Interview with Father Pfluger

Admin

Administrator

Wish I could speak French. There is a google translation Here


Fidele France Commentary: Who is this? A modernist lamenting because they have not opened the doors sufficiently? A disappointed Tradition? ... No, is the First Assistant of the SSPX!

24 janvier 2015
[Abbé Niklaus Pfluger, fsspx - Der Gerade Weg] La Fraternité dans la crise en sept questions
SOURCE - version française par le blog résistant "France Fidèle", via La Porte latine, d'un entretien paru en allemand dans Der Gerade Weg - novembre 2014
Le premier assistant du Supérieur Général de la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X fait son tour du monde des visites aux diverses maisons de l’œuvre de Mgr Marcel Lefebvre. On peut le qualifier de fin connaisseur de la Fraternité. Ainsi donc M. l’abbé Pfluger dispose d’une information étendue et n’hésite pas à aborder des questions mêmes désagréables. C’est ce qu’il a fait dans la présente interview accordée à la DGW sur l’actuelle crise d’autorité au sein de la Fraternité.

— 1. Monsieur l'abbé, il semble que les zélés protagonistes de la « Résistance » seraient devenus la référence concernant la vie de Mgr Lefebvre. D'après eux, le fondateur de la Fraternité était un fanatique borné, peu détendu et peu diplomate. S'agit-il là d'une falsification de l'histoire ?

— Il ne saurait être question de référence. Au contraire, ladite Résistance, qu'il faudrait plutôt qualifier de « pseudo-résistance », s'est déjà divisée sur cette interprétation. Les plus acharnés d'entre eux déclarent ouvertement que Mgr Lefebvre se serait trompé parce qu'il n'aurait pas fondamentalement exclu tout contact avec le Saint Siège et une régularisation de la position de la Fraternité. Il est habituel de chercher à légitimer la situation présente par l'histoire et les enseignements de cette dernière. Ainsi on est tenté de représenter les événements passés et les personnages sous un éclairage favorable aux thèses actuelles. La « Résistance » fait tout ce qu'elle peut pour instrumentaliser Mgr Lefebvre en faveur de ses idées. Toutefois ce dernier était beaucoup trop catholique, trop partisan de l'Eglise universelle pour entrer dans le jeu de ce sectarisme. Sa pensée et son action étaient larges, à la dimension du monde, c'est-à-dire catholique. Père du Concile qu'il était, il a signé en 1988, deux ans après le scandale d'Assise, un accord qu'il a dénoncé pour la seule raison qu'il était convaincu que Rome ne respecterait pas les accords (Délai du 15 août pour les consécrations épiscopales). En ce qui concerne la pseudo-résistance, il ne s'agit pas seulement de falsification de l'histoire. Ces gens-là élaborent, à partir de questions d'ordre pratique, d'intelligence, de diplomatie, une question de foi de leur propre crû.

— 2. Est-il possible que des injures, des calomnies proférées contre la direction de la Fraternité ces derniers temps puissent être imputées à une notion unilatérale de péché de la part de l'homme moderne qui ne considère pas comme une attitude peccamineuse de se considérer supérieur à tout et à chacun et se propre référence ?

— Voilà qui est bien dit, mais je crois que l'affaire est plus simple. Ces gens pratiquent plutôt avec grand zèle une religion qu'ils ne comprennent pas. Ils s'imaginent qu'il y a péché souvent là où il n'y en a pas (il se trouve parmi eux des moralistes, des jansénistes). Il est curieux que des gens, qui se considèrent comme les plus fidèles catholiques romains, ne craignent rien tant que Rome. Et ils n'ont plus qu'un ennemi : Mgr Fellay ! Comme nous l'avons dit, il s'agit d'une attitude de refus extrême de la réalité. Au fond, ils nourrissent une notion protestante de la foi. Leur foi et leur obéissance sont soumises à des critères subjectifs et personnels. Ce qui n'est pas catholique.

— 3. La « Résistance » ne fait pas recette en zone germanophone. Mais n'y a-t-il pas chez nous quelque chose de beaucoup plus dangereux, une sorte de « Résistance-soft », sans rébellion ouverte certes, mais un confort de type « Biedermeier allemand », empreint d'un isolement social et ecclésial?

— C'est certes un problème. Nous avons tout : notre prieuré, notre école élémentaire, notre communauté, notre évêque. Que désirons-nous de plus ? Les croyants sont souvent aussi culturellement des conservateurs qui ne souhaitent surtout aucun changement. C'est pourquoi nous ne sommes pas aussi missionnaires que nous le pourrions, parce que nous ne souhaitons pas la bienvenue à d'autres arrivants porteurs d'idées et d'expériences nouvelles, car l'accroissement d'une communauté équivaut toujours à un changement. Avec toutes les expériences traumatisantes vécues depuis plus de 50 ans maintenant, toute nouveauté est considérée comme suspecte. C'est pourquoi on se cantonne dans une attitude de refus.

Je n'établirais toutefois pas un lien entre ce phénomène et celui de la « Résistance ». Il s'agit d'un problème général qui nous touche tous. Cela explique certainement le scepticisme qu'inspirent les efforts déployés en vue d'une régularisation de la Fraternité, mais le problème est plus étendu. Il s'agit fondamentalement d'un défi d'ordre pastoral. Il y a certes des exceptions là où surgissent de nouvelles communautés, de nouveaux groupes comme en Afrique, à l'Est (Pologne), aux Philippines surtout, en Amérique du Nord, dans de jeunes communautés religieuses. Mais à l'échelle mondiale, on observe que se répand dans les anciens milieux traditionalistes bien établis une sorte de malaise général. C'est un sentiment de profonde lassitude, de déception aussi, de ras-le-bol diraient les Français, ce qui en allemand se dit « die Nase voll » (plein le dos, plus d'envie). Ce malaise touche les individus, mais aussi les familles, les collectivités, les communautés, l'apostolat. Mais comme nous l'avons dit, il y aussi des exceptions.

C'est ainsi qu'il y a peu l'abbé Udressy a déclaré, au Conseil général, que depuis quelques années un grand zèle et un véritable enthousiasme se développent dans la KJB (organisation de la jeunesse catholique). Aux premiers temps du mouvement traditionaliste, l'enthousiasme était général, omniprésent. Des conversions et vocations abondantes, des fondations et centres de messe dans le monde entier. Le point culminant de cet enthousiasme a été noté lors de l'événement des sacres des évêques en 1988. Même l'archevêque avait la ferme conviction alors que la crise s'apaiserait rapidement, que l'Eglise retrouverait bientôt la Tradition. Mais la crise dure, dure toujours, devenant de plus en plus grave. D'aucuns rêvaient encore d'une croissance exponentielle dans les années 80 ; mais entre-temps les vocations tarissent et ne permettent plus de combler les départs et de stabiliser les communautés. En deux mots : la réalité n'est pas aussi simple que bon nombre se l'était imaginée ; ou comme l'a formulé il y a peu le Supérieur Général : « Nous avons idéalisé notre situation. »

— 4. La direction de la Fraternité a-t-elle trahi en 2012 sa mission, la foi catholique et le chapitre général de 2006 ?

