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 PriestsThe 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.