Summary of the current position of Our Lady of the Southern Cross

[Admin]

To the contrary, I spoke with him for many hours over the situation in Australia. Proving too, as you replied to Ecclesia Militants, you can freely go to his masses when he is there and receive the sacraments from him; if you wanted too. So to be fair, that is NOT "cutting you off" is it?

You left one thing out Macchabees - the condition! Father has left this out in your little chat that lasted two hours? Yes, of course we can go to his Masses when he is there. We long to go. But not under the conditions that he demanded of OLSC alone, which conditions have not yet been applied to you or anyone else. This is why we went public - to warn everyone! That he be the exclusive priest to provide 'his parishioners' with the Sacraments full stop. In good conscience we couldn’t accept that demand, and because of that HE cut US off with no possibility of discussing it at the next Mass that was scheduled and to which we had looked forward. Father simply informed OLSC co-ordinator that the Mass was cancelled.

..

 

[Admin]

Seems to me that some of OLSC are assigning a meaning to a word that others are not using.
Traditionalists never assigned to the word parish the official term, meaning of the local diocese.
For traditionalists the whole focus of the word "parish" is used interchangeably with the words chapel, mission or "mission chapel" or "mission parish". In ordinary conversation we need to refer to our various groups with the use of a word and parish is what Australians use. In other places the word chapel might be used. These are the same words we used when it was the local SSPX chapels or parishes we attended.
Be it independent, SSPX, or SSPX-MC we all know they are "mission parishes" because the one around the corner to us got got taken over by the modernists.
That's how it goes in this crisis with the SSPX " parishes" and the independent "parishes" too.
At the SSPX when they had picnics, or celebrations they were called "parish picnics", or come to the "parish celebration" of such & such feast day. There was no confusion that the SSPX was taking over anything. It's a word that is used to say that all the people who attend at that place are invited.
The SSPX priest was called the Pastor. We need pastors, we need good pastors. The coordinator of the group assisted the "Pastor" in whatever way he could, but that didn't mean the coordinator could at his will invite any ole independent priests or Fraternity of St. Peter priests to come say Mass.
If a priest is a good shepherd, one of his duties is to protect the sheep. How can he do that if the sheep are working behind his back inviting who-knows-who priests?

Do you want a good Shepherd or do you want hirelings to visit too? That's a sure way to invite quarreling among people. Well Father X said this, but Father Y said that. Be thankful OLMC were willing to cross the oceans to bring you the pure doctrine, sacraments and Mass.

Traditionalists never assigned to the word parish the official term

True - except for saying that Traditionalists never assigned to the word parish the official term.

If a priest begins to use the accepted understanding and gradually change it to mean the official version then questions need to be asked about the consequences of accepting the full meaning and its importations. When questions are not permitted, then his ‘parishioners’ have to make their choices on the spot because if they do not accept without question this now established ‘fact’, he will not visit them any more full stop.

The priest in question proved his determination when he deleted the following scheduled Mass before a final decision was ever made. In other words the ‘parishioners’ in the case of OLSC were treated with contempt as having no say in the matter if they want to keep receiving the sacraments from him.

If a priest is a good shepherd, one of his duties is to protect the sheep. How can he do that if the sheep are working behind his back inviting who-knows-who priests?

On what basis do you decide that the sheep are working behind his back? Pray tell us or apologise for this totally unjust statement.

It was because OLSC was open to priests like Father Pfeiffer that he was invited in the first place. They had no priest. They belonged to no parish except the true one under the local diocese. They already made public their rejection of false resistant priests/Bishops. Fr. Pfeiffer knew that when he was invited as a visiting priest and came with no conditions attached. He kept saying Mass for us as a visiting priest for over one year until last April.

If a priest is a good shepherd, one of his duties is to protect the sheep.

Protect the flock?
Because, and as a result of his refusal to say any more Masses for OLSC, the flock is scattered. But since you are listening only to one person/side of the matter I expect the scattering will be allotted to OLSC’s fault because they are working behind his back.

Do you want a good Shepherd or do you want hirelings to visit too? That's a sure way to invite quarreling among people.

Good true resistant priests are not hirelings.

..

 

[Admin]

What Fr. Pfeiffer wants to keep alive is what was done in the SSPX back in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre. The SSPX priest came to our “mission” once a month and he was the one who took the decisions for our group.

By the way, this is from an e-mail sent to us by a priest (in the false resistance, unfortunately) back in 2016.

“... A second cause of the divisions [in the Resistance] is, I think, the fact that the Mass centers have organized themselves into entities controlled by the laity. The priests are no more than "visitors" who have little to say about the organization and operation of these centers. This inevitably leads to friction between the laity involved in these centers, and the visiting priests do not have time to learn all the facts. Moreover, they have no recognized authority to decide contentious issues. Such organizations, and the blogs and websites that often accompany them, create the impression among lay people that they have sufficient authority to decide disputed issues, even theologically. I call these people Googlelogians. Indeed, from one click to another, and from one link to another, they think they can solve in a few seconds questions that would require years of study and discussion by professional theologians.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that these lay organizations are a preponderant factor at the origin of the divisions that the Resistance experiences.”

This has nothing to do with the matters raised in the OP. Priests all over the place have idividual opinions. Will be good when they all agree under a Rome that has returned to the true Faith'.

..

 

[Michael1]

• Fr. Pfeiffer made it clear that if Melbourne did not come under OLMC he would not return. Added to that, he emphasised if we are under OLMC we cannot have any other TRUE RESISTANCE priest to visit Australia. This is the condition underlining the impossibility of agreeing to join OLMC.
• Considering he made only two flying visits to Australia last year, and we have no resident priest, the request is unjust.
• I draw special attention to this matter because Father has informed me, in an email, that he knew OLSC was involved in negotiations with a priest outside Australia - possibly more.
• Having pointed out these things to Father I have received no reply.
• Other coordinators have informed me that, what can only be described as an ultimatum, has never been put to them. Nor have any others facts that he mentioned in Melbourne.

 

[Ecclesia Militans]

If not, would you not be morally bound to attend under pain of mortal sin?

No. I can attend an SSPX Mass on Sunday just round the corner but I refuse - having been taught by Fr. Pfeiffer it is not a mortal sin. In addition Father has taught us it is our own decision to make. This is the whole point of OLSC’s present position. The laity has to decide for themselves. There can be no mortal sin if one is told they may attend but advised not to...

Not attending the SSPX is one thing because they have deviated from the Faith. However, if you agree that Fr. Pfeiffer is keeping the Faith, which you agree he is doing, then there is no reason (other than the Church's reasons of grave inconvenience, such as sickness) for you not to attend his Mass. Therefore, you would not be fulfilling your Sunday obligation to attend Mass when you could if you chose not to attend his Mass. As a result, I believe it would be a mortal sin not to attend.

 

[mirella]

In all my years going to the SSPX, since 1984 I have not heard of it being called a Parish. it was always
called Rockdale Church or eg when Fr P Fox was still alive, we went to Lindfield, or Goulburn for a Retreat
or Ordination, I wonder if it is just a NSW way of speaking, nah, I don't think so because we would just say Tynong
or Albury and we all knew what we talking about, I don't know if Rockdale is now being called a "parish"
Do hope Our Blessed Mother will sort it all out quickly, otherwise the baby might be thrown out with the bath water
and all the good works done might be lost.

 

[Admin]

Not attending the SSPX is one thing because they have deviated from the Faith. However, if you agree that Fr. Pfeiffer is keeping the Faith, which you agree he is doing, then there is no reason (other than the Church's reasons of grave inconvenience, such as sickness) for you not to attend his Mass. Therefore, you would not be fulfilling your Sunday obligation to attend Mass when you could if you chose not to attend his Mass. As a result, I believe it would be a mortal sin not to attend.

Fair enough. I do not mind you telling me your opinion. That is all it is - an opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine and the rest of the laity have theirs. The OP states that the laity are the victims of the priests being at war with one another. Father always said he could only advise. He always said he could not make us do anything - that we all had to decide for ourselves.
Stage 2: He will not say Mass for us any more unless we meet his impossible demands. An official rejection has not been made because we can only speak for ourselves. Read the co-ordinator's final message two posts above.