— Vous me posez la question ? Comme vous le savez, les uns disent que nous les avons trahis parce que nous ne nous sommes pas immédiatement accordés avec le Vatican, les autres parce que nous sommes en pourparlers avec le Saint Siège. Des deux côtés, on est totalement persuadé de son bon droit. Ce seul fait démontre que nous n'avons rien trahi, ni personne, mais que, dans ces temps difficiles, nous avons balisé notre route. A cela s'ajoute, et j'y insiste, que les déclarations d'un chapitre général ne sont pas des textes dogmatiques. Pas plus qu'un sermon du supérieur général ou la présente interview. Il ne s'agit pas de décisions infaillibles ; nous ne répondons qu'à certaines situations ou circonstances particulières. S'il s'agissait d'articles de foi, nous pourrions faire chaque fois la même déclaration. Aucun de nous, parmi les supérieurs, n'a pu s'imaginer en 2006 que le Saint Siège aurait retiré le décret d'excommunications de 1988 et que par un Motu proprio, le Pape déclarerait que la « Messe ancienne » n'a jamais été abrogée, qu'elle avait sa place au sein de l'Eglise .

En 2006, l'attitude de Rome à notre égard était agressive, apodictique : vous suivez ou dehors ! Depuis lors, quelque chose s'est mise en branle. Lors de la dernière rencontre avec le Cardinal Müller et la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, il est manifestement apparu que le Saint Siège se trouvait confronté à de gigantesques difficultés.

Le mouvement de la Tradition n'est plus désormais quantité négligeable, pas plus que les excentricités du pape et les canonisations en masse par ci par là. Il y a six ans, le Supérieur Général n'a pas été autorisé à célébrer à Lourdes lors du grand pèlerinage. Cette année, l'ordinaire nous souhaite la bienvenue et nos trois évêques célèbrent la messe dans la basilique des pèlerins. Nous devons garder cela sous les yeux : un cardinal-préfet s'oppose à un autre ; des cardinaux de la Sainte Eglise critiquent ouvertement le Pape, lequel met en débat des questions de morale ! Même à notre égard, la politique ne recueille plus l'unanimité : le Pape déclare clairement que nous sommes catholiques, un ordinaire décrète que nous sommes schismatiques... « L'unité » est là ; « Rome » n'est plus un bloc ; personne ne sait à quoi aboutira la réforme de la Curie.

— 5. Comprenez-vous des gens qui, dans nos milieux, ne se sentent plus à l'aise parce qu'en maint endroit des « pasteurs de prieuré suffisants » répandent un climat peu tolérant de légalisme et de moralisme ? Y a-t-il entre la tolérance indifférente et le libéralisme total, une tolérance et une libéralité catholiques que nous devons pratiquer ?

— Parfois ces « pasteurs suffisants » sont l'aiguillon dans la chair, qui veillent par ailleurs à ce que l'atmosphère reste ouverte, attrayante et missionnaire. Le silence du cimetière est en effet particulièrement dangereux. Il peut avoir son bon côté lorsque tout n'évolue pas toujours harmonieusement et que la charpente grince. Je connais naturellement ce genre de souci, que nous avons des vues trop étroites, trop figées ; nous en avons déjà parlé.

Encore une fois, la Fraternité est née de la résistance à l'effondrement de la vie religieuse après le Concile. Et ce fait donne naissance à une mentalité qui se refuse à vivre une nouvelle fois un tel cataclysme. Je le comprends. Aussi vaut-il mieux garder tout en l'état et adopter une attitude critique à l'égard de la nouveauté. Au début des années 70, le maintien de la notion « entre les femmes » était en quelque sorte la marque de la résistance à la nouveauté. La traduction par « Frau » au lieu de « Weib » déboucha sur une question de foi parce qu'on y voyait une attaque en règle contre le dogme de la Virginité de Marie. Naturellement notre époque est différente, la fumée s'est dissipée et nous ne pouvons faire du surplace. Mais il nous faut aussi convaincre, créer un climat de confiance, encourager.

Je vous accorde cependant que le fossé entre ce que nous considérons comme approprié et le quotidien s'élargit et que ce fait n'est pas toujours signe d'un effondrement du monde, mais peut être de notre part un refus de la réalité. La tolérance et la libéralité ont toujours été des caractères de l'Eglise, qui est une Eglise mondiale : grande, ancienne et toujours jeune. Dans la mesure où cette Eglise descend mieux le cours du torrent, ce qu'elle fait de toute évidence depuis le Concile et ses réformes, disparaît aussi cette dimension large et il ne subsiste que des petits groupes dotés souvent aussi d'un esprit étriqué. Aussi, ce sont précisément les jeunes qui devraient s'engager en faveur d'une libéralité catholique, voilà qui est important. On parlait autrefois de « libéralité bavaroise », fondée dans le domaine de l'Etat, mais aussi dans celui de l'Eglise sur deux principes : 1° Chez nous, c'est l'usage ; 2° « Vivre et laisser vivre »

— 6. N'y a-t-il de fruits spirituels que dans la FSSPX ? Si non, avec quels groupes ou communautés du rite ancien voyez-vous une possibilité de coopération ?

— "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus", ce qui vaut pour l'Una sancta, la sainte Eglise, dont la taille dépasse celle de la FSSPX ! Mais votre question est très importante et malheureusement très actuelle. Peut-être certains vont-ils penser que le mouvement traditionaliste est l'Eglise ; en dehors de chez nous, la vraie foi n'existe pas, pas plus que de fruits spirituels. Ce serait là une tentation en rien conforme à la nature de l'Eglise, ne pouvant pas même être justifiée par la crise ou les scandales se produisant dans l'Eglise. Elle résulte du fait que, tant dans la liturgie, et tout particulièrement dans l'art religieux, que dans la doctrine et la spiritualité (usages, dévotions, pratiques religieuses), on est tenté de confondre la véritable dimension de la Tradition avec les traditions c'est-à-dire avec la manière dont on s'est comporté au cours des deux derniers siècles en matière d'Eglise et de religion. Voyages à bas coût, mondialisme et multi-culturalisme, autant d'éléments d'ouverture et d'élargissement des horizons. Les traditions peuvent être si différentes, précieuses et fondées, sans toutefois relever de la loi naturelle. Ce qui est d'usage ici est impensable ailleurs et inversement.

Je suis revenu des Indes il y a quelques semaines et je pense immédiatement au « Dhoti », l'habit traditionnel de l'homme et au « Sari » pour la femme ; en termes simples, les hommes portent la robe et les femmes, le pantalon. A Tokyo, j'ai dû dire la messe dominicale sans chaussures, et aux Iles Fidji, j'ai été reçu avec des « Cava », boisson traditionnelle, infecte et qui, au surplus, vous démolit le foie. N'est-on pas tenté de stigmatiser de « moderniste », « libéral », « maçonnique », tout ce qui n'est pas conforme à la routine des 19ième et 20ième siècles. Une tradition aussi erronément conçue n'est pas attrayante, ne peut convaincre, pas plus d'ailleurs qu'on ne peut édifier l'Eglise selon l'image qu'on en a des années 50 ou selon les arguments mis en valeur dans les années 70. Il faut un vaste travail de formation et d'information, de l'intelligence et de l'esprit de discernement. Les clichés et arguments à l'emporte-pièce ne sont pas constructifs. Il s'agit au contraire de découvrir le vaste trésor de la Tradition et de la chrétienté. Je pense souvent que si nous n'y réussissons pas au cours des prochaines années, il nous sera très difficile de transmettre la Tradition de manière convaincante.

Seule l'Eglise est universelle et parfaite ; elle ne s'enrichit pas de l'extérieur, pas même auprès d'autres religions. Toutefois les communautés ecclésiales ont souvent besoin de l'Eglise.

Le mouvement de la Tradition est un membre de l'Eglise et a-t-il besoin de l'Eglise générale ou d'autres éléments de l'Eglise ou se déclare-t-il tout simplement « l'Eglise », voilà la question ? S'il n'est qu'une partie de l'Eglise, quoique des plus importantes, il ne détient pas tout le trésor de l'Eglise et de sa Tradition et ne peut se dispenser de prendre contact avec d'autres communautés et de s'approprier d'autres éléments dont elle n'est pas en possession. Il serait trop simpliste de taxer de stérile, hérétique ou conciliaire tout ce qui n'est pas conforme à nos vues. Ceci étant, il existe divers degrés d'ordre théologique dans les décisions et définitions de l'Eglise. Une hérésie, une erreur condamnée par l'Eglise, une erreur selon notre jugement et un avis d'ordre théologique, voilà autant de différences ! Selon l'ancien principe «Lex orandi est lex credendi » (on croit selon la manière de prier), on peut affirmer – ce que confirment bien des statistiques – que la catholicité demeurera durablement là seulement où la liturgie et la prédication concordent, là seulement où il y a des fruits spirituels et la possibilité de rénovation de l'Eglise. Lorsque le prophète Elie, abattu, souhaitait mourir, parce que, pendant plusieurs années, il s'était en vain battu contre le paganisme et l'infidélité du peuple et pensait être demeuré le seul vrai croyant, Dieu dut lui enseigner qu'il en restait encore 7000 qui ne s'étaient pas agenouillés devant Baal (III Rois 19, 18). « N'éteignez pas l'Esprit », dit l'apôtre Saint Paul. Nous connaissons la fameuse parole du Christ : « Qui n'est pas avec moi est contre moi » (Mc 9, 38-40)

Nous faisons partie d'un mouvement de rénovation puisant à la Tradition, d'où sa vigueur. Nous en sommes un élément important pour le sauvetage de la liturgie romaine qui, en fait, est l'œuvre de Mgr Lefebvre, élément même indispensable. Nous en sommes fiers. C'est tout à fait particulier, une élection ! Cela ne signifie pas que tous les autres valent moins ou ne produisent pas de fruits spirituels et que celui qui penserait cela prenne garde de tomber. On peut avoir l'impression parfois que le mouvement de rénovation achoppe parce que malheureusement il n'est pas uni. Les autres ne coopèrent pas réellement avec nous parce qu'à leurs yeux, nous sommes à « l'extérieur » et notre Résistance ne veut pas coopérer avec eux parce qu'ils sont à « l'intérieur ». La division n'est jamais œuvre du Christ.

— 7. La Fraternité Saint-Pie X en tant que « famille spirituelle » éprouve de très graves problèmes. Comment peut-on se comporter à l'égard des semeurs de division, tant les laïques trompés que les prêtres désobéissants ? Les « normaux » ne sont-ils pas non plus responsables de la situation actuelle parce que – ce qu'on ne peut pas à tout le moins reprocher aux « opposant » - ils sont souvent moins zélés et moins intéressés par le combat de la foi ?

— Je récuse l'assertion que nous serions confrontés à de très graves difficultés. Ce n'est pas aussi simple. Certes les difficultés existent mais la grâce produit aussi des merveilles. Et je pense à la propagation de la foi, la fidélité dans les petites choses, les nombreuses belles familles catholiques, les âmes soucieuses de leur sanctification.

Dans quelques jours, je m'envolerai pour l'Afrique pour visiter nos missions dans cinq pays. Au Kenya, la Fraternité a fondé une nouvelle communauté de sœurs missionnaires et les vocations arrivent du monde entier en nombre supérieur à nos possibilités d'accueil.

Je ne crois pas que les difficultés soient imputables aux quelques départs. Voyez, nous formons un mouvement issu du refus des réformes instaurées à la suite de Vatican II. Nous représentions le canot de sauvetage pour bon nombre de catholiques vraiment pieux qui, dans les années 70 et 80, ne se sont tout à coup plus reconnus dans leur Eglise et qui, pour cette raison, sont attachés à ce qu'ils détiennent. Mais il nous faut maintenant expliquer que nous ne vivons plus à cette époque, que la situation a poursuivi son évolution et que, de ce fait, nous devons continuellement nous repositionner. Les croyants se rendent compte aussi que la crise de l'Eglise n'est pas résolue, qu'elle empire même. Il en résulte donc une contradiction interne entre l'expérience et les préoccupations des uns, d'une part, et les attentes des autres, d'autre part, en dehors de la réalité. Cette contradiction, je n'en disconviens pas, nous incite à agir. Nous avons échappé au naufrage après le Concile mais pour cela précisément, nous sommes confrontés à de nouvelles difficultés en raison de la particularité de notre situation.

Les questions que vous avez posées au cours de la présente interview ont clairement fait ressortir les véritables problèmes et ce n'est pas un mal car souvent nous ne percevons que le danger du modernisme religieux, et Scylla est près de Charybde. Dans une certaine mesure, les problèmes auxquels nous sommes confrontés sont tout simplement imputables à la crise de l'Eglise et à notre situation spécifique, mais par ailleurs aussi au comportement erroné des hommes.

Dans ces circonstances, il nous faut convaincre, argumenter, être gagnants. Je souhaite qu'on réfute plus nettement ces porte-paroles évoqués plus haut, qui s'affichent comme zélés défenseurs d'une religion, qui ne connaissent aucune mesure et combattent une Eglise qui les dépasse. Ce mauvais esprit ne nous gêne pas réellement. Ces gens ne sont pas des croyants zélés mais des fanatiques dévots ; ils doivent se rendre compte qu'ils ne représentent pas les croyants mais seulement eux-mêmes. C'est à cette tâche que sont invités tous les croyants et particulièrement la jeunesse. Les tempêtes continuent à rugir, les discussions et querelles qui ont marqué le synode des évêques à Rome au sujet de la famille sont choquantes, tandis que le Supérieur Général de la Fraternité prêche la vertu d'espérance à Lourdes ! Pas de théories de conspiration, pas d'apocalypse mais « Spem contra spem » (Rom 4, 18), espérance contre toute espérance. Voilà qui est catholique.

Au paroxysme de la révolution de mai 68, trois ans après le Concile, Mgr Lefebvre adressait aux membres de la communauté dont il était alors le supérieur général un article qu'il est bon de relire encore, intitulé : « Pourquoi nous sommes optimistes ? ». Et il donne deux raisons : la foi catholique que nous avons reçue de l'Eglise et une nouvelles jeunesse qui s'enthousiasme pour une vie chrétienne.
----------
Propos recueillis par M. Schäppi, rédacteur en chef de Der Gerade Weg à la fin de l'automne 2014

Source


 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member



We just finished the english translation this morning. Here it is:




Source: [URL=http://www.francefidele.org/]www.francefidele.org/




A FRIGHTENING INTERVIEW OF FATHER PFLUGER


The Society in the crisis - Seven questions to Fr. Pfluger


The first assistant of the Superior General of the SSPX is going around the world visiting the various houses of the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. We can call him a fine connoisseur of the Society. So Fr. Pfluger has extensive information and does not hesitate to tackle even unpleasant questions. This is what he did in this interview with DGW on the current crisis of authority within the Society.


1. Father, it seems that the zealous protagonists of the “resistance” have become the reference concerning the life of Archbishop Lefebvre. According to them, the founder of the Society was a stubborn fanatic, not very relaxed and not very diplomatic. Is this is a falsification of history?


_ It is not a question of reference. On the contrary, the so-called resistance, it would rather be better to describe as "pseudo-resistance", is already divided on this interpretation. The fiercest of them openly declare that Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken because he did not fundamentally renounce any contact with the Holy See and a regularization of the Society’s position.


It is normal to try to legitimize the present situation by history and the teachings of the latter. So we are tempted to represent past events and characters in light favorable to current theses. The "Resistance" is doing everything it can to exploit the Archbishop in favour of his ideas. However he was too Catholic, too partisan of the universal Church to enter the game of sectarianism. His thought and action were broad, as large as the world, that is to say Catholic. Father of the Council that he was, he signed in 1988, two years after the scandal of Assisi, an accord that he denounced for the sole reason that he was convinced that Rome would not respect the accords (Postponed episcopal consecrations to August 15th).


Regarding the pseudo-resistance, it is not only a falsification of history. These people develop, from issues of a practical order, intelligence, and diplomacy, a matter of faith of their own creation.


2. Is it possible that insults, calumny pronounced against the direction of the Society in recent times can be attributed to a unilateral notion of sin on the part of modern man who does not consider as a sinful attitude the considering of oneself as superior to everything and everyone to his own reference?


_ This is well said, but I think the case is more simple. These people practice with great zeal a religion they do not understand. They think that there is sin often where there is none (there is among them moralists, Jansenists). It is strange that people, who consider themselves as the most faithful Roman Catholics, fear nothing as much as Rome. And they have only one enemy: Bishop Fellay! As we have said, it is an attitude of extreme denial of reality.


Basically, they are feeding a Protestant notion of the faith. Their faith and their obedience are submitted to subjective and personal criteria. This is not Catholic.


3. The "Resistance" does not work in German-speaking areas. But is there not here something much more dangerous, a kind of "passive Resistance" without open rebellion certainly, but a comfort-type of it, "German Biedermeier", marked by social and ecclesial isolation?


_ It is certainly a problem. We have everything: our priory, our elementary school, our community, our bishop. What do we want more? The believers are often also culturally conservative who do not desire any change. That's why we're not as missionary as we could be, because we do not wish to welcome others who carry new ideas and experiences, as the growth of a community always amounts to change. With all the traumatic experiences lived over the past 50 years now, every innovation is considered suspicious. This is why we confine ourselves to an attitude of refusal. However, I wouldn’t establish a link between this phenomenon and that of the "Resistance". This is a general problem that affects us all. This certainly explains the skepticism that inspired the efforts deployed in view of a regularization of the Society, but the problem is more extensive. It is fundamentally a challenge of a pastoral order.


There certainly are exceptions where new communities arise, new groups such as Africa, the East (Poland), especially the Philippines, in North America, in young religious communities. But globally, we see that a sort of general malaise permeates the old, well-established traditionalist centers. It is a feeling of profound weariness, of disappointment too, of ras-le-bol as the French would say which in German is “die Nase voll" (enough is enough). This malaise affects individuals, but also families, collectivities, communities, the apostolate. But as we have said, there are also exceptions. Thus a little while ago, Fr. Udressy said, to the General Council, that in recent years a great zeal and genuine enthusiasm is developing in the KJB (Catholic Youth Organization). In the early days of the traditionalist movement, the enthusiasm was general, omnipresent. Conversions and abundant vocations, foundations and Mass centers worldwide. The highlight of this enthusiasm was the consecration of the bishops in 1988. Even the archbishop had the firm conviction at this moment that the crisis would die down quickly, that the Church would soon go back to Tradition. But the crisis continues, still continues, becoming more and more serious. Some were still dreaming of an exponential growth in the 80s; but since that time, vocations are diminishing and no longer make up for the departures and stabilizations of the communities. In two words: the reality is not as simple as many imagined it; or as the Superior General formulated a little while ago: “We have idealized our situation.”


4. In 2012, did the leadership of the Society betray its mission, the Catholic faith, and the General Chapter of 2006?


You ask me the question? As you know, some say that we betrayed them because we did not immediately make an accord with the Vatican, others because we are in talks with the Holy See. Both sides are totally convinced that they are right. This fact alone shows that we have not betrayed anything, or anybody, but that in these difficult times, we have marked our path. Add to this, and I insist, that the statements of a general chapter are not dogmatic texts. No more than a sermon of the superior general or this interview. It is not about infallible decisions; we only reply to certain situations or particular circumstances. If it was about articles of the faith, we would be able to make the same declaration every time.


None of us, amongst the superiors, could have imagined in 2006 that the Holy See would remove the 1988 decree of excommunications and that by a Motu proprio, the Pope would declare that the "old Mass" was never abrogated, that it had its place within the Church. In 2006, Rome's attitude towards us was aggressive, apodictic: you follow or you’re out! Since then something has happened. At the last meeting with Cardinal Müller and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it clearly appeared that the Holy See was facing huge difficulties. The traditionalist movement is no longer a negligible quantity, no more than the eccentricities of the Pope and the mass canonizations here and there.


Six years ago, the Superior General was not allowed to celebrate Mass in Lourdes during the great pilgrimage. This year, the ordinary welcomes us and our three bishops celebrate Mass in the pilgrim Basilica. We need to keep this in mind: a Cardinal-Prefect opposes another; Cardinals of the Holy Church openly criticize the Pope, which puts moral questions into debate! Even regarding us, the policy is no longer unanimity: the Pope clearly states that we are Catholics, an ordinary decrees that we are schismatics ... "Unity" is there; "Rome" is no longer a block; nobody knows what the reform of the Curia will lead to.


5. Do you understand people who, in our centers, do not feel comfortable because in many places “autonomous pastors of priories" spread a climate that is not tolerant of legalism and moralism? Between indifferent tolerance and total liberalism, are there a tolerance and a Catholic liberality that we need to practice?


Sometimes these "autonomous pastors" are the sting in the flesh, who also ensure that the atmosphere remains open, attractive and missionary. The silence of the cemetery is in effect especially dangerous. It may have its good side when things do not always move along harmoniously and when the frame creaks. Of course, I know this kind of concern, that we have views that are too narrow, too frozen; we have already spoken of this. Again, the Society was born from the resistance to the collapse of the religious life after the Council. And this fact gives rise to a mentality that refuses to live once more in such a cataclysm. I understand that. So is it better to keep everything as is and adopt a critical attitude towards novelty. In the early 70s, maintaining the phrase "amongst women" {in the Hail Mary} was as it were a sign of resistance to novelty. The translation by "Frau" instead of "Weib" (note: without object in French) resulted in a matter of faith because we saw it as a sustained attack against the dogma of the Virginity of Mary.


Naturally our time is different, the smoke cleared and we cannot stand still. But we must also convince, create a climate of confidence, and encourage. I grant you, however, that the gap between what we consider to be appropriate and the actual facts widens and that this fact is not always a sign of a crumbling of the world, but can be on our part a refusal of reality. Tolerance and liberality have always been characters of the Church, which is a universal Church: great, ancient and ever young. To the extent that this Church follows the down current better, which it obviously does since the Council and its reforms, this wide dimension also disappears and there remain only small groups endowed often also with a narrow mind. Also, it is precisely the youth who should commit themselves to a Catholic liberality, that's important. It was once spoken of as "Bavarian liberality" founded in the domain of the State, but also in that of the Church on two principles: 1. For us, this is what we always do; 2. "Live and let live"


6. Are there spiritual fruits only in the SSPX? If not, with which groups or communities of the old rite do you see a possibility of cooperation?


Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which applies to the Una Sancta, the Holy Church, whose size exceeds that of the SSPX! But your question is very important and unfortunately very timely. Maybe some people will think that the traditionalist movement is the Church; apart from us, the true faith does not exist, not more than spiritual fruits. This would be a temptation which has nothing in common with the nature of the Church, which cannot even be justified by the crisis or scandals occurring in the Church. It results from the fact that as much in the liturgy, and especially in religious art, as in doctrine and spirituality (customs, devotions, religious practices), it is tempting to confuse the true dimension of Tradition with traditions, that is to say, with the way they behaved in the last two centuries in matters of Church and religion. Travel at low cost, globalism and multiculturalism, as many elements of opening and expanding horizons. Traditions can be so different, precious and justified, without falling under the natural law. What is considered normal here is considered unthinkable elsewhere and vice versa. I returned from India a few weeks ago and I immediately think of the "Dhoti", the traditional dress of men and of the "Sari" for women; in simple terms, men wear the dress and women, the pants. In Tokyo, I had to say Sunday Mass without shoes, and in the Fiji islands, I was received with some "Cava", a traditional drink, disgusting and which, moreover, destroys the liver.


Are we not tempted to label "modernist", "liberal", "Masonic" anything that does not conform to the routine of the 19th and 20th centuries? A tradition also erroneously conceived is not attractive, cannot convince nor indeed can we build the Church according to the image we have of it from the 50s or according to the arguments highlighted in 70s. We need a comprehensive work of formation and information, of the intelligence and of the discernment of the spirit. Clichés and sweeping statements are not constructive. On the contrary, we have to discover the vast treasure of Tradition and of Christianity. I often think that if we are not successful in the coming years, it will be very difficult to convincingly transmit Tradition.


Only the Church is universal and perfect; it is not enriched from the outside, not even from other religions. However, ecclesial communities often need the Church. The traditional movement is a member of the Church, and does it need the general Church or other elements of the Church or does it simply call itself "the Church", this is the question? If it is only a part of the Church, though one of the most important, it does not have all the treasure of the Church and its Tradition and cannot avoid having contact with other communities and take for itself other elements that it is not in possession of. It would be too simplistic to call anything that does not conform to our views sterile, heretical, or conciliar. That said, there are varying degrees of theological order in the decisions and definitions of the Church. A heresy, an error condemned by the Church, an error in our judgment and an opinion of theological order, there are so many differences!


According to the ancient principle "Lex orandi lex credendi" (we believe the way we pray), we can say - what many statistics confirm - that catholicity will remain sustainable only where the liturgy and preaching are consistent with each other, there only where there are spiritual fruits and the possibility of the reform of the Church.


When the prophet Elijah, beaten, wanted to die, because for many years he had unsuccessfully fought against the paganism and infidelity of the people and thought himself to be the only true believer alive, God had to teach him that there were still 70 000 who didn’t kneel in front of Baal (III Kings 19, 18).


"Do not extinguish the Spirit," says the apostle Saint Paul. We know the famous words of Christ: "He who is not with me is against me" (Mk 9: 38-40). We are part of a movement of reform drawing on Tradition, from where comes its vigor. We are an important element of it for the rescue of the Roman liturgy which, in fact, is the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, even an indispensable element. We are proud of it. It's very special, like an election! This does not mean that all the others have less value or do not produce spiritual fruits and that he who would think this, take heed lest he fall. We can have the impression sometimes that the reform movement is failing because unfortunately it is not united. Others did not really cooperate with us because in their eyes, we are on the "outside" and our Resistance does not want to cooperate with them because they are on the "inside". Division is never the work of Christ.


7. The Society of Saint Pius X as a "spiritual family" is having very serious problems. How can we act towards the sowers of division, mistaken laypeople as well as disobedient priests? The "normal" are they not also responsible for the current situation because - what we cannot at least blame the "opponent" - they are often less zealous and less interested in the combat of the faith?


I reject the claim that we would be confronted with very serious difficulties. It's not that simple. Certainly there are difficulties but grace also produces wonders. And I am thinking about the propagation of the faith, fidelity in little things, the many beautiful Catholic families, souls conscious of their sanctification. In a few days I will fly to Africa to visit our missions in five countries. In Kenya, the Society has founded a new community of missionary sisters and vocations come from around the world in quantities larger than our possibilities of receiving them.


I do not think that the difficulties are attributable to some departures. See, we are forming a movement coming from the refusal of the reforms established in the wake of Vatican II. We represented the lifeboat for a good number of truly pious Catholics who, in the 70s and 80s, suddenly did not feel to be part of their church and who, for this reason, attached themselves to what they already held. But now we have to explain that we are no longer living in that time, that the situation has continued to evolve and that, therefore, we must continually reposition ourselves. The believers also realize that the crisis of the Church is not resolved, that it is even worse. The result is therefore an internal contradiction between the experience and the preoccupations of some on the one side, and the expectations of the others, on the other side, outside of reality. This contradiction, I don’t try to hide it, pushes us to act.


We escaped shipwreck after the Council but precisely because of that, we are facing new difficulties due to the particularity of our situation. The questions you asked in this interview clearly showed the real problems and it is not wrong because often we do not perceive the danger of religious modernism, Scylla is near Charybdis. To some extent, the problems we face are simply related to the crisis of the Church and to our specific situation, but also to the erroneous behavior of men. In these circumstances, we have to convince, argue, and be winners. I hope that we refute more clearly these spokespersons mentioned above, who declare themselves as zealous defenders of a religion, which knows no measure and fights a Church that is beyond them. This evil spirit does not really bother us. These people are not zealous believers but devout fanatics; they must realize that they do not represent the believers, but only themselves. It is to this task that all believers are invited and especially the youth.


Storms continue to roar, discussions and quarrels that marked the synod of the bishops in Rome on the family are shocking, while the Superior General of the Society preaches the virtue of hope at Lourdes! No conspiracy theories, no Apocalypse, but "Spem contra spem" (Rom 4: 18), hope against all hope. That is Catholic. At the height of the May Revolution 68, three years after the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre addressed to the members of the community of which he was the Superior General an article that is good to reread again, entitled "Why we are optimistic?” And he gives two reasons: the Catholic faith that we have received from the Church, and a new youth that is enthusiastic for a Christian life.


Interview conducted by Mr. Schäppi, editor of DGW in late autumn 2014.


Source: [URL=http://dergeradeweg.com/2014/12/31/glaubige-eiferer-vs-eifrige-glaubige/]dergeradeweg.com/2014/12/31/glaubige-eiferer-vs-eifrige-glaubige/











 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
This is a serious interview in official representation of the Superior General and the whole of Menzingen.

My comments:

#1
• It is typical to change the real subject with red herrings into something else.

• It is typical in those red herrings to form an exaggeration of the resistance to be a “mole”.

• So Fr. Pfluger describe it as a "pseudo” situation; he is right, the attempts of himself and Bishop Fellay are indeed such.

• Fr. Pfluger stated that ABL “signed in 1988, two years after the scandal of Assisi, an accord that he denounced for the sole reason that he was convinced that Rome would not respect the accords”, pray tell, is the environment any different today with conciliar Rome for Menzingen to sign as they want too?


#2
• Fr. Pfluger said:
“These people practice with great zeal a religion they do not understand. They think that there is sin often where there is none (there is among them moralists, Jansenists). It is strange that people, who consider themselves as the most faithful Roman Catholics, fear nothing as much as Rome. And they have only one enemy: Bishop Fellay! As we have said, it is an attitude of extreme denial of reality.
"Basically, they are feeding a Protestant notion of the faith. Their faith and their obedience are submitted to subjective and personal criteria. This is not Catholic.”

Fr. Pfluger said: “Sin where there is none…denial of reality…protestant notion of the faith…not catholic
; really?

Facts are not important in this conversation; such as the SINS of faith he and Bishop Fellay committed with their Official Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012; such as the DENIAL of its existence; such as their PROTESTANT acceptance of the Legitimacy of the Protestant Novus Ordo Mass; such as the n-sspx’s NON-CATHOLIC attitude of deliberately ecumenizing with Vatican II principles that is causing the greatest apostasy in the Church while promoting the French Revolution to crucify Christ again; poor Pharisees. Who is calling the Kettle Black?

