Some brief extracts (transcribed)

from the
Crisis in the SSPX Conference


An Extract from a talk by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer:

During Questions and Answers after one talk, a question was asked about Fr. Morgan’s statement in response to the Letter of Entreaty and in particular the claim that Bishop Fellay has “publicly withdrawn” his April 2012Doctrinal Declaration. This was Fr. Pfeiffer’s response.

Fr. Pfeiffer: OK, very simple. A written, clear, signed, sealed and delivered, official  document is not retracted unless there is another written, signed, sealed retracting document which explains what it retracts.
    For instance: do we reject every element in that Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012? The answer is no! Part 1 says that we accept the Pope as head of the body of Bishops. We fully accept that, there’s nothing wrong with that. However it has heresies in it. So when you retract it, you can’t just retract the whole thing because then you retract the parts that are true as well as the errors.
    And, since it is an official document, it is not retracted until it is officially retracted, you see. So when you have a private conversation with people in Ireland, and we don’t have access to whatever he said there easily, and it’s not an official communication of the Society anyway - that’s not a retraction. ‘Retraction’ means that he will speak to the Pope and he will withdraw the Doctrinal Declaration. Now remember, it’s not a “deal”, it’s a ‘doctrinal declaration,’ therefore the doctrine has to be retracted, and he has to retract it in his own language, just like he gave it in his own language, with the utmost    clarity.
    And furthermore, since it is the most serious crime which can be committed by a Catholic priest which is to express heresy, he has to show his repentance by doing two things. Number 1, he has to resign. He must resign. There is no other option. Number 2, he must undergo a trial. And in this trial he must demonstrate that he has retracted, and he must prove that he has retracted in his heart the opinions he has expressed to Rome. That has to be done, or else it doesn’t count.
    I mean I could understand how someone who’s never been in the world or never worked in business or has never dealt with other human beings in the real world could  accept that kind of ‘retraction’. You have to have a real retraction, a true retraction, and ‘withdrawal’ does not mean retraction anyway.
    Furthermore, Fr. Morgan says there that it is a “questionable” document. You’ve read the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. It’s not questionable, it’s heretical! It’s not questionable. “Questionable” would mean that it could lend itself to two different interpretations, one Catholic the other heretical. It’s not a “questionable document”. And why are the priests like Fr. Morgan and the other priests trying to hold things together the best they can? They have to say “it’s questionable” even though they know it’s not questionable, because otherwise they’re in trouble, do you see what I mean?
    That’s why I asked my own brother [Fr Timothy Pfeiffer], “Is the new Mass legitimately promulgated?”
   He said: “It’s a bad document.”
   I said to him, “I didn’t ask you whether it’s a good document or a bad document. I asked you: ‘Is the New Mass legitimately promulgated, yes or no?’ ”
   He said: “It’s a bad document.”
He would not answer the question, because if he did, he would be disagreeing with Bishop Fellay, and that’s the trouble.



Extract from a Conference by Fr. David Hewko:

(Quoting St. Vincent of Lerins)

“Moreover,” he says, “in the Catholic Church itself all possible care must be taken that we hold that Faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. ... What if some novel contagion seeks to infect, not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud or novelty.”
So St. Vincent Lerins he’s really our guide, he was the guide for the Council of Trent,  Vatican I, the anti-modernist oath, and in the anti-modernist oath all the priest, professors and teachers promise to keep the same sense, the same meaning as the Church has always held. And that is what we’re faced with, with this new direction of the Society of St. Pius X. Do we follow this new direction?  [...]
    In the third letter [of monition/expulsion, sent by his superiors the SSPX] I was asked to be silent in the future about anything to do with the agreement with Rome. And in good conscience I just could not do that, because if you’ve read Archbishop Lefebvre, all his sermons all his conferences, he talks about this all the time: how an agreement with Rome, or steps to go under Rome, would put the Faith in danger.
    And Bishop de Castro Mayer in his sermon in 1988, he gave a very short sermon, it was very powerful, and he quoted St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas says that if the Faith is put in danger, you have a duty to defend it. And that’s why, he said, ‘that’s why I’m here in 1988 with Archbishop Lefebvre, consecrating the four bishops.’ So here we are put in a situation again where the Catholic Faith is really put in danger. If you come under the local Bishops, can you imagine? And that’s in the six conditions [of the General Chapter]! If we gain approval from Rome to be ‘normalised’ and recognised, that puts us right under the authority of modernists who are destroying the Church!
    And the catch is this. You’re expecting the thief to sneak in the back door. So you’ve got you guns ready and the dog and everything aimed at the back door. But the thief comes in the from door. And that’s what happened to all of us. We were expecting an agreement: “There’d better not be an agreement! If there’s an agreement we’re all in hot water!” We’re waiting for the thief to come in the back door, but suddenly the     General Chapter statement, the six conditions, the doctrinal preamble, all comes in through the front door. So everything we feared would happen with making an agreement with Rome has happened without it, without the label. The poison has come in without the label. The very errors that we feared, are now in; the poison is now in. The New Mass considered legitimate by our Superiors, the new Code of Canon law, and the deadly acceptance of Vatican II “in the light of Tradition”. And it’s very sad. Because I love the Society, and all the priests, we do, we love the work of the Society. But we have to fight on, because the Faith is at stake.
    Just look at your own families, look at the last fifty years since the Council.   Anything that Council touches it just rots! [...] That’s why in Archbishop Lefebvre’s ‘Spiritual Journey’ [...] on page 13 he says: “If any priest has any hope of keeping his Faith, he must steer far away from the conciliar Church. The closer he draws to the   conciliar Church the more in danger he is of losing his Faith.”


Extract from a Conference by Fr. Paul Kramer:

[Fr. Kramer spoke about the Third Secret of Fatima. After talking about its bearing on the dangers to the life of the Christian, in the form freemasonry and of a World Government, Father then moved on to the ‘dangers to the Faith of the Christian’, and particularly the crisis brought about by Vatican II and the changes in the Church. This extract comes in the later portion of the talk, where Fr. Kramer speaks about Pope Paul VI and the New Mass.]

Session VII, Canon XIII of the Council of Trent - this is the Tridentine profession of Faith, of 13th November, 1564, a solemn profession of Faith issued by Pope Pius IV in the Bull “Iniunctum Nobis”. On this doctrinal basis therefore, we have the formulation of a dogmatic Canon of the council of Trent.
    What the solemn anathema declares to be a heresy is for anyone to say that the Traditional Rites, the customarily used, received and approved rites, that they may be despised - well, the Rites are certainly despised in our time! - or that they can be freely omitted, as if it is a matter of preference: “The Novus Ordo is alright... We prefer the old rite, but we’ll consider the new rite         legitimate. It’s been legitimately promulgated so it’s alright, we have no objection to it. Let the rest of the Church use the new rite, but we have our emotional attachment to the old rite, so we want to keep to that...” Anyone who says that, according to this Dogmatic Canon of the Church, falls into heresy.
[...]
The New Rite was never promulgated. And even if it had been promulgated, the promulgation of such new rites is anathema according to the infallible teaching of the Church. So that leaves us with one dilemma here. Whoever would say such a thing,   legitimising that anathema, and promoting the fraud of promulgation of the new rite, falls into heresy and is committing an act of fraud if they were ever to say :

“We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal...”
Well even Archbishop Lefebvre admitted the possibility of the validity of the New Rite in Latin. That’s not the fraud. The next line:
“...indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”

    No! They were not legitimately promulgated! Because, first of all it’s a fraud to claim that they were promulgated, that the New Mass was ever even promulgated. It was never promulgated.
    Secondly, the promulgation of it, according to the Church’s teaching, would be an act of schism. And to say that the Traditional Rites could be reformed into the New Rite of Paul VI is heresy  -  Session VII, Canon XIII of the Council of Trent. So in making this statement one is legitimising fraud, schism and heresy. The only comment I can make further on that topic that, as always, what am I resisting? I’m resisting heresy and schism. I don’t care what is the name of individuals or the organisation that promotes heresy, schism and fraud. And I’m mentioning no names. As a priest of Jesus Christ, I condemn falsehood, I condemn what is against the teaching of the Church, because that is my duty as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    And that proposition that I’ve just read, which comes from some document entitled “Doctrinal Preamble” - whoever wrote it, whoever signed it, I do not care! - that is promoting fraud schism and heresy in the Catholic Church.

Build a Mobile Website
View Site in Mobile | Classic