nice to see the recusant back!
But I have to agree with Beth and Michael. Fr. Pfeiffer's damage was great. There are doctrianal issues with Fr. Pfeiffer. Am I crazy or has anyone else noticed that the same validity arguments that were employed to bolster support for the fraud Moran are still being used to bolster Fr. Poisson, granted for different reasons?
Fr. Hewko's leaving OLMC was for good and doctrinal reasons. I for one am forever grateful that he did so.
I am happy to have moved on from Fr. Pfeiffer's subtle deceptions of the last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Oct 27, 2019 16:24:23 GMT
Evening folks. Well, that's a bit of an emotional over-reaction, if I may say so. Beth, I almost get the impression you are promoting Fr Pfeiffer. Am I wrong? Of course you're wrong. Are you serious? I'm now promoting Fr Pfeiffer, am I? My thoughts exactly. Which is why I mentioned it briefly and then moved on. There are plenty of bad things I could say about Fr Pfeiffer, perhaps more than you or anyone else. I could have dedicated the entire issue to attacking him. But as you say, they've been discussed here already over the past several months. Do I really need to go back over it all again? Well, it seems maybe I do, if I don't want to be accused of "promoting" Fr. Pfeiffer. Except you kind of just did... never mind. Yes, I've long been accused of that. Why change the habit of a lifetime...?!? I wasn't aware that there was one leaving. Ah. I see now. You "for one". So certain unnamed others (me?) are going to be found on that train? Have I got that right? I hope it's a waterproof train, there's a lot of Atlantic Ocean to be crossed... What I wrote was: What I said, and still say, is that "Fr Pfeiffer's recklessness and imprudence and his inability to make rational decisions regarding major issues" as you put it, plus other serious personal faults, however serious, still is not the same as declaring that you accept the doctrine contained in Vatican II, telling people that they can go to the New Mass and get grace from it, promoting a priest suspended for child-molesting, etc. ...which is also what I said. We're lucky to have Fr. Hewko and quite happy to stick with him instead. "Michael1" (whoever you are), Take an aspirin. My "justification"? So I'm now justifying him? As well as "promoting" him and leading "a train back to OLMC"..? I see. Maybe words have different meanings in America. Hermenegild, Beth just said that it was Fr. Pfeiffer's recklessness and imprudence. Fr. Hewko himself said that it was like Paul and Barnabas. Those are his words not mine. If you want to disagree, take it up with Fr. Hewko not me. You for one...? Does that mean that I'm not glad he left? Am I meant to be someone who regrets it? Why don't you try out that theory out on Fr. Hewko next time you speak to him. See what he tells you. Another person who is "happy to have moved on"..! I love it when people who have so definitely "moved on" can still waste their time and mine complaining that I haven't gone into every sordid detail concerning the very things they've supposedly moved on from. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 28, 2019 1:10:31 GMT
Dear friends,
The issue of Fr. Pfeiffer is one which many of us would gladly put behind us. There has been an immense amount of trust lost as a result of the attempted foisting of Moran on us about this time last year (some of us recall how we were told, among other things, that we had to accept Moran as a legitimate bishop under pain of sin!). But thankfully those threats have ceased as OLMC has distanced itself from him (for good?). This foisting took on various degrees of intensity with different laity. I know that both the Clines and Mr. Taylor were both very harshly treated, among many others.
What we are left with in the aftermath of the Moran debacle is a 'leftover' mentality from Fr. Pfeiffer. Sadly, he is still promoting the idea, as he did with Moran, that validity makes all things acceptable. Now we see a shift from focusing on the validity of Moran to a focus on the validity of the New Rite Sacraments.
While many, myself included, have ceased listening to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermons some time ago, this idea about the validity of the Novus Ordo Sacraments is alive and well in his sermons. A recent example is from Fr. Pfeiffer's August 4, 2019 sermon ( here), entitled " New Ordination Valid spirit of Church," which was sent to me two weeks ago.
Now let me be clear, no one is saying that all the Novus Ordo Sacraments are invalid. No one. Least of all Archbishop Lefebvre. But in his wisdom and understanding of what was and is at stake, he very early on called these Novus Ordo Sacraments what they really are, "bastard sacraments":
The Archbishop said these words in 1976, clearly pointing out the grave situation in which these Novus Ordo sacraments may not be giving grace.
It is with these last words in mind that Fr. Pfeiffer's now-bolstering of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, with a focus on their validity, which we know is now always called into doubt, even more than in the 1970's and 1980's at the time of the Archbishop, that gives us grave consternation.
It lays a foundation, it plants a seed in the minds of the laity, that if the Novus Ordo Sacraments are all valid, then we are free to utilize them. (Doesn't this remind us of a certain bishop who started preaching 'grace in the New Mass' a few years ago?)
Fr. Pfeiffer does not encourage this as Bp. Williamson does - but his arguments in their favor lead to that as a logical conclusion. That is the danger that many are concerned about. This was not the way of the Archbishop. He clearly saw the dangers of the Novus Ordo, from the Conciliar Church, and always advised souls to stay away from it.
When priests came to him from the Novus Ordo, the Archbishop carefully reviewed the circumstances of their NO Ordinations and if warranted, reordained them. He did this more often than not, as he himself attests to.
A few other thoughts about that above-referenced sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer's that I sent in reply to the soul that sent me that sermon:
Lastly, in that same sermon, Fr. Pfeiffer makes several emotional overtures to his listeners, calling on them to forgive (presumably those who were ordained in the Novus Ordo). 'To forgive is Christ-like. To condemn is from Satan.' Well, no one is condemning the person of Fr. Poisson, for example. It is the doubtfulness of the New Rites that is called into question, not the person. We have learned the hard way from the Fake Resistance that if we are to fight to maintain the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, we cannot focus on persons. It is about doctrine. It is always a fight for doctrine.
Dear friends, let us remain united in prayer. Let us hold fast to the line of Archbishop Lefebvre. Any one or any group who has deviated from that line has compromised in some way. We are all witnesses to that. To paraphrase his words, which are often repeated by Fr. Hewko: Let us fall neither to the left - to liberalism, nor to the right - to sedevacantism but simply cling to our Faith, uncompromised.
I repeat with hearty agreement the words of Mr. Taylor in this issue of the Recusant:
Let us pray for Fr. Pfeiffer, for the OLMC seminarians, for good Fr. Hewko, and for each other.
"As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in His sight in charity." [Ephesians 1:4]
|
|
|
|
Post by bethcline on Oct 28, 2019 16:22:09 GMT
Greg, please be patient and suffer through this long message. Also, please forgive me for all of my faults in all of this. You were clearly upset yesterday and I am sorry. Just let me painstakingly walk you through this in hopes there will be a greater understanding at the end. Also, let me reiterate that your Recusant has, in the past, many times helped us greatly navigate through many very tangled situations. I thank you, sincerely, for all of your time and efforts spent. It is no small thing you do and it is appreciated. You wrote: "What’s going on with Fr. Pfeiffer? Fr. Pfeiffer, alas, is responsible for the re-emergence of a certain Ambrose Moran, one-time priest of Toronto Eparchy (a Catholic Eastern-rite diocese) in the 1970s before they rejected him for reasons which are still unclear, ..." Greg, Certainly you are aware even this has been called into question, based on a letter involving the bishop(?) who ordained Moran. Do you not remember this?: thecatacombs.org/thread/1884/w... You wrote: "What is regrettable is that so much attention has been wasted on a man so little deserving of it. Moran, consciously or otherwise, seems to suck the life out of everything, he is like a black hole for attention and energy. That he likes to talk about himself is bad enough; far worse is when we end up wasting our time talking about him." Greg, were we not forced to spend time on this? Our very own priest was shoving him down our throats, claiming we were committing a sin if we would not accept him!! Out time wasted, as you put it, was time spent NECESSARILY. Believe me, I look back in disgust and see how much time was needed due to Fr Pfeiffer's recklessness, imprudence, and outright deceptions. You wrote: "And yet it was Fr. Pfeiffer who, for reasons best known to himself, managed somehow to convince himself (with no new evidence, I might add) that Walter Mitty was ‘for real’ and spent an awful lot of time and energy promoting him wherever he went ." Greg, if Fr Pfeiffer had convinced himself that Moran was "for real" then what was the need for Fr Pfeiffer to change his story concerning this man (more than once!), disaasociate from him, associate with him, actually use him for poor Fr Poisson and then claim it was a mistake, whitewash every piece of evidence against Moran, invoke some law claiming none of this mattered because Fr Pfeiffer himself declared it was a state of emergency, on and on , making our heads spin. These are not the actions of someone someone CONVINCED, these are the actions of a priest (an excellent one as you put it!) using con man tactics to promote a con man (Moran). You wrote: "If this whole episode seems disappointing or disheartening, let us keep things in perspective. It is disappointing, but no more than that." Greg, It is much more than that. The destruction Fr Pfeiffer did through this was immense. Please do not belittle it. It was the cause of our two dear priests so close to our hearts separating, the cause of the fall and loss of Fr Pfeiffer, once an excellent priest, but sadly gone bad (not a small thing given how few are left!), the cause of much unrest and unhappiness in many homes and parishes(spouses arguing, loss of friendships (especially after Fr Pfeiffer's infamous "Vain Babblers" sermon), illnesses due to the stress of it all, parents and their children arguing, the mental fatigue and stress once we realized what had just transgressed, on and on... Far, far more than just a disappointment, Greg. You wrote: "It is not as though Fr. Pfeiffer has been promoting attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass, or preaching that there can never again be any structure in the Church. Nor has he been teaching that Vatican II is fine just so long as it is “in the light of Tradition” (or indeed, that Tradition should be seen in the light of Vatican II...!)" Greg, it greatly annoys me when a scoundrel is compared to far worse to make light of the scandalous behavior of the scoundrel....especially when the scoundrel is a priest who has a large part to play in the care and maintenance of our immortal souls! You wrote: "Fr. David Hewko’s decision no longer to reside at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Kentucky is less a doctrinal rift than a decision not to live under the same roof. Fr. Hewko himself has described it in terms of “Paul and Barnabas”. Greg, the choice of the bishop to be used in the Resistance is a rather large issue that is intimately linked with the Faith, our immortal souls, and the future generations of Catholics (our very own children) after we have long passed away! Also, I'm thinking Fr Hewko saw the writing on the wall. Let us not be blinded to what has transgressed doctrinally at OLMC since Fr Hewko has had to leave. It seems as though Fr Hewko was the glue holding the line of ABL there at the seminary. FrPfeiffer/OLMC seminarians have digressed doctrinally, not to mention the dissolving of morals (very apparent during a seminarians visit to our home in which he lied and manipulated facts in order to discredit Fr Hewko's priestly ability. Sadly, he proved he has learned well the typical Fr Pfeiffer/Pablo behavior.) Please view the many posts that good souls have spent many long hours right here on thecatacombs showing this doctrinal/moral slide. You wrote: "What’s more, the entire situation only came about due to the constant pressure caused by the immoral, mafia-like behaviour of Bishop Williamson and his unofficial suffragan bishops, denying confirmations, minor orders and even holy oils to a priest convicted of no canonical crime and guilty of nothing worse than causing offence and incurring the unfavourable opinion of certain corners of the internet. " WHAT?? My children do this. I call it the Blame Game. I tell them not to blame others and that personal responsibility for their actions must be taken. Fr Pfeiffer is to blame for his actions. He is not some victim here of Bishop Williamson. Fr Pfeiffer certainly and easily may have chosen another route to take. He did not. He is responsible, Greg. You wrote: "Fr. Pfeiffer is an extraordinary man and a great priest who has done more for the Resistance than a hundred of his confreres. " Greg, Fr Pfeiffer is not the same priest he was. He has done much to destroy the Resistance. I