Many Visits to the SSPX by Roman Prelates---The Slow but steady Return to Rome Continues by the SSPX
Society of St. Pius X: prelates visits
On 23 September 2014, following the meeting between the Cardinal and Bishop Fellay Müller which took place the same day, the Vatican issued the following statement:
The parties [...] have agreed to proceed in stages, but within a reasonable time, towards overcoming difficulties. And that, in the desired perspective of full reconciliation.
What are these steps? KIID No. 302 of October 10, 2014 seems to answer the question:
It was decided to continue the doctrinal discussions "in a broader context and less formal than previous interviews."
Rome has left to Bishop Fellay choice of locations and contacts.
The Brandmüller Cardinal and Bishop Schneider
- Cardinal Walter Brandmüller
86 years old, Cardinal Brandmüller was president of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences from 1998 to 2009. With Müller Cardinals Burke, Caffarra and Paolis, it is a co-signatory of the book abide in the truth of Christ , s opponent to communion given to divorced and remarried.
He is an avid follower of the last pope. His thought is exposed in the book The Keys of Benedict XVI for the interpretation of Vatican II [1] . It reads, in particular:
The Society of St. Pius X and the Old Catholics who rejected the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility are based on the rejection of legitimate developments in the doctrine and life of the Church.
May 21, 2012, during the presentation of his book to the press, Cardinal confided to Vatican Radio
Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate do not require doctrinally. I do not understand why our friends from St. Pius X focus almost exclusively on these two texts. I regret that they do so because they are the two texts easier to accept if we consider their canonical kind.
Should we not remember how these texts résultèrent secret agreements with Freemasonry, what struggles he had to move them, then their disastrous consequences: loss of Catholic states for the first, Judaization of the Church for the second?
DICI No. 307 of 19 December 2014, announced that a meeting took place on 5 December 2014 seminar Zaitzkofen between the German prelate Bishop Fellay and accompanied by several priests.
- Bishop Athanasius Schneider
53 year old Bishop Schneider is the auxiliary bishop of Karaganda in Kazakhstan since 5 February 2011.
Echoing the judgment Sandro Magister, Vatican recognized The New Man No. 1500 considers him "the best student of Benedict XVI." Symposium Reunicatho held in Paris in January 2014, Bishop Schneider also made a strong call for a revival in the wake of Benedict XVI. In various speeches, he has made known his views on the main issues under debate today.
* The Council:
This is the Second Vatican Council which expanded the understanding of the mystery of the Church according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church [...] stating: "The universal Church appears as a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit "( Lumen Gentium 4) [2] .
This is what Archbishop Lefebvre thought of this new ecclesiology:
There is a new ecclesiology, that is clear. [...] In my opinion, this is an exceptionally serious : nothing to say that there may be a new ecclesiology. The Church, it is not we who make it, it is not we who have made, it is neither the Pope nor the bishops, nor history, nor councils. It was made by Our Lord. [...] This does not depend on us. So how suddenly say, "Now since Vatican II, there is a new ecclesiology." It is unlikely [3] .
* Ecumenism:
Ecumenism is required to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. Within the challenge of the new paganism, we can and we must work with serious non-Catholics to defend the divine truth revealed [they reject!] and natural law created by God [they do not practice! ] [4] .
* Pope Francis
In the same interview on 30 May 2014 in the Latin Mass Society , speaking on Pope Francis after a year of his pontificate, Bishop Schneider said:
Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed in the manner expectations of the media. So far, he has expressed in official homilies a beautiful Catholic doctrine .
Bishop Schneider should read the study made two months ago by Alexandre-Marie published by Salt Publishing , and also broadcast by Clovis : The strange pontificate of Pope Francis . It shows the thinking of the Pope on Islam, Judaism, the State of secularism, homosexuality and even Freemasonry, far removed - to say the least - from the "beautiful Catholic doctrine."
* The liturgical reform:
In his book Corpus Christi [5] , widely disseminated by the media rallied Bishop Schneider instead sees the heart of the current crisis in the lack of respect in the distribution of communion:
The deepest wound of the current crisis of the Church is the Eucharistic injury, abuse in the Blessed Sacrament.
This is certainly extremely serious. However, is Communion in the hand not the consequence of the New Mass of Paul VI? Bishop Schneider does not call the question. He even thinks - but as Benedict XVI his teacher - the New Mass should enrich the traditional liturgy:
The introduction of some prefaces the new missal would be a nice and useful initiative and the introduction of new saints in the traditional liturgical calendar [6] (Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II?)
Add here that the Mass itself is that one of the aspects of the conciliar revolution, the most serious is the uncrowning of Our Lord. Always come back because it is the heart of our struggle, as the Archbishop said:
That's what makes our opposition [to the current Rome], and this is why we can not get along. It's not the first question of the Mass, because the Mass is just one of the consequences because we wanted to be closer to the Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc.
The real fundamental opposition is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oportet illum regnare , says St. Paul, Our Lord came to rule. They say no, we say yes with all the popes [7] .
In Fideliter January / February 2015, Fr. Toulza aptly wrote:
The crisis will not be solved by people more or less adequate if they renounce inadequate principles. The restoration of the true and the good in the Church did not start and can not be done without calling into question the principles that Benedict and Francis demanding one as the other , though undeniably one way different [8] .
