It seems a bit strange that Fr. Pfeiffer continuously slams bp. williamson and yet expects him and his best friend friend(bp. faure) to confer orders on his seminarians.

Thoughts?

Holy orders are not being used as a weapon if bp williamson simply refuses to confer them at OLMC because the rector is completely hostile. Think about it. Expecting his excellency to go to an institution in which his name is gravely slandered on a daily basis by the rector and assistants and to confer orders on the seminarians being formed by those slanderers is ridiculous at best. Fr. Pfeiffer needs the bishops. He better start acting like it.

There is no reason to speculate about +Williamson's attitude towards dispensing sacraments particular to a bishop. After all, we have plenty of historical evidence regarding another sacrament: Confirmations.

+Williamson performed confirmations at several locations a couple months ago.

Were confirmations performed at Boston, KY? No.

But it's not something as simplistic as a "grudge"; it's more like not giving the wrong impression to the world. Notice he had ordinations at a couple other locations served by the priests from Boston, KY, as well as one location not too far east of Boston.

So he's taking care of the souls, and doing his duty. But is he dancing to the tune of Fr. Pfeiffer's fiddle? No. And there is (need I even say?) nothing wrong with that.

Of course there is reason to speculate  about the attitudes of the bishop. In this unprecendented crisis of the Church, it is a serious matter that His Excellency is not having anything to do with the seminary. The seminary will begin it's third academic year in a matter of weeks. Why have the seminarians not received tonsure? The only rational explanation for this baffling situation is the hatred of father/pablo against his excellency simply does not permit any collaboration. As for confirmations, that particular sacrament is conferred out of an obligation to he laity which has nothing to do with the attacks of fr pfeiffer. But even as matthew said, bp williamson has not even administered confirmations in the pfeifferian beehive.

This topic doesn't make any sense.  Bishop Williamson, in fact, no bishop, is going to just show up somewhere and confer confirmations or ordinations.  At the very least, someone has to ask the bishop to confer the sacraments.  So, it would seem that the ball is in Fr. Pfeiffer's court.  He is going to have to find a bishop willing to ordain his candidates and he is going to have to make the first move and ask that bishop.  

Are there any anti-sedevacantist bishops that Fr. Pfeiffer hasn't condemned as dangerous to the faith?  I say "anti-sedevacantist bishops" because everything I've heard from Fr. Pfeiffer is that he first condemns sedevacantists before condemning Bishop Williamson.  When this "Resistance" first started, I thought Fr. Pfeiffer was its leader based on what I initially read here on CathInfo.  It wasn't until a few months had passed that some of the members of CathInfo explained that this was not the case and that Fr. Pfeiffer really wasn't leading all or even most of the the "Resistance".  

Whether Fr. Pfeiffer's seminarians ever receive ordination will completely depend, I think, upon whether or not Fr. Pfeiffer can swallow his own pride.  From his conferences I've seen on Youtube, I'm not so sure that he can or will.

Furthermore,TKGS it is kind of ignorant to talk  why bp Williamson is not just showing up and conferring sacraments. No one even said that. I was told by fr that he has been in constant communication with the bp for pretty much the last decade. Now obviously he has asked many times when the bp plans on conferring tonsure, orders etc. It is apparent at this point that his Excellency has simply refused the requests.

So you're saying that Fr. Pfeiffer says very bad things about Bishop Williamson one day then asks him to come to Kentucky the next?

It seems that you are the only person on CathInfo that has this inside information.  Will anyone else confirm that Fr. Pfeiffer has actually asked Bishop Williamson and the bishop has simply refused? If so, please post because Paul FHC here is saying I'm ignorant on the matter and I wish to know the facts of the case.  So far, the posters on this topic don't seem to confirm Paul FHC's comments.  If you have information on this matter, please post.

I will thank whoever sets me straight, including Paul FHC when his information is confirmed.

Quote from: Paul FHC

I think finding a new bishop has been easier for fr Pfeiffer than swallowing his own pride. And I'm not talking about bp faure.

Are you saying that he found a bishop?

I bet if he tried he could find an independent non-sedevacantist Bishop to work with. There is one in a Church in my city. But he wouldn't be able to work with a sedevacantist Bishop because he denounces sedevacantists and refuses to work with them.

For my part, Fr. Pfeiffer's cooperation with a non-lefebvrian bishop would compel me to cut absolutely all ties with pfeifferville. We are traditional catholics. We are only interested in preserving the traditional faith, sacraments,etc. In other words, our only interest is to continue abp. lefebvre's mission. Collaboration with some strange archbishop of the orthodox rite is very troubling to say the least. What are the chances that he holds the faith as abp lefebvre did? Perhaps there are problems with schism and heresy as well.

I am not speculating that he will be orthodox. I am saying that he IS orthodox.