Sermon by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer - SSPX

[JReducation]

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

Using the EF and OF, a society of apostolic life or a religious community can have a statute that prohibits the celebration of the Tridentine mass, because it’s extraordinary. It cannot have a statute that prohibits the celebration of the Pauline Mass, because it’s the norm for the Latin Church.

The statute can say that the mission of the institute is to form priests in the preservation and celebration of the Tridentine mass. This is a perfectly fine and honorable mission statement, because it does not say that the Ordinary Form is outlawed or heretical as this priest said in his sermon.

The SSPX, FSSP or any other traditionalist institute cannot outlaw the Ordinary Form of the mass. They can, by agreement in a general chapter, say that they celebrate the Extraordinary Form in order to preserve it and promote it or any other such language. The Tridentine Form is normative within their institute. That’s fine, because that does not ban the OF.

In other words, it would be a positive statement for the EF, not a negative statement against the OF. A prohibition of the OF would be a negative statement against that which is the norm for the Church. That would be like a Dominican, Carthusian or Carmelite statute saying that they can only celebrate their rites and not the Roman Rite. They are part of the Latin Church; therefore, they have a right to celebrate the normative mass of the Latin Church. No statute can take that right away from them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

Gotcha.

The statute can say that the mission of the institute is to form priests in the preservation and celebration of the Tridentine mass. This is a perfectly fine and honorable mission statement, because it does not say that the Ordinary Form is outlawed or heretical as this priest said in his sermon.

I’m sure that is what the statute says.

Nevertheless, if that is the mission and one chooses to join that society, then one should stick to the mission otherwise what happens is dilution and a decrease in faithfulness to the mission.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Gotcha.

I’m sure that is what the statute says.

Nevertheless, if that is the mission and one chooses to join that society, then one should stick to the mission otherwise what happens is dilution and a decrease in faithfulness to the mission.

How is concelebrating at ordinations and the Chrism Mass not upholding that mission? Please explain how it goes against the mission to show unity with the local Church.

Just to clarify, how does concelebrating at (at best) a handful of OF Masses within a year detract from the mission of these groups?

 

[JReducation]

Gotcha.

I’m sure that is what the statute says.

Nevertheless, if that is the mission and one chooses to join that society, then one should stick to the mission otherwise what happens is dilution and a decrease in faithfulness to the mission.

The mission of the Church always overrides the mission of its members. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The institute exists for the benefit of the Church, not in conflict with the Church.

It would not be contrary to the mission of the SSPX or other institute to allow its members to celebrate the OF when required to do so, because the society would be serving the mission of the Church, for which the society exists.

To exist for the sake of priests and leave the Church’s mission out of the picture would not make sense. Priests only make sense within the context of the Church’s mission. The mission of the society has to fit into the mission of the Church. It’s life of worship must fit into the life of worship of the Church. To do so, it cannot prohibit what is normative for the Church.

For example, you can prohibit the EF, because it’s not normative. You cannot prohibit the OF. You can limit the use of the OF to specific occasions. That would be acceptable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

I found this Latin Mass Magazine article which is very interesting.

It talks about some of the issues the FSSP faced in 1999. Now I’m not saying I agree with everything said in the article (please don’t ask me to defend its points), but I believe it truly gives us a glimpse into some of the things we have been discussing. For me, it sheds some light on some of the reservations held by some SSPX priests that they don’t want their experience to be like that of the FSSP.

If anyone is interested, you can read it here: latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_1999_FA_Woods.html.

 

[wasserfall]

I found this Latin Mass Magazine article which is very interesting.

What I find very interesting is that the last sentence prediction of this article failed to materialize. Instead, after 6 years of Fr. Devillers as Vatican-imposed superior, the fraternity refused to elect him and instead elected, as the article said, “most traditional of the traditionalists” into positions of authority.

Whatever the intentions of the PCED were in 1999, they seems to have failed in their attempt to move the fraternity in the direction of biritualism. As soon as it was clear that Fr. Devillers would not be elected by the fraternity, the priests who had caused the trouble in the first place all left the fraternity.

(I wish to add that I don’t mean to imply any bad intent or bad will on the part of Fr. Devillers. He has remained with the fraternity and as far as I know he is a good and holy priest.)

 

[Celticnovice]

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

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.