One can also read Archbishop Lefebvre:
I hear: "You exaggerate! There are more good bishops who pray with faith, which are edifying, etc. »
Would they be saints, when they admit the false religious freedom, so the secular state; false ecumenism, so the admission of several ways of salvation; the liturgical reform, so practical negation of the sacrifice of the Mass; new catechisms with all their errors and heresies, they officially contribute to the Church's revolution and its destruction [9] .
Bishop Schneider has already been received in the spring of 2014 Zaiztkofen seminar by its director Fr. Schmidberger. He gave a lecture to the seminarians.
Two meetings were scheduled as part of the meetings requested by Rome in September: one in Saint Curé of Ars Seminary Flavigny (France), which took place Thursday, January 15, 2015, and during which Bishop Schneider also gave a lecture to the seminarians. The next seminar will be held at St. Thomas Aquinas Winona (USA). Surprisingly, no visit to Écône are announced.
Bishop Schneider, relatively young bishop, who frequents rallied circles, opposes communion in the hand, who does not mince words about the last synod, and like the splendor of the traditional liturgy ... but is imbued with the " strange theology "of Benedict XVI that he is the" best student "- the prelate seems able to attract more than a seminarian.
Philippines: another meeting
Visits of a prelate in the Philippines
According to the official press release of November 25, the Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), which published the photograph above, Father Carlos Reyes, Secretary of the Episcopal Commission for Interreligious Dialogue, was delivered on 18 November at Priory Manila to visit Fr. Nély second Assistant Bishop Fellay and the priests of the priory. The goal was indicated:
Develop cordial relations with the group in the same line as the September meeting at the Vatican: achieving full communion with the Church. Some canonical solutions have been raised.
[1] - Walter Brandmüller, The chiavi di Benedetto XVI per interpretare it Vaticano II , Siena, Cantagalli, 2012.
[2] - Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the newspaper interview Present of 10 January 2015, published without reservation by the site 's Latin Gate .
[3] - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, spiritual Conference March 17, 1986 to Écône; reproduced in part in the CD 2: The Holy Church, Archbishop Lefebvre Homilies and speeches broadcast by the same seminar.
[4] - Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Maintenance of May 30, 2014 with the Latin Mass Society , published by the Latin Gate , still without any critical judgment to form the faithful, thus taking the risk of deceiving.
[5] - Athanasius Schneider, Corpus Christi, Communion in the hand in the heart of the crisis in the Church , Contretemps Publishing, 2014. Foreword by Cardinal Burke.
[6] - The Letter of Peace Liturgical No. 249 of 24 September 2010.
[7] - Archbishop Lefebvre, The Church infiltrated by modernism , Editions Fideliter 1993, p. 70.
[8] - Fr. Philippe Toulza, "The Tradition, the Church, the world," Fideliter 223, January / February 2015, p. 70. It is necessary to study here and revisit the masterly study of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais The strange theology of Benedict XVI (Avrillé, Salt Publishing, 2012).
[9] - Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey , Prologue.
www.dominicainsavrille.fr/fraternite-saint-pie-x-visites-de-prelats/
Views: 653
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on
-
A Frightening Interview by Fr. Pfluger
- Attachments:
-
-
www.dominicansavrille.us/issue-18-jan-2015-friends-benefactors-letter/
Dear Friends, Family and Benefactors,
During a September 1988 conference to seminarians, Archbishop Lefebvre responded to the objection of those who were telling him, “You only speak of anti-liberalism and anti-modernism. You are too negative.” Here are the words of the Archbishop:
“Do not be intimidated by the labels we are given, « You are anti-liberal! All you ever do in the seminary is anti-modernism! » Do not be impressed by such reflections which could well be applied to all the encyclicals of all the Popes before the Council, as well as to the Faith of the Middle Ages, the entire life of the Middle Ages – the life of Christendom – in which Our Lord reigned in civil society.”
Moreover, the Archbishop explained that, in order to be the doctor of souls, one must know about the diseases of the soul. We know of what spiritual health consists: the principles of the Faith. However, we must also understand the current errors which are opposed to these principles, and especially the error of liberalism which is at the root of all modern errors. We must have the weapons to defend and protect the souls entrusted to our care. Such has always been the conduct of the Church. For example, in the first years of Catholicism, the Church has had to fight against the errors of the Judaizers and the Gnostics, and, later on, against the Cathars, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the “Enlightenment” philosophers, the secularists, and so on.
Archbishop Lefebvre continues to point out the importance of studying errors for the reason that
“We are only following the Popes, in fact all the Popes, who have studied and condemned liberalism. It is even amazing to take note of the numerous encyclicals and Papal teachings, from Popes Pius VI and VII right up to Pope Pius XII, which deal with the pursuit of error.”
For example, the Popes, from the 18th to the 20th century, have promulgated 15 documents that condemn Freemasonry, which is just one aspect of liberalism. The encyclical Humanum Genus (April 20, 1884) of Pope Leo XIII is the most well-known of these anti-Freemasonic documents. Doesn’t this example illustrate the importance the Church gives to pursuing and condemning errors?
