Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer  (Read 34381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Unbrandable

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • Reputation: +196/-40
  • Gender: Male
Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
« on: May 04, 2014, 04:19:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • -


    Offline eddiearent

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 152
    • Reputation: +217/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #1 on: May 04, 2014, 09:43:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

    Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
    *Doctrines
    *Disciplines
    *Liturgies
    *Morals

    How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

    The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.


    Offline Pete Vere

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 584
    • Reputation: +193/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #2 on: May 04, 2014, 10:32:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just out of curiosity, where does Fr Pfeiffer stand with regards to the validity of the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II? Does Fr Pfeiffer recognize their validity?

    Offline Mabel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1893
    • Reputation: +1386/-25
    • Gender: Female
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #3 on: May 04, 2014, 10:41:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?

    Offline Unbrandable

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 96
    • Reputation: +196/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #4 on: May 04, 2014, 10:52:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mabel
    Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?



    out·stand·ing


    /ˌoutˈstandiNG,ˈout-/


    adjective

    adjective: outstanding


    1.exceptionally good.
    "the team's outstanding performance"

    synonyms: excellent, marvelous, magnificent, superb, fine, wonderful, superlative, exceptional, first-class, first-rate;  



    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +1983/-96
    • Gender: Female
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #5 on: May 05, 2014, 10:02:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Too bad for the bad reviews. I very much enjoyed and agreed with this sermon.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4447
    • Reputation: +5053/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #6 on: May 05, 2014, 10:29:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I notice that it's only the women who took anything away from this.

    Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

    Now, I don't know what the situation on Quebec is besides what Graham has relayed, but there are plenty of men guilty of this too. Mired in the SSPX for however many years, they have an emotional (and probably financial, too) investment in this position. They just want to hear it affirmed. That is all they're looking for.  I mentioned women because this is a characteristic which one could reasonably expect from the average woman; for men to involve themselves in these antics is much more abhorrent.

    Men are leaders and as such need to make sound judgements, when those judgements relate to the Catholic faith they must be informed by the Catholic faith as taught by those who were sent to teach it (the saints, popes, theologians, etc.) and reason.

    Just look at the arguments against the canonizations: faithful accepting the word of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfeiffer over St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Benedict XIV, the list goes on.  This is not good.  Besides the immediate problem of denying the common (at least common if not certain) opinion of the theologians on canonizations, there is the much deeper set and more egregious error viz. the way the Church teaches about her own infallability and authority, and her very essence.

    If a true Catholic pope isn't infallible when he says: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own... we declare and define [such and such] .... established for the whole Church" then there is simply no such thing as infallibility.  I know, I know, "the process" has been altered so the definition is meaningless.  WRONG.  The definition is literally all that matters.  The pope, though he would sin against prudence in doing so, could wake up and declare something on his breakfast napkin and it would be infallible given the proper requisites, requisites which do not include a specific "process."  The Holy Ghost guides the Church in it's ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, not human diligence.

    Suddenly, according to this novel theology, the Holy Ghost guides each individual Church member in discerning what is infallible, rather than guiding the Church to infallibly teach each individual Church member.  What a wicked inversion of the natural and supernatural order.  This is going to cause a lot of problems.  There is literally NO reason why a R&R Catholic could not, under this insidious way of believing, deny that a given solemn definition (forget about the ordinary magisterium which is habitually thrown in the dustbin by this group of Catholics) is infallible.

    I am very disappointed right now.  The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.  It does not differ substantially at all from the NSSPX from which it fled and demanded the faithful to free from.  It is marginally better in the practical order because it claims to want no business with heretics.  That is all.  So long as it clings to this despicable preversion of Church teaching on infallibility and authority, it can hardly puff it's chest out the way it is wont to do as a guardian of the traditional faith.  It butchers the traditional faith and undermines it's own mission.  What authority does Fr. Pfeiffer have, why should I listen to HIM if I can't trust the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas or any of the others?  What a joke, what hubris.  If I can't trust the Church to teach me the faith, I can't trust anyone to.  Certainly not Fr. Pfeiffer.
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +1983/-96
    • Gender: Female
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #7 on: May 05, 2014, 12:10:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course it affirmed what I already believed but I somehow had to get to what I already believed in the first place. Kind of a superfluous "observation". If a sermon came out affirming what you believe, you'd be in the exact same boat, taking something away from a sermon that affirmed what you believe lol. (And then I could use the exact same "weakness" against you. Especially if I'm looking to believe you're bad-willed, stupid or want to be patronized.). Though that may be a general weakness of women, I don't think it fits here. You're really stretching it.

    I hope that hanging out over there you doesn't put you in that habit of turning everything into male/female combats. I understand generalities but I don't know how some people can live with distilling EVERYthing down to that. Even down to how men respond to the Crisis. That's what it's going to come down to for you? The men are being womanish and needy and want to be patronized? That's it?

    As an aside, in response to your affirmation theory, don't forget that intuition works in the same way. Intuition hits, a woman *knows* something and she has to work backwards to figure out the reason behind it. When that happens, she is miles ahead of man and has to backtrack to try and get him caught up. (I wouldn't trust this to determine doctrine or where to stand in the Crisis but since you mention it, generally speaking...) There is both a weakness and a strength to the characteristic of being "unreasonable", in the sense of not reasoning things out in the same way as men. (Angels are also "unreasonable" in that sense.)

