Author Topic: Another leaked Docuмent (Read 6099 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2012, 08:06:06 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

It's an incredible letter. And Fr. Pfeiffer sees things so clearly. We must thank the dear Lord for the priests of the "resistance", and pray that we are sent more such priests for the salvation of souls.

:cry:

Yes, I think there are a LOT more priests on the way, from what I can see. Young
people these days are aware of how things have gone wrong, and I see God's
grace starting to move hearts.

I'm looking for someone to give me the green light on one of these versions of
Fr. Pfeiffer's letter, so then I'll upload a PDF for everyone to print, who wants to.

I don't want to have any mistakes in it, so I'd like to know the correct date to
put on it, or should I just say "the week of Sept. 9th?" I figure if this is coming to
us as a "leaked" docuмent, it might have been setting around for a few days or
weeks even. Or I could say "prior to Sept. 16th?" Should I put CathInfo on it, or
not? Should I put Pablo the Mexican, or not?

I will leave out the bracketed comments/questions, and will delete brackets on
my spelling corrections.

Does Matthew have anything to say?

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** September 17, 2012, 09:02:32 PM »

This is an appalling way to treat a priest who is a member of a religious community. Even a seriously troubled priest, if he is not dangerous, should receive more consideration than this.

Nickolas · « **Reply #7 on:** September 17, 2012, 09:27:26 PM »

I believe this letter to be a phony. Oh yes, it is presented to the forum as an actual response to a so called "Mrs. XXXXX", however its substance is not as a priest would write, but an emotional person who is trying to inflame its readers and draw pity on the author. In paragraph one, the comparison with the brothel and prostitutes is certainly one that a priest would not use. A priest would write with a nature of humility and penance, however this so called letter contains neither.

The letter may very well be a composite of message points expressed to its presenter "Pablo". I do not doubt Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal are prohibited from eating or talking with the other priests or brothers while where they are presently housed. I don't doubt these fine priests are forbidden from saying Mass in the chapels of the SSPX (and I must say, I find the factual aspects of their "captivity" deplorable) We know from the letter of Fr. Couture that this is the case. Nevertheless, I know of no priest who would allow his private correspondence to be released on an internet forum even with the addressee "X'd" out in such a way as this. Goodness, is this the only this priest can get his message out, through a so called letter to a 3rd party? No so.

In addition, there are numerous grammatical errors in the letter. If it was a valid letter initially, it need only be copied verbatim or if done online, copied and pasted. Priests who make their way through the SSPX seminaries have linguistic skills that far exceed most of us due to their rigorous training and certainly above what is presented in this letter.

The word is a powerful tool for both the good and bad. Keen minds know how to use it well, however, when our emotion runs away with us (even for good and valiant intentions) Godly wisdom is sometimes left in the wake.

1531 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 18, 2012, 09:31:05 AM »

Quote from: Nickolas

I believe this letter to be a phony. Oh yes, it is presented to the forum as an actual response to a so called "Mrs. XXXXX", however its substance is not as a priest would write, but an emotional person who is trying to inflame its readers and draw pity on the author. In paragraph one, the comparison with the brothel and prostitutes is certainly one that a priest would not use. A priest would write with a nature of humility and penance, however this so called letter contains neither.

The letter may very well be a composite of message points expressed to its presenter "Pablo". I do not doubt Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal are prohibited from eating or talking with the other priests or brothers while where they are presently housed. I don't doubt these fine priests are forbidden from saying Mass in the chapels of the SSPX (and I must say, I find the factual aspects of their "captivity" deplorable) We know from the letter of Fr. Couture that this is the case. Nevertheless, I know of no priest who would allow his private correspondence to be released on an internet forum even with the addressee "X'd" out in such a way as this. Goodness, is this the only this priest can get his message out, through a so called letter to a 3rd party? No so.

In addition, there are numerous grammatical errors in the letter. If it was a valid letter initially, it need only be copied verbatim or if done online, copied and pasted. Priests who make their way through the SSPX seminaries have linguistic skills that far exceed most of us due to their rigorous training and certainly above what is presented in this letter.

The word is a powerful tool for both the good and bad. Keen minds know how to use it well, however, when our emotion runs away with us (even for good and valiant intentions) Godly wisdom is sometimes left in the wake.

I must admit, that while I would agree with the general tenure of the letter, I was rather surprised, if not shocked, that a priest like Fr. Pfeiffer should have used any reference to a brothel. Was this letter truly written by Fr J Pfeiffer?

Columba · « **Reply #9 on:** September 18, 2012, 10:07:37 AM »

Quote from: 1531

Quote from: Nickolas
I believe this letter to be a phony. Oh yes, it is presented to the forum as an actual response to a so called "Mrs. XXXXX", however its substance is not as a priest would write, but an emotional person who is trying to inflame its readers and draw pity on the author. In paragraph one, the comparison with the brothel and prostitutes is certainly one that a priest would not use. A priest would write with a nature of humility and penance, however this so called letter contains neither.

The letter may very well be a composite of message points expressed to its presenter "Pablo". I do not doubt Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal are prohibited from eating or talking with the other priests or brothers while where they are presently housed. I don't doubt these fine priests are forbidden from saying Mass in the chapels of the SSPX (and I must say, I find the factual aspects of their "captivity" deplorable) We know from the letter of Fr. Couture that this is the case. Nevertheless, I know of no priest who would allow his private correspondence to be released on an internet forum even with the addressee "X'd" out in such a way as this. Goodness, is this the only this priest can get his message out, through a so called letter to a 3rd party? No so.

In addition, there are numerous grammatical errors in the letter. If it was a valid letter initially, it need only be copied verbatim or if done online, copied and pasted. Priests who make their way through the SSPX seminaries have linguistic skills that far exceed most of us due to their rigorous training and certainly above what is presented in this letter.

The word is a powerful tool for both the good and bad. Keen minds know how to use it well, however, when our emotion runs away with us (even for good and valiant intentions) Godly wisdom is sometimes left in the wake.

I must admit, that while I would agree with the general tenure of the letter, I was rather surprised, if not shocked, that a priest like Fr. Pfeiffer should have used any reference to a brothel. Was this letter truly written by Fr J Pfeiffer?

LOL. If this letter seems shocking, you would be really amazed if you ever cracked open a bible.