They both have strong ties to their parents. The Pfeiffer ranch is owned by whom?

I wouldn't take it that far, but an adult living with his parents is frowned on in American culture.  All the traditional Catholics in my family kicked us out at the ripe 'ol age of 20 or less,  I'm not saying that this practice is always prudent, but now that I am living in a country where it is common practice for 35 year old men to be still supported by their parents greatly affects maturity from what I have observed.

I think it's a bad comparison for the most part.  Why conceal your identity though?

-Centroamérica

Pope Michael is not that bad. Except for having himself elected pope, he is actually very sound on Catholic doctrine, from what I've read.

Henry VIII was not that bad.  Except for declaring himself head of the church of England and permitting divorce, he was actually very sound on Catholic doctrine, from what I've read.  Before the divorces, Pope Leo X actually gave Henry the title "Defender of the Faith."

Quote from: Guest

Why conceal your identity though?

-Centroamérica

That should be obvious. There are those who will attack you once they figure out you're not on their side.

This doesn't excuse one not manning-up when making such bold statements.  If it's worth saying, it's worth taking the heat for it.

But this is not worth saying.  This is character assassination of the worst kind--comparing a holy priest to a would be "anti-pope" (he doesn't even merit that title) David Bawden, who, if he is even a priest, came by ordination in a most illicit manner.

Now I am not the biggest fan of Fr. Pfeiffer right now.  He has demonstrated signs of being petty and apparently is exercising poor judgement if Pablo is really part of his close posse (I'm still in semi-denial about that).  But that doesn't change that he is of Christ's holy priesthood, coming by his ordination licitly and admirably.

This thread is highly out of order and the anonymous starter of it is a coward of the worst kind.

Matthew, please delete this thread.

Quote from: OHCA

. . . David Bawden, who, if he is even a priest, came by ordination in a most illicit manner.

I don't think David Bawden's ordination and consecration were any different from those of any other traditional Catholic organization. If you call Bawden's ordination and consecration "illicit" then you have to say the same about all the other traditional priests and Bishops including those of the SSPX because they were all done in similar circuмstances without the permission of the Church hierarchy in a state of crisis.

I think David Bawden's Concecration and/or ordination were in the Old Catholic line.  I do not put those on par with SSPX ordinations.

But this is not worth saying.  This is character assassination of the worst kind--comparing a holy priest to a would be "anti-pope" (he doesn't even merit that title) David Bawden, who, if he is even a priest, came by ordination in a most illicit manner.

Now I am not the biggest fan of Fr. Pfeiffer right now.  He has demonstrated signs of being petty and apparently is exercising poor judgement if Pablo is really part of his close posse (I'm still in semi-denial about that).  But that doesn't change that he is of Christ's holy priesthood, coming by his ordination licitly and admirably.

This thread is highly out of order and the anonymous starter of it is a coward of the worst kind.

Matthew, please delete this thread.

I don't see any need to delete the thread.

You don't make a compelling case for why it should be deleted.

David Bawden's papacy is a joke -- but his Catholicism, good will, and intentions aren't necessarily a joke. I'd say Bawden has one blind spot where he's quite weak: ecclesiology and the Papacy. But couldn't the same (having a blind spot or weak spot) be said of MANY priests and bishops today?

I agree with this:

I don't think David Bawden's ordination and consecration were any different from those of any other traditional Catholic organization. If you call Bawden's ordination and consecration "illicit" then you have to say the same about all the other traditional priests and Bishops including those of the SSPX because they were all done in similar circuмstances without the permission of the Church hierarchy in a state of crisis.

Several years ago, I was speaking with an upper-year seminarian, now Fr. Robert MacPherson, and the topic of Bishop Slupski came up. I was expecting him to "tsk tsk" with me about how irregular he was compared to the hierarchy and order found in the SSPX. What he said surprised me! He said that we should be careful how we criticize and condemn those priests who get themselves consecrated bishops because they believe the good of the Church requires it -- after all, isn't that precisely the justification used by +Lefebvre for consecrating the 4 bishops in 1988?  I was speechless with thought, and his words have stuck with me for the past 11 years.

As long as he's not name-calling, I see no reason to knee-jerk-remove threads that sound critical of Fr. Pfeiffer.

David Bawden's . . . Catholicism, good will, and intentions aren't necessarily a joke.

His illicit "conclave" and calling himself "pope" by being "elected" by 5 or 6 people (including family members and laymen) bespeaks an egotistical brat.  It is inconceivable that he does not know better, or that he is of good will or well intentioned, unless he has some serious loose screws (which is quite possible).  He makes a mockery of Catholicism and the papacy.