    The same goes for men, there are weaknesses and strengths associated with the way they depend on reason. The whole enlightenment is based on an adoration of reason. Where did that get us? I understand that you are simply calling on people to reason their way through the Crisis and I can't argue that. What I'm arguing is the attitude that those who disagree with you are not using their reasons. You may believe their reasons are wrong or misled but to act as if they simply aren't using them displays its own bit of hubris.

    The Resistance was MEANT to be like the SSPX, in that it is modeled after the ways of the original SSPX. You've been following this closely from the beginning, this can't be a new realization to you. Did you have other hopes? That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?

    If that's the case, I am not sorry that you are disappointed.



     






     


    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #8 on: May 05, 2014, 12:21:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    I made this comment in the thread on Archbishop Lefebvre forums about this sermon...

    Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I notice that it's only the women who took anything away from this.

    Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

    Now, I don't know what the situation on Quebec is besides what Graham has relayed, but there are plenty of men guilty of this too. Mired in the SSPX for however many years, they have an emotional (and probably financial, too) investment in this position. They just want to hear it affirmed. That is all they're looking for.  I mentioned women because this is a characteristic which one could reasonably expect from the average woman; for men to involve themselves in these antics is much more abhorrent.

    Men are leaders and as such need to make sound judgements, when those judgements relate to the Catholic faith they must be informed by the Catholic faith as taught by those who were sent to teach it (the saints, popes, theologians, etc.) and reason.

    Just look at the arguments against the canonizations: faithful accepting the word of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfeiffer over St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Benedict XIV, the list goes on.  This is not good.  Besides the immediate problem of denying the common (at least common if not certain) opinion of the theologians on canonizations, there is the much deeper set and more egregious error viz. the way the Church teaches about her own infallability and authority, and her very essence.

    If a true Catholic pope isn't infallible when he says: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own... we declare and define [such and such] .... established for the whole Church" then there is simply no such thing as infallibility.  I know, I know, "the process" has been altered so the definition is meaningless.  WRONG.  The definition is literally all that matters.  The pope, though he would sin against prudence in doing so, could wake up and declare something on his breakfast napkin and it would be infallible given the proper requisites, requisites which do not include a specific "process."  The Holy Ghost guides the Church in it's ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, not human diligence.

    Suddenly, according to this novel theology, the Holy Ghost guides each individual Church member in discerning what is infallible, rather than guiding the Church to infallibly teach each individual Church member.  What a wicked inversion of the natural and supernatural order.  This is going to cause a lot of problems.  There is literally NO reason why a R&R Catholic could not, under this insidious way of believing, deny that a given solemn definition (forget about the ordinary magisterium which is habitually thrown in the dustbin by this group of Catholics) is infallible.

    I am very disappointed right now.  The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.  It does not differ substantially at all from the NSSPX from which it fled and demanded the faithful to free from.  It is marginally better in the practical order because it claims to want no business with heretics.  That is all.  So long as it clings to this despicable preversion of Church teaching on infallibility and authority, it can hardly puff it's chest out the way it is wont to do as a guardian of the traditional faith.  It butchers the traditional faith and undermines it's own mission.  What authority does Fr. Pfeiffer have, why should I listen to HIM if I can't trust the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas or any of the others?  What a joke, what hubris.  If I can't trust the Church to teach me the faith, I can't trust anyone to.  Certainly not Fr. Pfeiffer.


    Excellent Post!  :applause:

    Offline BlackIrish

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 179
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #9 on: May 05, 2014, 12:38:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan


    Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.




    Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

    How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

    I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

    Ugh - cheque, please!


     :judge:  

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4447
    • Reputation: +5053/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #10 on: May 05, 2014, 12:47:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BlackIrish
    Quote from: Mithrandylan


    Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.




    Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

    How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

    I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

    Ugh - cheque, please!


     :judge:  


    I'm not making an argument, but an observation.  Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there.  So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.

    Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact.  A matter of fact is either true or false.  Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.  


    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).


    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +1983/-96
    • Gender: Female
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #11 on: May 05, 2014, 12:54:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4447
    • Reputation: +5053/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #12 on: May 05, 2014, 01:04:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: wallflower

    Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?


    I mean the SSPX no longer under the influence of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was justified in his resistance because of his doubts about these men's papacies.

    One who is certain that X is the pope, if guided by the Catholic rule of faith, cannot allow for X to teach all manner of error and use his papal infallibility to declare a falsehood or something harmful to the faith.  This is a radical departure from the traditional understanding of teaching and authority.  

    Personally, I do not think that any traditionalist has moral certainty about these papacies.  But when they claim and act as if they do, it is hard to not rebuke them.  If they really are certain, they are certainly schismatic.  I don't like to think they're schismatic, so I say in most cases, their hubris aside, they doubt these papacies.

    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4447
    • Reputation: +5053/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #13 on: May 05, 2014, 01:14:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*.  My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else.  Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.  

    There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians.  If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him?  Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question.  It has a cultish effect.  Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.


    *I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.  
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Mabel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1893
    • Reputation: +1386/-25
    • Gender: Female
    Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer
    « Reply #14 on: May 05, 2014, 01:43:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BlackIrish
    Quote from: Mithrandylan


    Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.




    Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

    How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

    I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

    Ugh - cheque, please!


     :judge:  


    This supports your point nicely, Mithrandylan.