To study such errors is to understand the causes that are currently destroying society, and which are also destroying souls and the Church… If we remain ignorant of error, we will be incapable of understanding the current situation in the world – and in the Church – which are so disastrous. If we choose to remain ignorant of error, we will be powerless to understand the diffusion of the evil that is spreading everywhere now, even in the Church itself. Thus, not only shall we be powerless to stop evil from growing: we ourselves will fall prey to evil. Hence, “it is an absolute necessity to study liberalism, and to know it well,” concludes the Archbishop.
The Archbishop speaks further:
“Many of those who have left us to join [Conciliar] Rome have a wrong understanding of liberalism and have never really understood how the authorities in Rome, ever since Vatican II, have become infested with error. If they had a right understanding of liberalism, they would have shunned and avoided these authorities, and then remain with us. But they did not want to believe in the danger of these errors, which is a grievous matter, because having relations with these authorities necessarily results in being contaminated by them. These authorities are imbued with the liberalism and necessarily act according to their way of thinking. Therefore, once they begin having relations with us, they shall impose their ideas on us because they are the authority, and we, their inferiors. We will become liberal because they have imposed liberalism on us. Thus, as long as they hold to these errors of liberalism and modernism, there is no way to get along with them.”
May our Infant King give us the grace during this New Year to study more profoundly both truth and error in order to fight ever more faithfully to spread His reign.
-
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:"We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
Thus, the positions will be clear.
The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the traditional Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear."“Rome doesn’t plan on imposing a capitulation”
-
Permalink Reply by 3uj43e3xyogtz on
-
Only the Queen Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary can intercede with Her Divine Son to counter the political intrigues of the Modernist who at present seem to have complete control of Holy Mother the Church and have held Her captive for almost a full century, but only gained complete power within the Vatican in last 50 years.
Their master is the Prince of Evil. And they serve him through the loss of souls.
May the Blessed Spouse of the Holy Ghost assist The Bishops of The Society of Pius X. And all they that do spiritual battle against these forces of EVIL.
+JMJ=
-
-
seanjohnsonresistance.blogspot.com/
This is the best way I can explain how a Fr. Pfluger can rise to the top of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX:
In short, we get the leaders we want.
1) In the early days of the seminary at Econe, there was a tremendous upheaval of contending theological opinions;
2) There were bi-ritualists, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, recognize and resisters, indult seekers, and everything in between;
3) When the Archbishop was away from Econe, there was violent contention for the supremacy of the various competing views;
4) But when the Archbishop returned, calm was restored, and unity was preserved;
5) There were many, therefore, who, while being opposed to the Conciliar trends, did not share Archbishop Lefebvre's perspective;
6) But that did not matter, so long as Archbishop Lefebvre was alive:
7) They would all pay him deference, in the hope their own views could be instilled or championed by him;
8) Meanwhile, as the 1970s passed into the 1980s, circumstances and Roman actions began to give the SSPX a certain "corporate" identity;
9) They were identified by others as representing a certain position (despite the fact that there were other factions within the "corporation" that did not share that position);
10) This had the effect of causing these other factions to assert themselves, to their own detriment (one thinks of the sedevacantists here in particular; the conservatives and indulters generally leaving now of their own accord);
11) The effect was a proportionaltely more theologically monolithic pius union;
12) The number of contending factions had been reduced;
13) By the time the 1990s arrived, in the wake of Archbishop Lefebvre's death, there were really only two factions left within the SSPX:
14) Those who wanted to come to an understanding with Rome, and those who wanted Rome to return to the Faith.
15) The former never understood that, while the Archbishop spent many years negotiating with Rome, it was always with Rome's conversion in mind;
16) That, if the primary stumbling block between Rome and the Archbishop was the matter of bishops, it was because the Archbishop insisted upon this matter as a means of maintaining independence from modernist Rome, and preserving a means of regenerating the Church independent of them;
17) The Assissi scandals showed the Archbishop that more than a practical accord would be required to insure the continuation of the Church;
18) But the Archbishop having died, a wake was left;
19) Would the SSPX continue to follow his line of thinking, or second guess him?
20) When Bishop Fellay was elected Superior General in 1994, it was not long before he (or his representatives) were approached regarding "alternative solutions" (a la GREC);
21) It is worth pausing to consider there is no available evidence I am aware of to suggest Gilbert Perol ever approached Archbishop Lefebvre after 1988 with his political solution;
22) Yet, he saw something in Bishop Fellay that told him that, where his efforts with Archbishop Lefebvre would be in vain, with Bishop Fellay they might be fruitful.
23) By the time I was in the seminary in Winona (which was only for a year), the two remaining factions were in heavy competition:
24) Bishop Williamson was steering the seminary in one direction (i.e., that laid down by Archbishop Lefebvre), and a resistance to this direction spreading underground amongst the other faction (of which, regretably, I was among them at the time);
25) And I have to say that, based upon my personal conversations with faculty and seminarians in 2001-2002, my rejection of Bishop Williamson's position was already then in the majority;
26) Why was it in the majority?
27) Open to conjecture on this point, but I think the answer was given by Bishop Williamson himself in his YouTube video when he introduced Fr. Zendejas to the Resistance chapels in the Northeast US;
28) He observed that, while the seminarians that originally implored Archbishop Lefebvre to form them (i.e., 20 year-olds in 1970 who were born in 1950) were of a different stock than those who came to the seminary in 2000 (i.e., 20 year-olds born in 1980);
29) The earlier seminarians still had, comparatively speaking, a more grounded secular existence, and parents who still had a comparatively better grasp on principles.
30) The latter batch of seminarians (of whom I include myself) were raised by post-1960s revolutionary parents, in a world of abortion, birth control, divorce, Vatican II modernism, sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.
31) In short, the more recent seminarians were of a lesser stock (with many exceptions) generally speaking, having been tainted by their environments;
32) So it is only natural (and almost expected), that amongst the two competing factions within the SSPX, Bishop Williamson's principled position would seem more radical, and less attractive, than Bishop Fellay's "practical prudence."
33) And therefore, it is only natural, that to combat Bishop Williamson's principled position, Bishop Fellay would seek to counteract that undesirable influence by appointing high ranking officials in the various Districts and General Councel itself, to contain Bishop Williamson's influence, and promote his own perspective;
34) This is how a man like Fr. Pfluger can climb to the pinnacle of power and influence in the SSPX.
35) In short: There were enough of us who did not understand the fight, and hoped for (and lobbied for) such leaders to take the helm.
36) It was a tragic mistake, and the consequences are obvious.
Dawn Marie said:A Frightening Interview by Fr. Pfluger
-
-
seanjohnsonresistance.blogspot.com/
Letter of Fr Nicholas Pfluger to Bishop Richard Williamson
Dec. 27, 2010
Your Excellency,
Dear Bishop Williamson,
For months I have been meaning to write to you in order to bring up everything so to speak incomprehensible and also false in the things you have been saying over the last few years. I put it off since you never brought up arguments and obviously feel personally hurt – rather unusual for a free-thinking man. But after I could not help reading in your latest “Eleison Comments” that “World War III may not be far off”, I am now writing before time becomes short, because one never knows when time will run out.
This prophecy of yours took my mind back to the after-dinner speeches at the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, After the main event all four newly consecrated bishops said a few words. Bishop Tissier as usual was very theological and dogmatic. Bishop de Galarreta was short and discrete. Bishop Fellay was pastoral and balanced. But you were principally concerned with war. Perhaps you were already thinking of World War III when you cried out to the assembly, “It’s war, it’s war !”. At that time it was still the Russians who were due to attack. It would be quite a task to count up all the times in the last 22 years that you have prophesied with precise dates the Third World War and the Chastisement. At least a dozen times for sure. A task also to work out why you have never asked yourself the question whether your forecasting arises from objective analysis and not rather from subjective utopianism.
Alas, I know you do not ask yourself such questions. Nor do you ask why I, and with me Menzingen and almost the entire Society of St Pius X and the world while we are about it, why we merely shake our heads and are simply disappointed. (I attach extracts from two e-mails, the first coming from a former pupil of yours, the second from a German town mayor.) For you it is clear. Always somebody else is to blame. Everybody else is clueless, blind to reality, agents of some organization or other, be it Freemasonry or the Mossad or the CIA, most recently and emphatically “the Jews” – the list is long. In brief, anybody who disagrees with you is either stupid or wicked or both. To any of the people who have rejected your constant warnings of war and your crude political and economic theories, and who have criticized you for them – there are many such people, and some have even been offended -- have you ever apologized ? Have you apologized to one single one ? Would you ever be capable of saying, “I was wrong” ?
In fact that is a blatantly semitic way of thinking: to pin one’s own faults on a scapegoat, which bears the guilty for everything. That is what Hitler did. The Germans’ own defeat of November 9, 1918 produced a hatred for international Jewry, which was responsible for all evil in the German nation and therefore had to be “fought openly and without mercy”.
This problem is to be seen at another point in the latest “Eleison Comments”. You wrote there: “Derivatives… act upon the delicate mechanisms of world finance like weapons of mass destruction, because they easily fabricate an unreal world of colossal and unpayable debt.” To which one smart reader replied, “The Bishop is showing off – “delicate mechanisms of world finance” -- as though he sees through the mechanisms of world finance and could point out their weaknesses.” You could not do that. No more can you see through the highly complex connections of politics, or the Nazis’ mass-murder of Jews. You have an opinion, then you look around for a few unconnected details which somehow fit this opinion (for instance the “Leuchter Report”), and you hawk it all as the truth.
On September 11, 2001 you were beginning your Confirmations tour in Switzerland. That evening, when Islamic terrorists crashed hi-jacked aeroplanes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and brought the Towers down, we arrived at about 6pm in Littau and Brother Anthony showed you the new church of the priory still under construction. He also mentioned something of the Twin Towers in New York with 50,000 people killed. You asked me to listen to the news. At 6.30pm the Confirmation ceremony began and you declared it was “the Jews”. How could you know that so fast ? You could not. You had no information leading to any such conclusion. Many of the faithful were disappointed that you had nothing spiritual to say, a few were impressed that you seemed to have the solution so fast. From that day on, if not sooner, my colleagues and I saw clearly that basically you are never looking for the historical truth, but only for what is true for you, what you want to be true. You have, as I formulated it last year, an idealistic view of history, And at table in a priory, I said you are an idealist. You were deeply offended, as someone told me. But actually the truth goes a little further. You are the caricature of an idealist.
There is a famous quotation attributed to you concerning the so-called “Protocols of the Sages of Sion”, namely : “God put it in men’s hands”. You thus raised the “Protocols” to the level of divine Revelation. That is inevitable if people want to believe in them, because the Tsarist government granted long ago that they were the product of its own secret service, and all further investigations led clearly to the same conclusion. Have you read any of these investigations, for instance the official account of the Berne Trial of 1934 ? No, of course you have not. Yet you are certain that the “Protocols” are authentic. Why ? Because you want them to be.
It is the same with the Nazis’ extermination of Jews. Did you read the book of Pressac which we had sent to you ? Of course not. Have you read the standard work on the subject, Hilberg’s “The Extermination of European Jewry”? Not either. Attorney Krah recommended to you at least once to ask David Irving, a recognized expert in archives and until recently your mentor, what the facts are. You would not listen. That is hardly surprising, given that in the meantime Irving is not calling in question the mass-murder of millions of innocent Jews, including by gassing. On a different tack he is upholding abstruse theories on the side, but he is not so blind as to deny the obvious. But why go in for studying history ? You know it all without having to study, because you insist on your idea of reality. Idealism, as I said.
Thus there cannot have been any industrial mass-murder of Jews because you do not want there to have been. Because it does not fit your world-view. Therefore any document proving that there was such mass-murder, is a forgery, and any witness testifying that there was, even if it was SS perpetrators themselves, is suborned, and every scientific researcher coming to the same conclusion is a liar. Similarly anyone not subscribing to your theories on 9/11 is not Catholic. You have put as much in writing, indeed that is your key question : as you once asked the Superior General, “Do you believe in the Twin Towers ?”
I am sorry that I have to speak so harshly to you. I would have preferred to start this letter in a friendly and non-aggressive way, asking after your health and the weather in London. The weather has got to be bad in Paris because we have been waiting over five hours to take off, so I am writing this letter in a Boeing 777. I would prefer to be writing about Christmas customs in Asia and the wonderful people in particular that I had occasion to meet there, or to be writing with my thanks for having visited Japan as a Society priest as far back as 1978. At that time, by the way, only one thing mattered to you and that was to preach Jesus Christ, and him crucified; there was only one question, and that was the Truth which is Christ himself. But since then two other questions have arisen for you. The first, as you recently wrote to one of our priests, is: “Were six million Jews gassed, yes or no ?” With all respect for your episcopal rank as bishop, that is not an “objective question”, it is not even a question, it is pure nonsense. Name me one serious historian, name me one single man who still claims today that six million were gassed. Not murdered, but gassed. You will not find one, is my impression. You are the one and only person who maintains any such thing. In psychology that is called a fixation. As for your second question, “Do or do not the Six Million have a religious importance ?”, your answer is unsatisfactory and false. It goes without saying that every historical question also has a religious dimension. Nobody disputes that, but our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, gave us a clear standpoint from which to judge of history, politics, social doctrine and so on, and that is Jesus Christ himself, the Social Kingship of Christ. That is it. And no stupid ideological or idealistic theories. As I said, under normal circumstances, this letter would not be adopting such an approach or treating of such matters. But 2010 was not a year calling for any normal way to approach things. Unfortunately.
In exchanges with various people, colleagues, priests, relatives, friends, outsiders, I have frequently tried to understand you. I am terribly sorry to see how you are running to waste, how you are burying yourself in the most abstruse theories and then passing them off as divine truth. Were a good fairy to grant me three wishes, one would certainly be for you to come up with the strength to recognize reality. But there are no such fairies, and in their stead a quotation comes back to me from my Greek studies : whom the gods wish to destroy, they first strike blind.
Your Excellency, allow me a family reminiscence. You are well aware how highly my family held you in esteem, and how you enjoyed visiting our home. Back in the late 1970’s my parents were there, and you were a young priest spending the night with us, because you were celebrating Mass in the family Chapel nearby on the following morning. You were in a discussion with my father. Mother was also present. You surely remember my mother, a quiet, reserved woman, a still water running deep, at opposite poles to my father. That evening the discussion between my father and you was heated. Mother had kept quiet all evening so it was quite unexpected when she suddenly said in her quiet and almost shy way, “Father, remember your own mother was also a woman.” End of discussion.
Your scorn of women, your hatred of Jews, your lack of measure were always there, only we paid no attention. We were too busy defending the Faith, rescuing the Mass, battling with modernists in the Church, to pick up on these repulsive aspects of your behavior. You were the English gentleman, eccentric for sure, but cultured, unconventional, charming. Of course the doubts grew as time went on. How often you tripped up and let yourself be influenced by strange people and ideas (I think for instance of Fr. Urrutigoity, or your notion of the Tridentine seminary being “out-of-date”). But we pushed these doubts to one side. We rather felt than consciously knew that something was not quite right. Only in 2009 did we begin to think things over and check them out. At which point we realized how deep the problem ran – a veritable abyss ! Not to say that we were in no way responsible. A few months ago, a District Superior said to me who is not much younger than yourself, “The crazy ideas of Bishop Williamson were familiar to us, and we knew all about them.”
Long before 2009 a friend said to me that on reading the things you write, he is always asking himself if your ever gaining influence and power is something to be desired, and his answer is always, no. Moreover, were you to become influential or powerful, he, one of our active faithful, would join a Christian resistance group. Such were the doubts, such the feeling of unease.
In his latest book the Pope has talked about you in some detail. He says that in your case one notices a lack of experience of the mainstream Church. You went straight from Protestantism – or at any rate nominal Protestantism – into the narrow world of the Society of St Pius X. Of course we were upset and indignant. On behalf of the Society, Fr Gaudron criticized the Pope’s remark and pointed out that when you converted you were for a while in the official Church. However, the Pope may have been referring to something else. You converted in the middle of the confusion following on the Council, when the old religion was seen as being worthless and its collapse was visible. Everybody felt homeless. That may be why you lack this deep feeling of what it is to be a Catholic. How else is your love of provoking people to be explained, even in front of the Blessed Sacrament ? Is it just to provoke, or is it something more ? What would the Pope say if he knew how constantly you refuse to speak about the virtue of love ? yet God is love, and we read in St Jerome’s Commentary for the Feast of St John Evangelist how at the end of St John’s long life all he would ever call for was love. And there go you, saying to a Superior who asked you on a priests’ Retreat not to talk only about politics and gas-chambers and the Twin Towers, “Love – I despise the word !” And just what would the Pope say if he heard you answering orders of the Superior General with a vulgar swearword, repeated three times ? Call such a reaction sarcasm if you like, but it is not exactly Catholic. Genuine Catholicism can be recognized by breadth of thinking, by love of the Church, by generosity of outlook, if you like, but not by hurtful slander of people who think differently, such as you are now doing through your friends on the Internet. Whoever does not share your view of history is a “Jew”. And anyone drinking wine with Jewish colleagues is behaving like a Jew and undermining the Society of St Pius X. Even the Nazis did not go that far. Two years ago you told me that as Rector of the Seminary in Ridgefield you invited a Rabbi. Did that make you also into a Jew ?
One of the first and most basic criticisms of the Council comes from the psychoanalyst Alfred Lorenzer, “The Book-keepers’ Council” (for a long time this book could be found in the book-racks of our chapels in Germany). One may or may not care for psychoanalysis, but Lorenzer gives a marvelous description of what religion, Catholicism in particular, means for man. It is something that one picks up even before language or rational consciousness. He calls it a “system of symbols”. It has something to do with liturgy, with song, with certainty. It precedes and follows all awareness. One is, quite simply, Catholic. Whatever the Pope says, whatever happens, one is Catholic. The most unlikely people keep finding it is there inside them, and then suddenly they are proud of it. The two Spiegel reporters that you called “rats” and whose reporting was by the way most helpful to the Society, are a case in point. The older one, Wensierski, is Catholic, a man who has gone along with all the errors and confusion of the last 40 years. He has written nasty articles criticizing the Church, but as a reporter he also got himself thrown out of communist East Germany because he supported resistance groups. A difficult man for sure, and stolid, but fully convinced of his own Catholicism, enthused by the Society church of St Nicolas du Chardonet in Paris, and ever concerned to convert his younger colleague who at that point parts company with his elder. Simply being Catholic, belonging to this inconceivable, fantastic, great, unique Church, way beyond all human imagining, constantly being pronounced dead yet arising joyfully once more to life, ever ready to pick one up again, to forgive, to be generous, where one is always back at home – what is more beautiful on the face of the earth ? So when I read writings of yours, and remember various things you have said, then I am afraid you have no share in its happiness. That is what I think a colleague meant who has been a Superior in the Society for many years and esteems you as much as ever, when he said, “Gentlemen, why has nobody got the gumption to say that in what he says, in the provocative way he says it, in the freelance way he crashes around inside the Society, Bishop Williamson is a liberal ? Why indeed ?
In your commentaries on the talks going on between the Society and the Curia you give the impression that the worst thing you can imagine is a re-union, a Catholic return to normal. When I read that, when cradle Catholics read that, we just do not understand. When it comes to living our religion, there is nothing we wish for more than to be able to live undisturbed like Catholics, and nothing makes us suffer so much as finding ourselves in a situation where our conscience, as enlightened by the centuries-old Magisterium, makes that impossible. Your very logic with regard to Rome is false, a vicious circle – “Because they are modernists, we cannot and may not talk with them.” Yet faith comes from hearing. Then can the Pope and the Curia never become Catholic, because nobody talks to them ? What is the point of our praying and going on mission ? Quite independently of your revolutionary attitude whereby, just because you are a bishop, you know it all, both what is Catholic and what is not, and how the Society should behave towards Rome, and forget the Superior General. Anyone would think the world turns
around you. As I said, maybe the Pope was referring to this unbending narrow-mindedness. For indeed the relation to reality alone makes something true, and not because one wants it to be true. I do not think one can be Catholic if one does not grasp with all one’s senses what that means. This grasp you obviously do not have. I repeat, your sermons against love in Zaitzkofen and St Nicolas de Chardonnet are legendary. The verdict is pronounced in Goethe’s “Faust, Part One”: “Unless you feel it, you will not get it.”
Our venerable Founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, fully embodied this Catholic way of being. How he would let loose, many an evening, against Cardinal Ratzinger ! Only to admit ruefully on the following morning that he had exaggerated, and then he would praise the Cardinal’s piety. But when did you yourself once admit that you were wrong ? The Curia pushed its humiliating of the Archbishop beyond all limits, but he remained Catholic. That is what we hoped for from you.
The Society is cast for the role of an outsider. That tempts us to grant a measure of sympathy to any other outsiders. I consider this is a trap. We are not truly outsiders. There are many others, romping around the Internet, who are truly outsiders. Ever since your interview of November 1, 2008, on Swedish TV, I have had plenty of opportunity whether I wanted to or not, to confront Holocaust-deniers, or “Revisionists” as you call them. Goodness gracious, what miserable minds ! Precisely, not Catholic. When I think of the court case of Horst Mahler, supposedly converting because of you… That is pure Hegelianism, but certainly not Catholic. And then all the crazy ideas of your supposed friends, Butz, Faurisson and so on. Men neither nice nor Catholic. Be it Neo-nazism, “Third Position”, Antisemitism, or any kind of extremism, one has the impression that it is all about finding excuses to avoid having to hold down a regular job. When it comes to slandering, I repeat, they are fast on the uptake, as happens on the Internet too. Unfortunately you were not able to resist the temptation to join in. Morally speaking that has always been sinful. One of the people slandered has, to my way of thinking, neatly summed up what kind of people are behind the slandering : “Uneducated, unbalanced, sexually frustrated, male losers.” The one constant feature in the lives of such men is often their extremism. Yesterday they were tough British Nationalists opposed to North Irish Catholics, today they belong to the “Third Position”, tomorrow they will probably be followers of Islam. The solidarity between Nazis and Islamists became clear at the Holocaust-denying Conference in Teheran, and you too never tire of declaring that Western society, our own civilization, no longer deserves to exist. I find all that repulsive, but hardly surprising. Some time ago Hitler declared that National Socialism could not be understood without Wagner and Nietsche. But when it comes down to presenting such nonsense as though it were a religious duty to do so, then I step into the lists for the greater glory of God. I cannot and will not let the name of God be misused for such weak-mindedness. I have already written to you once that I certainly did not become a priest in order to preach hatred of Jews. Nor did I enter the Society to canonize Hitler. I am horrified to see you spreading around videos which justify the mass-murder by Hitler. And now you set up to be defending your honor ? Just what honor ? The honor of trampling on the historical truth ? Your Excellency, kindly defend the honor of the Society, the honor of Our Lord !
I admit that in the past we have been too negligent in this respect. We kept quiet when we should have spoken out, we looked away, we practised a false tolerance. We should have contradicted you much sooner. We might have brought you to think again at a moment when you could still turn back. The situation with the supposed “excommunications”, each day’s worries, our concern with the problems in the Church and our respect for your rank all distracted us from recognizing and correcting our own weaknesses and shortcomings. In 2009 we were punished for it. Instead of a triumph after the lifting of the excommunications we were humbled and pilloried. I am not complaining: those whom God loves, he chastises. But I hope that we are learning from our mistakes. There can be no more false tolerance. We are no longer looking away. We are speaking up. We are no longer letting political sectarians enter the Society as parasites to heat up their little brew on our stove, on the grounds that they are not allowed to do it anywhere else. You cannot really be claiming that the Society and the General Superior must share and promote your Nazi ideas !
The way to salvation is the truth. The Church was always generous in this respect, demanding the acceptance only of defined dogma. The Church leaves room for freedom. You are not so generous. You turn everything into a question of absolute truth. Well then, you are being measured by your own standard. You will not get around having to accept the truth as it really is, and you will have to take leave of your own fabricated version It is a difficult path to tread, because it leads to hurtful admissions, to turning off the path so far trodden, to a new beginning, involving the closing down of a previous life. As I sit here I pray and hope that you will nevertheless make the effort, and I promise you to help you on your way, but I cannot help sensing that, indignantly refusing to do so, you will distrust me, consider I am stupid or wicked or both, and not be able to see how far you have distanced yourself from what you are always invoking: the truth.
I am not here making myself out to be higher than you. I do not want to judge, I want to save. The way you have developed causes me endless grief. On reading some novels one constantly wants to get involved in the story oneself, to shake up the leading character and cry out to him to wake up before it is too late ! He does not do so, and the tragedy plays itself out. Radetzky March by Joseph Roth is one such novel, centering on the fall of the Austrian monarchy. The hero is a tragic figure so charismatic, intelligent and attractive that despite all his negative qualities one cannot help falling under his spell, so that one is constantly crying out to him to wake up. But he never does, and so the novel ends in catastrophe.