That article caught me off guard because I know Catholics who attend SSPX chapels that occasionally worship with the FSSP. I know personally that they do not hold those views of the FSSP that are listed in the article.

 

[wasserfall]

That article caught me off guard because I know Catholics who attend SSPX chapels that occasionally worship with the FSSP. I know personally that they do not hold those views of the FSSP that are listed in the article.

There are also people who regularly frequent FSSP parishes who occasionally visit SSPX chapels. There are a good number of faithful who are not very picky about which traditional mass they attend.

In any case, that article was written right in the middle of the controversy. And now, 13 years later, we can see that a lot of the fears expressed in the article have not come to pass.

 

[Celticnovice]

There are also people who regularly frequent FSSP parishes who occasionally visit SSPX chapels. There are a good number of faithful who are not very picky about which traditional mass they attend.

In any case, that article was written right in the middle of the controversy. And now, 13 years later, we can see that a lot of the fears expressed in the article have not come to pass.

That makes sense…I meant to ask Truelight the age of the article.

Its still on the SSPX website, No?

 

[TrueLight]

There are also people who regularly frequent FSSP parishes who occasionally visit SSPX chapels. There are a good number of faithful who are not very picky about which traditional mass they attend.

In any case, that article was written right in the middle of the controversy. And now, 13 years later, we can see that a lot of the fears expressed in the article have not come to pass.

I think CelticNovice is referring to the article on the SSPX site.

We have some folks who attend SSPX chapels who occasionally attend our TLM.

 

[Geremia]

Fr. Pfeiffer said that when the founder of the Institute of Christ the King wanted approval, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said that he first had to concelebrate the OF with him in Rome. He also mentioned that someone who wanted to be an Abbot of a monastery had to agree to concelebrate in order to get the title of Abbot.

I have no idea if these claims can be substantiated, but it made me wonder if as part of the agreement, and as a sign that Bishop Lefebvre considers the OF to be perfectly valid, he will have to agree to concelebrate at least once.

Yes, I know that Msgr. Gilles Wach of the Institute had to concelebrate in 1991 to prove his fidelity…

 

[JReducation]

I think that the author is either confused or confusing. I’m not sure which, so don’t ask me.

Having said that, let me explain why. Every priest in any community or diocese that has its own form or its own rite and belongs to the Latin Church is called upon to celebrate the Ordinary Form at some point or another for specific reasons, be it to prove fidelity, unity or simply because it’s a special occasion, such as the pope is in town, so get your little self over there, put on an alb, stole and smile. This actually happens.

Ask any Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Franciscan, Benedictine. Sometimes, the Eastern Catholic clergy has to celebrate the Ordinary Form in the Latin Rite.

So, I don’t see the big deal about asking the FSSP or the SSPX to do what everyone else is asked to do once or twice a year. It begs the question, what makes them an exception to rules and expectations that others are not allowed to decline?

If we start to create exceptions for the ED institutes that we do not allow for anyone else, it creates a caste system “You’re going to be allowed to excuse yourself from this or that, because we don’t want to upset you.” How does that work?

When Franciscans were forced to ordain thousands of men, which almost destroyed the Franciscan order, no one asked us if we were upset. We were told, “Do it and don’t ask questions.”

When Benedictines are told to take over a parish and commute between the abbey and the parish every day, no one asks them if they’re upset about having to deal with the outside world. They’re told to do it for the good of the Church.

When the Carmelites were told that they had to become mendicants and give up the hermetical life and adopt the Dominican habit in order to blend in, they were not given a choice. It was do it or be excommunicated.

When the Poor Clares were told that they had to use Gregorian Chant in the Divine Office, even though St. Clare and St. Francis banned Gregorian chant, they were not asked how they felt about it. This was a result of Vatican II. Until 1970, they had never used Gregorian chant.e But they were not given a choice. It was forced on them.

These were no requests for an occasional function. These were life changing demands that rattled these communities. But they all said, “Yes Sir.”

We have to see what everyone else is asked to do. The author does not mention this part.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think that the author is either confused or confusing. I’m not sure which, so don’t ask me.

Having said that, let me explain why. Every priest in any community or diocese that has its own form or its own rite and belongs to the Latin Church is called upon to celebrate the Ordinary Form at some point or another for specific reasons, be it to prove fidelity, unity or simply because it’s a special occasion, such as the pope is in town, so get your little self over there, put on an alb, stole and smile. This actually happens.

