Sermon by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer - SSPX

[Thomas_Casey]

I am starting to think that this is the SSPX subforum at CAF rather than the Tradition subforum.

Think there should be one?

The TC Forum is for the discussion of any subject that is part of Catholic tradition and does not fit into another forum on CAF.

TC Forum is NOT an SSPX subforum.

Until the status of the SSPX is defined by the proper authorities, CAF does not allow proselytizing for the SSPX. We do encourage prayers for a quick and joyful closure to this chapter.

We also welcome Traditionalists who wish to discuss Traditionalist topics, as long as these are discussed with respect to other members, to all forms of the mass, Vatican II, the bishops, religious, all clergy (including SSPX clergy) and the Holy See.

A healthy dialogue between Traditionalists and Mainstream Catholics is encouraged as long as civility, charity, and fidelity to the Holy Father prevail.

In addition, please remember that speculation is just that. Until the Holy See speaks, nothing is settled. Everyone is free to speculate, provided that one does not offend.

If there are any questions as to what qualifies for discussion on this forum, there is a sticky on subjects for discussion. It’s not exhaustive; therefore, I welcome suggestions for additional subjects as well as requests. I may not be able to accommodate all of your suggestions and requests, but I promise to consider them prayerfully and with honesty.

Thank You

Thomas Casey

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As I said earlier to brother JR, this is a nonnegotiable issue for the SSPX.
They will never regularize under this condition. They see the treatment of the FSSP as a reason for continued resistance and without a guarantee that they will not be treated in the same way they will never regularize.

If this is truly a non-starter for the SSPX then they will never be regularized because no religious community may restrict what is the ordinary.

 

[wasserfall]

If this is truly a non-starter for the SSPX then they will never be regularized because no religious community may restrict what is the ordinary.

We’ll see, wont’t we?

 

[TrueLight]

There is one thing that they (the SSPX that is) will have to do is that they will not be able to restrict any of their priests from concelebrating the OF if they ever wish to.

The FSSP tried this and it caused a huge issue.

Nevertheless, very few FSSP priests will ever celebrate or concelebrate the OF and I think it would be hard to find a Bishop who would try to “force” an FSSP priest to celebrate the OF.

After all, their mission , as listed on the FSSP site:

fssp.org/en/presentation.htm

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is a Clerical Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical right, that is, a community of Roman Catholic priests who do not take religious vows, but who work together for a common mission in the world. The mission of the Fraternity is two-fold: first, the formation and sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite, and secondly, the pastoral deployment of the priests in the service of the Church.

Lastly, as an aside, I know audiosancto is linked to a number of times on this forum, but since most of these sermons are by FSSP priests, I really believe listening to them is a good way to get an idea of their focus and mission.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Nevertheless, very few FSSP priests will ever celebrate or concelebrate the OF and I think it would be hard to find a Bishop who would try to “force” an FSSP priest to celebrate the OF.

My understanding is that the only time a FSSP priest concelebrates is when there is an ordination within the diocese where they are serving or at the Chrism Mass with the bishop during Holy Week.

This was what a group of them wanted when they fought against the proposed restriction from ever allowing one of them from concelebrating the OF and appealed to Rome which caused a small dust up within the FSSP an number of years ago.

They wished to do so to show unity with the Bishop of the dioceses that they are serving in.

I have even seen an ICKSP priest concelebrate in such a situation.

 

[wasserfall]

My understanding is that the only time a FSSP priest concelebrates is when there is an ordination within the diocese where they are serving or at the Chrism Mass with the bishop during Holy Week.

This was what a group of them wanted when they fought against the proposed restriction from ever allowing one of them from concelebrating the OF and appealed to Rome which caused a small dust up within the FSSP an number of years ago.

It was more than just that. They wanted general permission to celebrate the OF at any time. incidentally all of those priests have now left the FSSP. Their position became untenable when it became clear that the majority of FSSP priests were not sympathetic to their position, which was proven by the election of Fr. Berg as superior general.

 

[JReducation]

That would only mean that there will be no agreement. That particular point is one that was absolutely non-negotiable for Archbishop Lefebvre and no SSPX bishop would agree to it.

Wait a minute Wasser, the is a point of tradition here. Once you establish yourself as an institute either religious or of apostolic life, which is the case with the SSPX, you’re no longer a democracy. You’re a quasi democracy. Allow me to explain.

1. The highest authority in the institute is the Constution.
2. The highest authority to interpret the constitution is the Holy Father.
3. The Holy Father, as the major superior of all institutes, reserves the authority to abrogate any part of the constitution or all of it.
4. Failure of an institute to comply with such a action on the part of the Holy Father constitutes schism.

That’s looking at law from the side of the Holy See. Now let’s look at it from the side of the institute.

1. The highest authority of the institute is the constitution.
2. The highest authority to implement the constitution is the superior general. The general chapter writes it, but the superior implements it.
3. The superior general must govern according to the constitution. We cannot do what is prohibited by the constitution, but he is free to do anything that is not prohibited.
4. The superior general has the authority to command compliance to anything that is not contrary to Canon Law, moral law, or the proper law of the institute.
5. Because the SSPX does not have a rule of life, the superior general is not bound by the mind of the founder. His fidelity to the spirit of the founder is important. He alone can decide what the founder would want to do in this situation today. He can also decide to break with the founder, because it is he, not the founder who has the last word, remembering that they are neither religious nor have a rule of life.

Given the above rules that every superior general knows (I personally know this to be true, as I am one), Bishop Fellay can choose to celebrate or concelebrate mass in the OF without impunity. He is the superior general and except the laws the bind him, his authority over his subordinates is absolute.

I would encourage caution that we do not try to speak for Bishop Fellay. We have no idea what he may be thinking. We know what the SSPX feels about this and we know what Bishop Fellay has said in the past. We don’t know how he feels today, because he’s not saying. However, the anger unleashed against this man makes it very clear that he is not towing the “party line” and that he is exerting his authority and autonomy as a true superior general.

I’m not very familiar with the internal relationships within the SSPX clergy, faithful and religious. I’m wondering if this anger unleashed toward this man is an indicator that in the past the membership and the laity of the SSPX had more influence over the superior general. Maybe, Bishop Fellay has come into his own as a superior general and is adopting the style of governance of other superiors general who listen and eventually say, “This conversation is over and this is what we’re going to do and it’s not negotiable.”

As I say, I am not familiar with the internal infrastructure of the SSPX. However, I am very familiar with the rights and duties of a superior general. Judging from the backlash I seems that these folks are not used to a superior general who listens, but in the end, does what he believes is best and expects everyone to comply. This is a standard in other traditional communities, but it’s looking as if it has not been the standard in the SSPX. That’s my impression.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

My understanding is that the only time a FSSP priest concelebrates is when there is an ordination within the diocese where they are serving or at the Chrism Mass with the bishop during Holy Week.

This was what a group of them wanted when they fought against the proposed restriction from ever allowing one of them from concelebrating the OF and appealed to Rome which caused a small dust up within the FSSP an number of years ago.

Yeah, I know. I was trying so hard to find more information on that but for some reason, I couldn’t.

They wished to do so to show unity with the Bishop of the dioceses that they are serving in.

As I understand it there is indeed pressure from the Bishops to concelebrate as a sign of unity, but some still won’t do it.

The SSPX feel even more strongly about that, and it really would be a big deal if Bishop Fellay agrees to do that.

The SSPX website has an article stating why one should not even go to an FSSP mass! I obviously have a big problem with that assertion.

Now maybe some of the viewpoints have changed, but the articles certainly were not removed from the site. So for Bishop Fellay to celebrate the OF would be seen as a big betrayal by the majority of SSPX priests and any laity who attend their masses, I would presume.

 

[TrueLight]

As I say, I am not familiar with the internal infrastructure of the SSPX. However, I am very familiar with the rights and duties of a superior general. Judging from the backlash I seems that these folks are not used to a superior general who listens, but in the end, does what he believes is best and expects everyone to comply. This is a standard in other traditional communities, but it’s looking as if it has not been the standard in the SSPX. That’s my impression.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This is an interesting point. Just from observation, I would say that there certainly is a difference in the concept of “obedience” to the superior general for a community that actually lives together and maybe goes out to minister as a preacher or priest and then comes back to the community.

It looks to me like in communities where there isn’t communal living, it is not quite the same. But that’s just my guess.

 

[TrueLight]

It was more than just that. They wanted general permission to celebrate the OF at any time. incidentally all of those priests have now left the FSSP. Their position became untenable when it became clear that the majority of FSSP priests were not sympathetic to their position, which was proven by the election of Fr. Berg as superior general.

Wasserfall, do you have a link with more information of that event? I was trying desperately to find that.

An FSSP priest once told me that if an FSSP priest wants to celebrate the OF, along with the EF, they don’t last long in the Society. It’s hard to feel strong disapproval, like you’re not really one with your brothers in a society that values fraternity (and no I don’t mean brothers as in Religious life). So they eventually leave on their own.

 

[wasserfall]

Wait a minute Wasser, the is a point of tradition here. Once you establish yourself as an institute either religious or of apostolic life, which is the case with the SSPX, you’re no longer a democracy. You’re a quasi democracy. Allow me to explain.

Brother JR, if bishop Fellay consented to celebrating the OF mass as a condition of regularization, then not only would he be the superior general of the regularized SSPX, he alone would be the entire regularized SSPX.

The rest of the SSPX would carry on minus one bishop, that’s all.

That is why I say there is no chance whatsoever of bishop Fellay agreeing to such a thing.

(P.S. have you set up your Amazon wish list yet so that we can send you stuff?)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The SSPX website has an article stating why one should not even go to an FSSP mass! I obviously have a big problem with that assertion.

There are a whole lot of articles that need to be removed or heavily modified at that website.

Wasserfall, do you have a link with more information of that event? I was trying desperately to find that.

An FSSP priest once told me that if an FSSP priest wants to celebrate the OF, along with the EF, they don’t last long in the Society. It’s hard to feel strong disapproval, like you’re not really one with your brothers in a society that values fraternity (and no I don’t mean brothers as in Religious life). So they eventually leave on their own.

Bullying, how very Traditional that is.

This is one of the issues I have with these communities.

 

[TrueLight]

There are a whole lot of articles that need to be removed or heavily modified at that website.

Bullying, how very Traditional that is.

This is one of the issues I have with these communities.

I didn’t say they were bullying. But if you are suddenly going against the mission, that is going to affect your interaction with your brothers. And that would apply to any community.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I didn’t say they were bullying. But if you are suddenly going against the mission, that is going to affect your interaction with your brothers. And that would apply to any community.

How is concelebrating with the bishop at the Charism of Mass and ordinations to show the unity the local Church “going against the mission” of the group?

Bullying is not just an overt act. Shunning someone or working to make their life uneasy because they do not do what you want them to do even though what they are doing is fully within the law is a form of bullying.

 

[JReducation]

This is an interesting point. Just from observation, I would say that there certainly is a difference in the concept of “obedience” to the superior general for a community that actually lives together and maybe goes out to minister as a preacher or priest and then comes back to the community.

It looks to me like in communities where there isn’t communal living, it is not quite the same. But that’s just my guess.

Not really, we have many societies of apostolic life: Maryknoll, Daughters of Charity, Vincentian Fathers, SOLT, Missionhurst, ICRSP, Christ the King and FSSP.

