Fr. Pfluger's Comments

Thanks to Rorate Caeli for bringing Fr. Pfluger's conference to the blogosphere.  Here is an abridgement of the core of what was reported of Fr. Pfluger's conference in Germany:

Recent weeks have revealed that the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution for the Society that he is ready to seal a deal, even if the Society does not recognize the disputed texts of Vatican II and the New Mass.

Under these circumstances the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, does not consider it possible to reject the Pope’s proposal. It would be tantamount to a lapse into Sedevacantism if one would still isolate oneself from the Pope’s wish, if this wish does not entail acknowledging false doctrine.

It is, of course, a pre-condition that an agreement will cover the assurance that the Society will be able to disagree from Rome’s positions in disputed matters and that it will have the freedom to continue her work in her entire apostolate. Part of an autonomous status would also be the right to criticize the Council and Modernism.

By way of support for Bishop Fellay’s decision Fr. Pfluger recalled the way of action of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1987 and 1988. At that time the Archbishop proposed a far-reaching proposal for an agreement with which he wanted to arrive at a pragmatic interim solution which would have benefited the whole Church. The arrangement that the Archbishop was willing to sign at that time demanded far more concessions from the Society than what Pope Benedict demands at the moment.

Moreover, one has to realize how much false doctrines have spread throughout the Church. Even if a theological conciliation between Rome and the Fraternity would have been achieved, it could not be expected that by a word of command from the Pope all false doctrines would suddenly disappear from the face of the earth. Fr. Pfluger points to parallels in the history of the church: after the condemnation of Arianism, this false doctrine was still spread widely for quite some time, in some regions even for many decades. And even fifty years after the Council of Trent, the Archishop of Milan asks Rome for advice, for almost all of his clergy have wives and children. What is he to do? – The response from Rome shows how the church reacts with wisdom and common sense in such situations: if he cannot replace the clergy, then he simply has to keep it.

Of the most impractical outcomes that those within the SSPX worry about in the event of a reconcilliation is that a portion of the laity, clergy, and perhaps episcopacy would become sedevacantist.  It seems almost implicit in Fr. Pfluger's talk.  I wonder how that can be?  How can a Vatican-SSPX agreement convince someone that the Pope has lost the papacy as a result of a canonical agreement with a traditional and orthodox order of priests?  Of course it wouldn't.  But it could certainly cause some to choose to remain independent of a canonical agreement with the Pope. This would not be due to a sedevacantist tendency, but rather the development of a heretofore comfortable justified disobedience into something, well, less justified 

Here Fr. Pfluger is spot-on as he relates Bp Fellay's  purported opinion that it would be nearly impossible to deny a request from the Pope that did not compromise faith or morals.  Our faith does not allow us to disobey the Vicar of Christ a rightful request out of fear that he (or another church authority) may ask us to do something in the future that challenges the faith. How cowardly would that be? Perhaps it has been too long since some have had to obey an ecclesiastic authority?  Perhaps we fear the martyrdom, dry or wet, that might be in store for us in the future should a stand for the faith need be taken?


Archbishop Lefebvre, even as he subsequently rejected the Protocol in 1988, spoke of his excitement in signing the document only to later fret of the canonical restrictions that could result.  In initially signing the Protocol, he may have foreseen the vision of a Society of St. Pius X that led a flank of the church militant in defense of the evils that beset the church in 1988 and that have only worsened since then.  His eventual fear of restriction seems to not be an issue in this go-around.


There are certainly those voices who knew the Archbishop personally and proclaim that he would not be accepting a reconciliation under even the supposedly liberal terms that they have been presented.  But the Archbishop did not hold out for a solution in 1988 that included the unattainable condition that Rome "convert" from the new religion before the SSPX would entertain joining her ranks in a regularized way. No, on the contrary, perhaps he saw, first and foremost, a solution that could conceivably let the Society's voice on matters of faith be heard by a wider and perhaps more receptive audience.  We certainly now have a stronger undercurrent of traditionally minded young men, women, and families who have been exposed to the true faith and sacraments and are more horrified than in 1988 at the advocacy of same sex marriage, secularism, and abuse coming especially from within the church herself let alone the ADL!

Add to that the heresies of the likes of Cardinal Pell who recently argued for the mythology of Adam and Eve, the certainty of the physical evolution of man from Neanderthal monkeys, and the John-Paulian  concept of an empty hell where a neutered Satan sits alone in the inferno without even the ability to attract the likes of Bill Maher. 


The church needs the Society operating as it currently does within the church and challenging, from the bosom of the hierarchy, the Cardinal Pells and Kaspers and the religious orders who have not only abandoned the faith but teach contrary to it like the Jesuits and the modern nuns that haunt RCIA and parish councils.


So be not afraid, be ye laity, clergy, or episcopate.  The regularization of the SSPX is not what needs be feared - it is fear itself.  Woe to any society, orthodox or otherwise, who loses The Faith, regularized or not! And woe also to those who do not trust the power of the rosary and scapular.