Ask any Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Franciscan, Benedictine. Sometimes, the Eastern Catholic clergy has to celebrate the Ordinary Form in the Latin Rite.

So, I don’t see the big deal about asking the FSSP or the SSPX to do what everyone else is asked to do once or twice a year. It begs the question, what makes them an exception to rules and expectations that others are not allowed to decline?

If we start to create exceptions for the ED institutes that we do not allow for anyone else, it creates a caste system “You’re going to be allowed to excuse yourself from this or that, because we don’t want to upset you.” How does that work?

When Franciscans were forced to ordain thousands of men, which almost destroyed the Franciscan order, no one asked us if we were upset. We were told, “Do it and don’t ask questions.”

When Benedictines are told to take over a parish and commute between the abbey and the parish every day, no one asks them if they’re upset about having to deal with the outside world. They’re told to do it for the good of the Church.

When the Carmelites were told that they had to become mendicants and give up the hermetical life and adopt the Dominican habit in order to blend in, they were not given a choice. It was do it or be excommunicated.

When the Poor Clares were told that they had to use Gregorian Chant in the Divine Office, even though St. Clare and St. Francis banned Gregorian chant, they were not asked how they felt about it. This was a result of Vatican II. Until 1970, they had never used Gregorian chant.e But they were not given a choice. It was forced on them.

These were no requests for an occasional function. These were life changing demands that rattled these communities. But they all said, “Yes Sir.”

We have to see what everyone else is asked to do. The author does not mention this part.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I believe it is as I have pointed out before, obedience seems to be the hardest of all virtues to live. (I am finding this out personally)

 

[JReducation]

I believe it is as I have pointed out before, obedience seems to be the hardest of all virtues to live. (I am finding this out personally)

I believe that for the greater good of the Church, Catholics have to come to terms that the SSPX is 500 men and that the religious and other rites within the Latin Church involve more than one million men and women. The question is, “What’s the message being sent to these one million+ men and women who for centuries were not asked what they felt or what they liked or agreed to?”

When thinking about the Church, we must always look at the big picture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Br JR, the whole issue is the faith, not preference. You can’t compare the SSPX refusing to celebrate the Novus Ordo to various religious groups in the past not wanting to adopt the Dominican habit, because it isn’t the same argument. One is preference, the other is fidelity to the faith. The SSPX will never celebrate the Novus Ordo for various reasons regarding the faith (I won’t name them here to avoid being chastised or flamed).

I.F.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, the whole issue is the faith, not preference. You can’t compare the SSPX refusing to celebrate the Novus Ordo to various religious groups in the past not wanting to adopt the Dominican habit, because it isn’t the same argument. One is preference, the other is fidelity to the faith. The SSPX will never celebrate the Novus Ordo for various reasons regarding the faith (I won’t name them here to avoid being chastised or flamed).

I.F.

But it is a matter of faith.

Carmelites were called to be hermits.

Franciscans were not called to be priests and having so many priests almost destroyed the faith of the order and did great moral harm to the order. We’re still recovering.

Mozarabic and Ambrosians are Latin Catholics, but the Roman Rite is not their rite.

Dominicans, Carmelites and Carthusians have their own rite revealed to them through sacred tradition.

Benedictines were called out of the world, not into the world to run parishes.

Having to adopt the Dominican habit was not the big issue for the Carmelites. The big issue was the reason for having to adapt the Dominican habit. They had to abandon a way of life that they had lived for more than a thousand years to become mendicants and they were forced to adopt the Dominican way of life. The new habit was symbolic of a way of life that was not what God had revealed to the prophet Elijah.

But all of us have learned to say, “Yes” and to make lemon aide. And you will have more than one million very upset religious and secular clergy of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites if the SSPX is allowed something that no one else is allowed, not even the FSSP, ICRSS, or Canon of St. John Cantius and even the Eastern clergy.

When the Eastern bishops go to Rome for a papal mass, it’s not celebrated in one of the Eastern rites. It’s celebrated in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They have to concelebrate in that form. No one at the Vatican gives a hoot that they have a 2,000 year liturgical tradition. It is what it is. They’re not being asked to do this every day. They’re being asked to do this for some special occasion.