• This process of non-rational attack and distractions of childish name calling is the same mode of operation that Vatican II drove against its enemies, as well as being the same mark that all the others religions act when attacking the Catholic Fatih; history repeats itself; this time in the n-sspx


#3
• Fr. Pfluger openly states that there is a need of “change”; a need to “welcome others who carry new ideas and experiences….inspir[ing] the efforts deployed in view of a regularization of the Society.”; and is determined to change the thinking within their n-sspx “pastoral order”.

• Fr. Pfluger declares that the n-sspx has been on a decline of vocations and can no longer make up for the departures of priests and stabilizations of their communities. Well derrr…you inject the poisons of Vatican II and the body suffers. Anybody home…?

• Fr. Pfluger agrees with the Superior General’s recent formulation of regret: “We have idealized our situation.” That is an interesting statement. He had said that the old-sspx had “idealized” the Catholic faith as one and unique for salvation? Bien sur! Of course! So the n-sspx problem is evident –they do not.


#4
• Fr. Pfluger states that circumstances overrule the Doctrine and protections of the Faith.

• Fr. Pfluger states that the maneuver of the Romans game of chess in the bogus Motu proprio, putting the real Divine Sacrifice as second place, and the false lifting of the excommunications as a circumstance that obliges them to drop the stability of Doctrine as means of conversion.

• Fr. Pfluger states that with the Romans throwing them a bone to say the mass at Lourdes Basilica is a “conversion” getting closer to “tradition”; therefore the n-sspx needs to be open in alike superficial dialog.


#5
• Fr. Pfluger believes that if they do not update themselves to conciliar thought, it would then be “on our part a refusal of reality.”


#6
• Fr. Pfluger does not believe in this crisis that Catholic Tradition, and the holding of the fort in the Traditional Communities, is the only form of the Faith that gives life and salvation. He instead is justifying the word Tradition in merge with a modernist expression to include life in “removing your shoes or having a traditional drink” that incorporates “spiritual fruits” (sic). To understand his babbles, is to understand that they are already inside dancing with the ecumenical environment and having communion with the new thinkers; thus this is the type of conversation and thinking one has when in that dark path of reconciliation into Vatican II.

• Fr. Pfluger believes that the course of the old-sspx was not tolerant enough in understanding Tradition, rather being outmoded, and needs to update itself to new understandings: “I often think that if we are not successful in the coming years, it will be very difficult to convincingly transmit [this new] tradition.”

• Amazingly, Fr. Pfluger states: “It would be too simplistic to call anything that does not conform to our views sterile, heretical, or conciliar." What side is he on? It is too simplistic to discern and judge something that does not conform to the Catholic Faith to be “sterile, heretical, or conciliar”. What poison!

• Fr. Pfluger is trying to build a justification to fit True Tradition into the mold that the “conciliar church IS the Catholic Church” –ABL had adamantly condemned that modernistic concept.

• Fr. Pfluger states that the Eclessia Dei communities and the whole conciliar church has value and spiritual fruits for salvation: “This does not mean that all the others have less value or do not produce spiritual fruits and that he who would think this, take heed lest he fall. We can have the impression sometimes that the reform movement [the old guard of the sspx and Traditional communities] is failing because unfortunately it is not united [with the conciliar communities]. Others did not really cooperate with us because in their eyes, we are on the "outside" and our [old] Resistance does not want to cooperate with them because they are on the "inside". Division is never the work of Christ.” Result: justify our differences and RECONCILE. Kumbaya…!


#7
• Fr. Pfluger states that the sspx is NOT having serious difficulties with the civil war it is confronted with: “I reject the claim that we would be confronted with very serious difficulties.” Yet, his Superior General stated in his letter to the Pope, that “I committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications.” www.therecusant.com/fellay-bxviletterjun12

• Fr. Pfluger states that since the modernism in the church is not changing to Tradition, then we must “reposition ourselves” to “evolve” and change with them.

• Fr. Pfluger stated that the n-sspx is committed to upgrade “In these circumstances, we have to convince, argue, and be winners.” And with a task to especially go after the “youth”. Typical communist tactic; when you cannot convince the adults with their errors, go after the innocence of the youth.


Conclusion:

The n-sspx is determined to “reconcile” with the terms of conciliar Rome. The deal is done!

 

cleopas

Well-Known Member

"The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the vine, if it does not live from the root."

Source: Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (On Liberalism), August 15, 1832
 

Admin

Administrator

Thank you very much Unbrandable for the translation.



The casuistry is worthy of Fr. Pfluger's ancestor
. The High Priest, Caiaphas, would be very proud of him indeed. Cor Mariae allots to Father Pfluger the highest Star of His Order :


"The n-sspx is determined to “reconcile” with the terms of conciliar Rome. The deal is done!"

AMEN!


How deeply urgent it is to pray for Bishop Fellay, for as Fr. Hewko said, 'If I had signed that Declaration(2012) I would go to hell'.



See here : Loving One's Nighbour as Oneself

Father Hewko used the very same words of our beloved Archbishop Lefebvre when he 'accused the council'. He said then, that he had to save his soul, and if he had not done his duty he would go to hell.

Definition of 'casuistry'
specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, especially in questions of morality; fallacious or dishonest application of general principles; sophistry.


 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member



What indoctrination there is in this interview! Father Pfluger certainly is a liberal and a progressivist.


His liberal spirit is evident throughout the interview when he makes comments such as Resistance people (conservatives) having erroneous behaviour and ideas, denying reality, having a “Protestant notion of the faith”, and being “devout fanatics”.


His progressive spirit is seen when he says that times have changed and that we have to move on and reposition ourselves, not be so narrow and frozen in our views, and that the SSPX has to be more attractive and convincing and less stuck in the past. Archbishop Lefebvre said, <em>“This is the definition of progressivists: to know what modern society would eventually be able to accept as Catholicism. So, it is to this level of Catholicism that one must reduce himself. Catholicism has to be abandoned to the extent that it goes against modern society.” </em>(Conference in Econe, December 1973). Father Pfluger fits this description.


It’s also alarming to read him appealing to the youth and talking about the youth as the hope for the future. The SSPX is after our youth and is getting them through youth groups, youth activities, scouts, camps, etc. (they did it here in the SSPX chapel in Quebec). Watch out for your children!


I heard from an SSPX priest that when Father Scott was shown a liberal comment made by one of the SSPX leaders during this present crisis, he brushed it off by saying something like, “Oh, that’s just the liberal side of the Society.” This may be true. There have always been conservatives and liberals within the Society. But what happens when the liberals become more numerous, more vocal, or are in more powerful positions of authority? (answer: a new direction/orientation of the SSPX)


 
E

ecclesiamilitans

Guest
unbrandable said:
<span style="font-size:10pt;">His liberal spirit is evident throughout the interview when he makes comments such as Resistance people (conservatives) having erroneous behaviour and ideas, denying reality, having a “Protestant notion of the faith”, and being “devout fanatics”.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;">within the Society. But what happens when the liberals become more numerous, more vocal, or are in more powerful positions of authority? (answer: a new direction/orientation of the SSPX) </span>
Kinda sounds like what Novus Ordinarians used to say about the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.
 
A

ajnc

Guest
I wish you all would resume posting on CI/ABL . It's important that people know what's happening in the SSPX. The alleged differences between Fr Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson seem to have disheartened some people. The Resistance posts are down, especially at CI.
 

Admin

Administrator
<div class="quote" source="/post/5049/thread" timestamp="1422435065" author="@ajnc"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jan 28, 2015 8:51:05 GMT @ajnc said:</div>I wish you all would resume posting on CI/ABL . It's important that people know what's happening in the SSPX. The alleged differences between Fr Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson seem to have disheartened some people. The Resistance posts are down, especially at CI.<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>Anybody and everybody can view whatever is posted on Cor Mariae. There is no requirement to become members. There is more than one member here that has been banned, or had posts deleted, from the two sites you mention AND more than once. The information here is available to everyone. And please feel free to post any links to Cor Mariae's material on other forums.
 

petrus

Member
I think that it is abundantly clear that a deal has be made albeit verbal, (e.g. recognition of tolerance) but now comes the task of lulling the laity to sleep so that Menzingen so safely sign an accord.
 

susainathar

New Member
Fr. PFLUGER: "Father of the Council that he was, he signed in 1988, two years after the scandal of Assisi, an accord that he denounced for the sole reason that he was convinced that Rome would not respect the accords (Postponed episcopal consecrations to August 15th)."

Fr. Laisney in his book Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican has this following comment on Page 93:
This May 5th Protocol had several flaws. In the present letter His Grace takes one, the most urgent one: the vagueness of the Protocol concerning the consecrations of bishops: no date fixed, no candidate agreed upon...

sole reason vs several flaws!



 

Admin

Administrator

The following conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at Montreal, Canada in 1982. It demonstrates by personal experience the tragic corruption of modernism right from the time of Pope Pius XI. The Archbishop describes the extraordinary influence of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini in the framing of the New Mass and how his unprecedented daring brought about the "approval" of this protestantized liturgy. This account of his personal experiences is the very clear demonstration of why Archbishop Lefebvre had to disobey so as to not participate in the self-destruction of the Church. We present it to our readers to allow them to share a more personal viewpoint of the Archbishop's battle for the Church and for the Faith
.

An extract:
INFILTRATORS IN THE CHURCH TO DESTROY IT

[...]Yes, I am a rebel. Yes, I am a dissident. Yes, I am disobedient to people like those Bugninis. For they have infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other explanation.

Are we then going to contribute to the destruction of the Church? Will we say: "Yes, yes, amen'; even if it is the enemy who has penetrated right to the Holy Father and who is able to make the Holy Father sign what he wants? We don't really know under what pressure he did it. There are hidden things, which clearly escape us. Some say that it is Freemasonry. It's possible. I do not know. In any case, there is a mystery[...]


Please Note the Source
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Admin said:
<div class="quote" source="/post/5049/thread" timestamp="1422435065" author="@ajnc"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jan 28, 2015 8:51:05 GMT @ajnc said:</div>I wish you all would resume posting on CI/ABL . It's important that people know what's happening in the SSPX. The alleged differences between Fr Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson seem to have disheartened some people. The Resistance posts are down, especially at CI.
Anybody and everybody can view whatever is posted on Cor Mariae. There is no requirement to become members. There is more than one member here that has been banned, or had posts deleted, from the two sites you mention AND more than once. The information here is available to everyone. And please feel free to post any links to Cor Mariae's material on other forums.
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>As the Spirit moves, so do souls.

If I may add in your fair observations ajnc, that the two forums that you mentioned with the "resistance posts are down" is actually indicative to the hosting and type of members who are really not interested in this fight waged upon us and our families.

As you know, there is a real war against us; and with the Catholic Resistance Priests, I with others here will not put our swords down to entertain illusions. Christ is certainly serious; and He is asking us to respond like to like.

As the saying is also fair: "Birds of a feather flock together".

Cor Mariae is established as a honest and hard working Catholic Forum who is serious to inform and organize around the banner of Archbishop Lefebvre -God's Saint of our times. In which I would like to take the opportunity to thank the administrator here at Cor Mariae for her dedication to have an environment to help us understand these issues which try to apostate us each day.

It is through the Heart of Mary that we will see Wisdom.

May she triumph in all hearts; and let the fire spread...

 

cleopas

Well-Known Member
Archbishop Speaks, "The Infiltration of Modernism in the Catholic Church";

I have heard it said that to study the history of the Roman Catholic Church is to cease being protestant. For us, Catholics, to study the history of the Roman Catholic Church is to be fervent. The fight for the Faith of all time is a battle that has been fought before. The succession of heroes in our fight are the saints. The saints that are read each day in the Roman Martyrology. The ones who would not burn incenses to an idol. And because they would not burn incense to an idol, by the command of the emperor, they watched as their whole family was tortured before them in an effort to break them. And the mothers cried out to their sons to be strong. Telling them to keep the Faith. The pain will not last, shortly you will be in the arms of God in Heaven. Fight thru, fight on. Be faithful, be strong.

For us, reading an article like the one mentioned above, it is that mother, crying to her sons and daughters, keep the Faith. The Faith, which maybe you have from birth, or maybe you had it, and you lost it, because of Vatican II. And through the Grace of God, many Rosaries and many battles, little by little you were shown the right path again. So through this cooperation with the Grace and all the spiritual death witnessed along the way, you never want this to happen again.

And to prevent this from happening again, we have to learn about what happened. And when the Archbishop Speaks, he tells us. And as we learn and know we become more committed to the sacraments and study. We embrace morning and evening prayers. We realize the power of the Rosary and a devotion to the Blessed Mother. The Doctrine of the Catholic Faith makes perfect sense. The more we thirst spiritually and seek God, the more he reveals to us. Our lives take on new meaning. We no longer can indulge the shallowness of television. We start to substitute this freed up time by reading books, for example, by Archbishop Lefebvre. The conversations we have, now, seem to involve the Catholic Faith and the problems sin brings into the world. Therefore we begin, to think about those last four things, heaven, hell, death and judgement. Knowing more now, than before, that souls are at stake. And we see the richness that the Catholic Faith contributes to our lives, our families and others, we thirst. And as we thirst, we know there is only one thing that will quench our thirst.

So as we learn, we appreciate what has been given to us, or back to us, and we learn how it was taken away from us in the first place.

In this article, mentioned above, we have the proof of the workings of Vatican II, from a witness, Archbishop Lefebvre. We should be ever grateful, that we too may be defenders of the Truth, and defenders of those who stand for the Truth.

Many thanks for the the time consuming research and the quality of articles presented on this site.

Not unto us O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give the praise.


 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member



Referring to the article, <em>The Archbishop Speaks: The Infiltration of Modernism in the Catholic Church, </em>cleopas said, "And to prevent this from happening again, we have to learn about what happened."







But sadly, it did happen again - at the SSPX General Chapter of 2012.




While giving an account of the manœuvres and manipulations that took place at the General Chapter of 2012, Fr. Faure, who was present at this event, said:




"In a general way, I can say that at the general chapter I understood the position which Archbishop Lefebvre and his Traditionalists found themselves in: the majority at the Council was manipulated by a strong, liberal minority through the authority of Popes Jean XXIII and Paul VI." (taken from, "The Captain of the Titanic is going to sink us," [URL=http://www.therecusant.com/fr-faure]www.therecusant.com/fr-faure )







(Note on Fr. Faure taken from the article: Fr. Faure was one of the first members of the SSPX and is therefore one of its oldest members. He has participated in all the Chapters of the Society and has spent many years as a District Superior (Mexico, Argentina). Archbishop Lefebvre even asked him if he would accept to be consecrated a bishop in 1988. He told us that he refused, proposing Fr. de Galarreta instead. He thought that he lacked the necessary qualities of a Bishop.)




 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member



After thinking about it, I have to say that at least Father Pfluger is honest with us. He’s a liberal, he doesn’t hide it, and he tells us what his thinking is (as he did in the above interview). This allows us to see the situation clearly and decide if we want to follow this new orientation or not.


Bishop Fellay and certain other SSPX priests and superiors, on the other hand, are more sneaky and deceitful. They use ambiguous language, they hide their dealings and agendas, and they subversively introduce new meanings, teachings, and explanations that are different from those previously held by SSPXers on issues such as, the conciliar church, jurisdiction, no agreement before Rome’s conversion, the Latin Mass being the ordinary rite, etc. These tactics, mixed with traditional Catholic teachings, confuse people. They cannot see the situation clearly and they end up on a road that they may not have initially wanted to take (the road to conciliar Rome).


Thank-you, Father Pfluger, for making it so obvious for us.


 
A

ajnc

Guest
susainathar said:
Fr. PFLUGER: "Father of the Council that he was, he signed in 1988, two years after the scandal of Assisi, an accord that he denounced for the sole reason that he was convinced that Rome would not respect the accords (Postponed episcopal consecrations to August 15th)."

Fr. Laisney in his book Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican has this following comment on Page 93:
This May 5th Protocol had several flaws. In the present letter His Grace takes one, the most urgent one: the vagueness of the Protocol concerning the consecrations of bishops: no date fixed, no candidate agreed upon...

sole reason vs several flaws!
Wonder what Fr Laisney says today!!!!
 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member



Source: rexcz.blogspot.cz/2015/02/fr-fuchss-comments-on-frightening.html



Fr. Fuchs´s comments on “Frightening Interview” (2015)

Editor´s note: In the article below we present brief comments of Fr. Martin Fuchs, a Swiss priest of the Resistance movement currently residing in Aigen, Austria, on the much discussed interview given by Fr. Pfluger, the first assistant of SSPX. The English translation of Fr. Pfluger´s interview can be found here.

Fr. Fuchs is a non-native English speaker.


***

Ad question 1:

If we listen to the sermons and conferences of archbishop Lefebvre, we must realize that the SSPX general house is going another way than our founder had shown us. It is quite sad and that is why many priests and faithful went away. Most of them; however, don’t search for a new way and don’t criticize our founder. Quite the contrary, they want to remain loyal to him.



Ad question 2:

The faithful who left the Society don’t want to be something special. It is not a question of being better Catholics. It is a question of the Catholic Faith and of keeping the Catholic Faith.

Archbishop Lefebvre protected the Society which the present superiors don´t do. Obedience is not absolute, it is relative. Obedience must be directed towards the good, otherwise it is not a virtue.

Why was archbishop Lefebvre disobedient to the pope in the seventies? He had his reasons! He wanted to keep the Catholic Faith.



Ad question 3:

Father Pfluger says that the declarations of the SSPX general chapter are not infallible documents. Is it a question of infallible or not? Every general chapter obliges the superiors to follow the decisions of the chapter. It is obvious that the present superiors did not follow the decisions of 2006!

He says that in 2006 no superior could have imagined that the Holy See would lift the excommunications of 1988 or that the Pope would declare that the „Old Mass“ was never abolished.

Is it something unusual and extraordinary to tell the truth? Father Pfluger gives the impression that this is something very special!

Concerning the excommunications, why did they not ask for a declaration of nullity? Rome would certainly not have given that! But now the Society of St. Pius X had to admit that the excommunications were valid.

Rome did not convert! And it has no intention to convert! The Romans always demanded the same conditions: to accept Vatican II and the new sacraments.

Benedict XVI never celebrated the old Mass in public. He did not allow the old Mass in the whole Holy week either! Did he give the same rights for the old Mass? For him it is clear: Tradition and Vatican II are in the same line. That is why he did not allow to celebrate the old Mass without the new Mass.

And Pope Francis was ordained in 1969 just when the new Mass was introduced. He probably never celebrated the Tridentine Mass.

If we look at the decisions of the meeting in Rome last autumn and if we see how they put them into practice, we cannot imagine the conversion. In Austrian monasteries they give the blessings to divorced and remarried couples (for example in Seitenstetten), in Germany they bless also homosexual couples (for example in Heimstetten near Munich).



Ad question 4:

Clear language is the form of how to teach the true Faith. However, in the documents of Vatican II, they preferred an ambiguous language, e.g. „subsistit in“. That is why traditional Catholics were against innovations: new words for the new faith!

What happened in those times is now happening in the Society.

They speak about lifting excommunications instead of asking for the declaration of nullity.

They speak about the „Mass in the extraordinary rite“ – why not „Mass in the Tridentine rite“? They use an ambigous word for a clear word.



Ad question 5:

Father Pfluger speaks of the true Faith outside the Society. Certainly there are a lot of faithful who have subjectively good intentions. But it is not about judging personal intention.

Why did archbishop Lefebvre consecrate bishops? Because he was sure that one could not find a Catholic seminary anywhere in the whole world soon. All the seminaries accept Vatican II, use the new catechism, the ecumenic Bible, the new liturgy!

Why in 1987 during the retreat did he say to priests: „Rome has lost Faith.”?

What about the definition of the new Mass? Why did he treat the new Mass as a non-Catholic rite? Why did he give the holy confirmation sub conditione to the faithful who has been already confirmed in the official church? Because they could not find the faith of their youth anywhere!

A lot of the faithful joined the Society because they wanted to keep the Catholic faith they have received from their parents. But now – after forty, fifty years, it looks as if they could find the Catholic faith elsewhere. Where? In The Society of St. Peter? Or in a more or less conservative priest, bishop or cardinal who all have signed the documents of Vatican II.? For example Father Zimmer, a priest of The Society of St. Peter from Linz, tells his faithful to attend the new Mass on Sundays when they cannot come to him. And a few years ago, when the local bishop of the official church came to provide the sacrament of confirmation, this priest wrote in his newsletter: „Holy Mass in the ordinary rite will follow afterwards.“

To “protect” the modern priests from Tradition, Cardinal Ratzinger introduced The Oath of Fidelity containing the new Profession of Faith (here) in 1989.

As for the Profession of Faith, the first and the second article of this document can be accepted; however, the third article says that all the priests have to accept the Council and the present Magisterium of the Church. (Archbishop Lefebvre mentioned it in his interview of the 30th June, 1989.)

In Paris Father Pfluger told priests who worried about a large number of priests leaving the Society in case of the agreement with Rome: „We will fill the gap with the priests of the Society of St. Peter.“

The superiors want to join modernist Rome. They think they can convert Rome from the inside. But did not the Society of St. Peter and the other Ecclesia Dei societies think that way, too? What an illusion!



Ad question 6:

Father Pfluger says that since the last Council the situation within the Church has developed. We have to take new positions. We cannot deny that the Society has to take new positions but Rome did not convert and the crisis became worse. Nevertheless, the superiors behave as if Rome has already converted.

Our founder, archbishop Lefebvre, had given the answers to all the questions the Society of St. Pius X had to answer in the past 14 years.

1. What did archbishop Lefebvre think about the New Mass?

2. What did he think about the excommunications?

3. What did he think about new relations with Rome?

4. What did he think about a merely canonical solution?

If he had not given these answers, the superiors would have to look for them. But he has given them. His solutions would have protected the Society.

That is why the superiors lost confidence. It was not the Resistance who made up the new faith, the superiors did!










 

Admin

Administrator
This is the 'Profession of Faith' referred to in the above article.

PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITY
ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

As conforming to Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem, this Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity supercedes the Profession and Oath of 1989.

I. PROFESSION OF FAITH

I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.


II. OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH


(Formula to be used by the Christian faithful mentioned in Canon 833, nn. 5-8)

I, N., in assuming the office of __________, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.

With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.

In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.

I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish.

I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

So help me God, and God's Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.

(Variations in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the formulary, for use by those members of the Christian faithful indicated in can. 833, n. 8).

I shall foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall insist on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also — with due regard for the character and purpose of my institute — faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

NOTE: Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the profession of faith: vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars; "at the beginning of their term of office, pastors, the rector of a seminary and the professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the diaconate"; "the rectors of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector's term of office"; and, "at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals"; and "superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life in accord with the norm of the constitutions."
 
Top