What happened to OLSC and Cor-Mariae?
May 21, 2018 7:50:13 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 7:50:13 GMT
This has been a question many have asked behind the scenes. Now Cor-Mariae has brought it out publicly in a post entitled - Summary of the current position of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.
The contentions brought forward by the Australian mission called Our Lady of the Southern Cross (OLSC) are in three appearances:
1 - OLSC contends they are not a “parish” or an “acting parish” and should not be called a parish.
For sure we have no “parishes” supplied through a jurisdiction the several bad popes and bishops refuse use as a tool to suppress us in the Catacomb Church. As explained to OLSC, those in persecuted tradition making use of the word "parish" would only be a nuance of the meaning relating to a Catholic culture and not an absolute. The fact is we are Catholic missions, and even with many wandering Catholics who find harbor in thirst for our Lord and His sacramental graces, are not censored by anyone to keep Catholic speech one grew up with in normal times.
That paragraph too seems to give either a misunderstanding of the crisis or not informed to the nature of what is the State of Necessity and what is Supplied Jurisdiction provided for the suffering Church. Fortunately this has already been covered to guide this question and help understand its context what the Church provides.
The Crisis: State of Emergency and Supplied Jurisdiction.
Ecclesia Supplet - The Church Supplies.
Also from Supplied jurisdiction & Traditional Priests
The outline of this crisis is furnished in the need to understand when God punishes the members in His Church and world He so foretold, He also provided a path for those who suffer under the hands of Ecclesiastical sinners to continue to receive his graces unadulterated.
Further for an edification:
What is a Parish: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11499b.htm
And,
2 - OLSC contends Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC), and in specific Fr. Pfeiffer, has no authority. Therefore should not be listened to.
That is a striking statement by several facts.
A. Many of those same people in Australia have been receiving the faith and sacraments from OLMC since 2013 under the SAME crisis as today. Why was it different then, and allegedly, it is not good now?
B. By what authority is referred? Novus ordo? If not, then what? OLSC contend (above) they should not be called “parishes” because they acknowledge they are OUT of the authority of the abusive romans. What other authority is there? This has not been demonstrated by OLSC as of yet.
However, let’s address that question anyway to help the situation. First, the State of Necessity demonstrates there is Supplied Jurisdiction (above) given to valid and lawful priests and Religious orders to function when the proper means are abuse or purposely withheld. Simple law of existence maintained in the Catholic Church by Her Head Jesus Christ.
Second, it is well known Archbishop Lefebvre received by Canonical Law and Apostolic blessing the existence of his Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and maneuvered later by acting modernist enemies in rome to suppress the SSPX not to give the faith and grace of God in all generations. Drawn out here New SSPX Legal footing: real or illusion?
Upon which, all the SSPX priests are valid and legal as a true branch of the Church. This includes the priests of OLMC who have repeatedly stated they STILL are SSPX priests canonically illegally dismissed by their General Superior Bishop Fellay, ironically, in the SAME manner of corruption as the novus ordo Cardinals tried to suppress and deny the canonical rights of Archbishop Lefebvre. How history repeats itself.
Third, and in consequence, these OLMC priests DO HAVE legitimate authority supplied from the Church (Supplied Jurisdiction) over the baptized faithful in measure of a true ministry entrusted and commanded to them through their ordinations. This authority is one of teaching and sanctification, as with, to protect the faith and the faith of those who come to them. Governing is one that is laid in principle on the Bishops and the Pope in specific yet placed in practice on the priests in commission to fulfill and maintain integrity of the Church in Her structure and disciplines. OLSC acknowledges this by saying the priests of OLMC are doctrinally orthodox and are faithful to the Catholic Church.
So this acknowledgement should suffice for the misunderstanding of their question.
Fourth, the priests have always maintained they have legal represented authority they follow and represent in their principle of act and assignment of the Church governing. They hold the pope is the truly elected pope; they pray for him in their masses. They hold the local diocesan bishops where they are saying theirs masses as the legal representatives of the Church provided through the governing jurisdiction of the Pope; and too pray for them in each respected masses. They hold still, of course, their General Superior of the SSPX as their legal authority; and too pray for him. They hold still, of course, their district superior as their next is order to their legal authority; and pray for them too. And visit them when they allow.
Thus, these priests still carrying on the mission of their founder Archbishop Lefebvre as valid and legal priests commissioned by the Church and carry the acts and treasures of Redemption to give freely as our Lord told them to do wearing the Stole of the Church; the sign of the Church’s authority within their acts and ministry.
So with all those superiors abusing the faith and their authority causing another State of Necessity within their own SSPX order is not their fault, nor is it any weakness of theirs, nor of any negation factor to their ordination as Catholic Priests to serve our Lord to Baptize and preach the faith to all four corners of the World. Which Australia is a part of in God’s generosity for these priests to make serious sacrifices to their health and ministry always being misunderstood in a crisis abused by their superiors. But they keep going like their founder Archbishop Lefebvre to those who thirst for our Lord and His grace...
3. - OLSC contends they are a “legal” group of Catholics who invite whichever priests they want, they say, are true resistance priests.
It appears this is the crux of the whole OLSC argument. First, when shown the other number 1-2 is misunderstood and do not have merit, OLSC resides on this as their now main reason of contention. But let’s examine really what is being said and apply what the Church has said for millennia on this matter.
Again, that paragraph suggests there is a largeness of misunderstanding or not being informed on the matters of the Church. Certainly too there are errors of context and of judgement within, however, lets contend with the first reason OLSC gave which provides understanding for the rest.
Facts:
• In 2013, upon request from some Australia Catholics, OLMC answered and establishes missions in Australia to continue the work of the SSPX with Frs. Pfeiffer, Chazal, and Hewko.
• Fr. Chazal primarily served that continent with his location from the Philippines being closer. All was good.