Brother JR, if bishop Fellay consented to celebrating the OF mass as a condition of regularization, then not only would he be the superior general of the regularized SSPX, he alone would be the entire regularized SSPX.

The rest of the SSPX would carry on minus one bishop, that’s all.

Hopefully they will not choose that path, but then the SSPX would be Bishop Fellay and the remnant of what was the SSPX would be in schism. An institute cannot break with its superior general and remain in the Church, unless the superior general in outside of the Church.

(P.S. have you set up your Amazon wish list yet so that we can send you stuff?)

I have not. I forgot to check out how to do this.

---

On another note, do you think that Fr. Pfeiffer may not like Pope Benedict?

---

There are too many problems in his sermon to comment on all of them. I will make two suggestions.

1. People would be well advised to keep their distance from people with such anger. Anger can be very blind.
2. One has to wonder about the wisdom of a man or woman who promises obedience to his superior and then publicly attacks him. Obedience is always loving. When there is a legitimate reason to disobey, one presents that reason to the authorities. If you bring the issue up in a sermon, you unnecessarily involve the lay faithful in an internal conflict between you and authority. This creates a conflict of interest for the lay faithful and creates factions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

How is concelebrating with the bishop at the Charism of Mass and ordinations to show the unity the local Church “going against the mission” of the group?

Bullying is not just an overt act. Shunning someone or working to make their life uneasy because they do not do what you want them to do even though what they are doing is fully within the law is a form of bullying.

Bullying
Shunning

All words that I didn’t use. I used the word disapproval.

Also, I wasn’t referring to the Chrism mass in this case. I was referring to FSSP priests who decide they want to celebrate both forms (regularly).

If one of the missions of the priests is to celebrate the EF, and you know that before you enter the seminary, but then you decide you’re going to celebrate the OF, what kind of reaction is to be expected?

 

[JReducation]

I didn’t say they were bullying. But if you are suddenly going against the mission, that is going to affect your interaction with your brothers. And that would apply to any community.

The crux here is that no institute has the right to keep its members separate from the mainstream Church. Such a regulation cannot be part of its mission. If the institute has a statute that interferes with communion, that statute must be revised. It is the duty of the superior general to lead his brothers to revise such a statute.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

The crux here is that no institute has the right to keep its members separate from the mainstream Church. Such a regulation cannot be part of its mission. If the institute has a statute that interferes with communion, that statute must be revised. It is the duty of the superior general to lead his brothers to revise such a statute.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. Can you clarify?

Its number one mission is: “the formation and sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite” (aka the mass according to the 1962 missal).

These priests came from the SSPX. Yes, they had to make concessions for the creation of their group, but the celebration of the EF remains one of their primary missions. That was agreed upon.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Bullying
Shunning

All words that I didn’t use.

I used the word disapproval. If one of the missions of the priests is to celebrate the EF, and you know that going to the seminary, but then you decide you’re going to celebrate the OF, what kind of reaction is to be expected?

Disapproval of someone for doing something that is lawful and within their rights. Disapproval of showing unity with the local Church. That utter rubbish and is still a form of psychological bullying. Plain and simple.

I am sure that you would be upset if that new priest for the Archdiocese of New York who celebrated a Mass of Thanksgiving in the EF (as was reported somewhere around here on CAF) was shown such disapproval from his fellow priests within the diocese that it got so bad that he felt his only option was to leave the diocese.

 

[TrueLight]

I am sure that you would be upset if that new priest for the Archdiocese of New York who celebrated a Mass of Thanksgiving in the EF (as was reported somewhere around here on CAF) was shown such disapproval from his fellow priests within the diocese that it go so bad that he felt his only option was to leave the diocese.

Traditional diocesan priests are shown such disapproval now.

The difference is, no matter what their preference, they know as a diocesan priest, they will be celebrating both.

I’d love to know what young men who are discerning the FSSP are told at their vocation retreats. If anyone here has experienced one of those, I’d love to know.