We have flown over Beijing and just passed Ulan Bator, so now we fly the length of Novosibirsk. The sun is setting to the west, it is a beautiful evening. I think back to our faithful in Japan and Korea, how their souls are thirsting for truth. And Ernst Hello comes into my mind : “There is only one tragedy, and that is that we are not saints.” Yet there you go, wanting us to talk about the length of chimneys in concentration camps. Goodness gracious ! And I am reminded of war rhetoric. And of how in the courtyard of Econe, after the Episcopal Consecrations, when journalists asked what should be done with enemies of the Church, you made clear gestures in front of the cameras filming to show that a machine-gun was the answer. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger as he then was also saw that. I do not know. But I do remember that on the way home a colleague expressed his concern about the future Bishop Williamson.
He did not turn out well. The damage you have done to the Society and to the entire Church with your false political ideas is immense. However I am personally convinced that graver than all your political theories is your un-catholic pessimism, your defeatism in face of the crisis of the Faith and the collapse of Church life. A colleague in the USA summed up your “theology” as follows: Bishop Williamson says, “Grace builds on nature (that is perfectly Catholic). Now the nature of modern man is completely ruined and corrupted. So forget the supernatural and firstly restore nature.” I am under the impression that your pessimism in religion and your “waiting for Godot” attitude in politics stem from this under-estimation of the supernatural. Your Excellency, allow me to remind you that grace exercises a function of healing nature. It is a dangerous temptation in the face of the present crisis to seek after untried natural solutions, and to think that the world can be overcome by worldly means. Faith alone conquers the world, says the Apostle, and for Pius X lack of faith and ignorance are the problem of modern times, not the Jews ! That is what was so fascinating in Archbishop Lefebvre: he believed in love, and believed that the tried and true means of grace are sufficient to spread the Kingdom of Christ.
All the above and much more as well came into my mind as I read your latest forecast of war. Maybe we should still “let the sparrows chirp”, as Don Bosco said, and concern ourselves with Christ and his Church, rather than busy ourselves with financial markets and chemical gas compounds. Do you not agree ?
That is why I am writing to you. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
God bless ! And Happy New Year !
Yours in Our Lord,
Fr. Niklaus Pfluger.
Dawn Marie said:A Frightening Interview by Fr. Pfluger
-
-
Hmmm, Our Lady of Fatima does did not Lie.
+JMJ+
-
-
May the Queen of Heaven help us now and always.
Pray for Bishop Williamson and Father Niklaus Pfluger.
+JMJ+
Dawn Marie said:seanjohnsonresistance.blogspot.com/
Letter of Fr Nicholas Pfluger to Bishop Richard Williamson
Dec. 27, 2010
Your Excellency,
Dear Bishop Williamson,
For months I have been meaning to write to you in order to bring up everything so to speak incomprehensible and also false in the things you have been saying over the last few years. I put it off since you never brought up arguments and obviously feel personally hurt – rather unusual for a free-thinking man. But after I could not help reading in your latest “Eleison Comments” that “World War III may not be far off”, I am now writing before time becomes short, because one never knows when time will run out.
This prophecy of yours took my mind back to the after-dinner speeches at the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, After the main event all four newly consecrated bishops said a few words. Bishop Tissier as usual was very theological and dogmatic. Bishop de Galarreta was short and discrete. Bishop Fellay was pastoral and balanced. But you were principally concerned with war. Perhaps you were already thinking of World War III when you cried out to the assembly, “It’s war, it’s war !”. At that time it was still the Russians who were due to attack. It would be quite a task to count up all the times in the last 22 years that you have prophesied with precise dates the Third World War and the Chastisement. At least a dozen times for sure. A task also to work out why you have never asked yourself the question whether your forecasting arises from objective analysis and not rather from subjective utopianism.
[...]
-
Permalink Reply by Ana De Valle on
-
On February 11, 2015, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX Superior General, and also with several priests of the Society, at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona (United States).
This was the second visit by Bishop Schneider to one of our seminaries. On January 16, 2015, he had visited the St. Cure d’Ars Seminary in Flavigny (France). Both meetings pertained to the question of the liturgical reform of Paul VI and the doctrinal presuppositions of the Novus Ordo Missae.
On December 5, 2014, Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences,had visited Sacred Heart Seminary in Zaitzkofen (Germany), where the discussion focused on the magisterial authority of Vatican Council II.
These meetings are a way of continuing the doctrinal discussions between the Society of St. Pius X and the Roman authorities « in a larger and less formal context than that of the preceding meetings », according tothe decision made during the meeting of Bishop Fellay with Cardinal..., Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 23, 2014.
These meetings are also an opportunity for the visitors to become better acquainted with the Society of St. Pius X, and also to learn more about what has been accomplished by the works of Tradition.
The visit in Winona coincided with the annual meeting of priests, during which 80 priests of the United States District met at the seminary for a week of studies.
(Source: FSSPX/MG– DICI dated February 14, 2015)
-
-
La Porte Latine (Official site of the SSPX in France), posted an article entitled: Bishop Brandmuller began his visits of evaluation... but who's cardinal Brandmuller?
THIS IS CARDINAL BRANDMULLER, THE "EVALUATOR" OF THE SSPX:
-
-
Terrible!!! Altar women and girls???
Are They Lutherans???
I guess anything goes in Germany. Or is this France?
I hardly recognize anything that is" CATHOLIC", when I have traveled there, except for the underground church. Standing during the consecration is NOT reverent.
pmf
-
-
More photos: Non Possumus
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
