Rachel,

When a priest speaks out on a controversial topic, he does not do so without
regard for its consequences, or as a layman (that includes laywomen) might do.
Before a good priest steps up and takes a stand he rigorously practices penance
and prayer, asking for the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Fr. Pfeiffer would not be saying the things he says and doing the things he is doing
without due regard for his NORMAL routine before giving a sermon.

It is therefore unjust for one of us to question his motives or his source of information
as you have done. It is not your place to question the intentions of a priest giving
a sermon, even while you accuse a priest of having done the same. You do not
know what his source is, and he is not obliged to tell you.

You are putting the cart before the horse!

At the same time, before you attempt to turn this around on me and accuse me of
saying one thing and doing another, I see that you are new to this forum, and
perhaps you have not read any one of the numerous posts I have made describing
how I am a personal witness to the fact of +Fellay's longstanding bemusement,
attachment, infatuation and curiously lurid attraction to the tempting fruit of
regularization, the "forbidden fruit" of regularization with Conciliar Rome, the
luscious "plum" (+Fellay's own word) of making a "deal" with Modernist Rome,
even before this same corrupted Rome refuses to undertake honest discussion of
the doctrinal questions subservient to the unclean spirit of Vat. II.

As Shakespeare would say, therein lies the rub.

Quote from: sspxbvm

The whole point of not talking to the media is that the media is "satans tool" and to open up to a high ranking freemason exposes either extreme stupidity or so much pride that he will do whatever it takes to "make history" as Father Pfeiffer says (the "make history" part)

Yes, the Archbishop opened up to the media but he never did so in order to suck up to his enemies. He was always strong. Very strong with his words and actions.

sspxbvm,

Unlike you, I actually purchased and watched "Dan Rather Reports: True Believers", so I can know what I am talking about before I talk about it.

So here's another Double Standard Alert:

Does Fr. Pfeiffer judge Bishop Williamson's decision to speak to the Swedish press with the harshness with which he judges Bishop Fellay's decision to speak to the Dan Rather?  Watch this and see what the Swedish media's agenda is:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDC5D236FD407AD58  Makes Dan Rather's agenda seem rather angelic, doesn't it?

Oh, and can you please tell us how Fr. Pfeiffer was certain that "making history" and "sucking up" were the intentions of Bishop Fellay in speaking to Dan Rather?  Was he Bishop Fellay's spiritual director at the time?  If yes, then why is he breaking confidentiality? If no, then how it is possible that he is certain that Bishop Fellay had the bad intentions he is imputing to him?  

Do you think Fr. Pfeiffer has the gift of reading souls?  Last I spoke to him he couldn't read mine.  

"Making history" and "sucking up" are my words. Put the sword away you're swinging it carelessly. Theirs no time for your antics. Time for the ignore button.

Forgive me as I failed to emphasize that while Father was echoing my thoughts when he said B Fellay was seeking to "make history" the "sucking up" was my wording.

I was sitting at a public computer at a hotel and the kid next to me was playing some disturbing, raunchy music. Have fun criticizing!!

I hate it when that happens.  

It's bad enough when children do not behave well in public, but now all they have
to do is play their handheld music device and it can drive you up the wall, Froggie.

(Mirror on the Wall to Kermit the Frog)