Author Topic: Father Pfeiffer vs Archbishop Lefebvre (Read 3744 times)

Recusant Sede · « **on:** November 23, 2014, 05:30:40 PM »

Can Father Pfeiffer explain the following contradiction from his recent article in the SSPX Marian Corps and the quote below it from Archbishop Lefebvre? (The link to the article is below)

Father Pfeiffer:

"It is also a scandal to tell the sheep that we may one day have to say that Francis is not pope. These kinds of statements create confusion in souls, indicate confusion in the shepherd who pronounces them and lead to greater confusion in the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre would have nothing to do with such contrary, contradictory confusions, and neither should any of his sons."

Archbishop Lefebvre - On the “Sede Vacante” Thesis:

March 30 and April 18, 1986:

"Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church."

"Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it."

"What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. "

http://www.sspxmariancorps.com/

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2014, 05:52:30 PM »

Yes, you have a real point there.

At the very least, it is evident that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a dogmatic sedeplenist ("Even in the current Crisis in the Church, a Catholic can't entertain the notion that the putative Pope is not in fact the Pope. It's unthinkable." or more simply, "To consider the putative Pope, Pope Francis, to be not Pope is to become a non-Catholic.")

Fr. Pfeiffer, in his efforts to keep out Sedevacantism from his group, has ventured into that territory.

Even if we abstract from the discussion of WHO IS OBJECTIVELY RIGHT, I think we can all safely conclude that Fr. Pfeiffer is at odds with the Archbishop on this issue.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2014, 08:02:53 PM »

This was the December 13th Letter to friends and Benefactors where he calls +Fellay both a sedevacantist and an accordista in the same paragraph, or a few paragraphs apart.. He doesn't give much credit to the resistance in the US, in my opinion, even before he began to attack the bishop and others....

He is at odds with the Archbishop on this point, but what can be concluded is simply that he doesn't really know much about what he talks about or writes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2014, 08:38:59 PM »

By itself, a disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn't bother me. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't an infallible rule of faith. Problem is that both Father Pfeiffer and the SSPX kept having these battles about who's the most faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Pilar · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2014, 08:56:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

By itself, a disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn't bother me. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't an infallible rule of faith. Problem is that both Father Pfeiffer and the SSPX kept having these battles about who's the most faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a diehard supporter of ABL, and it seems to me that all he was trying to do was to pass on to his spiritual sons and the faithful all that he had received. That was his job. He taught nothing of his own. I believe he said that on several occasions. And anyone who does that, is faithful to ABL by being faithful to the Church.

JmJ2cents · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2014, 09:47:27 PM »

You put that so beautifully. The Archbishop just wanted to pass down what was passed down to him. I hate when people call us Levebrist because we are not Levebrist, we are simply Catholic as he was. I wish people would focus on the good that Fr. P does instead of dissecting him to death. He can make mistakes too, he says it all the time himself.

BrJoseph · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2014, 03:21:43 AM »

For what it is worth, the initial posting in this thread is by a new user, it is not by "The Recusant".

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2014, 03:29:01 AM »

Quote from: BrJoseph

For what it is worth, the initial posting in this thread is by a new user, it is not by "The Recusant".

Good observation.....that seems a bit misleading to say the least, unless of course the user is affiliated with the recusant.

BrJoseph · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2014, 03:33:23 AM »

He is not - I checked.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2014, 05:26:53 AM »

No, I am not affiliated in any way with "The Recusant". I do hold the sedevacantist position, however I don't hold it as dogmatic. I was trying to point out, in the OP, how Father P. is acting like a dogmatic sedeplenist and using Archbishop L. to support his position. Archbishop Lefebvre followed and understood what Saint Robert Bellarmine taught about an heretical pope. I don't care to discuss sedevactism in this thread, I just wanted to expose this blatant fallacy.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2014, 05:31:58 AM »

Quote from: Recusant

No, I am not affiliated in any way with "The Recusant". I do hold the sedevacantist position, however I don't hold it as dogmatic. I was trying to point out, in the OP, how Father P. is acting like a dogmatic sedeplenist and using Archbishop L. to support his position. Archbishop Lefebvre followed and understood what Saint Robert Bellarmine taught about an heretical pope. I don't care to discuss sedevactism in this thread, I just wanted to expose this blatant fallacy.

Thanks for the clarification. I can agree with you on the essencial points....neither dogmatic sedevacantist nor dogmatic sedeplenist.

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2014, 08:17:08 AM »

Quote from: Recusant

Can Father Pfeiffer explain the following contradiction from his recent article in the SSPX Marian Corps and the quote below it from Archbishop Lefebvre? (The link to the article is below)

Father Pfeiffer:

"It is also a scandal to tell the sheep that we may one day have to say that Francis is not pope. These kinds of statements create confusion in souls, indicate confusion in the shepherd who pronounces them and lead to greater confusion in the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre would have nothing to do with such contrary, contradictory confusions, and neither should any of his sons."

Archbishop Lefebvre - On the “Sede Vacante” Thesis:

March 30 and April 18, 1986:

"Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church."

"Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it."

"What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. "

http://www.sspxmariancorps.com/

In a few months? We're now up to how many years? Perhaps this is what +Williamson is starting to think about.

Green Scapular · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2014, 02:24:18 PM »

Quote from: Pilar

I am a diehard supporter of ABL...

That comment makes no sense. How do you support someone who is dead?

ggreg · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2014, 02:48:22 PM »

Because when he died it became harder to support him.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2014, 02:53:17 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Because when he died it became harder to support him.

Ba dum bum ching!