What you have not asked, and what might interest you, is that the majority of OLSC members believing totally what Father has taught us - break our necks to get to his Masses and conferences. What better attitude to have than being forced by the punishment of committing a mortal sin? I assure you no-one needs force. Such members have grown so much that they come from long distances, some using public transport back and forth. When Father arbitrarily cancelled the scheduled final Mass in Melbourne he left holy people high and dry. They had no part in the decision making. They would have been able to ask if he had kept his appointment with them. The rejection of his ultimatum was made only by those members who were present to hear them - it was made individually by each member deciding for himself. It was never made for absent members obviously because those present could not speak for those absent. Even those present at the time wanted to discuss it further but the opportunity to do so was cut off. Does not Father have a responsibility to those souls he has left high and dry and for whose souls he is still responsible? His close friends have been defending all his actions out of a sense of loyalty, like many people here who have done the same thing. Has anybody at all understood the seriousness of the situation? Doesn't look like it when you look at all the replies and false interpretations made against our poor efforts.

At least we have tried our best.

 

[Admin]

In all my years going to the SSPX, since 1984 I have not heard of it being called a Parish. it was always
called Rockdale Church or eg when Fr P Fox was still alive, we went to Lindfield, or Goulburn for a Retreat
or Ordination, I wonder if it is just a NSW way of speaking, nah, I don't think so because we would just say Tynong
or Albury and we all knew what we talking about, I don't know if Rockdale is now being called a "parish"
Do hope Our Blessed Mother will sort it all out quickly, otherwise the baby might be thrown out with the bath water
and all the good works done might be lost.

How truly spoken Mirella. All the good that Father has done remains incomplete because of the souls for whom he is still responsible - whom he has left high and dry. Simple folk who have no internets or mobiles; strangers that come to his Masses and conferences whose names we do not know. Many have come silently then left silently. Had OLSC been aware of the looming danger efforts would have been made to prepare them - to ensure their presence. But there next appointment had been cancelled without any explanation whatever.

..

 

[lulu]

Fair enough. I do not mind you telling me your opinion. That is all it is - an opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine and the rest of the laity have theirs. The OP states that the laity are the victims of the priests being at war with one another. Father always said he could only advise. He always said he could not make us do anything - that we all had to decide for ourselves.
Stage 2: He will not say Mass for us any more unless we meet his impossible demands. An official rejection has not been made because we can only speak for ourselves. Read the co-ordinator's final message two posts above.

What you have not asked, and what might interest you, is that the majority of OLSC members believing totally what Father has taught us - break our necks to get to his Masses and conferences. What better attitude to have than being forced by the punishment of committing a mortal sin? I assure you no-one needs force. Such members have grown so much that they come from long distances, some using public transport back and forth. When Father arbitrarily cancelled the scheduled final Mass in Melbourne he left holy people high and dry. They had no part in the decision making. They would have been able to ask if he had kept his appointment with them. The rejection of his ultimatum was made only by those members who were present to hear them - it was made individually by each member deciding for himself. It was never made for absent members obviously because those present could not speak for those absent. Even those present at the time wanted to discuss it further but the opportunity to do so was cut off. Does not Father have a responsibility to those souls he has left high and dry and for whose souls he is still responsible? His close friends have been defending all his actions out of a sense of loyalty, like many people here who have done the same thing. Has anybody at all understood the seriousness of the situation? Doesn't look like it when you look at all the replies and false interpretations made against our poor efforts.

At least we have tried our best.

 

[lulu]

It's all very well for a priest (no matter who the priest is) to be sound in doctrine, but this has to be backed up by him being sound in his actions as well.

 

[Ecclesia Militans]

Fair enough. I do not mind you telling me your opinion. That is all it is - an opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine and the rest of the laity have theirs. The OP states that the laity are the victims of the priests being at war with one another. Father always said he could only advise. He always said he could not make us do anything - that we all had to decide for ourselves.
Stage 2: He will not say Mass for us any more unless we meet his impossible demands. An official rejection has not been made because we can only speak for ourselves. Read the co-ordinator's final message two posts above.

What you have not asked, and what might interest you, is that the majority of OLSC members believing totally what Father has taught us - break our necks to get to his Masses and conferences. What better attitude to have than being forced by the punishment of committing a mortal sin? I assure you no-one needs force. Such members have grown so much that they come from long distances, some using public transport back and forth. When Father arbitrarily cancelled the scheduled final Mass in Melbourne he left holy people high and dry. They had no part in the decision making. They would have been able to ask if he had kept his appointment with them. The rejection of his ultimatum was made only by those members who were present to hear them - it was made individually by each member deciding for himself. It was never made for absent members obviously because those present could not speak for those absent. Even those present at the time wanted to discuss it further but the opportunity to do so was cut off. Does not Father have a responsibility to those souls he has left high and dry and for whose souls he is still responsible? His close friends have been defending all his actions out of a sense of loyalty, like many people here who have done the same thing. Has anybody at all understood the seriousness of the situation? Doesn't look like it when you look at all the replies and false interpretations made against our poor efforts.

At least we have tried our best.

To me the ultimate question is:

Does what Fr. Pfeiffer did, even if we consider it at its worst, establish a morally legitimate reason for not attending his Mass?

I don't think it does. He made a demand that OLSC may not have been able to agree with. However, if Fr. Pfeiffer is invited by some other person or group to the same area, I believe there would be a moral obligation to attend his Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of obligation.

 

[JillMcFaul]

Boy I sure am praying for all of you at OLSC and Fr. Pfeiffer. May Our Blessed Mother intercede.

 

[Admin]

To me the ultimate question is:

Does what Fr. Pfeiffer did, even if we consider it at its worst, establish a morally legitimate reason for not attending his Mass?

I don't think it does. He made a demand that OLSC may not have been able to agree with. However, if Fr. Pfeiffer is invited by some other person or group to the same area, I believe there would be a moral obligation to attend his Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of obligation.

That's fine if you think that.

..

 

[mirella]

Finally starting to understand the gist of it, thoughts and prayers for all.
Veni Creator Spiritus.

 

[ambrose]

To me the ultimate question is:

Does what Fr. Pfeiffer did, even if we consider it at its worst, establish a morally legitimate reason for not attending his Mass?

I don't think it does. He made a demand that OLSC may not have been able to agree with. However, if Fr. Pfeiffer is invited by some other person or group to the same area, I believe there would be a moral obligation to attend his Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of obligation.

This is a hypothetical. I'd guess many OLSC members would long to be there. . Would there be conditions placed on them if they did attend?.
All hypothetical. I think Melbourne are just trying to adjust to what HAS happened.

 

[Michael1]

This is a hypothetical. I'd guess many OLSC members would long to be there. . Would there be conditions placed on them if they did attend?.

• Fr. Pfeiffer made it clear that if Melbourne did not come under OLMC he would not return. Added to that, he emphasised if we are under OLMC we cannot have any other TRUE RESISTANCE priest to visit Australia. This is the condition underlining the impossibility of agreeing to join OLMC.
• Considering he made only two flying visits to Australia last year, and we have no resident priest, the request is unjust.
• I draw special attention to this matter because Father has informed me, in an email, that he knew OLSC was involved in negotiations with a priest outside Australia - possibly more.
• Having pointed out these things to Father I have received no reply.
• Other coordinators have informed me that, what can only be described as an ultimatum, has never been put to them. Nor have any others facts that he mentioned in Melbourne.

All hypothetical. I think Melbourne are just trying to adjust to what HAS happened.

Re-read my earlier post that I have re-posted above here.
Yes there are conditions that have been placed on OLSC Melbourne if we want to attend Father Pfeiffer's masses.

Please note as this deserves special importance-Father Pfeiffer said if we are under OLMC we cannot have any other TRUE RESISTANCE priest to visit Australia. This is the condition underlining the impossibility of agreeing to join OLMC.

I have written to Father Pfeiffer about his discriminatory conditions that have been placed on OLSC Melbourne and other unfair claims he has made about us but I received no reply.

In regard to the ultimatum: For those people who are confused about the 'ultimatum' The ultimatum was made by Father Pfeiffer to OLSC Melbourne. Not the reverse. We suspected there was trouble in the air and we had discussed the situation before Father Pfeiffer's visit[another story] but this ultimatum came as a massive shock to all those who attended the meeting after mass.

 

[kelley]

Father Pfeiffer said if we are under OLMC we cannot have any other TRUE RESISTANCE priest to visit Australia. This is the condition underlining the impossibility of agreeing to join OLMC.

Could you please provide the name(s) of who the "other TRUE RESISTANCE" priest(s) are that you would like to visit?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

At this point not many trust any of what you say.
Mr. Ross said it yourself from the first page of this thread:
"Our own reputations have been destroyed"
We can understand why. It's because you're wrong! The more you say the deeper the hole you're digging yourself in because it makes it all the more clear.
'The ultimatum' you speak of goes for everyone and it's not how you describe and explain it.
I'm reading the new Recusant May issue. I think they are in the situation as OLSC that OLMC is miles away and the priests visit when they can often many months between. Looking at the pictures in England I see other priests of the true resistance offering Mass. OLMC goes there and they have no problems because all are on the same page of the true resistance. Proofs that Fr. Pfeiffer does approve other priests to visit in other groups. Is G.B. not under OLMC? Your problem is bigger than what you are telling people. Secret and clandestine activity has been the trademark of the false resistance working and finagling with priests who have ulterior motives to undermine the true resistance. Do Fr. Zendahas, Fr. Ortiz, Fr. McDonald, etc ring a bell? All were welcomed to join in with the resistance and like Fr. Ortiz, Fr. McDonald were accepted as sincere, but we learned later that they were sent in to subvert. We learned from the first day what (then)Fr. Z was up to. Are you not paying attention?
While you are trying to get people to believe you're innocent little victims the truth is, the problems of OLSC started years ago as we all know with the other priests who refused to submit to your authority which is unordered and un-Catholic way of working and thinking. When they decided to stick with B.W. and be silent regarding his errors that made it convenient to say they are bad because they are of the false resistance. But that's where the problems of OLSC started.
The 'ultimatum' you speak of goes back to your refusal to submit to Catholic hierarchy. Non of the priests you point fingers at fall into that category. Fr. Chazal, Fr. Picot, Fr. Pfeiffer all recognize their authorities the same as ABL did. Fr. Pfeiffer still refers to the Bishop over him and has explained for years why he disobeys him. Fr. Pfeiffer even visits district superiors when he can, reminding them that he recognizes them and the reasons he disobeys them. Haven't you heard Fr. Pfeiffer say it? because he has said it so many times. ABL did the same. Archbp Lefebvre told Pope Paul VI to his face, "Holy Father you put me in a bad situation wherey I must choose between disobeying 262 popes, OR you. I choose to disobey you."
Mr. Ross you can repeat your false arguement as many times as you want but it won't change the fact that it ain't so. Fr. Pfeiffer does not make himself his own authority. The authority he stands on is Church Magisterium. To be under the person of authority who is in error doctrinally is of no use. It is the Church magisterium we all must follow.
As you already know, with the false resistance as fine example, they may have a person of a bishop to claim as their superior, but it's the false doctrine that is the problem. Do you want to blame Fr. Pfeiffer as the origin of the problem that his superiors are doctinally wrong? The only ones who can fix the problem of his superiors are those superiors themselves.
Why is it that you keep hinting about a true resistance priest that Fr. Pfeiffer has told you you cannot invite? We'd like to know whose authority that priest is under since you want to make a big deal about it.

 

[ambrose]

Scarlet said:
'The ultimatum' you speak of goes for everyone and it's not how you describe and explain it.
I'm reading the new Recusant May issue. I think they are in the situation as OLSC that OLMC is miles away and the priests visit when they can often many months between. Looking at the pictures in England I see other priests of the true resistance offering Mass. OLMC goes there and they have no problems because all are on the same page of the true resistance. Proofs that Fr. Pfeiffer does approve other priests to visit in other groups."


How can it go for "everyone" when OLSC alone are denied other priests of the true resistance you admittingly know exist? OLSC are commanded to reject them!
What Father Pfeiffer approves in GB, is denied in Melbourne???

I don't understand.
How is it the same?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

There is something not being told here and you sweep it under the rug. The bigger part of this picture is the sentence from your mission statement that said, OLSC put themselves under no priestly authority?
That's the heart of the issue. It disappeared. No explanation.
Reading between the lines in this thread and the locked thread on the mission statement is that problem. Even though it disappeared after poster nick questioned it without explanation. It seems pretty obvious that between your group and Fr. Pfeiffer it did not get resolved. Do you still reject priestly authority or not? If that was unsolved between your group and Fr. Pfeiffer, it stands to reason that he would cancel Mass, because you want to dictate to him and he won't let you.
Just because you erase the sentence on the forum but to Fr. Pfeiffer still reject his authority, then you are being deceitful to say he arbitrarily cancelled Mass. He has a reason and has St. Pius X to back him up.
You write that the ultimatum is the issue, but I think not.