“There must be a seminary for the training of future priests. At least five priests have told me that there was an absolute necessity to launch a seminar faster because we can not recommend sending young men to six seminars Brotherhood due to the change of doctrine met Within these seminars. More than twenty young men from around the world await the start of the seminar. The place has been established in Kentucky. We have some priests who take part in the education of seminarians with the support of priests in Brazil, Mexico, Europe and Asia.” Fr. Pfeiffer
If you would like to make a contribution to the seminary, please go to inthissignyoushallconquer.com and scroll down to the bottom of the page to use the Paypal link, which will also provide you with a tax receipt from Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Boston, KY
With the Immaculate draws the attention of his readers ( especially priests still in the SSPX ) on new seminar that gives Father Pfeiffer. seminarians Twenty waiting in the world, the opening seminar of the Resistance. This is one more reason for the good priests of the Fraternity leave and go help.
Will you let Father Chazal to serve alone Japan, Korea, Australia and Singapore and more teach the seminar Phillipines? It is true that it will, if we understand, with another recovering priest. But is it enough?
And Father Cardozo will he ensure only the course of the pre-seminar in Brazil, in addition to his ministry?
Do you want your students to be trained in small Écône where Father Gleize teach them a different doctrine from that of Bishop Tissier, the conciliar church? Would you like us instills acceptance of the six conditions? Do you want to come and Bishop Fellay regularly indoctrinated with the spirit of the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012?
If you do not want it, come and help please.
Since an unprecedented crisis crossed the SSPX last year, Father Joseph Pfeiffer, an American priest forties with a fiery temperament, is particularly illustrated in the resistance to the agreement between “Lefebvrist” traditionalist and modernist Rome.
RIVAROL: dear sir, could you start, please, introduce yourself to our readers who do not know you yet …
Father Joseph PFEIFFER: I am a priest of the Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. I was ordained a priest in Winona, Minnesota. I then officiated in various priories and houses Retreats United States for eleven years later, I moved to Asia in 2005 for the Asian district of the Society, whose headquarters is located in Singapore . I officiated in the Philippines for one year and three and a half years in India and then again six months in the Philippines. And then the crisis of the last year came the visible crisis of the SSPX. I was expelled Oct. 4, 2012, however, a valid document that the “expulsion” was given to this date expulsion. Also, since last year, myself and other priests have evolved in the resistance against the new direction taken by the SSPX.
R. Could you briefly remind us what the Society of St. Pius X, its history and its goals?
Father JP: Yes … The SSPX was founded when a disaster in the Church [note: the “council” Vatican II] was away a large majority of Catholic Bishops of the Catholic doctrine taught for 2000 years, the fact that they approved modernism and errors of the modern world. They wanted to bring the church and the world, resulting in the loss of millions of souls. A considerable body of Catholics then rejected faith in the disaster of the 1960s until today. It is in this atmosphere that Archbishop Lefebvre founded an International Seminar of the SSPX to combat liberalism in the world and the organization was very strong in the fight against the errors of our time. Fighting errors of our time means preserving the Catholic priesthood and all things under the priesthood offering the Holy Sacrifice to God and resist against all modern errors that sends souls to Hell. The Brotherhood was faithful to this work over the last forty years, but since then there has been a change. The Brotherhood was supposed to follow a path, but slowly, she deviated from its direction. This new direction became visible last year when it was made public. This is why approximately fifty priests rose. These were, moreover, not all members of the Brotherhood – the latter being of the order of twenty or thirty, since we must also mention the friendly communities who refused the new theology. This new doctrinal approach is evident when the leaders of the SSPX claim in the new line of official communication of the SSPX, the new “Mass” is legitimately enacted, which was stated in a letter of April 15, 2012 Bishop Fellay Rome, which was officially declared and doctrinally in the Official Bulletin of the SSPX in March 2013. In this last statement, the SSPX officially confirms that it considers the new “Mass” as legitimately enacted. I also think the new “Canon Law” is accepted in all ecclesiastical laws, not only in disciplinary laws that are not contrary to the Faith. And many other things that we’ll see … All this is a major turn toward liberalism in the Society of St. Pius X that no longer allows it to defend ourselves against clear errors of the council. Therefore, we as priests, we got up to the resistance against the agreement with Rome that was released last year. The agreement with Rome would have led to a loss of faith and a massive loss of souls. Clairvoyants, we got to resist this new policy. They ordered us all to be quiet. But we refuse to remain silent in the defense of the Faith, which is why some of us were expelled from the Brotherhood.
R. : The resistance movement is still relevant given recent pronouncements of Bishop Fellay since the new doctrinal statement of the three bishops of June 27, 2013 The SSPX does not she demonstrated his loyalty to the principles of its founder, in the end?
Father JP: There were these last two months for signs of a reversal, an apparent return this agreement with Rome and liberal statements of Bishop Fellay dating last year. He has also said he did not intend to change the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. He recently told the Carmelite nuns the exact opposite of what he said in 2012. Thus, there seems to be an apparent withdrawal. But when we look closer to a current doctrinal content, we find that there is no withdrawal. And one important about this document – a document which I believe will be essential for the future – is that of 27 June 2013, ie the declaration of the bishops of the Society on the occasion of the 25th anniversary.
R. : This document has yet welcomed many traditionalists … Is it not in contradiction with the previous attempt of doctrinal agreement with modernist Rome?
Father JP: Think again … This joint declaration is the new doctrine, not the former. One of the arguments of our enemies – the enemies of our resistance movement – is that the new text is a reiteration of the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre and a reiteration of the traditional teaching of the Society of St. Pius X. As if there was no change. This is false. To begin with, we can take a look at item 3 of the 12 points of the declaration. Here is what is said: “Following Lefebvre, we affirm that the cause of serious errors that are tearing down the Church is not in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a” hermeneutic of rupture “that precludes a “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” – but in the same texts, due to the incredible choice made by the Second Vatican Council. “The first time you read this, you see the keywords and you start to think that Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop Galarreta strongly condemn the errors of the council. But in reality they do not. What this says is that the cause of serious errors is the result of a choice in the texts. The cause of the error in the texts under a choice … But cause and effect are two different things. You know that the clouds are the cause of the rain. But clouds and rain are two different things. Thus, the cause and effect are not the same. So if we say that the cause of the error in the text, this means that the errors are not in the text. This 3 makes it clear that the errors are not in the text. The cause (which?) Of the error in the text under a choice (which one?). We note that this document, the new statement says a new doctrine, and not that of the Society of St. Pius X. Another example, the number 6 point: “Religious freedom exhibited by Dignitatis Humanae and its practical application for fifty years, leading logically to ask God made man to waive rule the man who makes himself God, which equates to dissolve Christ. “This speaks of religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae and its practical application today. He explains that religious freedom led to demand that God made man renounces his kingdom. This is completely false. Religious freedom does not lead to what God gives up His Kingdom. Religious freedom is a heresy condemned by the Popes in the 19th century, it is a heresy which is the negation of the rights of God made man. It does not lead to the negation, it is the negation. One could say, for example, the husband who beats his wife, who did not give him money, and that is a drunkard can take his wife to divorce. He can bring his wife to leave the house. But that does not mean that she will divorce. This does not mean that she will leave the house. So if you say that religious freedom leads to the requirement that God renounces his kingdom, this means that religious freedom is not a denial of the kingdom of Christ! This reasoning is seriously flawed and can also be regarded as a heretic. And then, shortly after, in the same point number 6, we find an indirect attack, but very clear and very dangerous against the importance of the Blessed Virgin Mary for our time. He continues: “Instead of driving inspired by a strong faith in the real power of our Lord Jesus Christ, we see the Church shamefully guided by human prudence and doubting herself so that she asks for nothing else than the United Masonic lodges willing to concede: the common law, in the middle and at the same level as other religions do not dare call it false. “Thus, the new church, the” Church today, “would now be guided by human prudence and self-doubt. This is not true. The Blessed Virgin Mary in La Salette said that Rome would become the seat of the Antichrist, which does not mean that it is guided by human prudence but guided by a diabolical prudence. It is the devil who fights God. It is God who fights the devil. And here we see exposed human naturalistic explanation of the crisis in the Church. Bishops should not communicate this way naturalist. It is not a question of human wisdom but an error problem, a problem of demonic caution. So this is a very serious issue.
R. : Point 11 of this statement also seems to debate …
Father JP: Yes, we can finally talk about the number 11, we pass the others … The number 11 point is simply a repetition of the problem last year. This begins with this sentence: “This love of the Church explains the rule that Archbishop Lefebvre always observed: follow Providence in all circumstances, never afford to get ahead. “It is not good to make such a statement like that, without giving any examples or explanations. We should “follow the Providence”? So give us an example for us to follow Providence. This idea is issued without any reference, this is dangerous. More … “is that Rome return soon to Tradition and the faith of all times – which will restore order in the Church – or that we explicitly recognize the right to profess full faith and reject errors contrary to it, with the right and the duty to oppose publicly errors and instigators of these errors, whatever they are. ” 11 This is very serious because it says that we expect Rome Rome converts or simply allow us to recognize our right to be Catholic and to condemn errors. What do we do in the meantime? Because Rome did not recognize our right, so what do we do now? Either we expect Rome convert, option A, or we expect that Rome fulfills all the conditions, namely the six conditions of the crisis year of 2012, so we always want an agreement with Rome. If they convert, it’s nice. If they do not convert, it is. The conversion is no longer necessary. It is very clear and very serious point 11 education. According to Lefebvre, the conversion of Rome is required. Now, with this statement, it is no longer necessary. There are other problematic issues in this document. But this declaration of 27 June confirmed the new doctrine of the Brotherhood and makes it all the more necessary as the priests of the Society of St. Pius X wish to remain faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre rise and clearly condemn these false teachings.
R. : What is the future of the resistance? Would you build an organization or remain at a mere association of priests? Will you run a seminar?
Father J. P. : We have two points. Firstly, every priest – and – need to when they see an attack against the Faith, stand up, and, even if they rise only. As St. Jerome said: if everyone listens, I will preach the Truth. While some listen, I will preach the Truth. If nobody listens, I still preach the truth because I know that God hears and He will judge me and ask me if I preach the Truth. We simply continue the work of the Brotherhood we were unjustly expelled. In our meetings, we discussed the importance of maintaining an international connection, keeping a kind of association in the continuity of the work of the Society of St. Pius X. The key to this organization is that we will provide a seminar. Necessary. There must be a seminary for the training of future priests. At least five priests have told me that there was an absolute necessity to launch a seminar faster because we can not recommend sending young men to six seminars Brotherhood due to the change of doctrine met Within these seminars. More than twenty young men from around the world await the start of the seminar. The place has been established in Kentucky. We have some priests who take part in the education of seminarians with the support of priests in Brazil, Mexico, Europe and Asia. And if we rely on Divine Providence, the protection of Our Lady, we firmly defend the truth and move forward in the defense thereof. Regarding our struggle, we must clarify that if we fight the new twist is that the Society of St. Pius X, we are not against the people within it. We fight just for the Catholic Truth, Catholic Doctrine, against modern errors, and in a way that is clear so that we can preserve the Catholic Faith and protect the sheep who call us from all over the world to receive the doctrine without compromise.