The faith of all these people counts for something, doesn’t it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br JR, the whole issue is the faith, not preference. You can’t compare the SSPX refusing to celebrate the Novus Ordo to various religious groups in the past not wanting to adopt the Dominican habit, because it isn’t the same argument. One is preference, the other is fidelity to the faith. The SSPX will never celebrate the Novus Ordo for various reasons regarding the faith (I won’t name them here to avoid being chastised or flamed).

I.F.

What Brother JR said is spot on but I would add that preference does not trump what is law (or what is ordinary). The preference for the EF held by some religious communities does not trump the right of the priest who is a member of that community from celebrating what is the ordinary in the Church.

 

[TrueLight]

What Brother JR said is spot on but I would add that preference does not trump what is law (or what is ordinary). The preference for the EF held by some religious communities does not trump the right of the priest who is a member of that community from celebrating what is the ordinary in the Church.

Right, but if he is not committed to the goals of the community, then why should he be a part of it?

I’m beginning to repeat myself.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Right, but if he is not committed to the goals of the community, then why should he be a part of it?

I’m beginning to repeat myself.

As are we.

I am still waiting to hear how the concelebration of the OF a couple of times a year is not being committed to the goals of the community.

I will say it another way. How is a priest’s want to show his communion with the local bishop through concelebration at a OF Liturgy, such as the Charism Mass or an ordination, a thing that goes against the goals of the community? If unity with the local bishop is not one of the goals of the community then should such a community be allowed to exist within the local Church?

Please go back and read what Brother JR has posted.

Specifically the one found here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9364093&postcount=41

 

[JReducation]

Right, but if he is not committed to the goals of the community, then why should he be a part of it?

I’m beginning to repeat myself.

The goals of the community MUST always be in harmony with the universal Church or they have no right to exist. It is the Church that gives the community the right to exist. It is through the Church that Christ gives the community its goals. Christ will never give any community goals that are in conflict with the Church. Christ does not call individuals or communities where the Church does not lead or cannot go.

That would total nonsense to say that “Our goals are X” and the Church’s goals are Y. We have to be faithful to our goals. If that’s the case, you’re not a community. You’ve just declared yourself to be a schismatic Church.

The rule must always be, our goals include the goals of the universal Church. They can never exclude. The community exists within the Church. Therefore, it cannot have goals that exclude the wishes of the Church.

There is a hierarchy of goals. The highest in that hierarchy are those goals of the Church, even if they are mistaken. They still take precedence. The Church may have mistaken goals, but she in incapable of having sinful goals.

As a Francisan of Life, our goal is to proclaim the Gospel of Life. Therefore, we do not take on parishes. We do not serve anyone in the middle class. We do not live among the middle class. And we’re not interested in what happens in the middle class. We’re totally focused on what happens among the voiceless.

However, the Church is interested in the middle class. The Church does want to serve the middle class. The Church does exist among the middle class. If the Church says to me, who am the superior general, that I must assign a brother to work in a middle class community for whatever reason, I cannot refuse on the grounds that this is contrary to what Christ has revealed to us. The answer is going to be, “Christ can only reveal himself to you through the authority of the Church. There is no other way that Christ reveals himself to a Catholic. Therefore, if the authority of the Church wants a Franciscan of Life teaching at Harvard University, it is Christ who commands it.”

Since it is the mission of the Franciscans of Life to respond to Christ’s commands, then the brother must be assigned to Harvard University. Such an assignment is not contrary to the Gospel of Life, even though that brother at Harvard University is teaching Astrophysics.

TL, you have to be very careful here. I’m sensing that you’re taking a very rigid approach to this whole “mission” idea. That’s not the way that the Catholic Church operates. All mission statements of any Catholic individual and any Catholic institute, must be subordinate to the wishes of Church authority and be approved by Church authority.

Since the Church has the power to bind, she has the authority to commit you to your mission statement. However, since she also has the power to unbind, she has the authority to release you from that mission, for a single even, for a period of time or indefinitely.

The Church power to bind and unbind is also part of our faith. It trumps everything else that we believe. Upon that authority rests the faith of the Church, even when the Church binds or unbinds mistakenly. She can never bind or unbind in matters of sin, but she can in all other matters of faith and praxis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV