Open Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer, English and Spanish
Rev. Father Pfeiffer,
Rev. Father Pfeiffer,
November 13, 2014
I would like to communicate to you in a public correspondence how much I admire your fight for the Faith and Tradition and your resistance to a deal with modernist Rome. It was only by accident that a couple years ago I stumbled across your you-tube video of May 27th, 2012 during the same week that it was published. It was this video and the subsequent events of that summer which opened my eyes to the problem, which persists, of the leadership of the SSPX. Your courage in speaking was especially inspiring to me, and I listened to your sermon several times that week.
Since that time many things have changed, which are not even necessary for me to describe here. The principal fact which is now different from that year is that there are now literally dozens of priests who have left the SSPX or have been dismissed due to their disagreement with a compromise to the modernist Roman authorities, the primary of these priests being His Excellency Bishop R. Williamson. Within recent days there seems to be a disagreement between yourself and at least one or two other resistance priests, so much so that it has been perceived by the faithful and published in the public forum, as well as receiving attention in a recent “question and answers’ session in Canada. (*1)
Because it seems odd to the faithful that you would remain quiet about this issue, I feel compelled to address it in this letter. It seems that the true point of disagreement between yourself and other resistance priests is due to your position regarding SSPX Masses. It seems that you first began to promote your position of "red-lighting" (prohibiting attendance at) all SSPX chapels collectively at least as early as March 10th, 2013 in a sermon where, not specifying if you were being objective or subjective, you stated that all SSPX priests are "guilty" of "wickedness of doctrine" and that it is no longer permitted to the faithful to attend any SSPX Mass because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics. (Here at minute 46:15- "Every SSPX priest is a modernist" at minute mark 1:00:00 the explanation of communicatio in sacris begins.) The basis for this generalized prohibition of the SSPX Masses was the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay, which was later reported by Fr. Morgan in Catholic Family News to have not only been withdrawn but also "renounced". (*2)
With these brief details which I have laid out thus far, I find myself obliged to ask you in the public forum, as these details have all received a great deal of public attention among traditional Catholics and also due to the confusion and division which have resulted, several questions which I will enumerate so as to elicit a more precise response and clarification that may serve to foster unity among Traditional Catholics if possible.
1) If Bishop Fellay has publicly renounced the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, is there some new reason why the faithful are obligated to avoid all SSPX Masses collectively? Are you still claiming that all SSPX Masses are to be avoided or do you prefer the position which has been deemed more prudent by other resistance priests which calls for caution of SSPX chapels on a case by case basis (yellow-lighting)?
2) I currently only attend Masses offered by resistance priests but know several priests who are offering Masses in the SSPX chapels and preach very strongly against modern errors, Vatican 2, and the New Mass and have a solid doctrine. If there is certainly the Traditional Faith and Sacraments being offered by individual SSPX priests (and no one doubts this) and the 2012 April 15th Doctrinal Declaration was renounced, does your "red-light" position not conflict with that position of the Society which has always been that where there is solid Catholic doctrine and Traditional Sacraments one may attend Mass?
3) What is your position towards the numerous other resistance priests who claim that there are many good priests in the SSPX and do not prohibit their faithful from attending SSPX Masses? Do you also consider these priests as being "guilty" of deceiving the faithful or allowing the faithful to be in communion with heretics? Do you also prohibit the faithful from attending these other resistance priests' Masses, as would be the logical conclusion?
4) Because of the recent conflict perceived by the faithful between another priest who had recently left the SSPX to help the resistance and yourself, do you not feel that you are possibly jeopardizing the growth of the resistance or even de-motivating other priests from leaving the SSPX and helping the resistance?
I would like to communicate to you in a public correspondence how much I admire your fight for the Faith and Tradition and your resistance to a deal with modernist Rome. It was only by accident that a couple years ago I stumbled across your you-tube video of May 27th, 2012 during the same week that it was published. It was this video and the subsequent events of that summer which opened my eyes to the problem, which persists, of the leadership of the SSPX. Your courage in speaking was especially inspiring to me, and I listened to your sermon several times that week.
Since that time many things have changed, which are not even necessary for me to describe here. The principal fact which is now different from that year is that there are now literally dozens of priests who have left the SSPX or have been dismissed due to their disagreement with a compromise to the modernist Roman authorities, the primary of these priests being His Excellency Bishop R. Williamson. Within recent days there seems to be a disagreement between yourself and at least one or two other resistance priests, so much so that it has been perceived by the faithful and published in the public forum, as well as receiving attention in a recent “question and answers’ session in Canada. (*1)
Because it seems odd to the faithful that you would remain quiet about this issue, I feel compelled to address it in this letter. It seems that the true point of disagreement between yourself and other resistance priests is due to your position regarding SSPX Masses. It seems that you first began to promote your position of "red-lighting" (prohibiting attendance at) all SSPX chapels collectively at least as early as March 10th, 2013 in a sermon where, not specifying if you were being objective or subjective, you stated that all SSPX priests are "guilty" of "wickedness of doctrine" and that it is no longer permitted to the faithful to attend any SSPX Mass because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics. (Here at minute 46:15- "Every SSPX priest is a modernist" at minute mark 1:00:00 the explanation of communicatio in sacris begins.) The basis for this generalized prohibition of the SSPX Masses was the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay, which was later reported by Fr. Morgan in Catholic Family News to have not only been withdrawn but also "renounced". (*2)
With these brief details which I have laid out thus far, I find myself obliged to ask you in the public forum, as these details have all received a great deal of public attention among traditional Catholics and also due to the confusion and division which have resulted, several questions which I will enumerate so as to elicit a more precise response and clarification that may serve to foster unity among Traditional Catholics if possible.
1) If Bishop Fellay has publicly renounced the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, is there some new reason why the faithful are obligated to avoid all SSPX Masses collectively? Are you still claiming that all SSPX Masses are to be avoided or do you prefer the position which has been deemed more prudent by other resistance priests which calls for caution of SSPX chapels on a case by case basis (yellow-lighting)?
2) I currently only attend Masses offered by resistance priests but know several priests who are offering Masses in the SSPX chapels and preach very strongly against modern errors, Vatican 2, and the New Mass and have a solid doctrine. If there is certainly the Traditional Faith and Sacraments being offered by individual SSPX priests (and no one doubts this) and the 2012 April 15th Doctrinal Declaration was renounced, does your "red-light" position not conflict with that position of the Society which has always been that where there is solid Catholic doctrine and Traditional Sacraments one may attend Mass?
3) What is your position towards the numerous other resistance priests who claim that there are many good priests in the SSPX and do not prohibit their faithful from attending SSPX Masses? Do you also consider these priests as being "guilty" of deceiving the faithful or allowing the faithful to be in communion with heretics? Do you also prohibit the faithful from attending these other resistance priests' Masses, as would be the logical conclusion?
4) Because of the recent conflict perceived by the faithful between another priest who had recently left the SSPX to help the resistance and yourself, do you not feel that you are possibly jeopardizing the growth of the resistance or even de-motivating other priests from leaving the SSPX and helping the resistance?
5) The biggest concern currently among the faithful regarding yourself, it seems, is that you allow an associate, Pablo, to run your copyrighted Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church © website and post calumnies against His Excellency Bishop Williamson and at least one other resistance priest. Because it is not like your character to remain silent on issues of this type, it raises even more concern. Do you choose to not denounce Pablo and his slanders against a prince of the Church and other priests because of "human respect"? Have you chosen to not speak on this matter because you agree with Pablo and share his views at least to some extent?
Reverend Fr. Pfeiffer, because I respect you and admire you as a priest and also for the sake of clarity, I hope you will respond to these questions that I have outlined, especially those regarding attendance at the Masses of resistance priests who do not "red-light" SSPX Masses and the opinions expressed on your chapel website regarding the good bishop.
In Christo Rege,
Brazil
footnotes
•
2 http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/953ab2028f6e49e8149ffba1c7b51918-119.htmlhttp://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/bishop-fellay-on-doctrinal-declaration.html
Update #1: a resistance priest responds
Dear Michael:
This is to complement what you rightly say in your letter.
About the supposed communicatio in sacris that would be committed by those who attend SSPX Masses, it is unreasonable to say that, you couldn't even say that one would have committed this transgression actively and formally attending the new Mass.
From the course on canon law in my seminary:
"Communicatio in sacris" with non-Catholics:
The Church never practices the dogmatic tolerance (ie, theological and religious) for the non-Catholic sects, because that would be nothing more than the indifferentism condemned by the Church [1].
The "communicatio in sacris" is forbidden (cn 1258.)
-The attendance and active participation "in sacris" or taking part in the functions of non-Catholics, is prohibited in any manner whatsoever (. Cn 1258 § 1), provided that such participation means any approval of the other forms of false worship, produces scandal among Catholics, is dangerous to the Catholic faith involved, and confirms the non-Catholic in its error.
- By "non-Catholic sacred function" any sacred function is to be understood: assemblies, sermons, sacraments, liturgical, religious burials, etc. All of these are prohibited with religious intention, even if the prayers are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching. It is not lawful to hear their preaching, receive their sacraments (baptism gr v: 985 cn, 2nd, marrying a non-Catholic minister speech, hearing mass in a schismatic church, etc....).
- The "passive" assistance is the only physical presence of a Catholic in a non-Catholic religious function, and can be tolerated as long as there is no danger of perversion or scandal (cn 1258 §. 2).
- It is tolerated for serious reasons (if in doubt must be approved by the Bishop), by reason of a civil office or taxed honors (cn 1258 § 2.).
NB: The ban on actively attending the sacred functions of non-Catholics was lifted at the time of Vatican II.
It is a legal monstrosity to extend this crime to other circumstances as described in the law, and the law requires that the sacred function that is attended is "non-Catholic", so attendance at the New Mass may be sin under certain circumstances. It can never be considered a crime or sin of communicatio in sacris, even less so would this be the case with attending a Society Mass.
God bless you.
Quote: "If it is the same principle being applied, why would the same term not apply?"
Response from a priest of thee Resistance who is a lawyer:
Because there is a basic principle of universal penal law (including criminal canon law): "nullum crimen sine lege praevia poenali" (no crime without a pre-existing criminal law). The communicatio in sacris is a sin and a canonical crime. In order for the canonical crime of communicatio in sacris, canon law requires certain specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the rite is "non-Catholic". This requirement is sine qua non. The Tridentine Mass is not a non-Catholic rite, so one can never commit the crime of communicatio in sacris assisting a true Tridentine Mass.
Another basic principle of universal criminal law is this: "odiosa sunt restringenda" ( the unfavorable must be restricted). The crimes must be interpreted restrictively. According to this elementary principle of law throughout the world, it is prohibited to qualify as crime the actions similar to a crime. The crimes are described accurately by the law. The crime of communicatio in sacris is described in the canon 1258. So Fr. Morgan says "the closest we can find ... case is the case of the so calledCommunicatio in sacris", and he does not say: "this is a case of so called Communicatio in sacris".
Therefore, it is a serious mistake, a true legal aberration, to qualify as communicatio in sacris the attendance of Tridentine Masses of the SSPX or other Catholic congregations because priests who celebrate are liberal.
Attending Masses of certain SSPX priests can be a sin for certain people in certain circumstances, but it can not be a sin and a crime of communicatio in sacris for anyone.
This is to complement what you rightly say in your letter.
About the supposed communicatio in sacris that would be committed by those who attend SSPX Masses, it is unreasonable to say that, you couldn't even say that one would have committed this transgression actively and formally attending the new Mass.
From the course on canon law in my seminary:
"Communicatio in sacris" with non-Catholics:
The Church never practices the dogmatic tolerance (ie, theological and religious) for the non-Catholic sects, because that would be nothing more than the indifferentism condemned by the Church [1].
The "communicatio in sacris" is forbidden (cn 1258.)
-The attendance and active participation "in sacris" or taking part in the functions of non-Catholics, is prohibited in any manner whatsoever (. Cn 1258 § 1), provided that such participation means any approval of the other forms of false worship, produces scandal among Catholics, is dangerous to the Catholic faith involved, and confirms the non-Catholic in its error.
- By "non-Catholic sacred function" any sacred function is to be understood: assemblies, sermons, sacraments, liturgical, religious burials, etc. All of these are prohibited with religious intention, even if the prayers are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching. It is not lawful to hear their preaching, receive their sacraments (baptism gr v: 985 cn, 2nd, marrying a non-Catholic minister speech, hearing mass in a schismatic church, etc....).
- The "passive" assistance is the only physical presence of a Catholic in a non-Catholic religious function, and can be tolerated as long as there is no danger of perversion or scandal (cn 1258 §. 2).
- It is tolerated for serious reasons (if in doubt must be approved by the Bishop), by reason of a civil office or taxed honors (cn 1258 § 2.).
NB: The ban on actively attending the sacred functions of non-Catholics was lifted at the time of Vatican II.
It is a legal monstrosity to extend this crime to other circumstances as described in the law, and the law requires that the sacred function that is attended is "non-Catholic", so attendance at the New Mass may be sin under certain circumstances. It can never be considered a crime or sin of communicatio in sacris, even less so would this be the case with attending a Society Mass.
God bless you.
Quote: "If it is the same principle being applied, why would the same term not apply?"
Response from a priest of thee Resistance who is a lawyer:
Because there is a basic principle of universal penal law (including criminal canon law): "nullum crimen sine lege praevia poenali" (no crime without a pre-existing criminal law). The communicatio in sacris is a sin and a canonical crime. In order for the canonical crime of communicatio in sacris, canon law requires certain specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the rite is "non-Catholic". This requirement is sine qua non. The Tridentine Mass is not a non-Catholic rite, so one can never commit the crime of communicatio in sacris assisting a true Tridentine Mass.
Another basic principle of universal criminal law is this: "odiosa sunt restringenda" ( the unfavorable must be restricted). The crimes must be interpreted restrictively. According to this elementary principle of law throughout the world, it is prohibited to qualify as crime the actions similar to a crime. The crimes are described accurately by the law. The crime of communicatio in sacris is described in the canon 1258. So Fr. Morgan says "the closest we can find ... case is the case of the so calledCommunicatio in sacris", and he does not say: "this is a case of so called Communicatio in sacris".
Therefore, it is a serious mistake, a true legal aberration, to qualify as communicatio in sacris the attendance of Tridentine Masses of the SSPX or other Catholic congregations because priests who celebrate are liberal.
Attending Masses of certain SSPX priests can be a sin for certain people in certain circumstances, but it can not be a sin and a crime of communicatio in sacris for anyone.
En español
Una Carta Abierta al Padre Joseph Pfeiffer en español y inglés
Noviembre 13, 2014
Reverendísimo Padre Pfeiffer,
Me gustaría comunicar con usted lo cuanto que yo admiro su lucha para la Fe Católica y Tradición y su resistencia a un acuerdo con la Roma modernista en una correspondencia pública. Fue por casualidad que unos varios años atrás, yo encontré su homilía de you-tube del 27 de mayo, 2012 en la misma semana que fue publicada. Fue por causa de la misma homilía y los acontecimientos del verano de 2012 que me di cuenta del problema, que aún existe, que se trata con la cúpula de la Fraternidad San Pío X. El coraje que usted demostró en hablar fue especialmente una inspiración para mí y asistía su sermón varias veces en aquella semana.
Desde entonces muchas cosas han cambiado, cosas que ni precisan una descripción en esta carta. El hecho principal que ha cambiado desde entonces es que ahora hay literalmente decenas de sacerdotes quienes salieron de la FSPX o fueron echados fuera debido a su inconformidad con la traición de la Fraternidad a las autoridades Romanas, principalmente entre ellos es el Monseñor R. Williamson. Más recientemente, parece que hay un desacuerdo entre usted y, por lo menos, uno o dos otros de estos mismos sacerdotes de la resistencia, tanto así que fue percibido por los feligreses y publicado en foros públicos, como también recibió atención en una charla de “preguntas y respuestas” en Canadá. *
Porque nos parece extraño que usted padre aguarda silencio sobre estos asuntos, me siento obligado abordarlo en esta carta. Es la verdad que aparece que el punto del desacuerdo entre usted y los otros sacerdotes de la resistencia es debido a su posición de dar la “luz roja” a (prohibir la asistencia de) las misas en total de las capillas de la Fraternidad. Esta opinión, si no me engaño, fue expresada explícitamente por la primera vez por usted en un sermón, sin explicar si hablaba objetivamente o subjetivamente, diciendo que todos los sacerdotes de la Fraternidad son “culpables” de la “maldad de la doctrina” y que ya no se permite asistir ninguna misa de la Fraternidad porque sería comunicatio in sacris con herejes. Usted dijo que la base para esta prohibición generalizada de las misas de la FSPX fue la Declaración Doctrinal del 15 de Abril del obispo Fellay. Después, esta misma declaración fue no solamente retirada pero también denunciada como nos comunicó el P. Morgan en el periódico Catholic Family News. *
Considerando estos breves detalles, me encuentro obligado a hacerle unas preguntas públicamente, como estos detalles ya han recibido mucha atención pública entre católicos tradicionales y también debido a la división y confusión que han resultado. Voy a enumerar estas preguntas aquí para poder obtener una respuesta precisa y clara que servirá, si fuera posible, para promover la unidad entre los católicos tradicionales.
1) Si el monseñor Fellay ya ha denunciado su Declaración Doctrinal del 15 de Abril, será que hay una nueva razón por obligar a los fieles a evitar todas las misas de la FSPX? Usted aún pretende que todas las misas de la FSPX deben ser evitadas o ¿será que usted ahora prefiere a la posición determinada más prudente por los otros sacerdotes de la resistencia de usar precaución (dar la luz amarilla) y evaluar las capillas caso por caso tratándose con si hay doctrina buena o no?
2) Actualmente yo solo asisto misas ofrecidas por los curas de la resistencia pero yo conozco varios sacerdotes de la FSPX que predican fuertemente contra los errores modernos, el Segundo Concilio Vaticano, la nueva misa y que también dan la buena doctrina Católica. Si ciertamente hay la Fe y los sacramentos tradicionales ofrecidos por sacerdotes individuales de la FSPX (y no existe duda sobre este asunto), y que también la Declaración Doctrinal del 15 de Abril fue denunciada por la cúpula, ¿será que su posición de la “luz roja” está reñida con la posición que la Fraternidad siempre ha tenido con respeto a la asistencia de las misas donde hay sacramentos tradicionales y la buena doctrina Católica?
3) ¿Cuál es su posición sobre los numerosos otros sacerdotes de la resistencia que pretenden que todavía hay buenos sacerdotes dentro de la FSPX y que no prohíben los fieles de asistir las misas de los sacerdotes de la FSPX? ¿Usted también considera que estos sacerdotes son “culpables” de engañar a los fieles por permitir ellos estar en comunión con herejes como sería una conclusión lógica de su posición?
4) Considerando el conflicto recientemente percibido por los fieles entre usted y un otro sacerdote de la resistencia que ha salido de la FSPX para ayudar a la resistencia, ¿Será que usted no se siente como si esté comprometiendo el crecimiento de la resistencia o desmotivando otros sacerdotes de dejar la FSPX y ayudar a la resistencia.
5) La preocupación actualmente más grande entre los feligreses por lo que se refiere a usted, me parece, es que usted permite que un asociado, Pablo, maneje su sitio sujeto a copyright, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church ©, y subir comentarios calumniando Su Excelencia Monseñor Williamson y por lo menos un otro sacerdote. Porque esto no es normalmente lo que observamos, que usted queda silencioso en asuntos así, existen más preocupaciones. ¿Usted escoge no denunciar al Pablo y sus calumnias por el “respeto humano? ¿O será que ha escogido no hablar sobre este tema porque la verdad es que está de acuerdo con el Pablo y también comparte su perspectiva hasta cierto punto?
Reverendo Padre Pfeiffer, porque yo lo respecto y lo admiro como un sacerdote y también por el bien de la claridad, espero que responda a estas preguntas que yo he enumerado aquí y especialmente las que se tratan de la asistencia de las misas de los sacerdotes que no dan la “luz roja” a todas las misas de la FSPX y también las opiniones expresadas en su sitio oficial de la capilla en cuanto al buen obispo.
In Christo Rege,
Michael Fuller
Brazil
Brazil
notas
•
2 http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/953ab2028f6e49e8149ffba1c7b51918-119.html http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/bishop-fellay-on-doctrinal-declaration.html
Actualización #1: Un padre de la resistencia responde
Estimado Michael:
Esto es para complementar lo que usted bien dice en su carta.
Sobre la supuesta communicatio in sacris que cometerían los que asisten a las misas de la FSSPX, es descabellado afirmar eso, pues ni siquiera se afirma que se cometa ese delito-pecado asistiendo activa y formalmente a la misa nueva.
Del curso de derecho canónico de mi seminario:
“Communicatio in sacris” con los acatólicos:
La Iglesia nunca practico la tolerancia dogmática (es decir, teológica y religiosa) respecto a las sectas acatólicas, porque eso no sería otra cosa que el indiferentismo condenado por la misma Iglesia[1].
Se encuentra prohibida la “communicatio in sacris” (cn. 1258):
- La asistencia o participación activa “in sacris” o tomar parte en las funciones de los acatólicos, está prohibida de cualquier modo que sea (cn. 1258 § 1), porque tal participación significa siempre alguna aprobación del culto ajeno, produce escándalo entre los católicos, es peligroso para la fe del católico que participa, y confirma al acatólico en su error.
- Por “función sagrada acatólica” se entiende toda función sagrada: asambleas, sermones, sacramentos, acciones litúrgicas, sepulturas religiosas, etc. En todas ellas está prohibido tener parte con intención religiosa, aún si sus oraciones no estuvieran en contradicción con la doctrina católica. No es lícito oír sus predicaciones, recibir de ellos los sacramentos (v. gr. el bautismo: cn. 985, 2º; el matrimonio con intervención de un pastor acatólico, oír misa en un templo cismático, etc.).
- La asistencia “pasiva” es la sola presencia material de un católico en una función sagrada acatólica, y se puede tolerar con tal que no exista peligro de perversión ni de escándalo (cn. 1258 § 2).
- Se tolera por graves razones (en caso de duda debe ser aprobada por el Obispo), por razón de un cargo civil o para tributar honores (cn. 1258 § 2).
N. B.: La prohibición de asistir activamente a las funciones sagradas de acatólicos fue levantada en tiempos del Concilio Vaticano II.
Es una monstruosidad jurídica extender este delito a otras circunstancias que las descritas en la ley, y la ley exige que la función sagrada a la que se asiste sea "acatólica", por eso la asistencia a la misa del NOM, pudiendo ser pecado bajo determinados supuestos, nunca puede ser delito o pecado de communicatio in sacris. Menos, entonces, la asistencia a alguna misa de la Fraternidad.
Dios lo bendiga.
Respuesta de un sacerdote de la resistencia que es abogado:
Porque hay un principio básico en el derecho penal universal (incluyendo el derecho canónico criminal):"Nullum crimen sine praevia lege poenali" (no crime without a pre-existing penal law). La communicatio in sacris es un pecado que además es un delito canónico. Para que exista el delito canónico de communio in sacris, la ley canónica exige ciertos requisitos precisos. Uno de estos requisitos es que el rito sea "acatólico". Este requisito es sine qua non. La misa tridentina no es un rito acatólico. Entonces, nunca se puede cometer el delito de communio in sacris asistiendo a una verdadera misa tridentina.
Hay otro principio básico en el derecho penal universal:"odiosa sunt restringenda" (lo desfavorable debe ser restringido). The crimes must be interpreted restrictively. Según este principio elemental del derecho en todo el mundo, está prohibido calificar de delitos las acciones similares a los delitos. Los delitos están descritos con precisión en la ley. La communicatio in sacris está descrita en al canon 1258. Por eso Fr. Morgan dice "the closest case we can find... is the case of the so called Communicatio in sacris", and he does not say: "this is a case of so called Communicatio in sacris".
Por lo tanto, es un error grave, una verdadera aberración jurídica, calificar de communicatio in sacris la asistencia a misas tridentinas de la SSPX o de otras congregaciones católicas porque los sacerdotes que las celebran son liberales.
Asistir a las misas de determinados sacerdotes de la SSPX puede ser pecado para ciertas personas en ciertas circunstancias, pero para nadie puede ser un pecado y delito de communicatio in sacris.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário