Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 09, 2025, 09:01:42 PM
-
Bishop? Joseph Pfeiffer ... have to give him credit, for a moving 38-minute sermon / eulogy / tribute at a Requiem Mass (with catafalque) for Bishop Williamson offered on January 30th, where he also says it's the beginning of the Gregorian Masses he'll be offering for His Excellency, so he's already 1/3 of the way through, while everyone else awaits the disposition of His Excellency's remains. During the entire 38 minutes, he mentioned very mildly a couple of disagreements he had with him, and only well past the 30-minute mark, and then lasting maybe 30 seconds of the 38 minutes minimizing them by saying that we're all human and make mistakes.
Hats off for the great class he shows here.
Someone should conditionally consecrate the man (and ask him to conditionally ordain anyone he's laid hands on and perform conditional confirmations). I'm not one for holding grudges and using the Sacraments for weapons. For the sake of the faithful who might be being subjected to possibly invalid Sacraments, I believe a Resistance Bishop should make peace with Bishop Pfeiffer and offer him conditional consecration. If he's not a valid bishop, this must be fixed for the sake of the poor faithful, and for Father/Bishop Pfeiffer.
Sermons / Eulogy / Tribute begins a few seconds after the 1:00 (one hour) mark and runs until a few seconds after 1:38 (lasting about 38 minutes). One of the best I've heard, even if a bit overly-emotional at times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlLOprmIheo
Matthew, please forward this along to Bishop Zendejas along with my entreaty above to offer the man conditional consecration, if not for his sake but for the sakes of the faithful out there who are there now due to the beginnings of the Resistance and who may be being subjected to invalid Sacraments.
It's long been my criticism of SSPV / Bishop Kelly attacking +Sanborn, +Dolan, et al. for invalid Sacraments. YOU HAVE IT WITHIN YOUR POWER to remedy the situation. God did not give you valid Orders in order to use them as attack weapons against your adversaries but only for the good of the Church and the good of the faithful. FIX IT. You do not even have any serious theological disagreements with the other group(s). Grow up, and fix the problem.
If I were a bishop with valid Orders, I'd be going around conditionally conserating / ordaining anyone out there of good faith laboring under doubful orders, and not not playing these baby games. I grieve for the souls who may not be receiving valid Sacraments, way too much to not be able to swallow some puerile pride and to go rectify the situation ASAP.
I think we need a Rebiba 2.0 scenario with all the Trad groups. Representatives of all the existing lines of Holy Orders should pick a single individual to all conditionally ordain and conditionally consecrate, and that individual then would conditionally ordain and consecrate alll the bishops there, who would then conditionally ordain all the priests who had received orders from them.
For those who don't know Cardinal Rebiba, from the era of St. Pius V, if you look on catholic-hierarchy.com, you can trace all episcopal lineages back only as far as Rebiba and 91% of all current bishops lead back to him (mostly the Eastern Rite ones do not). That's because Pope Benedict XIII (whose orders derive through Rebiba), personally consecrated 138 bishops for different Sees in Europe. Since there are no extant records about who consecrated Rebiba, the lineages of 91% of current Latin Rite bishops can only be traced back to him.
Might be good to find an Eastern Rite episcopal line also for Rebiba 2.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipione_Rebiba
-
So, Holy Orders were given by Our Lord for those in Orders to SERVE the faithful and to SERVE the Church, not to Lord it over them. To use those Orders as weapons contradicts the very reasons for which Our Lord conferred them upon the Church in the first place.
When Bishops with valid Orders find others laboring under doubtful ones, especially others with whom they have no serious (as in Catholic vs. non-Catholic) disagreements about various issues related to the Crisis, they have a grave obligation to get that rectified.
So these bishops also have to recall that they have NO AUTHORITY at all, really, no actual episcopal jurisdiction, and have the Orders only in order to keep alive the Sacraments for the remnant faithful, so you're not conferring jurisdiction on anyone or appointing them to a See, etc. You're merely helping to perpetuate the Sacraments, which is all your role is for at this time anyway. They were not given to you FOR you, because you're such a great guy and deserve to have the faithful bowing their heads to you and calling you "Your Excellency". Nobody is worthy of these Orders, and you're only carrying them as Christ's representative. They were given to you to SERVE the faithful, as Our Lord taught at the mandatum on Holy Thursday.
If everyone is worried about the qualified of the Boston "seminary", then maybe you should all join forces to put something more solid together and work together on this instead of playing games.
-
You're effectively saying every Trad priest that wants to be a bishop should be consecrated as such.
If the completely valid bishops deny them, then they simply find anyone else and then come back around a claim it's the valid bishop's duty to fix the mess.
If BpPfeiffer had been consecrated by Moran, would your thoughts be the same?
-
If he's not a valid bishop, this must be fixed for the sake of the poor faithful, and for Father/Bishop Pfeiffer.
Nothing in Pfeifferville can be fixed until Pablo is ousted. He's the elephant in the room, which I'm sure +W was aware of. Until Fr P gets rid of Pablo, he cannot be trusted. Let's not let temporary emotion cloud the major problems which still exist.
-
I disagree, Lad, but it's such a mess, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe go as far as conditionally ordaining the priests he ordained, and do conditional confirmations, but don't reward him for what he seemed to take against the better judgment of a wise bishop.
-
You're effectively saying every Trad priest that wants to be a bishop should be consecrated as such.
If the completely valid bishops deny them, then they simply find anyone else and then come back around a claim it's the valid bishop's duty to fix the mess.
If BpPfeiffer had been consecrated by Moran, would your thoughts be the same?
Lad, Mater has a point. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, your idea needs tweaking. There’s also the issue with a certain person at OLMC who stays by Bp./Fr.’s will, permission, or perhaps fear and brainwashing. Even if conditionally consecrated, if said evil influencer is not renounced and permanently banished, what difference does it make?
Lad, however, you DO have a point about the effect on the laity of bishops and priests using the Sacraments like weapons against one another in order to wipe out the opposition’s foot soldiers. I refer to laity as being stuck in the crosshairs, pawns in an unholy game of chess where they are viewed as dispensable. Whether by carelessness or intent, the effect is the same. How many lay persons are out there, victims of triangulation between warring clergy? There are struggling Catholics who long for a Mass to attend and to receive the Sacraments, to have Catholic family and friends to turn to in times of need, but who have none of these because of in-fighting, not their fault, who find themselves exiled in the midst of traditional Chapels and their fellow Catholics. God help the children raised under such conditions. Except for an extreme miracle, those children find themselves deprived of the normal means of salvation while seeing their relatives and peers enjoying a healthy spiritual, social, and emotional life. Come the age time to choose a state of life, no venue to the religious life is available and there is nobody to marry. 98% of these will take a worldly, novus ordo, or heretical spouse. 1.5%, maybe more, will fall headlong into the world, and 1/2% will fail to mature, remain at home, become a recluse, and after both parents are gone, be cast into the world unable to cope. Raised in such a state from early on or birth, when these souls turn to lives of sin it is partly due to ignorance.
Those who find themselves adult victims of triangulation cannot plead ignorance. They are left with the choice of choosing one clique and adopting lack of charity towards all others, choosing a clique and pretending to reject others (lead the double life of a hypocrite), or soldering on alone. If the issues dividing the factions were matters of morality, then yes, the only choice pleasing to God is to go it alone. But when factions are based upon human points of view, however learned, matters of jurisdiction, authority, or matters lacking definitive ruling of the Magisterium, to whom shall Christ impute guilt? The soul who knows Christ’s commands to confess his sins, to eat His Body, and drink His Blood, to hear Mass all Sundays and Holy Days but fails to do so because Christ’s servants have barred him from so doing? Or shall the solo soul obey God while secretly disobeying those very servants of Christ whom He has commanded to shepherd and father the sheep? For me it has turned into a dilemma without solution. Most of the time, there is no choice. I cannot adopt “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” There’s nothing to ask or tell. Everyone knows. Everyone says to stay away despite the fact that my conscience does not hold me guilty. My “guilt” consists of people I know with whom those in charge disagree. Or my associates have committed some “sin” (or not, God knows), in the distant past for which they’ve never been let off the hook. By long distance in time and place, I’m somehow held guilty for events that occurred when I was still a minor under my parents’ roof, between persons I wouldn’t meet for 30 years. In places I’m unknown, I go by “Don’t ask; don’t tell” in order to receive the Sacraments, all the while recognizing if the people or priest knew about certain associations or friendships, even if not sins to the best of my understanding, they’d deny me the Sacraments. So I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
Picture a young teen of divorced parents in a custody battle. Mother says, you can live with me if you repudiate your father and have nothing to do with him ever again. Father says you can live with him only if you repudiate your mother and promise to never again have anything to do with her. The judge says, you must choose one. Of course, you love both and cannot, in justice, be forced to make an immoral decision. What does the teen do? Which is the right choice?
What would Bp. Williamson say? What does Our Lord say? Our Lady? What is the answer according to moral theology?
-
Lad, Mater has a point. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, your idea needs tweaking. There’s also the issue with a certain person at OLMC who stays by Bp./Fr.’s will, permission, or perhaps fear and brainwashing. Even if conditionally consecrated, if said evil influencer is not renounced and permanently banished, what difference does it make?
Lad, however, you DO have a point about the effect on the laity of bishops and priests using the Sacraments like weapons against one another in order to wipe out the opposition’s foot soldiers. I refer to laity as being stuck in the crosshairs, pawns in an unholy game of chess where they are viewed as dispensable. Whether by carelessness or intent, the effect is the same. How many lay persons are out there, victims of triangulation between warring clergy? There are struggling Catholics who long for a Mass to attend and to receive the Sacraments, to have Catholic family and friends to turn to in times of need, but who have none of these because of in-fighting, not their fault, who find themselves exiled in the midst of traditional Chapels and their fellow Catholics. God help the children raised under such conditions. Except for an extreme miracle, those children find themselves deprived of the normal means of salvation while seeing their relatives and peers enjoying a healthy spiritual, social, and emotional life. Come the age time to choose a state of life, no venue to the religious life is available and there is nobody to marry. 98% of these will take a worldly, novus ordo, or heretical spouse. 1.5%, maybe more, will fall headlong into the world, and 1/2% will fail to mature, remain at home, become a recluse, and after both parents are gone, be cast into the world unable to cope. Raised in such a state from early on or birth, when these souls turn to lives of sin it is partly due to ignorance.
Those who find themselves adult victims of triangulation cannot plead ignorance. They are left with the choice of choosing one clique and adopting lack of charity towards all others, choosing a clique and pretending to reject others (lead the double life of a hypocrite), or soldering on alone. If the issues dividing the factions were matters of morality, then yes, the only choice pleasing to God is to go it alone. But when factions are based upon human points of view, however learned, matters of jurisdiction, authority, or matters lacking definitive ruling of the Magisterium, to whom shall Christ impute guilt? The soul who knows Christ’s commands to confess his sins, to eat His Body, and drink His Blood, to hear Mass all Sundays and Holy Days but fails to do so because Christ’s servants have barred him from so doing? Or shall the solo soul obey God while secretly disobeying those very servants of Christ whom He has commanded to shepherd and father the sheep? For me it has turned into a dilemma without solution. Most of the time, there is no choice. I cannot adopt “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” There’s nothing to ask or tell. Everyone knows. Everyone says to stay away despite the fact that my conscience does not hold me guilty. My “guilt” consists of people I know with whom those in charge disagree. Or my associates have committed some “sin” (or not, God knows), in the distant past for which they’ve never been let off the hook. By long distance in time and place, I’m somehow held guilty for events that occurred when I was still a minor under my parents’ roof, between persons I wouldn’t meet for 30 years. In places I’m unknown, I go by “Don’t ask; don’t tell” in order to receive the Sacraments, all the while recognizing if the people or priest knew about certain associations or friendships, even if not sins to the best of my understanding, they’d deny me the Sacraments. So I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
Picture a young teen of divorced parents in a custody battle. Mother says, you can live with me if you repudiate your father and have nothing to do with him ever again. Father says you can live with him only if you repudiate your mother and promise to never again have anything to do with her. The judge says, you must choose one. Of course, you love both and cannot, in justice, be forced to make an immoral decision. What does the teen do? Which is the right choice?
What would Bp. Williamson say? What does Our Lord say? Our Lady? What is the answer according to moral theology?
The more I see, the more I realize how important it is not to trust Traditionalist priests and to be annonymous. Otherwise, you run the risk of being left without the sacraments, because you have been to somebody else's mass.
Get in, confess, hear mass, receive Holy Communion and go home.
Either this or you are limited to the sacraments just from a certain group of priests, since all the others will "excommunicate" you.
It gets harder as time goes by.
-
The more I see, the more I realize how important it is not to trust Traditionalist priests and to be annonymous. Otherwise, you run the risk of being left without the sacraments, because you have been to somebody else's mass.
Get in, confess, hear mass, receive Holy Communion and go home.
Either this or you are limited to the sacraments just from a certain group of priests, since all the others will "excommunicate" you.
It gets harder as time goes by.
I hate your answer, but I fear it’s the only option. Add traditionalist Catholics to the list of those not to trust. Aside from finding worldly (bad) companions, that leaves me alone so far as other human beings. Since 2018, eight of nine Catholic friends have died. The one remaining lives 1,000+ miles away and I can’t travel like I did when younger. I have no family left except for a few distant half cousins given over to the rainbow brigade. I’ve had nothing to do with them since 2012 when the youngest, got her “bottom surgery” at tax payer expense, 🤮 age 19! Instead of the usual Christmas Eve luncheon, there was a celebration for “Andy” female turned male, and her new partner, “Michelle,” male turned female. Obviously, I did not attend and have had no communication from that branch of the family since. At present, my only company is a cat who lacks in the brain department and is obsessed with my feet, socks, and shoes. She eats house spiders but is afraid of mice. 🐀 🐈
I do have more time to pray and meditate, but I’ve discovered I’m not able to focus for long periods as before. The same with spiritual reading. I try, but the harder I try, the more I find my mind either drifting or just blank despite reading the words.
For whatever reason, this seems to be my cross.
Please pray for me that I carry it better.
-
The more I see, the more I realize how important it is not to trust Traditionalist priests and to be annonymous. Otherwise, you run the risk of being left without the sacraments, because you have been to somebody else's mass.
Get in, confess, hear mass, receive Holy Communion and go home.
Either this or you are limited to the sacraments just from a certain group of priests, since all the others will "excommunicate" you.
It gets harder as time goes by.
Some Trad faithful and priests get very upset if you mention that you obtained sacraments elsewhere. This is whether you attend resistance, SSPX or non una cuм masses. So yes we keep quiet.
In this crisis no one really has the authority to tell you where to obtain the sacraments, and I suspect that this is why people get quite angry if you don't attend exclusively their chapel. Because you are in effect questioning their path.
-
I am shocked to learn from this sermon of Fr Pfeiffer that he considers the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to have been properly performed by Pope Francis in accordance with the wishes of Our Lady of Fatima: around 1:31 - 1:32
I think the suggestion of Ladislaus has merit, and I have thought about it myself.
Strictly speaking, what Mater Dominici says is right, but we are not in normal times.
I'm certainly in no place to judge all the issues that may be involved such as Pablo, as Pax mentions.
However, while the positions adopted by Frs Pf and Hewko were gravely scandalous at the time, they are not heretics and we are in a crisis. Their concerns were, after all, understandable, even if their reactions were exaggerated (to say the least). There is no longer a clear moral head of the Resistance and it is well and truly divided into isolated pockets. The greater scandal may be to leave them with doubtful orders. I don't think it will create a precedent in terms of emboldening priests to appoint themselves to the bishopric. In terms of their formation, the priests trained at OLMC will not be the most ignorant priests in the Resistance to have been given orders. I think the proposal deserves consideration by those in authority.
-
I am shocked to learn from this sermon of Fr Pfeiffer that he considers the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to have been properly performed by Pope Francis in accordance with the wishes of Our Lady of Fatima: around 1:31 - 1:32
I was taken aback by that except that I know Fr. Pfeiffer is adamantly anti-SV, though most non-SVs felt it was inadequate due to the language of the consecration formulat itself. I, being SV-ish, find it inadequate on both counts, nor do I imagine that anywhere near all the bishops in the world actually participated.
But I let that slide since I didn't want to distract from what was an otherwise unexpectedly-positive sermon/eulogy from Bishop? Pfeiffer. I found this, since at one point I was wondering what venue could be used for His Excellency's funeral Mass and the thought of Boston ran into my mind, but then I shook it off given the past bad blood.
When I tuned in ... and sought out the actual eulogy ... I was clenching my teeth waiting for the bombs to fly, where, like with Fr. Schmidberger it would be one minute of niceties followed by 20 minutes of attacks. I was stunned and pleasantly surprised. Tip of the hat to Father Pfeiffer, and we should give credit where it's due. He literally mentioned two disagreements he's had with His Excellency, almost in passing, for about 30 seconds, after the 30-minute mark, but then immediately excused them in the context of "we all make mistakes" and are not infallible: about whether to have started a formal organiztion (not a few have disagreed with Bishop Williamson about that) and whether the NO Saraments confer grace (debatable and having different opinions does not render someone not Catholic). That was it, and then he brushed them off.
Based on the data, he should be on his 12th day of Gregorian Masses already for Bishop Williamson.
-
You're effectively saying every Trad priest that wants to be a bishop should be consecrated as such.
No, and that's why I added that it should be done for any established congregation of good faith, i.e. in good faith as Traditional Catholics, to rule out the notorious Order-collectors, such as the clowns who get ordained/consecrated by a dozen Orthodox and/or Old Catholic types.
We're talking about established groups with legitimate needs to care for the faithful.
One need simply look at the souls who depend on Bishop Pfeiffer's chapel and missions, etc. and take pity on them, many of whom just don't know better and are just trying to save their souls.
Bishop Pfeiffer is not just some vagus who came out of nowhere, with decades of experience as a priest, and in fact left SSPX at the same time as many of the others for the same reaons.
While he took some bad turns, the faithful at his chapels shouldn't be punished for it.
Saraments were given for the salvation of souls, not as weapons against groups you don't like or against rival groups, etc. ... as SSPV have done. That's another situation. It's not like +Dolan and +Sanborn et al were these unknown quantities running around collecting Orders, but they have legitimate established chapels and faithful to care for. AND there's not a lick of theological disagreement between them that's worth harming souls over and costing the salvation of souls. +Kelly et al. should have promptly offered to do mutual conditionals for the peace of all involved. Instead not a few families were ripped apart by the stupidity.
After this eulogy, they should let bygones be bygones and offer conditional consecration to Bishop Pfeiffer.
So, the thing that His Excellency Bishop Williamson was KEENLY aware of is that neither he nor the bishops he consecrated have any real (as in jurisdictional) authority and are merely emergency dispensers of Sacraments in these times of apostasy.
In fact, he was criticized for consecrating Bishop Zendejas because the latter was not considered qualified from an intellectual perspective to be a bishop, and His Exellency responded that it was unnecessary given the role of these bishops, to care for the needs of the faithful. That is WHY Bishop Williamson deemed it expedient to consecrate so many, and also why he never set up an organization. I know his thinking on the matter quite well, as he articulated it long before he was expelled from SSPX and shortly aftere the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.
https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/interview-with-bishop-williamson-on-the-episcopal-consecration-of-fr-zendejas/
Here are some of the relevant portions of this (questions in plain text, with Bishop Williamson's responses in italics, and the bolding is mine to emphasis parts I find relevant) ...
... a famous and arbitrary commentary in a Forum questioned the intellectual / academic aptitude of Fr. Zendejas for the episcopate (although when consecrated bishop will have almost 25 years more of priestly experience and maturity that Bishop Fellay had in his). What would Your Excellency respond to such an accusation?
The Catholic Church always needs a number of well-trained priests, but most of the priests of old had little more than their seminary training.
He's absolutely correct. I've known quite a few pre-V2 priests who, let's just say, couldn't make it through 2 years at STAS.
In the Eleison Commentaries announcing the Episcopal Consecration, His Excellency explained the need for authority, and in combination with its analogy or parallel to the geographical location of the four original bishops of the SSPX with the four bishops of the Resistance, some are Trying to extract from this reference to geography and authority, an intention of him to impart territorial jurisdiction to the bishops of the Resistance. Presumably, that ridiculous dispute will be dispelled by the reading of the Apostolic Mandate, but in the meantime, could you say a few words in this regard?
Monsignor Lefebvre was very clear when he consecrated the four bishops in 1988, which was not intended to give them any kind of jurisdiction as only Rome is able to give. They were to be simply the Church’s emergency lighting system as long as the normal lights of the Church were obscured. In the same way, Fr. Zendejas will receive the Sacred Order of the Episcopate to be able to act sacramentally as Bishop, but will have no geographical jurisdiction in North America or anywhere else.
His Excellency concurred with the opinion I too have long emphasized here, that the current Trad bishops are merely emergency dispensers of the Sacraments for the salvation of souls and the good of the faithful. Without that need, there's no justification for their consecrations, so if they use those Orders CONTRARY to the needs of the faithful, they will be held accountable for wrongly usurping Holy Orders.
Eastern Rites have LONG had "chor-bishops" and Latin Rite dioceses "auxliary bishops", who while they had episcopal Orders and
Is Bishop-elect Zendejas expected to confine his ministry to the SAJM (in much the same way that the FSSPX bishops confine their ministry to the SSPX), or the worsening situation in the Church will force him into a wider apostolate (If not ex officio, then at least ex caritate) ?
The main idea behind the consecration of Fr. Zendejas is that on the American soil a duly dedicated orthodox Catholic bishop is accessible as a reliable source of true Catholic doctrine and sacraments, including priests. As the crisis in the Church deepens and deepens, it is possible that in the coming years more and more Catholics and non-Catholics will see the usefulness of a bishop and turn to their services (Jn XII, 20-21) to help them To go to heaven.
His Excellency refers to the future Bishop Zendejas as a bishop “duly consecrated”.Does this affirmation imply that His Excellency retains certain doubts regarding the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration?
Readers of the Eleison Comments will recall two issues, about two years ago, in which an article of Fr. Álvaro Calderón was summarized about the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration. He is one of the best theologians in the SSPX. His conclusion was that the new Rite is probably valid, but a shadow of doubt looms over his neomodernist intentions: Do you really intend to produce a Catholic bishop? The surplus is enough for Fr. Calderon to judge that ideally, all newly consecrated bishops must be reconsecrated under condition.
As Bishop-elect Zendejas speaks Spanish and English, it would seem that he would be suitable to carry out duties in Australasia, where those languages are common in the Philippines and Oceania. Is it contemplated that he will take over the duties (eg Confirmations and ordinations, etc.) in that part of the world?
Time will tell. While the planes fly, Fr Zendejas can travel.
Here's yet another glimpse into why Bishop Williamson has been consecrating bishops for different parts of the world. He (rightly, IMO) suspects that there are more (and probably much worse) lockdowns coming, and that Plandemic 2.0 was just a dress rehearsal.
The Resistance bishops have refused to collaborate with Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko in the United States for reasons that are well known in the hope that this charitable isolation would correct their scandalous public attacks. Is it planned to continue this policy under the episcopate of the future bishop Zendejas?
There are all kinds of pastoral questions that Father Zendejas will have to judge in the circuмstances that prevail then, because in the current chaos of the Church, all kinds of situations develop all the time.
Bishop Williamson here seems open to the situation evolving so that Bishop Zendejas might regularize relations with Father/Bishop Pfeiffer, and this last eulogy from Bishop? Pfeiffer appears to be just such an evolution.
One opinion says that, in the light of the relatively small number of Resistance faithful (at least compared to those of the SSPX), this last episcopal consecration is not necessary, and therefore its justification based on need is not justified by That numberHow does His Excellency respond to this perspective?
It is not a matter of numbers or quantity, but of truth and quality. Sacred Scripture tells us (Luke XVIII, 8) that at the end of the world the Church will be very small. However, true doctrine and true sacraments will no longer be needed, and in the end there will still be a minimum number of true sacraments, and at the end there will still be a minimum number of true bishops and priests. But nothing prevents these bishops and priests from being remarkably few in number. The Truth is not democratic.
Bishop Williamson justifies the necessity of the consecrations due to his belief that we're in the great end times apostasy, and IMO he's correct.
-
I disagree, Lad, but it's such a mess, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe go as far as conditionally ordaining the priests he ordained, and do conditional confirmations, but don't reward him for what he seemed to take against the better judgment of a wise bishop.
This is far too personal, as if it's about whether or not Bishop Pfeiffer would be "rewarded". Has nothing to do with him, just as episcopal orders have next-to-nothing to do with the men upon whom they were bestroyed. As Bishop Williamson realizes, the only justification for the Orders is for the salvation of souls. You can't let the faithful rot with doubtful Sacraments just because Bishop Pfeiffer lost it for a while. Also, can there be no forgiveness and putting aside grudges? Is Bishop? Pfeiffer here the "bigger man" by laying down the hatchet against Bishop Williamson? Did you listen to what he said about His Excellency?
-
Lad, Mater has a point. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, your idea needs tweaking.
It was already qualified, and people missed the qualification, namely, that they be Traditional groups operating in good faith, as there are many bad-willed Sacrament-seekers out there, whereas others are just attempting to help save souls.
While some cases might be a bit blurry, this one here and SSPV vs. +Sanborn/+Dolan are clear cases where it's would constitute a grave moral failure to not step in an remedy the situation. Now, if a Bishop Zendejas had made peace with Bishop Pfeiffer and the latter refused, there's no much you could do, other than perhaps offering conditional ordination individually to priests, etc.
Now, one could say these faithful should just "go to some other group" ... as if everybody has access to more than one. Some do, but many others do not, and even if they do, they're not equippped to discern for themselves whether the various debates about the Sacraments are legitimate or not.
-
The more I see, the more I realize how important it is not to trust Traditionalist priests and to be annonymous. Otherwise, you run the risk of being left without the sacraments, because you have been to somebody else's mass.
Get in, confess, hear mass, receive Holy Communion and go home.
Either this or you are limited to the sacraments just from a certain group of priests, since all the others will "excommunicate" you.
It gets harder as time goes by.
THIS ^^^ is precisely the state of affairs I've come to deplore, where the Trad clergy use their power to confect Sacraments as weapons against those they disagree with (most often on matters less than being of faith).
Bishop Williamson did NOT take that attitude. He performed conformations for a "Feeneyite" group, and has performed ordinations for various groups and individuals that were not completely aligned with his own position(s).
-
I am shocked to learn from this sermon of Fr Pfeiffer that he considers the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to have been properly performed by Pope Francis in accordance with the wishes of Our Lady of Fatima: around 1:31 - 1:32
I think the suggestion of Ladislaus has merit, and I have thought about it myself.
Strictly speaking, what Mater Dominici says is right, but we are not in normal times.
I'm certainly in no place to judge all the issues that may be involved such as Pablo, as Pax mentions.
However, while the positions adopted by Frs Pf and Hewko were gravely scandalous at the time, they are not heretics and we are in a crisis. Their concerns were, after all, understandable, even if their reactions were exaggerated (to say the least). There is no longer a clear moral head of the Resistance and it is well and truly divided into isolated pockets. The greater scandal may be to leave them with doubtful orders. I don't think it will create a precedent in terms of emboldening priests to appoint themselves to the bishopric. In terms of their formation, the priests trained at OLMC will not be the most ignorant priests in the Resistance to have been given orders. I think the proposal deserves consideration by those in authority.
I appreciate this rational and cool-headed reponse.
Agreed. We are not in normal times, and if you read the interview Bishop Williamson gave in response to criticisms for his consecration of Bishop Zendejas, that if anything was THE recurring theme. End times, great apostasy, no jurisdiction (normal authority), emergency dispensers of Sacraments, for the salvation of souls.
AND, while I concede there might be some fuzzy cases, I did qualify it by saying that groups operating in (relative) "good faith" should be assisted. Bishop Williamson always assited them, even if he didn't agree with them completely. He didn't agree with +Vigano 100% either.
At the very least, an effort should be made to reach out to him ... especially given his change of tone in this latest. Perhaps discussions could be had about consolidating a seminary effort, eliminating the influence of Pablo, etc. ... though even then the faithful should not be punished with dubious Sacraments just because of Pablo, thereby letting Pablo potentially destroy more souls than he's already harming.
Agreed, yes, bad behavior in the past, bad Pablo. But to leave the poor faithful to potentially losing their souls because Pablo and because holding a grudge for past bad behavior? Do Catholics not promote the idea of forgiveness and real conversion and change? Looks to me like Bishop Pfeiffer has changed, and his bad behavior was probably born of frustration. We're all human and we all make mistakes.
Even if ONE SINGLE soul were lost because he didn't get valid absolution from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest, that's an incalculable cost compared to putting up with some Pablonian nonsense ... and by making peace, you might be in a position to mitigate his influence more than if you're at odds. Sit down like adults and rationally discuss these matters, and accept what appears to be a major unmistakable olive branch from Bishop Pfeiffer. That should happen at the very least ...
-
Is Bishop? Pfeiffer here the "bigger man" by laying down the hatchet against Bishop Williamson?
Can the man get much bigger?:jester:
Wasn't there mentioned in an epistle to impose hands carefully? I see the point you make, but I still think caution should be maintained. Why not just consecrate 100 bishops to help all the more souls?
-
Can the man get much bigger?:jester:
Wasn't there mentioned in an epistle to impose hands carefully? I see the point you make, but I still think caution should be maintained. Why not just consecrate 100 bishops to help all the more souls?
Well, Bishop Williamson may have been on his way to consecrating dozens. Again, you speak as if we live in normal times, and not the end times and in the time of great apostasy. Those admonitions about being cautious are particularly intended toward bishops who had actual episcopal authority, jurisdiction, not just Sacramental assistants. Even today, the Eastern Rite chor-bishops generallly speaking are just glorified Monsignors, since there even priests can administer confirmations (whereas in the West they can not, although some debate it). Those chor- or auxliary bishops only came about centuries later, as the early bishops all had actual jurisdiction and authority.
Nor are we talking about randomly imposing hands, but about a man you were fighting side by side with in the trenches not too many years ago and don't have any significant doctrinal differences with.
But, then, i get the impression from you that you don't think anything nefarious is taking place in the world, that our civil authorities are above board, etc.
That's why Bishop Slupski was offering to ordain some married men, including Matthew here. Having grown up under Communism, he sees coming what will inevitably hit us, where the Plandemic 1.0 will be childsplay.
If we had such a lockdown for something that had the mortality rate of a flu, imagine now if they release something with even a 10% mortality rate, or, worse, 25%. If you walk out of your house without a deep-sea-diving helmet on, an angry mob will likely lynch you on the nearest utility pole within minutes. If we thought people dying in hospitals couldn't get the Last Rites or even absolution THEN, what will happen this next time around? If we thought that SSPX and the Conciliars folded like accordions during the last one, what would happen this time around? SSPX will be right there side by side with Jorge declaring it a grave moral obligation to get the next jab. If I had orders, per Bishop Slupski, I would be looking to set up a secret, underground, very quiet group of "simplex priests", priests who nobody would know about but would be able to perhaps have slightly more access to others and at least provide absolutely for the dying. We have plenty of former +Williamson seminarians floating around out there who are qualified (and in many cases more qualified that many currently-functioning Trad priests) to validly confect Sacraments. Not only would they NOT function until TSHTF, but they would be under strict orders NOT to function until such a time, and they'd be "activated" by being given some "go" signal, not unlike the so-called "terror cells". They would just continue living ordinary lives as laymen until needed. We'd have an underground cell of +Williamson-derived and formerly-+Williamson-trained underground secret priests, just like they had them in Commie countries before who could go around saving souls. I'm a big believer in this. I have many extended family here in NE Ohio, and the thought of them dying w/o Sacraments, without being able to absolve them if I could, would be heart-breaking. And we could do something about it. Not only that but there are a half dozen Trad chapels up here, but apart from the >90-year-old Father Carley, who can't get around too well anymore, you just have one that doesn't merely "fly in" on weekends (note +Williamson's comments about +Zendejas being unable to fly in the future), and even he would be a known priest and would likely be shut down, leaving a half dozen chapels' worth of faithful without any source for Sacraments, especially Sacramental absolution. That would be a tragedy, and there are those out there now with the power to set something like that up. I am convinced that such days are closer than we think ... and so was Bishop Williamson (and Bishop Slupski).
-
Can the man get much bigger?:jester:
OK, that's uncalled-for, uncharitable, and childish. We know not what his state is. Lots of people put on weight because they buy cheaper food, which is mostly carbs, combined with metabolic issues related to cortisol, stress, etc. ... or it could even be due to eaten less protein and more carbs. I know that my brother Steve and I regularly joked about how we always put on a few pounds during Lent that we'd have to work off afterwards, resuming our higher-protein intake.
-
So, I was thinking about Bishop Webster, the one who messed up initially at least in attempting to consecreate Father Pfeiffer, and found that he had passed away on December 29 of 2024, so not long before Bishop Williamson, and was laid to rest at Boston by Bishop? Pfeiffer.
He was a friend of mine for some years, a good man, who had a down-to-earth sermon style reminiscent of a Father Corapi (of Novus Ordo fame, or, rather, infamy).
I was the only one in attendance when he received Minor Orders from Bishop Hesson (I drive from Cleveland to Philly to be there), and I went to some Pro Life Rosary rallies with him.
God rest his soul.
https://www.barlowfh.com/obituary/BishopNeal-Webster
-
I knew him ( Bishop Webster) many years ago in the Rescue Movement before he became a priest.
Requiescat in pace
-
Agreed, yes, bad behavior in the past, bad Pablo. But to leave the poor faithful to potentially losing their souls because Pablo and because holding a grudge for past bad behavior? Do Catholics not promote the idea of forgiveness and real conversion and change? Looks to me like Bishop Pfeiffer has changed, and his bad behavior was probably born of frustration. We're all human and we all make mistakes.
I'm sorry, but you underestimate the influence of Pablo. He's a self-admitted lay-exorcist; there's mounds of evidence/stories that he's into Santeria practices and he NEVER goes to church. He's a walking scandal. Why is he even involved in the "seminary" at all? Until Fr P gets rid of him, then Fr P hasn't changed. The spiritual dangers posed by Pablo are real.
-
OK, that's uncalled-for, uncharitable, and childish. We know not what his state is. Lots of people put on weight because they buy cheaper food, which is mostly carbs, combined with metabolic issues related to cortisol, stress, etc. ... or it could even be due to eaten less protein and more carbs. I know that my brother Steve and I regularly joked about how we always put on a few pounds during Lent that we'd have to work off afterwards, resuming our higher-protein intake.
Yeah, sorry, I probably shouldn't have. But what's a little kidding here & there?
On the bright side, fat people don't go to heaven, so another priest told me.
Meaning that our glorified bodies won't be overweight.
I heard they eat a lot of catered fast food there rather than cooking their own (which of course isn't easy when understaffed) , so that probably explains why the priests in Boston end up overweight.
-
Very nice words,
I'm a little stunned he believes Rusia was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart properly.
-
Very nice words,
I'm a little stunned he believes Rusia was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart properly.
Right ... that threw a few of us off, but I didn't want to make a big deal about it since he only mentions it in passing and it isn't central to what he's talking about, just an example of how Bishops need to "bish". :laugh1:
-
I'm sorry, but you underestimate the influence of Pablo. He's a self-admitted lay-exorcist; there's mounds of evidence/stories that he's into Santeria practices and he NEVER goes to church. He's a walking scandal. Why is he even involved in the "seminary" at all? Until Fr P gets rid of him, then Fr P hasn't changed. The spiritual dangers posed by Pablo are real.
No, I underestimate nothing. I weigh Pablo against the harm done to souls not receiving valid Sacraments, and don't believe those souls should be punished even more on account of Pablo. Just have a look at all the young men participating in Bishop Williamson's or Bishop Webster's funerals, mostly all of good faith and sincerity ... and you go tell them they can't receive valid Sacraments and so potentially go to Hell for eternity ... because Pablo. Pablo seems to be some kind of mental obsession with some of you, so that perhaps that IS a sign of his spells having effect.
-
I am not going to go back and quote Ladislaus before making my comment here. That would require a long string of Lad's observations. So, here is my own observation --
Far too many ... far, far too many trads live bifurcated lives. On one side they claim the Church and world to be in unprecedented crisis. Nevertheless, these same trads will argue and behave as if all is in proper order in the Church and world.
This approach is wrong in analysis, falsifies the response, and does nothing to address the necessity of saving souls in our inverted epoch.
Correct me if I am wrong, Ladislaus, but I believe what I have written rightly gathers and summarises your thoughts. These are certainly my own thoughts regarding this crisis and what I see as responses amongst so many trads.
-
No, I underestimate nothing. I weigh Pablo against the harm done to souls not receiving valid Sacraments, and don't believe those souls should be punished even more on account of Pablo. Just have a look at all the young men participating in Bishop Williamson's or Bishop Webster's funerals, mostly all of good faith and sincerity ... and you go tell them they can't receive valid Sacraments and so potentially go to Hell for eternity ... because Pablo. Pablo seems to be some kind of mental obsession with some of you, so that perhaps that IS a sign of his spells having effect.
You both have a point. The "sanation" of Fr. Pfeiffer's questionable orders is one thing.
However, I think it is better for a given Catholic to *stay at home indefinitely* than to attend Mass with Fr. Pfeiffer, on account of Pablo's diabolical influence. What good does attending a specific Tridentine Mass do you, if you end up in sin, perhaps your marriage destroyed, perhaps your soul ends up in hell?
I've seen the fruits of Pfeifferville, and they are *horrible* in every sense of that word.
Diabolical influence is a real threat. The devil is real. Yes, the Mass is infinite and important, but it's not everything! Just like eating food is important for life -- but taking food with some poison mixed in is NOT advisable. Better to eat from the dumpster, than food that will kill you!
Just look at what the devil has done to both Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, for crying out loud! I knew both of these priests before 2012. They were both good priests. And now look at them! They'd rather see you support Fr. Tetherow or the conman Moran, than warm the pews even once at a Mass said by a decent priest (read: any priest they don't control or "get along with"). They don't care what happens to your soul (or your childrens' souls) as a result. We're talking about serious danger here.
Better to uproot and move across the country to LITERALLY ANY OTHER Mass center, even if it means you're homeless. Then you have your Mass of infinite value AND you avoid being cursed by the devil.
You can go to hell easily with regular Mass. Just remember that. Plenty of Catholics have done it and proven it over the ages. Perhaps it's a "grace vs. nature" thing. The Mass is powerful like the greatest jet fighter, but if you destroy the runway, it can't land.
Pablo is a red light.
-
No, I underestimate nothing. I weigh Pablo against the harm done to souls not receiving valid Sacraments, and don't believe those souls should be punished even more on account of Pablo. Just have a look at all the young men participating in Bishop Williamson's or Bishop Webster's funerals, mostly all of good faith and sincerity ... and you go tell them they can't receive valid Sacraments and so potentially go to Hell for eternity ... because Pablo. Pablo seems to be some kind of mental obsession with some of you, so that perhaps that IS a sign of his spells having effect.
You're missing my point.
Pablo is an integral part of the Pfeifferville "seminary". Fr P is always traveling about and is NOT managing the day-to-day operations/training. So this "seminary" training is being done by Pablo and a few of the other clerics who live there (one of whom is doubtfully valid).
Pablo is a major reason why Fr Voight and Fr Hewko left. Because the seminary "training" was a disaster and Fr Pfeiffer was never there.
So, to your point, even if Fr Pfeiffer is conditionally consecrated tomorrow, the "seminary" is still a total disaster. Whatever "priests" they are ordaining (even if 100% valid) have dubious learning/education. And then, what effect does Pablo have on them? One could write multiple books on the strange events which take place involving him, from dead/burnt chickens, to missing dogs, to his scandalous interactions with women, etc. I know dozens and dozens of people with first-hand accounts of strange events, who have both lived in KY and who went there for mass.
To me, the major problems in Pfeifferville involve the occult and the complete lack of seminary formation/structure. (Isn't a lack of formation a canon law issue? There's a reason the church requires 6 years and only Bishops can dispense with such rules.) Even if these priests were 100% valid, I wouldn't use them if they were the last priests on earth. Validity is an afterthought, when listing the issues with this seminary.
-
To me, the major problems in Pfeifferville involve the occult and the complete lack of seminary formation/structure. (Isn't a lack of formation a canon law issue? There's a reason the church requires 6 years and only Bishops can dispense with such rules.) Even if these priests were 100% valid, I wouldn't use them if they were the last priests on earth. Validity is an afterthought, when listing the issues with this seminary.
That's the flip side of the coin.
Perhaps convalidating the orders would lead to more faithful following these priests and result in more souls actually putting themselves in greater danger...
I don't know enough about the situation. It's a most unfortunate mess from something that was so promising.
-
No, I underestimate nothing. I weigh Pablo against the harm done to souls not receiving valid Sacraments, and don't believe those souls should be punished even more on account of Pablo. Just have a look at all the young men participating in Bishop Williamson's or Bishop Webster's funerals, mostly all of good faith and sincerity ... and you go tell them they can't receive valid Sacraments and so potentially go to Hell for eternity ... because Pablo. Pablo seems to be some kind of mental obsession with some of you, so that perhaps that IS a sign of his spells having effect.
Do you realize that most of the places he goes are within a stone's throw of an SSPX chapel? He goes to St. Mary's where there are plenty of valid options. Those individuals certainly don't see a validity problem. I rather doubt Bishop Pfeiffer would even accept such an offer as it would involve an acknowledgement that there's a current problem and you know he's convinced everyone at his masses that he's the best option around.
-
I rather doubt Bishop Pfeiffer would even accept such an offer as it would involve an acknowledgement that there's a current problem
Right. All the reasons that +W and others stopped helping Fr P still exist. And some things have gotten worse. He’s not changed but simply doubled down on the insanity.
Sure, his sermon was nice but he’s a charmer and has the gift of eloquence. Makes me trust him way less, knowing he conned so many in the past. And it’s still happening.
I know a Trad family that goes to Pfeifferville. Many people warned them not to. We’ll hear of their horror stories at some point, once they wake up. It’s a shame.
-
I rather doubt Bishop Pfeiffer would even accept such an offer as it would involve an acknowledgement that there's a current problem and you know he's convinced everyone at his masses that he's the best option around.
Not necessarily. It's been done before, where clerics make concessions to conditionals for the sake of the faithful (it was done by several priests who felt their Orders were good, but who didn't want the faithful to be concerned for no reason, and +Lefebvre had asked some priests to receive conditionals under those terms as well.
+?Pfeiffer could easily save face and say, "While I personally have no doubt about my Holy Orders, in order to restore a healthy working relationship between us and other Resistance groups, in which some have expressed doubts about the +Thuc line, we felt it most prudent to go ahead with these conditional Orders." That would even spin the doubt to be more about the line in general rather than about +Webster's botching of the formula ...
Admit it ... you guys are all about past bitterness and grudes, and can't put your egos aside for the good of souls, isn't that right, eh? That's the bottom line, and it's sad. Your speculation that +?Pfeiffer wouldn't be open to it should not stop +Zendejas from at least reaching out and attempting it.
If +Zendejas were to make such a gesture, I would have a newfound respect for him. If this stupid enmity continues unabated, without any attempt on his side to reach out and help the souls who might be without valid Sacraments, then I lose respect for him. This is a test about whether he's functioning as a bishop out of genuine love for souls, and I see many on this thread are failing the analogous test, that they're more worried about petty politics than about savings souls.
-
Admit it ... you guys are all about past bitterness and grudes, and can't put your egos aside for the good of souls, isn't that right, eh? That's the bottom line, and it's sad. Your speculation that +?Pfeiffer wouldn't be open to it should not stop +Zendejas from at least reaching out and attempting it.
If +Zendejas were to make such a gesture, I would have a newfound respect for him. If this stupid enmity continues unabated, without any attempt on his side to reach out and help the souls who might be without valid Sacraments, then I lose respect for him. This is a test about whether he's functioning as a bishop out of genuine love for souls, and I see many on this thread are failing the analogous test, that they're more worried about petty politics than about savings souls.
I'm sorry, pending what +Zendejas does now, this thread shows to me that Bishop? Pfeiffer is currently acting more like a Catholic than his detractors are. He put all of his animosity and bitter contentions with Bishop Williamson aside to immediately (the next day) offer his Requiem Mass (with catafalque) and initiate the Gregorian Masses (and has halfway completed them), while the rest of the Resistance are trying to figure out where to take His Excellency's mortal remains ... for going on two weeks now. By the time the funeral takes place, His Excellency very well will not even be in need of it, as the Gregorian Masses may very well have liberated him already from any Purgatory (per the pious tradition).
-
So ... the attitude of many (most?) Trads when a rival group has doubtful Sacraments. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Father Pfeiffer once said some mean words to Bishop Williamson. Father Dolan says the CMRI are not Old Catholics. Oh, wait ... their Holy Orders and Sacraments are doubtful, so ...
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/cO39srN2EUIRaVqaVq/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952s3qyo0wnppo2mvq6mgh9uhn1svd9p8pc6px20kmz&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
(https://i.gifer.com/3cv3.gif)
-
Admit it ... you guys are all about past bitterness and grudes, and can't put your egos aside for the good of souls, isn't that right, eh?
Ladislaus, your posts go to show that you don’t grasp/won’t accept the spiritual oddities/dangers which go on in Pfeifferville. I think you need to search this site and re-read the many posts on the topic. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This has nothing to do with +W vs Fr P. People have been sounding the alarm about Pfeifferville for about 10 years.
-
He who loves the danger will perish in it.
Bishop Williamson and Zendejas are nobody's fool. They know more than enough to keep their distance, as do we all.
It is necessary that a man be found faithful to be a prelate. That means being stable first of all. It also means you don't settle for the common denominator (or less!) for the sake of expediency.
Do not turn to the old argument used by the N.O. accordists for Pfeiffer's sake, "They are, or SHOULD BE valid! We must fly to them! Think of the children!"
There would be no Pablo problem unless there was already a problem in Pfeiffer first. That is where all the other named problems come from as well.
Perhaps you have seen, A Man for all Seasons:
"Employ me! I would be faithful!"
"Richard, you could not answer for yourself even so far as tonight."
and again,
"Is that final Father?"
"As long as He's a (insert substandard noun here) Meg, that's absolute!"
Pray for the prodigal son, but do not go near him until he returns in repentance. That's the most you can do.
I hate to be blunt, but you know you are being carried away by emotion when you accuse all of us, and the Bishops, of being the problem when we don't accept someone you feel sympathy for, for reasons that would be more than enough in any other case.
-
If we were talking about any other priest / bishop, I suspect many more would be in agreement with Lad's general idea. But, I think he's rather out-of-touch with how Bp/Fr Pfeiffer operates. I can leave Pablo out of the equation and I still think it's a fool's errand to bother seeing eye-to-eye with someone that has set aside truth for personal advancement.
Exactly how would he explain to his parishioners that they should stay away from Bp Zendejas' masses if he agrees to be conditionally consecrated by him? It's an essential part of his MO to make sure his supporters don't think there's anything else available.
I understand that it might be reasonable to accept the offer and then carry on decrying whomever the consecrating bishop is and instructing avoidance, but this group doesn't operate on rational thought. It's all emotion and working with "the enemy" would be contrary to the narrative.
-
this thread shows to me that Bishop? Pfeiffer is currently acting more like a Catholic than his detractors are. He put all of his animosity and bitter contentions with Bishop Williamson aside to immediately (the next day) offer his Requiem Mass (with catafalque) and initiate the Gregorian Masses (and has halfway completed them), while the rest of the Resistance are trying to figure out where to take His Excellency's mortal remains ... for going on two weeks now.
I think Fr. Pfeiffer was just the only priest to publicize his Gregorian Masses.
I definitely know resistance priests who started the 30 Masses the very next day and am 99 % sure a certain old SSPX priest did also. Come to think of it maybe two.
-
I'm sorry, pending what +Zendejas does now, this thread shows to me that Bishop? Pfeiffer is currently acting more like a Catholic than his detractors are. He put all of his animosity and bitter contentions with Bishop Williamson aside to immediately (the next day) offer his Requiem Mass (with catafalque) and initiate the Gregorian Masses (and has halfway completed them), while the rest of the Resistance are trying to figure out where to take His Excellency's mortal remains ... for going on two weeks now. By the time the funeral takes place, His Excellency very well will not even be in need of it, as the Gregorian Masses may very well have liberated him already from any Purgatory (per the pious tradition).
So "Has YouTube Channel" = "More Catholic" ?
-
You know, the most common assessment of Fr. Pfeiffer is that he's a great speaker, very charismatic, and very convincing in the moment -- until you think about his words later and apply logic/reason, that is...
Sounds like even Ladislaus got a bit swayed by him, after listening to him speak. But that's not an insult to Ladislaus, more like a testament to the swaying power of Fr. Pfeiffer's words.
-
Bishop Zendejas has reason to be wary, both from the SSPX side and the "independent" resistors ( for lack of a better term) because he has been publicly criticized, sabotaged and maligned by both of these groups, along with Bishop Williamson. Forgiveness is one thing but trust is completely another.
Maybe it's Fr Pfeiffer that needs to sincerely reform his situation (especially with the seminary) and with (profound) humility ask forgiveness. I'm sure Bishop Zendejas would respond to that (in time)
Also would "Bishop" Pfieffer ever take direction let alone constructive criticism from Bishop Zendejas, and if not why would Bishop Zendejas hook himself up with that mess?
As far as Fr Hewko goes, it appears his prior disagreement with Bishop Williamson has turned into a prideful hatred. He seems to have planted his flag on it. I don't know where you go with that.
-
As far as Fr Hewko goes, it appears his prior disagreement with Bishop Williamson has turned into a prideful hatred. He seems to have planted his flag on it. I don't know where you go with that.
I'd like to point out again, some simplistic people (morons, I would call them) see two guys "fighting".
I see a man walking to the store to buy medicine for his baby, and another man punches him unconscious, completely unprovoked. Sure, you could say there are "two parties" to this "fight". But, umm.... I wouldn't call that a fight. I'd call that a 100% guilty aggressor and 100% innocent victim situation.
As Our Lord said, "Judge not according to appearances, but judge just judgment." Yes, it may APPEAR to be a fight, or garden variety strife -- but who is guilty? It does NOT "take two to tango". Not if one person just strikes the other out of the blue, with no cause. That's a one-sided attack, not a "fight" (implying 2 men are fighting with each other).
To extend the analogy -- you wouldn't want to have anything to do with your attacker, unless he apologized or suggested (in some way) that he wasn't going to do it again! It would be foolish to let a man into your house who just knocked you out 2 hours ago, and has given *no* signs of apology or remorse -- no indication he won't do it again.
I repeat what another CI member said: forgiveness is one thing, but TRUST (and prudence) is another.
Are some Catholics so idiotic they aren't familiar with cases of various saintly men attracting the attention of demonic enemies? Men who follow them around, try to destroy them at every turn? This started with Our Lord, continued with many Saints, and continues to the present day. There ARE evil men who attack the good. Being a saint does NOT guarantee you will have no enemies. I shouldn't have to even say this; it should be common sense!
And those enemies -- who hate the good WITHOUT CAUSE -- will result in fighting, strife, legal troubles, CONTROVERSY, and all sorts of nastiness -- 0% of which is the fault of the saintly victim.
Look at Our Lord, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and many others. The virtuous, upright, and saintly become lightning rods for the wicked to attack. A holy, God-fearing man is a "sign of contradiction" to the wicked world.
-
I'm sorry, but you underestimate the influence of Pablo. He's a self-admitted lay-exorcist; there's mounds of evidence/stories that he's into Santeria practices and he NEVER goes to church. He's a walking scandal. Why is he even involved in the "seminary" at all? Until Fr P gets rid of him, then Fr P hasn't changed. The spiritual dangers posed by Pablo are real.
Embracing Joe Pfeiffer and his Santeria warlock master into the SSPX Resistance would be the “kill shot” the neo-SSPX has longed for.
Lads and those agreeing with him don’t understand we are dealing with a Santeria warlock, who is deadly serious about cursing as many Resistance priests and faithful as he can get close too.
It’s very obvious that they are flamingly naive about occult infestations.
There must be a spell embedded in the Pfeifferville video.
-
I think Fr. Pfeiffer was just the only priest to publicize his Gregorian Masses.
I definitely know resistance priests who started the 30 Masses the very next day and am 99 % sure a certain old SSPX priest did also. Come to think of it maybe two.
Yes, there is one.