• In later 2015 early 2016, Fr. Chazal defected to serve Bishop Williamson in the false resistance out of utility for a bishop. (Lack of faith to espouse error to gain a bishop, but that is the crisis in the Church.)
• On Feb 6, 2016, OLSC announced they have reformed their name from the Victorian Resistance movement within the original mission of OLMC Fr. Chazal was a part of, and now due to a split Fr. Chazal gained some of their people, the mission chose a new name called Our Lady of the Southern Cross. Below you can see their announcement was benign as a group to help with the organization of the mission and to be a clear delineation from the confused new path of Fr. Chazal and Bishop Williamson. I know, I was a part of that process (here Fr. Chazal's sad letter to the Australian Faithful) helping my friends in Australia to navigate through their new found crisis.
And,
• Then 2 years later, on March 23, 2018, OLSC said they have a “current” position regarding OLMC and made a first “mission statement”. www.cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/our-lady-of-the-southern-cross-mission-statement.7293/ At the SAME time they said:
But what are those certain events? We are learning it is these alleged 3 appearances.
However, there is the now brought to the surface what appears central to this whole situation. Within that new “missions statement” of March 23, 2018 contained a sentence during the SAME time OLSC was having difficulties, they say, and made the content suitable to their new position:
Certainly that is a very serious statement contrary to the Church’s teaching and governing ability from the Head being Christ. This was pointed out to one of the administrators of Cor-mariae and it quickly was deleted. Thankfully. However, what follows from one of their own OLSC members provided a different account and a new context of their meetings and inner circles desire to be a new independent group for their own destiny.
Certainly that could be a misunderstanding; however, the spirit of that statement remains as the context of OLSC whole contention. It is more perplexed than provided for.
Yet, there is another context that is not supplied needing its weight to be fair to the question. What didFr. Pfeiffer say to them?
Fortunately, we do have an account provided in a sermon whereby father enlightened the answer of what the Church teaches in this crisis and that there is no role for lay authority in the Church.
And,
Clearly this objective answer was provided by the priest and should have been see as the Church teaches. But I do not know why there would be a contention beyond this except for one of their members again, Nick, providing another post (and deleted) describing he was at the meeting and it wasn’t what is presently narrated by OLSC:
One would think that is a good understanding of events; but now there is a conflict of two opposite interpretations. Which is it?
• Presented below is a April 11, 2018 letter (with permission to post publicly) from Fr. Pfeiffer sent to Mr. Ross, the acting coordinator of the OLMC mission in Australia and prior to their new OLSC March 23, 2018 “current position” and aim to control through assumption of the OLMC mission by OLSC:
Certainly too this letter from Fr. Pfeiffer would be held as pastoral and resolute in the Church’s organization and structure (unlike Bishop Williamson’s loose model of vagabond priests), and held as a compassion to maintain openness where lay groups would shut off some by their own discretion.
There remains then within the OLSC contention their will to invite their own “true resistance priests”. At this juncture, OLSC has not said who he or they are. And by what “authority” they have if it is a contention they hold (wrongly) against Fr. Pfeiffer. Nonetheless, Father was clear they could do so as they wish, contrary to OLSC claims, but is not held as a OLMC mission. Father said he is in obligation the pastor of it and they can as Catholics come to his masses any and all the time. But not under the new OLSC banner, premise and terms of controlling the priest. That is not Catholic.
As far as who are of the True Catholic Resistance, believe me, we know who they all are and you can count them on your hands. The rest follow the false resistance of Bishop Williamson, and the neo-tradition of Bishop Fellay assumed in the conciliar Ecclesia Dei.
For further edification:
This is from the Catholic encyclopedia which delves into this a little more - point being the laymen are still accountable to the proper clerical authority:
In conclusion.
Indeed this would be a sad development especially after all these years of instruction an pain we all endured at the hands of bad prelates we now again are returning on the basic questions of authority and structure of the Church. Yet, this make for another good opportunity to herald the teaching Church and Her glory guiding throughout all of history when there has been stormy times of purification to draw unto good.
Many time there are legitimate misunderstandings only helped by digging in to the Church’s Annals we find true answers. Many unfortunately touch on morals, and in this case a doctrinal and ecclesiastical issue, even though it is not portrayed as such; it is. And that too has a remedy. Blessed be God.
Be at peace said our Lord, I am with you through suffering and joys
We all have to understand the grave underlining matter in this crisis of the Church is one of a punishment based on global sin within the Church and allowed as an instrument of sanctification ...so to understand what is important in life - God alone.
Being circled by the wagons of the world does not help in its sway and distraction constantly pushing or pulling us in the temptation of Eve and that of Christ in the desert. Yet temptation is only that - temptation. It was only AFTER Eve had sinned she created the state of entropy tempting others to sin as well. If we do not follow the sanctification of the Church in every manner of Her graces, we will eventually be agents of heresy not intending, but ends really in fighting against Her. It is a principle of attrition and that of contrition we find life.
How and when we are caught up in this devastating crisis and all its details (i.e. spiritual, social, psychological, economical…) is relative to our disposition toward God and existence in the path we have chosen; right or wrong.
My interest in writing this is solely based on providing the doctrinal and ecclesiastical importance within this crisis.
Instaurare omnia in Christo.
The contentions brought forward by the Australian mission called Our Lady of the Southern Cross (OLSC) are in three appearances:
1 - OLSC contends they are not a “parish” or an “acting parish” and should not be called a parish.
Quote:
"We treated these Bishops and priests as if they had jurisdictional authority which can only be given by the Pope even though we knew it was supplied. The Parishes in effect were illegal according to Church law but the congregation treated it all as if it were a true parish." (Idem)
"We treated these Bishops and priests as if they had jurisdictional authority which can only be given by the Pope even though we knew it was supplied. The Parishes in effect were illegal according to Church law but the congregation treated it all as if it were a true parish." (Idem)
That paragraph too seems to give either a misunderstanding of the crisis or not informed to the nature of what is the State of Necessity and what is Supplied Jurisdiction provided for the suffering Church. Fortunately this has already been covered to guide this question and help understand its context what the Church provides.
The Crisis: State of Emergency and Supplied Jurisdiction.
Ecclesia Supplet - The Church Supplies.
Also from Supplied jurisdiction & Traditional Priests
Q. What right therefore does this traditional clergy have to require of you, the laity, to depend on it in your Catholic action?
A. It is this objection to which I am going to reply. What is the authority of the traditional Catholic clergy in this crisis situation, and, in particular, what is its authority with respect to traditional Catholic study groups? The thesis is the following (I can review it briefly before explaining it):
Your traditional priests—for they are your priests—your traditional bishops and your traditional parishes, have no ordinary authority, but an extraordinary authority which is a supplied authority.
A. It is this objection to which I am going to reply. What is the authority of the traditional Catholic clergy in this crisis situation, and, in particular, what is its authority with respect to traditional Catholic study groups? The thesis is the following (I can review it briefly before explaining it):
Your traditional priests—for they are your priests—your traditional bishops and your traditional parishes, have no ordinary authority, but an extraordinary authority which is a supplied authority.
Further for an edification:
What is a Parish: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11499b.htm
And,
www.newadvent.org/cathen/10391a.htm
Catholic Parochial Missions
In substance, [parochial] missions are coeval with Christianity. The Founder of the Church was also its first missionary. His life was a missionary life, "teaching daily in the temple", "preaching to the multitude from the ship", and, at the close of His life's work, entrusting its continuation to His Apostles — "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; . . . Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19, 20). Obedient to this injunction, the history of the Church has become a history of missionary activity, whether by it be understood the prolonged missionary labour among heathen tribes, or the exercise of regular mission work among the faithful.
It is true that until the beginning of the seventeenth century there existed no organized form of popular missionary work exactly as it is now understood. But even in the early ages of the Church we find such eminent saints and doctors as the two Gregories (of Nazianzus and of Nyssa), Basil, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Leo, Augustine, and Gregory the Great making special efforts on special occasions to strengthen faith and foster piety by extraordinary series of instructions, exhortations, and devotions. The good work of the wandering Celtic missionaries in the sixth and seventh centuries — e.g., Sts. Columbanus, Gall, Kilian, Fridolin — may also be taken as, in some sense, an early type of the popular mission. Sts. Bernard, Peter Damian, Peter the Hermit, and the other great preachers of the Crusades were eminent popular missionaries, and their appeals to the Christian zeal of Europe were splendid instances of popular missions adapted to the conditions of the age. With the rise of the mendicant orders began a new era in the history of missionary endeavour. The Dominicans and Franciscans were popular missionaries in the truest sense of the word. They went from town to town preaching to the people everywhere, in the public places as well as in the churches. They preached chiefly to the masses, the poor people, using simple, unadorned language. As a consequence, the people followed them in crowds, drawn by their simple eloquence. Their strict rule of life and renunciation exercised during the Middle Ages a most salutary social influence over the enslaved and un privileged classes of the population. In the fourteenth century we have the eminent Dominican preachers, Tauler and Henry Suso. in the fifteenth, St. Vincent Ferrer and Savonarola; in the sixteenth, Louis of Granada. The acme of Franciscan preaching was reached by the Observants in the fifteenth century, especially in Italy and Germany. Famous popular missionaries of the Franciscan Order were Sts. Bernardine of Siena, John Capistran, and Peter of Alcantara. By the middle of the sixteenth century the Society of Jesus took up this work. St. Ignatius combatted chiefly the errors of the Reformers. In 1592 the Ven. César de Bus (q.v.) founded the "Prêtres seculiers de la doctrine chrétienne", a congregation devoting itself entirely to the work of catechizing and preaching the Christian doctrine.
Catholic Parochial Missions
In substance, [parochial] missions are coeval with Christianity. The Founder of the Church was also its first missionary. His life was a missionary life, "teaching daily in the temple", "preaching to the multitude from the ship", and, at the close of His life's work, entrusting its continuation to His Apostles — "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; . . . Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19, 20). Obedient to this injunction, the history of the Church has become a history of missionary activity, whether by it be understood the prolonged missionary labour among heathen tribes, or the exercise of regular mission work among the faithful.
It is true that until the beginning of the seventeenth century there existed no organized form of popular missionary work exactly as it is now understood. But even in the early ages of the Church we find such eminent saints and doctors as the two Gregories (of Nazianzus and of Nyssa), Basil, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Leo, Augustine, and Gregory the Great making special efforts on special occasions to strengthen faith and foster piety by extraordinary series of instructions, exhortations, and devotions. The good work of the wandering Celtic missionaries in the sixth and seventh centuries — e.g., Sts. Columbanus, Gall, Kilian, Fridolin — may also be taken as, in some sense, an early type of the popular mission. Sts. Bernard, Peter Damian, Peter the Hermit, and the other great preachers of the Crusades were eminent popular missionaries, and their appeals to the Christian zeal of Europe were splendid instances of popular missions adapted to the conditions of the age. With the rise of the mendicant orders began a new era in the history of missionary endeavour. The Dominicans and Franciscans were popular missionaries in the truest sense of the word. They went from town to town preaching to the people everywhere, in the public places as well as in the churches. They preached chiefly to the masses, the poor people, using simple, unadorned language. As a consequence, the people followed them in crowds, drawn by their simple eloquence. Their strict rule of life and renunciation exercised during the Middle Ages a most salutary social influence over the enslaved and un privileged classes of the population. In the fourteenth century we have the eminent Dominican preachers, Tauler and Henry Suso. in the fifteenth, St. Vincent Ferrer and Savonarola; in the sixteenth, Louis of Granada. The acme of Franciscan preaching was reached by the Observants in the fifteenth century, especially in Italy and Germany. Famous popular missionaries of the Franciscan Order were Sts. Bernardine of Siena, John Capistran, and Peter of Alcantara. By the middle of the sixteenth century the Society of Jesus took up this work. St. Ignatius combatted chiefly the errors of the Reformers. In 1592 the Ven. César de Bus (q.v.) founded the "Prêtres seculiers de la doctrine chrétienne", a congregation devoting itself entirely to the work of catechizing and preaching the Christian doctrine.
2 - OLSC contends Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC), and in specific Fr. Pfeiffer, has no authority. Therefore should not be listened to.
That is a striking statement by several facts.
A. Many of those same people in Australia have been receiving the faith and sacraments from OLMC since 2013 under the SAME crisis as today. Why was it different then, and allegedly, it is not good now?
B. By what authority is referred? Novus ordo? If not, then what? OLSC contend (above) they should not be called “parishes” because they acknowledge they are OUT of the authority of the abusive romans. What other authority is there? This has not been demonstrated by OLSC as of yet.
However, let’s address that question anyway to help the situation. First, the State of Necessity demonstrates there is Supplied Jurisdiction (above) given to valid and lawful priests and Religious orders to function when the proper means are abuse or purposely withheld. Simple law of existence maintained in the Catholic Church by Her Head Jesus Christ.
Second, it is well known Archbishop Lefebvre received by Canonical Law and Apostolic blessing the existence of his Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and maneuvered later by acting modernist enemies in rome to suppress the SSPX not to give the faith and grace of God in all generations. Drawn out here New SSPX Legal footing: real or illusion?
Upon which, all the SSPX priests are valid and legal as a true branch of the Church. This includes the priests of OLMC who have repeatedly stated they STILL are SSPX priests canonically illegally dismissed by their General Superior Bishop Fellay, ironically, in the SAME manner of corruption as the novus ordo Cardinals tried to suppress and deny the canonical rights of Archbishop Lefebvre. How history repeats itself.
Third, and in consequence, these OLMC priests DO HAVE legitimate authority supplied from the Church (Supplied Jurisdiction) over the baptized faithful in measure of a true ministry entrusted and commanded to them through their ordinations. This authority is one of teaching and sanctification, as with, to protect the faith and the faith of those who come to them. Governing is one that is laid in principle on the Bishops and the Pope in specific yet placed in practice on the priests in commission to fulfill and maintain integrity of the Church in Her structure and disciplines. OLSC acknowledges this by saying the priests of OLMC are doctrinally orthodox and are faithful to the Catholic Church.
So this acknowledgement should suffice for the misunderstanding of their question.
Fourth, the priests have always maintained they have legal represented authority they follow and represent in their principle of act and assignment of the Church governing. They hold the pope is the truly elected pope; they pray for him in their masses. They hold the local diocesan bishops where they are saying theirs masses as the legal representatives of the Church provided through the governing jurisdiction of the Pope; and too pray for them in each respected masses. They hold still, of course, their General Superior of the SSPX as their legal authority; and too pray for him. They hold still, of course, their district superior as their next is order to their legal authority; and pray for them too. And visit them when they allow.
Thus, these priests still carrying on the mission of their founder Archbishop Lefebvre as valid and legal priests commissioned by the Church and carry the acts and treasures of Redemption to give freely as our Lord told them to do wearing the Stole of the Church; the sign of the Church’s authority within their acts and ministry.
So with all those superiors abusing the faith and their authority causing another State of Necessity within their own SSPX order is not their fault, nor is it any weakness of theirs, nor of any negation factor to their ordination as Catholic Priests to serve our Lord to Baptize and preach the faith to all four corners of the World. Which Australia is a part of in God’s generosity for these priests to make serious sacrifices to their health and ministry always being misunderstood in a crisis abused by their superiors. But they keep going like their founder Archbishop Lefebvre to those who thirst for our Lord and His grace...
3. - OLSC contends they are a “legal” group of Catholics who invite whichever priests they want, they say, are true resistance priests.
It appears this is the crux of the whole OLSC argument. First, when shown the other number 1-2 is misunderstood and do not have merit, OLSC resides on this as their now main reason of contention. But let’s examine really what is being said and apply what the Church has said for millennia on this matter.
Quote:
Then one day, in April 2018, out of the blue an ultimatum was delivered by Father Pfeiffer to OLSC Melbourne members that no other visiting priest would be tolerated who visited them. Father declared himself to be their parish priest. If he was to remain a visiting priest he would say no more Masses for them. He added that unless the visiting priest accepted to come under his authority he would not say any more Masses for them.
He confirmed this when he cancelled a scheduled Mass for the following Sunday.
To deviate for a moment
Father gave the reason for issuing this ultimatum as - he had worked hard to establish mission centres across the world and that faction of the Resistance Movement under Bishop Williamson would move in and take over - virtually throwing Father Pfeiffer out who had/has no Bishop; who had/has no authority over him; who had/has no Superior to obey. These priests were all colleagues when the Resistance movement was launched. Now they were at enmity with one another. This led to much confusion amongst the laity, many of whom returned to the (now) conciliar oriented SSPX with its Indult Mass and accepting that the new mass as legitimately promulgated OR the laity grouped around whichever priest gave them the Sacraments uncaring about doctrinal purity or sedevacantism.
The whole Resistance set-up has become a kind of ‘Catholic Protestantism’ . Whether doctrinally pure or not, priests were fighting for ‘parishioners’ to belong to their particular de facto parish. What they had in common was that they were all de facto make-believe ‘parishes’ under the headship of one Bishop or as in Father Pfeiffer’s case - under him and him alone.
Then one day, in April 2018, out of the blue an ultimatum was delivered by Father Pfeiffer to OLSC Melbourne members that no other visiting priest would be tolerated who visited them. Father declared himself to be their parish priest. If he was to remain a visiting priest he would say no more Masses for them. He added that unless the visiting priest accepted to come under his authority he would not say any more Masses for them.
He confirmed this when he cancelled a scheduled Mass for the following Sunday.
To deviate for a moment
Father gave the reason for issuing this ultimatum as - he had worked hard to establish mission centres across the world and that faction of the Resistance Movement under Bishop Williamson would move in and take over - virtually throwing Father Pfeiffer out who had/has no Bishop; who had/has no authority over him; who had/has no Superior to obey. These priests were all colleagues when the Resistance movement was launched. Now they were at enmity with one another. This led to much confusion amongst the laity, many of whom returned to the (now) conciliar oriented SSPX with its Indult Mass and accepting that the new mass as legitimately promulgated OR the laity grouped around whichever priest gave them the Sacraments uncaring about doctrinal purity or sedevacantism.
The whole Resistance set-up has become a kind of ‘Catholic Protestantism’ . Whether doctrinally pure or not, priests were fighting for ‘parishioners’ to belong to their particular de facto parish. What they had in common was that they were all de facto make-believe ‘parishes’ under the headship of one Bishop or as in Father Pfeiffer’s case - under him and him alone.
Facts:
• In 2013, upon request from some Australia Catholics, OLMC answered and establishes missions in Australia to continue the work of the SSPX with Frs. Pfeiffer, Chazal, and Hewko.
• Fr. Chazal primarily served that continent with his location from the Philippines being closer. All was good.
• In later 2015 early 2016, Fr. Chazal defected to serve Bishop Williamson in the false resistance out of utility for a bishop. (Lack of faith to espouse error to gain a bishop, but that is the crisis in the Church.)
• On Feb 6, 2016, OLSC announced they have reformed their name from the Victorian Resistance movement within the original mission of OLMC Fr. Chazal was a part of, and now due to a split Fr. Chazal gained some of their people, the mission chose a new name called Our Lady of the Southern Cross. Below you can see their announcement was benign as a group to help with the organization of the mission and to be a clear delineation from the confused new path of Fr. Chazal and Bishop Williamson. I know, I was a part of that process (here Fr. Chazal's sad letter to the Australian Faithful) helping my friends in Australia to navigate through their new found crisis.
Quote:
Our Lady of the Southern Cross is comprised of a group of confused Catholics who meet regularly to pray to our Mother, Mediatrix of all Graces/Co-Redemptrix to grant us the strength to fight for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, our King. (Feb. 6, 2016) www.cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/will-we-ever-learn.3631/
Our Lady of the Southern Cross is comprised of a group of confused Catholics who meet regularly to pray to our Mother, Mediatrix of all Graces/Co-Redemptrix to grant us the strength to fight for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, our King. (Feb. 6, 2016) www.cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/will-we-ever-learn.3631/
Quote:
“The lay prayer community of Our Lady of the Southern Cross was formed in 2016. In 2013 we were still part of the Victorian Resistance movement.” cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/summary-of-the-current-position-of-our-lady-of-the-southern-cross.7482/
“The lay prayer community of Our Lady of the Southern Cross was formed in 2016. In 2013 we were still part of the Victorian Resistance movement.” cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/summary-of-the-current-position-of-our-lady-of-the-southern-cross.7482/
• Then 2 years later, on March 23, 2018, OLSC said they have a “current” position regarding OLMC and made a first “mission statement”. www.cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/our-lady-of-the-southern-cross-mission-statement.7293/ At the SAME time they said:
Quote:
“because of certain events that have taken place in 2018 that have shaken our community’s foundation.”
“because of certain events that have taken place in 2018 that have shaken our community’s foundation.”
But what are those certain events? We are learning it is these alleged 3 appearances.
However, there is the now brought to the surface what appears central to this whole situation. Within that new “missions statement” of March 23, 2018 contained a sentence during the SAME time OLSC was having difficulties, they say, and made the content suitable to their new position:
Quote:
"We reject submitting ourselves exclusively to the authority of any priest, or group of priests, being independent of priestly groups or religious orders."
"We reject submitting ourselves exclusively to the authority of any priest, or group of priests, being independent of priestly groups or religious orders."
Certainly that is a very serious statement contrary to the Church’s teaching and governing ability from the Head being Christ. This was pointed out to one of the administrators of Cor-mariae and it quickly was deleted. Thankfully. However, what follows from one of their own OLSC members provided a different account and a new context of their meetings and inner circles desire to be a new independent group for their own destiny.
Nick said:
Just attempting (unsuccessfully apparently) to point out the difficult lose/lose position you’ll be putting priests under. Thanks to Vincent for locating the question, apologies for making it seem too complicated(?).
Well thankyou also admin for informing that the mission statement has changed, yet again, thought I was going mad. Where did the other part go, the part that said OLSC put themselves under no priestly authority?
Understand this is not trying to start a fight for no reason or have a go at anyone’s hours of time and good works, I ask only because the words of this statement is the laygroups only form of structure and authority, and members are willing to turn down a doctrinally pure priest if he wants to be the head of his own mission, to remain bound by it, so it’s very scary to know it can change overnight. Quite literally overnight, I went to sleep to one statement and woke up to a different one, just like a chapter straight out of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.
Also I was personally under the impression this sort of thing was temporary ‘pick up the pieces’ thing while again working towards the more solid structure aka Christ’s hierarchy, but its being turned down now when offered.
Personally I’m struggling see how this is being Catholic at all, just want it cleaned up?
www.cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/our-lady-of-the-southern-cross-mission-statement.7293/
Just attempting (unsuccessfully apparently) to point out the difficult lose/lose position you’ll be putting priests under. Thanks to Vincent for locating the question, apologies for making it seem too complicated(?).
Well thankyou also admin for informing that the mission statement has changed, yet again, thought I was going mad. Where did the other part go, the part that said OLSC put themselves under no priestly authority?
Understand this is not trying to start a fight for no reason or have a go at anyone’s hours of time and good works, I ask only because the words of this statement is the laygroups only form of structure and authority, and members are willing to turn down a doctrinally pure priest if he wants to be the head of his own mission, to remain bound by it, so it’s very scary to know it can change overnight. Quite literally overnight, I went to sleep to one statement and woke up to a different one, just like a chapter straight out of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.
Also I was personally under the impression this sort of thing was temporary ‘pick up the pieces’ thing while again working towards the more solid structure aka Christ’s hierarchy, but its being turned down now when offered.
Personally I’m struggling see how this is being Catholic at all, just want it cleaned up?
www.cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/our-lady-of-the-southern-cross-mission-statement.7293/
Yet, there is another context that is not supplied needing its weight to be fair to the question. What didFr. Pfeiffer say to them?
Fortunately, we do have an account provided in a sermon whereby father enlightened the answer of what the Church teaches in this crisis and that there is no role for lay authority in the Church.
And,
Clearly this objective answer was provided by the priest and should have been see as the Church teaches. But I do not know why there would be a contention beyond this except for one of their members again, Nick, providing another post (and deleted) describing he was at the meeting and it wasn’t what is presently narrated by OLSC:
Nick said:
This ‘ultimatum’ at the steps of Bunyip hall in April is not true.
THIS IS A LiE.
Fr Pfieffer said when a priest comes he is in charge regardless of who that priest is because only he can perform the sacraments which is why the people go, backed up by his sermons in Adelaide and Streaky Bay. He warned about other priest coming only to stamp on the work of Our Lady of Mt Carmel priests, not coming for the faith. He cannot stop anyone from attending them.
I was present.
This ridiculous notion of an ultimatum was ‘heard’ by only a few who were expecting to hear it and ready and wanting to hear it. PROOF- there was a meeting the previous week by OLSC to discuss this, because fr Pfieffer was coming and one aim was to ‘take control’ of olsc. This was a preconceived idea, not ‘out of the blue’. This was supported by one sided speculation of current events and made up slander of personal problems of frP. I can back all this up if you wish but I would much rather do this in person, as would olsc, so let’s do it. I would have loved to do so at our prayer group but I no longer get the invite.
It was also noted that the first time FrP warned of lay control was on his very next visit to Melbourne after the laygroup claimed a voice of ownership over those attending Fr Chazel’s mission. FrP stated that liberal comments should not be followed at expense of true faith, however the priest remains in charge and the people are free to choose to attend or not. Over the past few years I have personally heard on a number of occasions the notion that FrP wants to control us ( us being olsc).
Back to Bunyip, must I remind you it was you in person, admin, who stated at Bunyip “I speak for everyone when I say...” and it was frP who replied you cannot speak for everyone you can only speak for yourself. You responded with trying to have a vote. Also do not act like everyone present shared your views, you were opposed too.
The confusion and politics side of things has really been about whose mission it is. FrP did start one here in Victoria in 2013 and worked with fr Chazels mission. OLSC tried to claim they took them over. PROOF- read your mission statement “OLSC, formally known as the Victorian Resistance...” Fr Chazel and Fr Pfieffer started the resistance after being unfairly dismissed from SSPX. But in a move that I didn’t understand at the time but now seems brilliant, Fr Pfieffer closed the old mission down, and has reopened it, all political problems over... all confusion gone!
Not everyone who attends frP’s masses are part of OLSC prayer group and anyone is free to attend, and encouraged. This will be confirmed when he comes again and will expose your view for the lie it is.
If anyone honestly believes that if they attend FrPs masses they are his exclusive parish then they need clarification, contact him and ask him.
This ‘ultimatum’ at the steps of Bunyip hall in April is not true.
THIS IS A LiE.
Fr Pfieffer said when a priest comes he is in charge regardless of who that priest is because only he can perform the sacraments which is why the people go, backed up by his sermons in Adelaide and Streaky Bay. He warned about other priest coming only to stamp on the work of Our Lady of Mt Carmel priests, not coming for the faith. He cannot stop anyone from attending them.
I was present.
This ridiculous notion of an ultimatum was ‘heard’ by only a few who were expecting to hear it and ready and wanting to hear it. PROOF- there was a meeting the previous week by OLSC to discuss this, because fr Pfieffer was coming and one aim was to ‘take control’ of olsc. This was a preconceived idea, not ‘out of the blue’. This was supported by one sided speculation of current events and made up slander of personal problems of frP. I can back all this up if you wish but I would much rather do this in person, as would olsc, so let’s do it. I would have loved to do so at our prayer group but I no longer get the invite.
It was also noted that the first time FrP warned of lay control was on his very next visit to Melbourne after the laygroup claimed a voice of ownership over those attending Fr Chazel’s mission. FrP stated that liberal comments should not be followed at expense of true faith, however the priest remains in charge and the people are free to choose to attend or not. Over the past few years I have personally heard on a number of occasions the notion that FrP wants to control us ( us being olsc).
Back to Bunyip, must I remind you it was you in person, admin, who stated at Bunyip “I speak for everyone when I say...” and it was frP who replied you cannot speak for everyone you can only speak for yourself. You responded with trying to have a vote. Also do not act like everyone present shared your views, you were opposed too.
The confusion and politics side of things has really been about whose mission it is. FrP did start one here in Victoria in 2013 and worked with fr Chazels mission. OLSC tried to claim they took them over. PROOF- read your mission statement “OLSC, formally known as the Victorian Resistance...” Fr Chazel and Fr Pfieffer started the resistance after being unfairly dismissed from SSPX. But in a move that I didn’t understand at the time but now seems brilliant, Fr Pfieffer closed the old mission down, and has reopened it, all political problems over... all confusion gone!
Not everyone who attends frP’s masses are part of OLSC prayer group and anyone is free to attend, and encouraged. This will be confirmed when he comes again and will expose your view for the lie it is.
If anyone honestly believes that if they attend FrPs masses they are his exclusive parish then they need clarification, contact him and ask him.
• Presented below is a April 11, 2018 letter (with permission to post publicly) from Fr. Pfeiffer sent to Mr. Ross, the acting coordinator of the OLMC mission in Australia and prior to their new OLSC March 23, 2018 “current position” and aim to control through assumption of the OLMC mission by OLSC:
April 11, 2018
St. Leo I
Dear Mr. Ross,
The Melbourne Mission was established by me in 2013 at which time none of you of the "Melbourne Group" were even members. The 4 original members are all gone.
Thank you for the work you have done as coordinator for OLMC the last 2 years or so. It appears as though we are not on the same page in the matter of the visiting Priest. You see yourself as the elected representative superior whereas I see the priest as the Superior according to Our Holy Catholic Faith.
Each of the Missions established by OLMC are under OLMC and not lay controlled. Fr. Chazal, The Adelaide and other missions warned me that your Melbourne Group wanted to control Australia and dictate to the priest its wishes as opposed to being another Mass Group. And that you were not fighting for the Faith first. They members of the other groups do not want to answer to your group whom most of them do not even know anyway.
I was told, not by you my coordinator, but by others that you held a meeting last week in which you discussed among other things some other priest who may come to visit you on condition that you are separated from OLMC. Nick was also told not to speak to his Acting Pastor on any of the group matters when driving me from the Airport. [Ed. Name] told me that only Her husband, Luke and [Ed. Name] spoke to me and not the others due to prior agreement amongst yourselves that only the elected officials would speak to Father Pfeiffer at the meeting which meeting you did not want all Mass attendees to attend. I did not make you coordinator in order to keep shepherd and the sheep separated. This is dishonorable behavior. We have a policy of openness and honesty.
Hence, for the good of Souls and the sake of clarity, you are removed as coordinator of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and the mission which you say is your own lay private prayer group is closed as regards OLMC. I will resume the OLMC mission in Melbourne, outside of the direction of any lay elected parish council or the like. Fr. Cummins dealt with a similar situation in Melbourne in 1974. He established the parish in Hampton which is still there 40 years later. One third of Fr. Cummins parish stayed with a lay group (The Latin Mass Society) under a president which invited another priest from New Zealand to service them instead of staying in Fr. Cummins's parish. The priest stayed 2 years then left. As far as I know that lay group ceased to exist. Other lay groups worldwide have hired and removed priests at will over the last 50 years since the Council.
All Catholics and non-Catholics, members or not are invited to attend any Masses celebrated by myself or any priest associated with me. I do not condemn anyone who goes to any other Masses either. The Truth is immutable, but souls shall be judged by the Good God according to His Mercy and Justice as He sees fit. It is my Hope that the faithful will choose Faith first. Any and each individual rich or not, may speak to the shepherd, and are not to be blocked from their shepherd, period. Also non-members of the flock are welcome to call or speak to me also without the necessity of following the rules of any lay community.
You as well as any and every member of your lay group are most welcome to continue attending the Masses offered by us visiting priests. There should be multiple priests willing to meet your conditions and work for your group, You may inform them that your organization is separated from OLMC and therefore should not be a hindrance to their assisting you. May God bless you in all your endeavors,
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
St. Leo I
Dear Mr. Ross,
The Melbourne Mission was established by me in 2013 at which time none of you of the "Melbourne Group" were even members. The 4 original members are all gone.
Thank you for the work you have done as coordinator for OLMC the last 2 years or so. It appears as though we are not on the same page in the matter of the visiting Priest. You see yourself as the elected representative superior whereas I see the priest as the Superior according to Our Holy Catholic Faith.
Each of the Missions established by OLMC are under OLMC and not lay controlled. Fr. Chazal, The Adelaide and other missions warned me that your Melbourne Group wanted to control Australia and dictate to the priest its wishes as opposed to being another Mass Group. And that you were not fighting for the Faith first. They members of the other groups do not want to answer to your group whom most of them do not even know anyway.
I was told, not by you my coordinator, but by others that you held a meeting last week in which you discussed among other things some other priest who may come to visit you on condition that you are separated from OLMC. Nick was also told not to speak to his Acting Pastor on any of the group matters when driving me from the Airport. [Ed. Name] told me that only Her husband, Luke and [Ed. Name] spoke to me and not the others due to prior agreement amongst yourselves that only the elected officials would speak to Father Pfeiffer at the meeting which meeting you did not want all Mass attendees to attend. I did not make you coordinator in order to keep shepherd and the sheep separated. This is dishonorable behavior. We have a policy of openness and honesty.
Hence, for the good of Souls and the sake of clarity, you are removed as coordinator of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and the mission which you say is your own lay private prayer group is closed as regards OLMC. I will resume the OLMC mission in Melbourne, outside of the direction of any lay elected parish council or the like. Fr. Cummins dealt with a similar situation in Melbourne in 1974. He established the parish in Hampton which is still there 40 years later. One third of Fr. Cummins parish stayed with a lay group (The Latin Mass Society) under a president which invited another priest from New Zealand to service them instead of staying in Fr. Cummins's parish. The priest stayed 2 years then left. As far as I know that lay group ceased to exist. Other lay groups worldwide have hired and removed priests at will over the last 50 years since the Council.
All Catholics and non-Catholics, members or not are invited to attend any Masses celebrated by myself or any priest associated with me. I do not condemn anyone who goes to any other Masses either. The Truth is immutable, but souls shall be judged by the Good God according to His Mercy and Justice as He sees fit. It is my Hope that the faithful will choose Faith first. Any and each individual rich or not, may speak to the shepherd, and are not to be blocked from their shepherd, period. Also non-members of the flock are welcome to call or speak to me also without the necessity of following the rules of any lay community.
You as well as any and every member of your lay group are most welcome to continue attending the Masses offered by us visiting priests. There should be multiple priests willing to meet your conditions and work for your group, You may inform them that your organization is separated from OLMC and therefore should not be a hindrance to their assisting you. May God bless you in all your endeavors,
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Certainly too this letter from Fr. Pfeiffer would be held as pastoral and resolute in the Church’s organization and structure (unlike Bishop Williamson’s loose model of vagabond priests), and held as a compassion to maintain openness where lay groups would shut off some by their own discretion.
There remains then within the OLSC contention their will to invite their own “true resistance priests”. At this juncture, OLSC has not said who he or they are. And by what “authority” they have if it is a contention they hold (wrongly) against Fr. Pfeiffer. Nonetheless, Father was clear they could do so as they wish, contrary to OLSC claims, but is not held as a OLMC mission. Father said he is in obligation the pastor of it and they can as Catholics come to his masses any and all the time. But not under the new OLSC banner, premise and terms of controlling the priest. That is not Catholic.
As far as who are of the True Catholic Resistance, believe me, we know who they all are and you can count them on your hands. The rest follow the false resistance of Bishop Williamson, and the neo-tradition of Bishop Fellay assumed in the conciliar Ecclesia Dei.
For further edification:
Trusteeism
Trusteeism involved the practice of Catholic laity assuming control of the administration of churches, even to the point of hiring and firing pastors. This practice began in colonial times [America] when laymen raised money, purchased land, and built churches themselves due to the decentralized structure of the early Church. Bishops’ rejection of such lay involvement caused frequent confrontations and denunciations that often led to the interdiction of churches. The trustees’ presentation of themselves as defenders of democratic rights against autocratic authority of the bishop bolstered Protestant beliefs that the Catholic Church was incompatible with American values. www.pahrc.net/tag/nativist-riots-of-1844/
Trusteeism involved the practice of Catholic laity assuming control of the administration of churches, even to the point of hiring and firing pastors. This practice began in colonial times [America] when laymen raised money, purchased land, and built churches themselves due to the decentralized structure of the early Church. Bishops’ rejection of such lay involvement caused frequent confrontations and denunciations that often led to the interdiction of churches. The trustees’ presentation of themselves as defenders of democratic rights against autocratic authority of the bishop bolstered Protestant beliefs that the Catholic Church was incompatible with American values. www.pahrc.net/tag/nativist-riots-of-1844/
This is from the Catholic encyclopedia which delves into this a little more - point being the laymen are still accountable to the proper clerical authority:
In the exercise of her inherent right of administering property, the Church often appoints deputies who are responsible to herself. Technically, such administrators, whether cleric or lay, are called the "fabric" of the Church. In very early times ecclesiastical goods were divided into three or four portions, and that part set aside for the upkeep of the Church began to take on the character of a juridical person. The Eleventh Council of Carthage (can. ii) in 407 requested the civil power to appoint five executors for ecclesiastical property, and in the course of time laymen were called on to take their share in this administration, with the understanding, however, that everything was to be done in the name and with the approbation of the Church. A number of early and medieval synods have dealt with the administration of curators of ecclesiastical property, e.g. can. vii, Conc. Bracar. (563); can. xxxviii, Conc. Mogunt. (813); can. x, Conc. Mogunt. (847); can. xxxv, Conc. Nation. Wirceburg. (1287). The employment of laymen in concert with clerics as trustees became common all over Christendom. In England such officials were called churchwardens. They were generally two in number, one being chosen by the parish priest, the other by the parishioners, and with them were associated others called sidesmen. The churchwardens administered the temporalities of the parish under the supervision of the bishop, to whom they were responsible. An annual report on the administration of church property was made obligatory in all countries by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. ix, "De Ref."): "The administrators, whether ecclesiastical or lay, of the fabric of any church whatsoever, even though it be a cathedral, as also of any hospital, confraternity, charitable institution called mont de piété, and of any pious places whatsoever, shall be bound to give in once a year an account of their administration to the Ordinary."
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15071b.htm
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15071b.htm
In conclusion.
Indeed this would be a sad development especially after all these years of instruction an pain we all endured at the hands of bad prelates we now again are returning on the basic questions of authority and structure of the Church. Yet, this make for another good opportunity to herald the teaching Church and Her glory guiding throughout all of history when there has been stormy times of purification to draw unto good.
Many time there are legitimate misunderstandings only helped by digging in to the Church’s Annals we find true answers. Many unfortunately touch on morals, and in this case a doctrinal and ecclesiastical issue, even though it is not portrayed as such; it is. And that too has a remedy. Blessed be God.
Be at peace said our Lord, I am with you through suffering and joys
We all have to understand the grave underlining matter in this crisis of the Church is one of a punishment based on global sin within the Church and allowed as an instrument of sanctification ...so to understand what is important in life - God alone.
Being circled by the wagons of the world does not help in its sway and distraction constantly pushing or pulling us in the temptation of Eve and that of Christ in the desert. Yet temptation is only that - temptation. It was only AFTER Eve had sinned she created the state of entropy tempting others to sin as well. If we do not follow the sanctification of the Church in every manner of Her graces, we will eventually be agents of heresy not intending, but ends really in fighting against Her. It is a principle of attrition and that of contrition we find life.
How and when we are caught up in this devastating crisis and all its details (i.e. spiritual, social, psychological, economical…) is relative to our disposition toward God and existence in the path we have chosen; right or wrong.
My interest in writing this is solely based on providing the doctrinal and ecclesiastical importance within this crisis.
Instaurare omnia in Christo.