Skip to main content

Resistance Schism & Heresy - Sad but True

Image
By
+
JMJ

I've been informed by a friend that Fr. Pfeiffer is touring Canada and today is supposed to be in Manitoba.

Therefore it is apropos that I discuss my conclusions about 'the resistance'.

First of all, I saw the following pattern of behaviour about a decade ago.

A priest:
  1. recently ordained, is transferred about with greater frequency than the normal 3 years per 'posting',
  2. has problems with obeying his present superior,
  3. attempts to assert control in areas the superior had reserved for himself,
  4. openly mocks his former superior,
  5. seeks to ingratiate himself with various people at the SSPX Mass centre,
  6. refuses a transfer on various grounds,
  7. attempts to evoke pity of his support group by casting himself as subject to persecution,
  8. attempts to take over the Mass centre and if unsuccessful,
  9. entices or convinces people to 'split off' from the SSPX to start his own group,
  10. eventually the character flaws dominate and the priest abandons his 'new' flock to the wolves.
The 'resistance' priests have, so far, faithfully followed this pattern and are now at the 9th step.   Some are even now setting their toes upon the threshold of the 10th step; with the sede-vacantists now showing their true colours in Europe and Quebec.

At this point the Quebec 'resistance' is, I have been informed, split into a couple of groups and a number of people have returned to the SSPX as they discovered that their co-resistors were sede-vacantists.  However, what will happen now to those sede-vacantists who have left?  With Fr. Pfeiffer and his loose association continue to provide them the Sacraments?  Will he attempt to convince them of their error ... all the while persisting in his own?

Personally, I have my doubts.  Why? Because his error is contained within that of the greater error of the Sede-vacantists.  In short, he is so scandalized by the actions of the hierarchy of the Church that based on his faulty understanding of Church doctrine he does not believe that the Visible Church is the Church of Christ (for a true understanding of visible see link). Here is the commonality that Fr. Pfeiffer holds with the Sede-vacantists.

In both cases it is based on error - will it blossom into full grown heresy (denial of a defide teaching) I don't know ... but looking at Fr. Pfeiffer's exposé of the Four Marks he has a very good start.  Even better than Bishop Williamson who is apparently, even now, pulling back from that path.

Looking at the progress that the 'resistance' has made over the last two years.  Of course I'm not talking about numbers. Their behavior is practically identical to that of the FSSP shortly after 1988, namely to draw away as many supporters of the SSPX as possible.  This is not a 'proof' of the validity of their reasons (then and now) for leaving the SSPX.

No, what do we see after two years of existence: the resistance is splintering and bickering amongst themselves.

First there is the conflict between Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer, unsurprising given Fr. Pfeiffer's apparent episcopal ambitions.

There is the Una Cum controversy in Europe (ie surprise a number of the priests in France turned out to be Sede-Vacantists). This obviously is parallel with the events in Quebec.

Fr. Girouard seems to have dropped off the internet as his last posting was in April of this year. The only links younger than April that show up in a google search are those for sending donations.

Even now some internet denizens are calling for Fr. Pfeiffer to be deposed along with his arch supporter 'Pablo the Mexican'.

This is what comes of disobedience: dissension and dissolution.

Eventually the final breakup will occur because the 'resistance' priests won't be able to agree on anything of true importance as each wants to be his own superior.  So instead of having one congregation of 25 priests, they will 'have' 25 congregations with a single member.

One danger to which the 'resistor' faithful seem oblivious is the danger of schism.

There is also an old adage that a schism doesn't go very far before it trumps up a heresy to justify itself.  In the case of the resistance the 'heresy' appears to revolve around the nature of the Church.

Granted that at this point Bishop Williamson seems to have realized his error, the question remains whether Fr. Pfeiffer will follow suit.

So what is the schism?

The Catholic Encyclopedia contains the following definition of schism:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
The code of canon law (yes 1983 - if a person denies that this is the active law of the Church there's a deeper issue) although it is  has the following:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Now Fr. Pfeiffer is recommending that his followers do not attend Mass offered by the SSPX.  His claim is that it represents a danger to the Faith. Objectively speaking that is little better than a conspiracy theory and for this he is pushing people to become 'home aloners'.

The emotional appeal that it has happened before is exceptionally weak.  In the early days Traditionalists were either driven out or left to seek a Tridentine Mass because of a real manifest danger to their Faith, not a rumoured or theorized one proposed by the likes of Fr. Pfeiffer.

When Traditional Catholics take Fr. Pfeiffer's advice what is happening: They are shunning Catholics.

Welcome to the threshold of schism.

Fr. Pfeiffer has abandoned the Archbishop's understanding of Church doctrine and principles (one example:  'conciliar Church'), as well as the path set out by the Archbishop and the Society he founded.

That he insists that 'his' organization is carrying on the work of Archbishop Lefebvre is an absurdity.

Archbishop Lefebvre guided his actions by Catholic Principles.  Fr. Pfeiffer, sadly for those who follow him, does not.

Much to pray for as this crisis continues, sadly friendships will be sundered.

P^3


PS. Apologies for a post made in haste.





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

By
 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...
Post a Comment
Read more

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

By
 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

By
 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...
Post a Comment
Read more