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

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

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

By
+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

By
 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...
Post a Comment
Read more