Author Topic: A Letter to Bp. Faure (Read 18070 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** August 28, 2015, 08:43:32 AM »

You know, I can halfway understand division to an extent when serious theological issues are involved (R&R vs. sedevacantism for instance). But Resistance vs. Resistance? Based on WHAT theological grounds would Father Pfeiffer condemn Father Zendejas to the point of red-lighting him?

It's all very clearly personal. I'm sorry, but I called this from the beginning, that much of Father Pfeiffer's tone comes across as self-promotion and ego, promoting himself as "holier than thou" against all other Traditionalists. And the more you think that you're one of 10 remaining Catholics in the entire world, the closer you get to complete ruin.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #31 on:** August 28, 2015, 08:50:53 AM »

Quote

Based on WHAT theological grounds would Father Pfeiffer condemn Father Zendejas to the point of red-lighting him?

That would be a good question to start a new topic with.

TKGS · « **Reply #32 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:55:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's all very clearly personal. I'm sorry, but I called this from the beginning, that much of Father Pfeiffer's tone comes across as self-promotion and ego, promoting himself as "holier than thou" against all other Traditionalists. And the more you think that you're one of 10 remaining Catholics in the entire world, the closer you get to complete ruin.

Emphasis added.

I think this is an accurate description of most of the controversies among traditional Catholics. Even when there are disputes that center around doctrinal issues, the reason the dispute ends up causing such a division that one group anathematizes another or refuses communion with those in another camp are more personal divisions rather than doctrinal divisions.

There is absolutely no basis for traditional Catholics to act in this way towards one another for the simple reason that there is no pope who can or will resolve the conflicts. This is true whether one is sedevacantist, R&R, neo-SSPX, Resistance SSPX, or whatever.

Personally, it would seem to me that the lack of unity in traditional circles (as well as in Conciliar circles) is, in itself, great that there is no pope at present (but that's just me).

hollingsworth · « **Reply #33 on:** August 28, 2015, 10:19:38 AM »

TKGS:

Quote

I think this is an accurate description of most of the controversies among traditional Catholics. Even when there are disputes that center around doctrinal issues, the reason the dispute ends up causing such a division that one group anathematizes another or refuses communion with those in another camp are more personal divisions rather than doctrinal divisions.

There is absolutely no basis for traditional Catholics to act in this way towards one another for the simple reason that there is no pope who can or will resolve the conflicts. This is true whether one is sedevacantist, R&R, neo-SSPX, Resistance SSPX, or whatever.

Personally, it would seem to me that the lack of unity in traditional circles (as well as in Conciliar circles) is, in itself, great that there is no pope at present (but that's just me).

Good post. Just as Bp. Williamson has said over and over again: The Shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered.

Has anyone ever confronted Fr. P in a public gathering and asked him something like the following: "Father, would you explain to us exactly what some of those "doctrinal issues" are? You "red light" this priest or that priest for having either the wrong "doctrine," or for allegedly refusing to reveal what his "doctrine" may be?"

Why is it that the Pfeiffer faithful sit there with their thumbs in their mouths when Fr. P. says these kinds of things? And he has done so on several occasions.

Along the same line, why does no one ever ask Father in a public gathering what he means by accusations leveled at Bp. Williamson for not leading, or refusing to lead? Why does no one ever question Father P. about what he considers to be the proper form of "resistance" leadership, and how it is His Excellency seemingly fails in this regard?

I think it is high time that Fr. Pfeiffer be brought before some kind of 'truth tribunal.' Other wise, I'm afraid, this priest, having lost any real objective will go on redoubling his efforts.

covet truth · « **Reply #34 on:** August 28, 2015, 10:50:54 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's all very clearly personal. I'm sorry, but I called this from the beginning, that much of Father Pfeiffer's tone comes across as self-promotion and ego, promoting himself as "holier than thou" against all other Traditionalists. And the more you think that you're one of 10 remaining Catholics in the entire world, the closer you get to complete ruin.

Fr. Pfeiffer clearly has a very personal animosity toward Fr. Zendejas. This has caused many of Fr. P's followers who don't know Father Zendejas to be led to believe many untruths directed against him. For those who know Father it has caused us to turn a deaf ear to anything that comes from Fr. P. We know that he and his followers try to intimidate any priest who leaves the SSPX and doesn't take Fr. Pfeiffer for their "district superior" because that is essentially the part he is trying to play. He is a bully and gives bad example of how a priest should act. His followers, unfortunately, follow his lead. This disgusting letter being a good example.