pray for his immortal soul. You wrote: "Still, we hope and pray that one day this little dramatic rift can somehow be mended." Please do not belittle this situation down to a 'little dramatic rift'. It gives the impression that this battle we just encountered was nothing more than an emotional quarrel that can easily be resolved when things settled down. It reminds me of the rumor that OLMC was circulating that Fr Hewko was expected to return to OLMC eventually. The faithful here in St. Mary's were actually told by Fr pfeiffer not to attend Fr Hewko's Mass when he visits here in order to force him back to OLMC due to lack of support. In other words, do not attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by a priest sound in doctrine with high moral standards so we can manipulate his behavior and lure him back to a corrupted seminary. Not the behavior of an "excellent priest", Greg. Truth be told, Fr Hewko left for far more serious issues involving matters of the Faith. Please understand, Greg, that our particular family at least, has undergone what I would call nothing less than an emotional trauma due to the actions of Fr Pfeiffer. I am not speaking here for everyone, only myself. But consider that we have suffered greatly and struggled through many difficult issues over all of this. It was finally seeming to settle a bit as were distancing ourselves from the ugliness of it all and Fr Hewko was, not surprisingly, being the excellent spiritual Father we all needed so badly, and then your Recusant finally surfaces and belittles the entire horrible battle that was forced upon us. Your words caused a great fear of betrayal in me. I understand that everyone reacts differently to traumatic situations given their temperments, their past experiences, and how much they have been damaged along the way in this land of exile. Perhaps your way of dealing was to simply discount it as a mere disappointment, I don't know. Please, I beg you, from now on, simply consider that we are still healing from the many wounds, and some went deep, that were inflicted during all of this mess. My only consolation is knowing that God allowed it all and in His Goodness and mercy that He will draw good out it . Only He can do this....let us all be willing instruments in Our Lady's hands, under her maternal care and guidance, to accomplish God's Holy Will. Surely, this is the path we must all be on together. My Mother, my Confidence, Beth |
|
agnes
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by agnes on Oct 28, 2019 16:51:18 GMT
Thank you Beth. You have put into words what many of us have gone through, the emotional wringer as in sadness, frustration, tears, mistrust, fear and even anger. I thank Our Lord for Fr. Hewko who may be one of the few last good Priests standing. God's will be done.
|
|
ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72 
|
Post by ruthy on Oct 28, 2019 18:00:31 GMT
Very good points Beth!
We really can't move on from Fr. Pfeiffer errors. They must be combated. The Catacombs has done an excellent job doing that. It helped me to see the light of Fr. Pfeiffer and his promotion of Moran and pushing the validity of conciliar priests.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Oct 28, 2019 20:14:40 GMT
Excellent points, Beth, and a good representation of what has been the status of things.
Sadly, the situation with Father Pfeiffer is not as simple as the Recusant portrayed it to be, although I don't think that was his intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2019 11:23:46 GMT
The Recusant - Issue 49 - Editorial (excerpt)
Greg, it pains me greatly to have to disagree with you. But is seems this is really a great oversimplification of what the past year or so has looked like here. I firmly believe you had only the best of intentions in what you wrote. The Recusant 49 is once again - excellent! But again, sadly, your summary of the OLMC situation is too kind, perhaps to a fault. And I chalk it up to simply not being in close proximity to the situation, not necessarily being boots on the ground, as they say in the military.
To blame Fr. Pfeiffer's actions with respect to Moran on Bp. Williamson, well, that's not quite right. As Beth wrote, we are all responsible for our actions. We all knows what makes a decent Catholic is the ability to deal rightly, patiently, and kindly with adversity, with persecution - returning good for evil. What does not make a decent Catholic is to use persecution as an excuse to cause scandal, to write your own rules and playbook, etc. Bp. Williamson has no doubt been an influencing factor in this debacle but perhaps one used by Heaven for OLMC's sanctification?
To summarize Fr. Hewko's leaving in this way: "Fr. David Hewko’s decision no longer to reside at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Kentucky is less a doctrinal rift than a decision not to live under the same roof. Fr. Hewko himself has described it in terms of 'Paul and Barnabas'”. - again, this doesn't seem to be a true reflection of what Fr. Hewko wrote when leaving OLMC in February of 2019:
Fr. Hewko made it clear that his leaving was an issue of doctrine and theology, that it was a matter of a certain layman improperly given carte blanche authority (which many can attest to) was grossly abused at times and never corrected, and just as importantly, the effect these same issues had on the formation of the OLMC seminarians. These men are potentially future priests. If they are learning to make up the rules as they go now, that everything is justified because we are in a state of emergency, then in following this to its logical conclusion, what kind of priests will they be? What restraint will they follow? Let me be clear. I have met several of the OLMC seminarians. I think the world of them. They are all good young men. But if they are blindly following bad instruction on how to deal with crises, the damage that could potentially be done in their priesthood could be devastating to souls.
Greg, I think you had the best of intentions writing that, "Still, we hope and pray that one day this little dramatic rift can somehow be mended." I think it would take an act of downright heroic humility on Fr. Pfeiffer's part to start mending this. For starters, it would take him removing himself as Rector of the OLMC Seminary, the removal of a certain draconian layman, etc. before anyone will come close to rejoicing over a reunion. Sadly, the overwhelming opinion here is to shake the OLMC dust off and never look back. This is not hard to believe reading the comments here in this thread. I know of many souls, so wounded by the events of this last year, who will never be induced to return to OLMC. Sadly, this is solely Fr. Pfeiffer's doing. He was in the driver's seat the whole time. It was very hard to watch this 'auto-destruction,' if you will. We all, as you pointed out Greg, recall Fr. Pfeiffer's good fight for Tradition, for the Truth. But somewhere along the way, that was all sacrificed for expediency, of needing a bishop, any bishop - even a fake one - to help him? He did not give the example of relying on God's Providence alone to provide. He did in the beginning... I can honestly report that many of those scandalized the most by Fr. Pfeiffer are still praying for him, remembering his past goodness. Fr. Hewko too encourages this frequently. But it's very similar to the how we feel when we pray for the SSPX priests: we remember what they once were but we know we must stay far away.
And all this doesn't address the Fr. Poisson issue. We have witnessed the vacillations back and forth, "he's not valid, he needs to be reordained" (enter Moran); to the swinging of the pendulum to the other side, "I've (Fr. Pfeiffer) decided Fr. Poisson is valid - you MUST accept him (disregard that man [Moran] behind the curtain." No one knows what set of rules Fr. Pfeiffer is using anymore. It has long lost the appearance of using Archbishop Lefebvre's guidance on Novus Ordo priests. OLMC has become like the SSPX in this regard. If our Catholic moral theology dictates that we must avoid doubtful Sacraments, then OLMC should, as they did the first several months after Fr. Poisson's arrival, not have him on the Mass circuits. Painfully, we have seen instead that Fr. Pfeiffer has set himself up as the sole judge and authority on the matter of Fr. Poisson's ordination in the Conciliar Church.
Greg, we know when Moran's "excommunications" were being handed how you, Tony la Rosa, and Fr. Hewko were those on whom Moran focused his ire. We have no doubt that you've underdone much more than even what is publicly known in this whole debacle of the last year. We cannot thank you enough for systematically organizing your study: "What are we to make of Moran?" It is something that may very well be utilized for many years to come!
I cannot say it enough, it pains me to not be in complete agreement with you, Greg. And once again, I think you had the best of intentions in what you wrote. You were very kind regarding Fr. Pfeiffer and focused only on the Moran issue. But sadly, it appears that it was at the expense of the many reasons Fr. Hewko left OLMC as well as the Fr. Poisson issue. Again, I don't think this was intentional. If I may presume to guess, I would say you were trying to help mend the situation and help souls move on. God bless you for that! But we are still dealing with the fallout from Moran (still being told he's valid) and the Fr. Poisson (whom many like and are saddened at the situation he finds himself in). All this is part of a chapter that we cannot yet close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Oct 29, 2019 11:34:18 GMT
With all respect Fr Pfieffer must be considered as false resistance until they get their act together.
|
|
|
|
Post by bethcline on Oct 29, 2019 14:42:08 GMT
I forgot to include this....sorry.... but I find it important (as a direct consequence of the whole issue) so please read this, Greg. You wrote: " ...convince himself (with no new evidence, I might add) that Walter Mitty was ‘for real’ and spent an awful lot of time and energy promoting him wherever he went. Almost nobody appears to have fallen for it, thank God." (SPECIFICALLY THIS LAST SENTENCE YOU WROTE) Greg, keeping in mind that I am in no large loop of keeping in touch with the Resistance faithful, even here where I reside in America, please consider that a good family in Colorado was singing Moran's praises as a bishop from the rooftops for hours to myself and my husband when the subject was brought up. A good soul up in Canada "was converted" as Fr Pfeiffer put it, and now totally agree with using Moran as a bishop (does this imply we are not with God if we refuse to accept Moran?). I literally viewed a video of many children using him for Confirmations up in Minnesota through one of Fr Pfeiffer's faithful, converted to tradition from the Novus Ordo, only vaguely familiar with ABL, and totally misled by Fr Pfeiffer into the insanity of actually using Moran as a bishop! It made my jaw drop. (I'm thinking I viewed that video somewhere here on this site. Did you see it?). One poor good soul right here in St Mary's kept repeating over and over to us, "He's valid, we can use him!!". They learned that validity IS ENOUGH straight from Fr Pfeiffer. This is incorrect (as I'm assuming you well know), please read: thecatacombs.org/thread/1747/v... Another young adult here in St Mary's was comparing Moran to St. Augustine (both had sinful pasts) and was explaining to my daughters that we must accept him regardless of all the horrible evidence against him. Where do you think this poor young man learned that little jewel of information? I was told it came straight from Fr Pfeiffer himself. One need only view a 'sermon' of Moran's and compare/contrast it to St. Augustine's great work, The Confessions of St Augustine, to see clearly the vast differences between these two men! Here'e the real heart ache....these are all good devout Catholics who were clear-headed enough, did their due diligence in researching the problems in the SSPX, and then were brave enough to actually leave the compromised SSPX bishops, and where do they find themselves now?....promoting and accepting your "Walter Mitty" as you put it. What an unbelievable loss for them and for the entire Resistance. what an ugly mess. The good souls seeking tradition who are just coming out of the Novus Ordo parishes are more victims in this. They don't have the benefit of living and breathing Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings as most of us did growing up in the SSPX chapels. They are unable and therefore less likely to red flag a change when the solid teachings of the Archbishop are twisted to suit the current situation. This is clearly seen in Fr Pfeiffer's new teaching on the Novus Ordo sacraments, particularly ordinations. And clearly seen by the use of Moran for Confirmations recently! And clearly seen in the use of Fr Poisson! What must these good souls think/believe regarding the great Archbishop Lefebvre, whom you rightly declare to be our safest guide, when they hear this Moran proclaiming that Archbishop Lefebvre isn't even VALID? They have been led to absolute lunacy. They deserve, and need, just as the rest of us do, nothing less than the truth, Greg, and they did not get it from Fr Pfeiffer. Just please consider these great losses (and I'm sure there are many more I simply am not aware of). Thank you, Greg, and God bless. |
|
