Author Topic: Father Joseph Pfeiffer on Vatican II (Read 3091 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:40:22 AM »

Quote

Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.

In their doctrinal discussions with the Vatican, the Society's theologians pointed out, after citing the relevant texts, their four principal problems - respectively religious liberty, ecclesiology, collegiality and ecuмenism - with the Council.

Rome's primary answer was that, since it is of faith that the Church cannot contradict herself just as God cannot, the perceived contradictions are not real, and an actual continuity exists. That's what they mean by hermeneutic of continuity.

Besides this, they did reply in some specific areas, like religious liberty. Bishop Fellay mentioned that they had in the CNS interview, and summarized Church teaching on the subject of Church and State, as it was before the Council, namely on religious tolerance, with the stipulation that error has no objective right.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2013, 11:55:48 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.

We just have to always remember that if it were meant to be interpreted according to tradition, it would have been written that way. . . . . . . . .and since modernism is diametrically apposed to tradition, better to recognize that the whole idea of interpreting according tradition is an outright lie - modernism, being anti-tradition, does nothing according to tradition and everything according to modernism, as is the case with V2.

drivocek · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2013, 12:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.

It is apparent that Fellay thinks that.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2013, 01:10:01 AM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Quote from: Matto
This is from a sermon I just listened to:

"No. Vatican II is not part of the constant magesterium. It is not. It is a foreign devilish thing that came into the Church for the purpose of destroying souls, and it has been very effective because millions of souls have gone to Hell in the last forty years."

Fr. Pfeiffer does not mince words, does he? And that's what is so great about him and all the priests of the resistance--they speak with such consistent clarity because they tell it like it is! There is nothing for them to hide or mask with dizzying contortions and mental gymnastics.

Being a gear-head of sorts, I've personally found it helpful to see Vatican II as a car that was designed from the very beginning to ultimately do one thing: crash.

What person with a modicuм of commonsense or concern for his loved ones would ever want to waste his time and resources trying to tweak this or that component in it in the hopes of making the car--already doomed by design--somehow . . . "drivable"?

Those who take on the mindset of trying to "fix" Vatican II are either being disingenuous (knowing full well ahead of time that it really can't be done but needing a convenient smokescreen nevertheless) or they simply don't get (or accept) the fact that it was an evil council that deserves nothing short of being chucked out and anathematized for good!

I think it's interesting how Fr. Pfeiffer's style seems to be catching on. He is
waking up the THINKING faculty of our minds. And this has different effects
on different people.

This theme of "a car that was designed from the very beginning to ultimately
do one thing: crash," is rather remarkable.

And then "wasting one's time making the doomed car drivable" is great, too.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2013, 10:11:56 PM »

Hello Neil Obstat!

Thank you for your kind words on the "doomed car" analogy regarding Vatican II.

I also like Bishop Williamson's "poisoned pie" analogy very much, but having a sweet tooth try to avoid any talk about . . . pies!

:ready-to-eat: