Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Fanny on December 03, 2017, 11:07:58 PM

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 03, 2017, 11:07:58 PM
Is this really appropriate from the pulpit?

https://youtu.be/nMjG-lLx-XA

9 min mark- 10:15 min mark
11:45-13
13:35-14:05
14:20-15:10
15:35-15:45

I could not listen anymore.

Has he lost his mind?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 03, 2017, 11:56:30 PM
.
It's inappropriate for children, but not for adults.
.
Taken at his word, if he were to give this sermon to Vatican clerics it wouldn't do them any good.
.
And that goes all the way to the top.
.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: JmJ2cents on December 04, 2017, 04:55:13 AM
 :oThis is absolutely inappropriate.  I would have walked out if I were there.  I can't believe Fr. Hewko would be ok with this sermon.  He is seriously losing it. Sad.   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: jvk on December 04, 2017, 06:13:11 AM
Oh my.  Having to explain those terms to your innocent children?!  Not pleasant....
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Felicitas on December 04, 2017, 06:37:56 AM
I agree w that jvk! 
It was a rough listen to get the moral: sins of the flesh and selfishness can be overcome with the aid of Our Lady, mortification and charity!  
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Recusant Sede on December 04, 2017, 06:57:21 AM
In normal times he wouldn’t be given jurisdiction to preach.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 06:59:04 AM
In normal times he wouldn’t be given jurisdiction to preach.
Definitely, this.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Croix de Fer on December 04, 2017, 07:42:12 AM
If the listener feels scandalized by what was said by Fr. Pfeiffer in those specified times, the person might suffer some level of scrupulosity.

I'm not a fan of Fr. Pfeiffer, but saying the words "masturbation", "self-abuse", "homosexual", and "self-pleasure" is not inappropriate or madness, considering he is warning people about these sins.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 04, 2017, 08:02:02 AM
.
It's inappropriate for children, but not for adults.
.
Taken at his word, if he were to give this sermon to Vatican clerics it wouldn't do them any good.
.
And that goes all the way to the top.
.
It is inappropriate for children and young teens.
It is also inappropriate for mixed company.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: RoughAshlar on December 04, 2017, 08:16:45 AM
Lol - He said that it is the cause of cause of getting angry when cut off in traffic.  
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 08:21:32 AM
Yes, he's absolutely lost his marbles.

[Pfieffer]  Why do you get angry when someone cuts you off in traffic?  Because of masturbation.  That's why.  Why do you get angry when your coffee is cold?  Because of self-abuse.

He's borderline certifiable.

Even if one wants to touch upon delicate topics of purit/impurity from the pulpit, one should so so very delicately so that it goes over the heads of the children who are young enough where they shouldn't even hear mention of it.

I should not go to Mass and come away feeling disgusted.  This sermon was absolutely repugnant.

Father Pfeiffer seems angry all time too ... and he ties all anger back to self-abuse.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 08:24:23 AM
Yes, he's absolutely lost his marbles.

[Pfieffer]  Why do you get angry when someone cuts you off in traffic?  Because of masturbation.

Really?

Even if one wants to touch upon delicate topics of purit/impurity from the pulpit, one should so so very delicately so that it goes over the heads of the children who are young enough where they shouldn't even hear mention of it.
Exactly.
From the pulpit and the way he is talking about it, it is as inappropriate for children as it is inappropriate for adults.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: RoughAshlar on December 04, 2017, 08:28:05 AM
Look, He knew what he was doing.  I've sat through many sermons where the priest has spoke about the "sins of the flesh" without using the terms directly or graphically.  If he was speaking to specific group, counseling on a retreat, ect...that would be different.  But to go into such detail while the youth and innocent are present crosses a line.  We have had to have 'the talk' a couple times with the older ones, but I can't imagine having a "group talk" explaining this to family.  Again he knew what he was doing, and he knew he was being filmed.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 08:28:47 AM
Exactly.
From the pulpit and the way he is talking about it, it is as inappropriate for children as it is inappropriate for adults.

Right, it's not the mere mention of these topics that is inappropriate, but the WAY he talks about it.  He's vulgar and crass.  You treat subjects like this with the greatest delicacy ... and only to the extent necessary.  After that you direct any people who may have issues with these sins to discuss it in more detail IN THE CONFESSIONAL.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2017, 11:26:28 AM
Quote
The sermon was a little shocking no doubt, but in this day and age, with cell phones, television, movies and general association with this society, the world is awash in those sins.  Evil can fill the world with sewage but Catholics can't address cleaning it up because its too dirty an issue? No wonder things are so bad. Catholics tippy-toe around the worse things and call it charity. 
This was my first reaction.  It's an immoral, over-sexualized world out there - an utter warzone.  For children, I think it takes a combination of 1) sheltering and 2) direct discussion.  It's not either-or.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 11:48:54 AM
The sermon was a little shocking no doubt, but in this day and age, with cell phones, television, movies and general association with this society, the world is awash in those sins.  Evil can fill the world with sewage but Catholics can't address cleaning it up because its too dirty an issue? No wonder things are so bad. Catholics tippy-toe around the worse things and call it charity.  No doubt there are some people who manage to keep their kids completely innocent--good for them.  It is a noble thing, if not very rare.  Traditional Catholics often think they are doing that when they say they don't have a tv, but take their kids to movies. What hypocrisy! Look, I'm not fan of Pfeiffer either, but as a priest, he knows how pervasive this is in his confessional. If counsel in the confessional was working he probably wouldn't find a need to go rough.  Aren't we to go easy on the person and hard on the offense?  Word to the sensitive moms: if your kids hear something harsh, take them aside and explain it to them appropriate to their age and refuse to get scandalized.  Our Lady heard the worst things and she was more innocent than any kid.  Better to take opportunities to lessen harm then assume kids will never hear stuff you prefer they shouldn't.    

Yeah, yeah, but you see, his talk was nothing but a rant.  It wasn't even all that helpful.  Going on a rant against masturbation ... while evoking crude language and images ... isn't going to help some poor kid overcome this sin.  Well, I don't know how YOU raise your kids, but my 7-year-old daughter doesn't need to hear a five-minute rant about about masturbation and self-abuse and then come home asking me what masturbation is.  I shouldn't need to "take [her] aside and explain [masturbation]" to her, and explain why a priest is ranting and raving about it in church.  He could ADDRESS THE SUBJECT DELICATELY so that it doesn't adversely affect the younger children but can still be of some help to those struggling with these sins.

Plus Father Pfeiffer shows himself borderline deranged if he thinks that masturbation is the cause of losing your temper when someone cuts you off in traffic or if your coffee is cold.  Hopefully he's aware that there are SEVEN cardinal sins and that not every sin traces back to lust.

Quote
Traditional Catholics often think they are doing that when they say they don't have a tv, but take their kids to movies. What hypocrisy!

This is just nonsense.  There's nothing intrinsically hypocritical about it.  I could not have a TV because I felt that too much TV was harmful psychologically (even secular psychologists admit this) and that most of the programming on TV is harmful ... but could occasionally find a movie that I felt was not harmful or dangerous to the children and go see it for entertainment.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 11:52:34 AM
The sermon was a little shocking no doubt, but in this day and age, with cell phones, television, movies and general association with this society, the world is awash in those sins.  Evil can fill the world with sewage but Catholics can't address cleaning it up because its too dirty an issue? No wonder things are so bad. Catholics tippy-toe around the worse things and call it charity.  No doubt there are some people who manage to keep their kids completely innocent--good for them.  It is a noble thing, if not very rare.  Traditional Catholics often think they are doing that when they say they don't have a tv, but take their kids to movies. What hypocrisy! Look, I'm not fan of Pfeiffer either, but as a priest, he knows how pervasive this is in his confessional. If counsel in the confessional was working he probably wouldn't find a need to go rough.  Aren't we to go easy on the person and hard on the offense?  Word to the sensitive moms: if your kids hear something harsh, take them aside and explain it to them appropriate to their age and refuse to get scandalized.  Our Lady heard the worst things and she was more innocent than any kid.  Better to take opportunities to lessen harm then assume kids will never hear stuff you prefer they shouldn't.    
But what about Our Lord happenby? The sanctuary candle is lit, so He is right there.

I do not believe Fr.'s sermon is in any way pleasing to Our Lord. No way, no how.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Clavis David on December 04, 2017, 11:59:16 AM
If the listener feels scandalized by what was said by Fr. Pfeiffer in those specified times, the person might suffer some level of scrupulosity.

I'm not a fan of Fr. Pfeiffer, but saying the words "masturbation", "self-abuse", "homosexual", and "self-pleasure" is not inappropriate or madness, considering he is warning people about these sins.
Souls are falling into hell by the millions for these same sins. Didn't Our Lady speak of this vice of lust being the most dominate sin that send souls to hell in our modern time? Sometimes it needs to be said in the most embarrassing terms to stop the grave sins that control and damn most lives.

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Meg on December 04, 2017, 11:59:49 AM
I haven't watched the sermon, and don't really want to.

I recall a sermon that a FSSP priest gave a few years back. Hopefully I'm remembering the sermon correctly. He said that a person generally suffers from the sins of the flesh, or from pride. There are two basic categories that a person falls in to. They are usually trying to overcome sins of the flash, or of pride. I don't recall if the said that there is a crossing-over between the categories, but I assume that there would be. He said that the sins of pride (which includes anger) are more difficult to over come than the sins of the flesh. 

Maybe Father Pfeiffer is basing his sermon on what he has heard in the confessional. But I think that Priests aren't really supposed to directly address problems (by way of the pulpit) that they have heard in confidence in the confessional. Maybe I'm wrong about that. 

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 12:02:57 PM
Sometimes it needs to be said in the most embarrassing terms to stop the grave sins that control and damn most lives.

No.  No it doesn't.

So, where does it stop, eh?  To discourage fornication I'm going to talk about how all guys these days want to do is to [expletive] girls?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
Maybe Father Pfeiffer is basing his sermon on what he has heard in the confessional. But I think that Priests aren't really supposed to directly address problems (by way of the pulpit) that they have heard in confidence in the confessional. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
You're not wrong Meg - he is supposed to be a priest speaking for Christ, not a bar fly, he is in the presence of Our Lord, not auditioning for a TV program. There are many better and more prudent ways to say what he said, and I only listened to about 15 seconds.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 12:16:01 PM
I know, I get it.  It was definitely a brazen sermon, I just wonder whether it isn't necessary to wake people up and get them out of their snoozing.  
Well it would have done that real well I bet lol.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: happenby on December 04, 2017, 12:19:20 PM
No.  No it doesn't.

So, where does it stop, eh?  To discourage fornication I'm going to talk about how all guys these days want to do is to [expletive] girls?
Expletives are different than technical terms and never ok, and even some technical terms should not be mentioned at Mass.  Modesty necessarily includes the least of those who might be offended, and it was pretty strong language of Father, but honestly, short of expletives and certain technical terminology, priests need to go after the bad behavior in a way that stuff is specifically mentioned, lest some people find the excuse that it was never specifically mentioned.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
The culture/society is constantly changing.  What was extreme sin 10-20 years ago is 'normal' nowadays.  The world is awash in impurity and it needs to be discussed openly.  The devil loves souls being on a island, fighting alone and fighting silently.  It's easy for adults to forget the hormonal choas of young adults and how acute their temptations are.

In regards to young children hearing this sermon, I agree that it might create work for parents to explain certain topics, but even if he didn't mention certain topics, children are more exposed than we think - magazines at grocery stores, billboard ads on the highway, radio commercials (not even talking about tv, movies, internet, etc).  That is, unless you live off the grid, 100 miles from nobody else.  Children can understand these sins on a lesser level, in my opinion.  Children would also miss a lot of what Fr talked about.

I agree that Fr could've been more 'eloquent' but I don't like to critique a sermon (let's remember that priest's are given graces to preach) unless the topic is repetitive and talked about sunday after sunday.  Even then, not sure it's my place to critique.

I absolutely agree with his diagnosis on the root cause of selfishness (in our day) being purity.  It's not the only cause, but, by and large, it's the main one.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 12:29:18 PM
Certainly not, I would have been mortified, and such things should never be spoken of in mixed company,  delicacy  demands it.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2017, 12:40:15 PM
Quote
Certainly not, I would have been mortified, and such things should never be spoken of in mixed company,  delicacy  demands it.
I get what you're saying but we don't live in the 50s anymore!  We don't even live in the 80s (which were quite tame, compared to now).  There are tvs EVERYWHERE.  Ads everywhere.  Video games everywhere.  By and large, delicacy, decency and morality are GONE in today's world.

We must put ourselves in the place of the youth - what are they exposed to?  More than us, in our childhood.  Youth today discuss suicide, drugs and depression like many of us discussed our childhood "problems" of having a pimple on picture day, sneaking a beer on christmas, and being bored.  It's night and day different.  Most children are exposed to adult sins, therefore sermons need to address these problems.

As old as Fr is, I don't think he's being rash.  If anything, he's being proactive.  Most adults are naive as to how society's sin can creep into their families.  
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: SeanJohnson on December 04, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
I'm not sure some of these reactions aren't a bit overblown:

The subject is a delicate one, and could have been handled/delivered more delicately, for sure.

But its not as if he was describing how self-abuse is done, or giving graphic details, or placing people into proximate occasions of sin, etc.

Ladislaus's point about some in the audience now having to explain to their 7 yr-old daughters what "m" is seems legit; others who observed the subject matter (if it was going to be delivered to a general audience from the pulpit), should have been done in such a way as to remain over the heads of the young, also seems legit.

But observing Fr. Pfeiffer's cantankerous nature, and turning it back around on him to imply he too must be suffering from the cause of violence, according to the premise of his sermon, was way over the top (and a sin).  That kind of humor is not Catholic.

Even the points about the coffee and traffic cut-offs are not so out of place as some suggest: The point was not that SA causes you to snap from cold coffee or getting cut-off, but that an habitual practice of SA (or homosexuality) makes one a violent person (and therefore more habitually prone to continued acts of violence, such as the two examples he gave).

Dr. David Allen White once gave a conference at the seminary in Winona in which he observed that Dante (who was no madman) placed both the usurers and the homosexuals in the circle of the violent (i.e., Homosexuality was a violent act).  The reason was because the usurer does violence against nature by making that which should be barren (i.e., money) fruitful, whereas the homosexual does violence against nature by making that which is fruitful barren [as does SA].

I believe Fr. Pfeiffer was trying to make a similar argument, though again, the delivery left something to be desired.

At the end of the day, yes, I would have come away angry had my children been exposed to the delivery of that sermon.

But the theory in itself (i.e., people who are mired in sins of violence become violent people, just as people consistently practicing any particular virtue become virtuous in that regard) is not so far out as some make it.

Don't confuse the message for the delivery.

And this is coming from me, mind you!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 01:12:15 PM
Precisely the point that is being made, lack of delicacy, we are not all shrinking violets in this day and age, but we can recognize when something is appropriate or not.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:29:33 PM
Expletives are different than technical terms and never ok, and even some technical terms should not be mentioned at Mass. 

This was in response to someone who stated that these subjects should be brought up "in the most embarrassing terms".  So I asked where the line was ... giving the example of an expletive.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:30:22 PM
Certainly not, I would have been mortified, and such things should never be spoken of in mixed company,  delicacy  demands it.

I would have walked my children out of there and probably said something out loud to Father while walking out.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:31:44 PM
The subject is a delicate one, and could have been handled/delivered more delicately, for sure.

Ya think?   :laugh1:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:37:16 PM
Even the points about the coffee and traffic cut-offs are not so out of place as some suggest: The point was not that SA causes you to snap from cold coffee or getting cut-off, but that an habitual practice of SA (or homosexuality) makes one a violent person (and therefore more habitually prone to continued acts of violence, such as the two examples he gave).

I actually disagree with that; my observation is that young men in particular who have fallen into sins of impurity, especially of the solitary variety, become more passive and less aggressive.  I think it does something to disrupt the testosterone cycle.  I think that it's been documented that this kind of thing messes with various neurotransmitter systems in the brain.

I could see saying that sins of impurity lead to violence but not that violence is caused by sins of impurity.  Violence can be caused by many things.  If I'm in a bad mood, I can certainly get angry at someone cutting me off in traffic ... and it has precious little to do with purity.  In fact, it's quite well known that generally coupled with concupiscence as a distinct effect of the Fall is irascibility (being prone to anger).
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:39:17 PM
I lot of the terms that Fr used would not be known by children.

You're correct.  But that would have been their introduction to those terms, and my 7-year-old daughter could well have been asking me what those things were right after we left.  In any case, Father's language very clearly put these terms into a sexual context.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:43:42 PM
But the theory in itself (i.e., people who are mired in sins of violence become violent people, just as people consistently practicing any particular virtue become virtuous in that regard) is not so far out as some make it.

Anger and Lust are both cardinal sins, which means that neither one reduces to the other; they're at the root of the sin tree.  Now, one can argue that ALL of these trace back to a common self-absorption and always seeking one's own interest ... and maybe that's what he had in mind.  But Anger and Lust are two different things.  There may be a cycle.  Someone who's given to lust will in turn increase his own selfishness, which then another step removed leads to increasing anger.  But there isn't a direct causality between the two, nor is every act of anger (traffic situation, cold coffee) to be attributed to impurity.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2017, 01:55:38 PM
Agree, but it's not like she was scandalized from the sermon, which you're "walking out of the sermon" comment implies.
Yes, he was saying that "self absorption" is a non-sexual form of "self love", which impurity is the main cause.
I think you should retract this.  Way over the top.  Fr P is still a priest, who is owed respect and we should assume some wisdom on his part, due to what he hears in the confessional.

No, impurity is not necessarily the main cause of self-absorption.  Again, please read up on the cardinal sins.

He showed a very decided lack of wisdom here and was not acting rationally.  In fact, most of recent actions give every indication of his rational faculties having been compromised somehow ... from his bizarre attacks of Bishop Williamson and vendettas against other Resistance priests and support for fake bishop Ambrose and enabling of Pablo.  Those are not the actions of a rational man, and this sermon just gives another indication of that fact.  I would not trust my family to his spiritual guidance ... not even close.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2017, 02:02:34 PM
Let's look at this from another angle, which is, what were Fr's solutions to the problem?  VERY GOOD solutions, in my opinion.  CHARITY, selflessness, and sacrifice for others (in addition to the obvious prayer and avoidance of occassions of sin).  How often have we heard over, and over, and over again sermons about impurity that JUST discuss prayer, penance and avoiding occasions of sin?  A lot. 

Prayer, penance and avoiding occasions of sin - these are how to AVOID the VICE; but we also must CURE the cause of sin, which is the WEAKNESS of the VIRTUE.  The vice is selfishness; the virtue is selfLESSness.  One can avoid a vice, yet live in neutral because the virtue is still lacking.  Hence, charity needs to be practiced.

Let's not lose focus of the main message of the sermon!  "Most souls go to hell because of sins of impurity" said Our Lady at Fatima.  If we can't discuss such sins, aren't we being a bit puritanical? 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 04, 2017, 02:08:10 PM
Typical of Fr. Pfeiffer, the grown-up, incorrigible boy, who has always sought after attention.

The fact the OLMC's priests are under the control of the fake lay-exorcist, Paul Hernandez, should put a chill down our spines.

Just ignore them.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Recusant Sede on December 04, 2017, 02:44:09 PM
I would have walked my children out of there and probably said something out loud to Father while walking out.
Exactly what I would have done!!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on December 04, 2017, 02:59:44 PM
If a fireman were rescuing y'all from a burning building would you really be so upset if he spoke roughly while doing so? 

Fr P used no expletives and gave no graphic details. The school-aged children in the congregation probably hear much worse at school everyday, and the smaller ones from the TVs and conversations in the background in some of their very homes. I doubt one innocent child actually raised any question with their parents afterward without prompting.  This is a tempest in a teapot.

As for it being given in mixed company, it's naive to believe that women aren't subject to the same temptations in this over-sexualized world we live in. 

Fr should have probably given a warning beforehand of the subject matter, but other than that I think some of the delicate flowers here should step back a moment and realize that if  soft-spoken sermons and advice were working, he wouldn't feel the need to hammer it home like this  in order to keep souls from suffering in Hell for eternity. I think if it made enough impact to stop one soul from this sin, then it was worth a couple of blushes.

I do not condone the actions of Fr P in many things and do not support him, but calling him crazy for doing his actual job as a priest is wrong and a sin. Somewhat reminiscent of Herodias calling for John's head because she was unhappy with the subject and delivery of his sermons.

I await the multitude of down-votes.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2017, 03:04:47 PM
Quote
I think some of the delicate flowers here should step back a moment and realize that if soft-spoken sermons and advice were working, he wouldn't feel the need to hammer it home like this in order to keep souls from suffering in Hell for eternity. I think if it made enough impact to stop one soul from this sin, then it was worth a couple of blushes.
Exactly.


Quote
I do not condone the actions of Fr P in many things and do not support him, but calling him crazy for doing his actual job as a priest is wrong and a sin.
Double exactly.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 03:09:06 PM
This is material for a Retreat, where things can be spoken of, as is appropriate depending on the disposition of the hearer,
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Croix de Fer on December 04, 2017, 03:14:02 PM
Plus Father Pfeiffer shows himself borderline deranged if he thinks that masturbation is the cause of losing your temper when someone cuts you off in traffic or if your coffee is cold.  Hopefully he's aware that there are SEVEN cardinal sins and that not every sin traces back to lust.



I think he was essentially saying that masturbation can be a gateway to faggotry, which is a disposition that makes the pervert ill-tempered and violent.

St. Bernardine of Siena says:

"No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God's law. ...

"Such passion for untenable practices borders on madness. This vice disturbs the intellect, unbalances an elevated and generous state of soul, drags lofty thoughts down to base ones, makes men pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything.

"Furthermore, the will, agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason but rather the tumult of the passions. ...

"One who lives practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pain in Hell than anyone else, because this the worst sin that exists."

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n130_Sodomy_6.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n130_Sodomy_6.htm)
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 03:36:41 PM
We have different temperments, what may be good for one Soul, may be bad for another, a Priest needs to discern when is the appropriate time to speak bluntly or gently,
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: hollingsworth on December 04, 2017, 03:49:11 PM
Quote
Typical of Fr. Pfeiffer, the grown-up, incorrigible "fat-boy", who has always sought after attention.

The fact the OLMC's priests are under the control of the fake lay-exorcist, Paul Hernandez, should put a chill down our spines.

Just ignore them.

Well yeah!  This is a priest who should be ignored by any serious Catholic.  But what do we see since the topic was posted yesterday? It approaches 1000 views and 60 comments. Wow!  What's the matter with some of you people?  Pfeiffer is a nut job.  His shabby little seminary is a disgrace to the traditional Catholic movement, or whatever is left of it.  He is essentially ruled over by a layman, whose behavior is reprehensible.  He attacks a certain traditional bishop with impunity.  He rails on about almost anything and everything, not just lust; and he perches imperiously above it all, as if none of the world's filth and corruption might touch him.  Good Lord, people, get a life!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 03:50:47 PM
With Respect, we are not talking about the Priest, but about the Sermon...
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 04:04:40 PM
You want to personalize it, go right ahead... I am not attacking what you seem to be defending, I am speaking  about the content of a Sermon no more no less.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 04:26:22 PM
A Priest, not a particular Priest, This Particular Priest delivered this Sermon in open company, I would say the same regardless of which of any Priest who did the same...
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 04, 2017, 04:39:01 PM
Admonishment? Really?  I thought we were on Cathinfo and could debate issues that arose...  Silly me...
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ekim on December 04, 2017, 04:50:21 PM
I tried to correlate what Fr was saying but could make no logic of it.  How he even made the connections he did?  Cause of road rage...suppressed or nonnsurpressed self stimulation?  Anger due to coffee of the wrong temperature due to sexual tension?  Man seeking an adrenaline rush from strenuous exercise is also due to lust?? (Now I know he can’t relate to the endorphins released from vigorous excercise).  

While he does say a few things that make sense, the rest is just a warped rant of thoughts that are illogical and unnecessarily vulgar and offensive.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ekim on December 04, 2017, 05:00:33 PM
...also, bus loads of male and female prostitutes arriving at the Vatican everyday at 4am?? REALLY??  That seems like a stretch, even for Modernist Rome!  I’m sure if that were true the poperatzzi and National Inquierer would have been all over that years ago.  

If I remember correctly, false witness is still a sin.  If your going to say things like that you better have irrefutable proof! 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 04, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
...also, bus loads of male and female prostitutes arriving at the Vatican everyday at 4am?? REALLY??  That seems like a stretch, even for Modernist Rome!  I’m sure if that were true the poperatzzi [paparazzi] and National Inquirer would have been all over that years ago.  

If I remember correctly, false witness is still a sin.  If your going to say things like that you better have irrefutable proof!
.
He did say bus loads, but he didn't say what the bus size was. The word bus might be an exaggeration, and "van" could have been more accurate. Maybe "mini van" or SUV or even station wagon (obsolete term).
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2017, 05:43:10 PM
It's no secret that Rome has many, many "health" spas and clerics visit frequently.  Yet this is off the main topic...
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: hollingsworth on December 04, 2017, 07:59:12 PM

Quote
stg: With Respect,  are not talking about the Priest, but about the Sermon...

Don't kid yourself.  You and (we) are talking about the priest.  The sermon could have been critiqued without specific reference to the priest.  But that was hardly, I suspect, the primary intentioon of the topic's initiator.  In fact, it would have been difficult to fully appreciate the sermon's contents without reference to this particular priest.  It all comes together only when we understand who it was that delivered it. 
As PV asks: "Did the sermon deliver itself?"  To talk about the sermon apart from its author would have made for a very short-lived topic.  But because it was this turkey who gave it, the topic will have a longer shelf life.
I'm waiting for another sermon in which this priest might explore the 8th Commandment.  That would be a good one, though it might not make the CI hit parade list.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nadir on December 04, 2017, 08:03:27 PM
...also, bus loads of male and female prostitutes arriving at the Vatican everyday at 4am?? REALLY??  That seems like a stretch, even for Modernist Rome!  I’m sure if that were true the poperatzzi and National Inquierer would have been all over that years ago.   
Love this! Is it a joke or a typo? If the former, :applause:. If the latter :fryingpan: 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Motorede on December 04, 2017, 09:39:09 PM
I know, I get it.  It was definitely a brazen sermon, I just wonder whether it isn't necessary to wake people up and get them out of their snoozing.  
Remember: The end doesn't justify the means, happenby.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 04, 2017, 11:16:50 PM
He probably shouldn't have said "masturbation" or "prostitutes" from the pulpit, but aside from that I don't think it's such a big deal. It's good for priests to speak against impurity, so I think this sermon was good for most people to hear. It certainly needed to be said, especially in this day and age. Most priests use less specific terms to describe sexually-related topics, and that's what Fr. Pfeiffer should have done in this instance. It speaks to his lack of prudence more than anything else. All things, considered... 

still a decent sermon.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 04, 2017, 11:22:09 PM
Exactly.
From the pulpit and the way he is talking about it, it is as inappropriate for children as it is inappropriate for adults.
For ...adults? :laugh1:
Are you ______ kidding me?!?!  
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: RoughAshlar on December 04, 2017, 11:41:13 PM
He probably shouldn't have said "masturbation" or "prostitutes" from the pulpit, but aside from that I don't think it's such a big deal. It's good for priests to speak against impurity, so I think this sermon was good for most people to hear. It certainly needed to be said, especially in this day and age. Most priests use less specific terms to describe sexually-related topics, and that's what Fr. Pfeiffer should have done in this instance. It speaks to his lack of prudence more than anything else. All things, considered...

still a decent sermon.
Sure the subject matter would be good for everyone to hear, but it crossed a line...and to top it all off, he made stuff up all through out it with road rage, coffee, bus loads of prostitutes, and generals encouraging sex to make the soldiers more vicious....We all heard the impurity sermons before, and I'm sure they had them generations ago.  I don't buy into the comments about how its so needed in this day and age, there is a reason why whoring is called the world's oldest profession...people have always been people.  I expect to hear talks like this in a retreat, not from the pulpit. I think it goes further than prudence, and over elaborating.  I feel that he intentionally went in that much detail to deliberately push the envelope. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 04, 2017, 11:58:46 PM
Sure the subject matter would be good for everyone to hear, but it crossed a line...and to top it all off, he made stuff up all through out it with road rage, coffee, bus loads of prostitutes, and generals encouraging sex to make the soldiers more vicious....We all heard the impurity sermons before, and I'm sure they had them generations ago.  I don't buy into the comments about how its so needed in this day and age, there is a reason why whoring is called the world's oldest profession...people have always been people.  I expect to hear talks like this in a retreat, not from the pulpit. I think it goes further than prudence, and over elaborating.  I feel that he intentionally went in that much detail to deliberately push the envelope.
First of all, he didn't make that stuff up(except maybe about the busloads of prostitutes-idk). If you think most of that isn't true, you're incredibly naive.
 Secondly, whoring may be the word's oldest profession, but how old is pornography, huh? The point is, impurity is so much more accessable now than it ever was, and it's almost literally impossible to go into a public place and not be exposed to multiple gravely immodest/pornographic images. And you can honestly say that you simply "dont buy into the comments about how its so needed in this day and age"? Surely in this day and age, priests have almost an obligation to speak out against these sins for the good of souls.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on December 05, 2017, 12:42:21 AM
.
It's inappropriate for children, but not for adults.
.
Taken at his word, if he were to give this sermon to Vatican clerics it wouldn't do them any good.
.
And that goes all the way to the top.
.
"...if he were to give this sermon to Vatican clerics it wouldn't do them any good".

Well, that's a given; they've been engaging in worse activities for the last umpteen years. Well, yes, I'm sure they're shocked. 🤣 Incidentally, the "busloads of prostitutes" are only "encouraged" to migrate to Israhell by these criminals with the promise of a good job, and then put to work out on the streets.

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Matthew on December 05, 2017, 07:16:55 AM
I actually disagree with that; my observation is that young men in particular who have fallen into sins of impurity, especially of the solitary variety, become more passive and less aggressive.  I think it does something to disrupt the testosterone cycle.  I think that it's been documented that this kind of thing messes with various neurotransmitter systems in the brain.

I could see saying that sins of impurity lead to violence but not that violence is caused by sins of impurity.  Violence can be caused by many things.  If I'm in a bad mood, I can certainly get angry at someone cutting me off in traffic ... and it has precious little to do with purity.  In fact, it's quite well known that generally coupled with concupiscence as a distinct effect of the Fall is irascibility (being prone to anger).
Actually, everyone has 2 appetites, the concupiscible (wanting to reach out and grab various "goods" -- easily obtained -- for ourselves) and the irascible (seeking goods that are arduous to obtain, or "in the process of walking away" from us).

Every time you become angry, it's at a PERCEIVED GOOD WALKING AWAY. Whether it's being put further back in the traffic-line (and 10 seconds later for work) because someone cut you off, or upset that you lost money, posiition, honor, etc. it's always about some good that you perceived has been taken away from you.

Original sin damaged both of those appetites, so that both have become disordered. Since the Fall, men will happily commit sins and grave injustices over a small "slight" against their honor. To achieve some small "good" or make right a small offense, they will perpetrate much graver evils.

So while both are due to Original Sin, lust is clearly a disease of the Concupiscible appetite, whereas anger is the main output of the Irascible appetite.

Another interesting note --

PRUDENCE and FORTITUDE are needed to fix up our Intellect after the damages of Original Sin
TEMPERANCE rectifies our Concupiscible appetite
JUSTICE rectifies our Irascible appetite.

Note that it's not a sin to become angry in itself (as Our Lord was in the Temple) if one is 100% aimed at Justice (the public good, God's honor). But justice must always be kept in mind: "the anger of man worketh not the justice of God". If a guy cuts you off causing you to be 3 seconds later for work, it isn't JUSTICE to ram his car, beat him up, wish evil upon him, rashly judge his good name, etc.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Matthew on December 05, 2017, 07:23:22 AM
Yes, he's absolutely lost his marbles.

[Pfieffer]  Why do you get angry when someone cuts you off in traffic?  Because of masturbation.  That's why.  Why do you get angry when your coffee is cold?  Because of self-abuse.

He's borderline certifiable.

Even if one wants to touch upon delicate topics of purit/impurity from the pulpit, one should so so very delicately so that it goes over the heads of the children who are young enough where they shouldn't even hear mention of it.

I should not go to Mass and come away feeling disgusted.  This sermon was absolutely repugnant.

Father Pfeiffer seems angry all time too ... and he ties all anger back to self-abuse.

I agree with this, and your other post which point out that LUST and ANGER are both CAPITAL SINS, which means that you can't reduce them to anything else, except (as you said) a general selfishness or choosing self over God.

Has his emotion clouded his reason?

At any rate, he forgets that some men have a CHOLERIC temperament, and thus are more prone to anger. There are some men in this category who actually have very little problem with impurity.  I have personal experience to prove it. Getting cut off in traffic means you are committing self-abuse? Uh, how about no. I am half choleric half melancholic, I have a quick temper, but Deo Gratias impurity is not one of my besetting sins.

So Fr. Pfeiffer is clearly wrong in this regard. He should stick to preaching Catholic doctrine and morality, and not making up his own material.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Matthew on December 05, 2017, 07:25:02 AM
P.S. Everyone can stop reporting this thread to me. I've obviously seen it.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 05, 2017, 07:37:25 AM
This is uncalled for, and you should apologize!  Fr Pfeiffer's personal sins are irrelevant to the discussion.  


Irrelevant and totally off topic.

Me thinkest you misseth the point?

(https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/KfPnVhBO0Ys/mqdefault.jpg)
(http://)
I was actually denigrating Paul Hernandez's dark "priesthood".

Our Lady of Guadalupe, who's Feast-day is upon us, has a different meaning to him: Tonantzin (http://witchesandpagans.com/sagewoman-blogs/indigenous-women/tonantzin-holy-mother-of-guadalupe.html)

(http://de10.com.mx/sites/default/files/styles/detalle_nota/public/2016/12/08/guada-destacada.jpg)

There are multiple eye-witnesses to support the charge.

And for anyone who knows what goes on at the Pfeiffer farm, Hernandez has his hand in everything... especially Fr. Pfeiffer's apostolate.  

Therefore, anything coming out of this unruly Catholic priest's mouth is suspect... and should be avoided.

Fr. Pfeiffer warns the faithful about prostitutes, masturbation, sexual tension & violence...

We advise the Cathinfo faithful to stay away from everything coming from the Pfeiffer farm.

As Bp. Williamson warns, that 1% poison in the New York cheesecake, will eventually kill you.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: JmJ2cents on December 05, 2017, 07:49:41 AM
Fr. Pfieffer once again crossed the line.  Trying to rationalize his behavior is pathetic.  He seems to be the one that has anger issues.  I just can't believe that Fr. Hewko would condone such a sermon.  How could he affiliate himself with someone like him.  He was very much against scandalizing the young ones and always watched his words very diligently.  When he once quoted the Archbishop about the N.O. Mass being a bastard mass, he wouldn't even say bastard, he would say illegitimate.  When he talked about the homosexuals he would use words that the children wouldn't get and so on.....    You are who your friends are is what they say and I never thought that would apply to Fr. Hewko.  No one is really shocked that Fr. P would say such things but to sit silently and endorse this by not correcting it?  All this talk about correcting your superiors, well I hope he practices what he preaches.  
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 05, 2017, 07:56:03 AM
I tried to correlate what Fr was saying but could make no logic of it.  How he even made the connections he did?  Cause of road rage...suppressed or nonnsurpressed self stimulation?  Anger due to coffee of the wrong temperature due to sexual tension?  Man seeking an adrenaline rush from strenuous exercise is also due to lust?? (Now I know he can’t relate to the endorphins released from vigorous excercise).  

While he does say a few things that make sense, the rest is just a warped rant of thoughts that are illogical and unnecessarily vulgar and offensive.

THIS ^^^
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 05, 2017, 07:59:19 AM
and generals encouraging sex to make the soldiers more vicious....

Actually, this is historically false.  Going all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, the thinking was that abstaining from sex increased virility and battle performance.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Matthew on December 05, 2017, 08:00:40 AM
As for those (committed blindly to defending Fr. Pfeiffer always) who attempt to defend THIS sermon -- 

Yes, "thank heaven for small favors" that there was a shred of good advice in this overall bad sermon. You could probably find some nucleus of good content in most Novus Ordo sermons today, for that matter.

It reminds me of an old movie quote, it might have been John Wayne:

John: "I heard a sermon just yesterday."
Pious protestant woman: "Oh yes? What was it about."
John: "Sin, I think. Mostly, he was against it."


Well I hope so! 

Just because he throws in 30 seconds of good advice at the end, doesn't mean the rest of the sermon was good. A priest could give an even worse sermon -- with explicit language and props (visual aids), and throw in some good advice and action-items (Rosary, devotion to Our Lady, etc.) at the end -- but that wouldn't excuse such a sermon either. Would it?

Fr. Pfeiffer uses lip service to Our Lady as a blank check for countless scandalous behavior for himself, his associated priests, and his Boston, KY operation. And some people lap it up!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 05, 2017, 08:13:19 AM
There are some men in this category who actually have very little problem with impurity.  I have personal experience to prove it. Getting cut off in traffic means you are committing self-abuse? Uh, how about no. I am half choleric half melancholic, I have a quick temper, but Deo Gratias impurity is not one of my besetting sins.

I have a similar mix of choleric and melancholic, probably leaning a little more melancholic.  And, with regard to traffic, when people are always rushing around, the stress of having to be at so many places at different times during the day causes frustration in traffic, and that frustration sometimes leads to anger (I know that I have to fight this myself) ... and it has precious little to do with impurity.  Sometimes the little aggravations, one after another, will more readily elicit an angry response than a single graver or more dramatic incident.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Matthew on December 05, 2017, 08:21:59 AM
You specifically said "a priest must discern", which implies you think the priest was wrong.  You can't criticize a sermon without criticizing the priest.
What the literal Hell, man?  You think priests are above criticism? What cult taught you that?  "the Leader is a prophet from God. Going against the Leader is blasphemy..."

Go back and learn your Catholic catechism. It would seem that you need to purge all the Pfeiffer cult nonsense from your brain and computer hard drive.

If that is what you think about criticizing priests, then you should have a problem with Fr. Pfeiffer, who has said (and approved) countless slanderous things (= lies)  about the Resistance bishops, Fr. Voigt, and pretty much anyone not part of their little cult.

Also, using an a fortiori argument, you should have a real problem with "disobeying" the Pope. Do you think Pope Francis wants you to be attending a Tridentine Mass, much less a Tridentine Mass not approved by Rome? By going against him so strongly you are certainly criticizing him! And we're talking about the one and only Vicar of Christ, not just one of his priests. Better make some changes...

We are not "nitpicking" when we bring up serious issues about Fr. P's sermon. He had errors in it (see above, the Greeks and everyone else believe that ABSTAINING from sex made better warriors), he confused Lust with Anger (seeming to teach that there is only ONE capital sin: Lust), and his sermon was vulgar and indelicate. Those are all valid points of criticism, made for the public good.

We're not calling him names, we are attacking the content and delivery of his sermon. Which is perfectly acceptable by CATHOLIC morality standards. Many cults might disagree...

"Criticize my sermon, you're criticizing me!" what a WOMANLY, emotional attitude. That's like saying I can't disagree with my wife without it being "about her personally". That's emotional, ridiculous nonsense.

Women make everything personal. Women are into personalities. Men are into facts and reason.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: RoughAshlar on December 05, 2017, 08:24:27 AM
Actually, this is historically false.  Going all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, the thinking was that abstaining from sex increased virility and battle performance.
Yes! Exactly!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on December 05, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
As for those (committed blindly to defending Fr. Pfeiffer always) who attempt to defend THIS sermon --

Yes, "thank heaven for small favors" that there was a shred of good advice in this overall bad sermon. You could probably find some nucleus of good content in most Novus Ordo sermons today, for that matter.

It reminds me of an old movie quote, it might have been John Wayne:

John: "I heard a sermon just yesterday."
Pious protestant woman: "Oh yes? What was it about."
John: "Sin, I think. Mostly, he was against it."


Well I hope so!

Just because he throws in 30 seconds of good advice at the end, doesn't mean the rest of the sermon was good. A priest could give an even worse sermon -- with explicit language and props (visual aids), and throw in some good advice and action-items (Rosary, devotion to Our Lady, etc.) at the end -- but that wouldn't excuse such a sermon either. Would it?

Fr. Pfeiffer uses lip service to Our Lady as a blank check for countless scandalous behavior for himself, his associated priests, and his Boston, KY operation. And some people lap it up!
"John: "Sin, I think. Mostly, he was against it."

Heh, I remember that movie. But what the Duke said was that "he was agin' it". 😊
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on December 05, 2017, 09:27:40 AM
Is this really appropriate from the pulpit?

https://youtu.be/nMjG-lLx-XA

9 min mark- 10:15 min mark
11:45-13
13:35-14:05
14:20-15:10
15:35-15:45

I could not listen anymore.

Has he lost his mind?
"I could not listen anymore".

Neither could I. This man is a bit of a nutter. He talks about selfishness but I think he should have talked about egocentrism and narcissism with the finger pointing towards himself. 😡

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: songbird on December 05, 2017, 10:02:54 AM
I had no problem listening to the sermon.  I listen for solutions which take awhile coming or fall short.  We need the Powers of the Precious Blood in sermons.  I would like to say what our sermon was like but I will say this, one day you will wish to hear sermons against the sins of the flesh, for one day you will hear silly things.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Motorede on December 05, 2017, 10:11:58 AM
I had no problem listening to the sermon.  I listen for solutions which take awhile coming or fall short.  We need the Powers of the Precious Blood in sermons.  I would like to say what our sermon was like but I will say this, one day you will wish to hear sermons against the sins of the flesh, for
Quote
one day you will hear silly things.
What are you saying? What does this mean?

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: SeanJohnson on December 05, 2017, 10:54:04 AM
Incredulous,
Please remind him of that the next time he is speaking on nourishing your soul at the Novus Ordo........................ :laugh1:
Better have him remind Archbishop Lefebvre while you are at it?

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/pfeifferites-tell-archbishop-lefebvre-to-get-lost/
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 05, 2017, 11:43:53 AM
I seem to recall that sermons are to be tailored to the congregation.
 
 Maybe there were no children or females at this mass?  (It would be shocking if he would speak this way in front of his mother.)
 
 Which begs the question, what is going on at OLMC?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 05, 2017, 12:00:40 PM
Me thinkest you misseth the point?

(https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/KfPnVhBO0Ys/mqdefault.jpg)
(http://)
I was actually denigrating Paul Hernandez's dark "priesthood".

Our Lady of Guadalupe, who's Feast-day is upon us, has a different meaning to him: Tonantzin (http://witchesandpagans.com/sagewoman-blogs/indigenous-women/tonantzin-holy-mother-of-guadalupe.html)

.
From the linked site (http://witchesandpagans.com/sagewoman-blogs/indigenous-women/tonantzin-holy-mother-of-guadalupe.html) (this is INACCURATE):
.
For the past hundred years in the early hours of December 12, traditional Aztec dancers, devout Mexicans, and Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples all over the Americas rise early to honor Tonantzin, the Holy Mother of Guadalupe. December 12 is her Feast Day. She is known as the Holy Mother of the Americas and combines sacred symbols of the Aztecs with the image of Mother Mary brought by the European settlers. Regardless of her conflicted and ambiguous history, it is without question that the Guadalupana is a revered and adored Divine Mother with reverential followers across many ethnic and national identities.
.
It's been more than "the past 100 years," but then it's been a lot less as well. What was done in 1917 is not what is done today. The linked site "Tonantzin" pretends everything is the same today as it was 100 years ago. That is a LIE.
.
For the first 450 years (1531 - 1981) the December 12th celebrations, beginning in the evening of December 11th, were entirely Catholic and devout, prayerful and venerable. It was only after Vatican II that the Aztec dancers started making their way into the sanctuary in Mexico because of the Vat.II errors of ecumenism and religious liberty and the inclusion of false religions, and not until Pope John Paul II visited there and gave a face of respectability to indigenous dress, costumes and dances inside the Church did this practice start to spread outside of Mexico. 
.
Guadalupana and mananitas (mah-nyahn-EE-tahs) traditions of December 12th as practiced since the 1950's (speaking from personal experience) until the 1970's were very nice, simple, reverent and peaceful. They were quite a thing to witness firsthand. People would bring flowers all night long in parish churches where this was done, and spontaneous singing would erupt all night while everyone serenaded Our Lady in the person of La Virgen de Guadalupe. Flowers came in abundance until they occupied some 300 square feet in front of the oversize image of La Virgen de Guadalupe. You could easily pray your Rosary all night long in this environment even if you didn't know any Spanish. They sang traditional folk songs in Spanish, the origins of which are a mix of indigenous Mexican folk songs and Spanish missionaries' influence. You could hear the sounds of Seville as well as Guadalajara.
.
That is no longer the case.
.
Today, beginning on the evening of December 11th, parishes where the mananitas are held still remain open all night long while the faithful bring in their bouquets of flowers as they did in the past and there is still singing that erupts from time to time, but what you also have is the electrical cords, loudspeakers, drum sets, microphone stands and assorted band equipment being wheeled in and set up in preparation for the artificial sounds that will soon invade the sacred space of yore. Along with the artificial electronic sounds comes the conch shell honking and dried gourd shaking (profane instruments) with the Aztec dancers who wear the same colorful plumage and costumes that the ancient Aztecs wore when their devil-worshiping priests used razor sharp obsidian knives to cut out the hearts of victims of human sacrifice in the satanic temple pyramids of Teotitlán, Mexico.
.
As the night wears on the noise level gradually increases, and the encroachment of the loudspeakers and shrill voices of Mexican women shouting in them is far too disturbing to keep prayer going anymore. It has become a kind of revelry or circus show. They announce the next song to be sung and it is no longer reverent. What used to be sonorous hymns of love have become drum-pounding, cymbal crashing shouting matches of cacophony. They have taken the traditional songs Catholic Mexicans have sung to Our Lady for centuries and have turned them into pop rock ditties that you can barely recognize. They slam their drumsticks, smack their tambourines and shake their rattles right there in front of the altar. Sometimes someone even jumps up ONTO the altar to dance. They did that during the French Revolution, too. Only difference is, now the so-called altar is pulled out prominently toward the congregation, Novus Ordo style, so it can be something like a center of action around which everyone cavorts.
.
About 4:00 am they have the first so-called Mass, just as they did in centuries past, except it is no longer the Traditional Latin Mass of the first 440 years. Now it is the bastardized Novus Ordo nonsense, the bastardized Novus Ordo which has IMHO invited all the corruption in music and has allowed the inclusion of dance. After all, Novus Ordo rituals commonly include "liturgical dance" which amounts to a floor show.
.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 05, 2017, 12:07:26 PM
I seem to recall that sermons are to be tailored to the congregation.
 
 Maybe there were no children or females at this mass?  (It would be shocking if he would speak this way in front of his mother.)
 
 Which begs the question, what is going on at OLMC?
.
I was thinking about this while watching the video. You can never tell what age groups are present in the congregation because Paul Hernandez (who always runs the video camera - you can tell because of numerous clues not the least of which is they are posted on his YouTube channel) never points the camera toward the people in the pews. For all we know everyone present in the pews is adult. 
.
The one exception would be the fact that the altar boy seated behind Fr. Pfeiffer couldn't be any older than 14, perhaps as young as 12. 
.
Therefore we can know that at least one of the listeners was a child.
.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 05, 2017, 12:15:16 PM
I seem to recall that sermons are to be tailored to the congregation.
 
 Maybe there were no children or females at this mass?  (It would be shocking if he would speak this way in front of his mother.)
 
 Which begs the question, what is going on at OLMC?
What's the problem with females being there?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 05, 2017, 12:25:24 PM
If you have to ask that :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 05, 2017, 12:27:24 PM
If you have to ask that :facepalm:
Who are you talking to?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 05, 2017, 12:32:23 PM
.
I was thinking about this while watching the video. You can never tell what age groups are present in the congregation because Paul Hernandez (who always runs the video camera - you can tell because of numerous clues not the least of which is they are posted on his YouTube channel) never points the camera toward the people in the pews. For all we know everyone present in the pews is adult.
.
The one exception would be the fact that the altar boy seated behind Fr. Pfeiffer couldn't be any older than 14, perhaps as young as 12.
.
Therefore we can know that at least one of the listeners was a child.
.
I forgot about the video recorder at olmc, a young girl, not Mr. Hernandez.
Fr. Pfeiffers female family members attend Sunday mass at OLMC.  Maybe this wasn't a Sunday sermon, or maybe his family decided to go elsewhere.
Still begs the question, what's going on at OLMC that they need such a sermon?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 05, 2017, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 04:16:52 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-pfeiffer-gone-mad-very-inappropriate-sermon/msg582466/#msg582466)
Quote
You specifically said "a priest must discern", which implies you think the priest was wrong.  You can't criticize a sermon without criticizing the priest.


Quote
Matthew said:
What the literal Hell, man?  You think priests are above criticism? What cult taught you that?  "the Leader is a prophet from God. Going against the Leader is blasphemy..."

No.  This was a reply to stgobnait who said she was criticizing the sermon but not the priest, which is impossible. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 05, 2017, 12:46:20 PM

Quote
The one exception would be the fact that the altar boy seated behind Fr. Pfeiffer couldn't be any older than 14, perhaps as young as 12. 
.
Therefore we can know that at least one of the listeners was a child.

This is off topic, but I don't think a 12-14 year old is a "child".  They are definitely old enough (generally speaking) to grasp such matters.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: JPaul on December 05, 2017, 01:18:27 PM
Better have him remind Archbishop Lefebvre while you are at it?

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/pfeifferites-tell-archbishop-lefebvre-to-get-lost/
Yes, Remind him as well.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 05, 2017, 05:28:55 PM
This is off topic, but I don't think a 12-14 year old is a "child".  They are definitely old enough (generally speaking) to grasp such matters.
Not in my home..

What kind of traditional catholics introduce their innocent 12-14 year olds to such talk?
What ever happened to childhood innocence, treating females like flowers, and decency in mixed company?
Are we traditional catholics or not?  Or are we Sunday only Catholics who behave as the rest of the pagan world at all times except when at mass?

There is something gravely wrong with people who defend this sermon.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 05, 2017, 05:35:02 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 05, 2017, 07:39:30 PM
Not in my home..

What kind of traditional catholics introduce their innocent 12-14 year olds to such talk?
What ever happened to childhood innocence, treating females like flowers, and decency in mixed company?
Are we traditional catholics or not?  Or are we Sunday only Catholics who behave as the rest of the pagan world at all times except when at mass?

There is something gravely wrong with people who defend this sermon.
I don't see how a 13 year-old wouldn't already know of such terms. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 05, 2017, 08:39:19 PM
I don't see how a 13 year-old wouldn't already know of such terms.
Proper upbringing, that's how.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 05, 2017, 09:25:26 PM
A 13 yr old is a young ADULT.  They are either going through or about to go through puberty.  With hormones and concupiscence.  Now's a good time to start talking about reality.  Theyre gonna talk about with their friends; might as well be proactive.  Our Lady knew about the 'birds and bees' at 15, if not sooner...
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 05, 2017, 10:01:58 PM
Proper upbringing, that's how.
::)
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 06, 2017, 01:55:55 AM
A 13 yr old is a young ADULT.  They are either going through or about to go through puberty.  With hormones and concupiscence.  Now's a good time to start talking about reality.  They're gonna talk about with their friends; might as well be proactive.  Our Lady knew about the 'birds and bees' at 15, if not sooner...
.
I disagree.
.
Take two saints for example, St. Maria Goretti and Jacinta Marto of Fatima.  I would call the latter "St.," but I don't want to start a flame war.
.
Do you think they were "young adults" and not children? Do you think they knew all about hormones and concupiscence and "realtiy?" Do you think they heard it all from their friends or that their parents were "proactive?"
.
Everyone who knew them testified they were unquestionably virgins, and never spoke a single word of impurity nor ever hinted at having any curiosity or interest in the topic. These were both childhood saints who directed the ENTIRETY of their will toward immediate and total rejection of any slightest inclination toward impurity, or sins of the flesh. They would not have the first thing to do with it, any more than St. Philomena would or the Blessed Virgin Mary herself would have.
.
St. Maria Goretti suffered dozens of knife stabbing wounds from her assailant, Allesandro, who tried very hard to kill her when she firmly refused his impure advances. She was found bleeding to death, and was put on a horse-drawn wagon (which is very bumpy) and taken several miles that way (in agony) to get medical attention. The doctor speaking to her about her wounds heard her repeat that she only wished to forgive Allesandro. Does that sound like an adult with "proactive concupiscence?"
.
My favorite example is the last days of Blessed Jacinta of Fatima. She had the opportunity to die peacefully and soon and was assured of going directly to heaven; or alternatively, to remain for yet a while on earth during which time she would suffer more for the remission of sins and for the Holy Father, who would have much to suffer. She didn't hesitate to choose the latter.
.
Our Lady foretold she would therefore go to Lisbon and endure much pain, and would die alone without any other mortal present, but that Our Lady herself would be there to comfort her. That is exactly what happened. On the way, Dr. Castro Freire diagnosed her with "Purulent pleurisy with fistula, osteitis of the 7th and 8th ribs of the same side." If you don't know what that means, ask a nurse. Purulent is oozing pus. Pleurisy is a very painful infection of the flat cells of the pleura, the lining of the lung cavity. It makes breathing excruciating. Fistula is an open wound the size of a fist. Osteitis is bone infection, very painful, perhaps worse than pleurisy. Under all these conditions she would go into surgery without anesthesia. They didn't have an effective pain solution for her in those days. Yet knowing all this she was not afraid of the operation! She only had one fear.
.
You would never guess what her one fear was, especially if you think that children ought to be proactively informed about sexual sins.
.
Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts. Modern perverts will assure you that since there is no victim there is nothing wrong. But the something wrong is in the heart of the one who believes that, because the victim is one's own soul.
.
Now, tell me that anyone knowing about her suffering willingly to OVERCOME in others the sin of entirely subjective impurity and appreciating her sacrifice to the point of willingness to imitate her heroic virtue, could ever bring himself to enjoy the illicit allurement of sinful impurity.
.
St. Maria Goretti died offering her pains to the one who tried to kill her that way, and Blessed Jacinta died never having been accosted but nonetheless willingly offered her pains for the conversion of sinners, the reparation of sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the Holy Father because he would have much to suffer.
.
These are models of virtue whose intentions we are well advised to remember, and strive to pursue ourselves.
.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nadir on December 06, 2017, 03:34:32 AM
Beautiful post, Neil. Thank you!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 04:26:55 AM
Beautiful post, Neil. Thank you!
This!!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Wessex on December 06, 2017, 06:27:10 AM
Fr. Pfeiffer guarantees that you don't fall asleep during his sermons; no girly niceness or incomprehensible abstraction from him; go to the SSPX or any other antique simulation if you want that and know your happy family comfort zones remain intact. I often wonder how children and retarded adults are spared the violence and depravity so illuminated in the bible and can cope with the flesh and blood sacrifice of the Mass, let alone the lurid mechanics of the Crucifiction. Perhaps they grow numb to such things over the years and wait to be free of their parents' and grandparents' 'weird' religion!

What draws my attention to the sermon is saying how far self-centredness is going today with the aid of new technology and the growth of substitution and simulation to replace or manipulate the natural order. The break-up of nations, communities and families isolates the individual who then desperately and angrily searches for expression and contentment in other ways. I am reminded of the concept of self-actualisation that was in vogue during the last century; there are now new pathways for the development of this theory into the great unknown!  







 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Meg on December 06, 2017, 07:01:22 AM


. Yet knowing all this she was not afraid of the operation! She only had one fear.
.
You would never guess what her one fear was, especially if you think that children ought to be proactively informed about sexual sins.
.
Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts. Modern perverts will assure you that since there is no victim there is nothing wrong. But the something wrong is in the heart of the one who believes that, because the victim is one's own soul.
.
Now, tell me that anyone knowing about her suffering willingly to OVERCOME in others the sin of entirely subjective impurity and appreciating her sacrifice to the point of willingness to imitate her heroic virtue, could ever bring himself to enjoy the illicit allurement of sinful impurity.

I've read quite a lot on Fatima, and have never heard of the above story about Blessed Jacinta. It's possible that it's credible, but it doesn't seem like it. Where did you get this information from? 

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 09:16:48 AM
I don't see how a 13 year-old wouldn't already know of such terms.

Even if a particular 13-year-old "knew" the terms, to hear them repeatedly used in crude and vulgar ways by a priest during Mass can't exactly be edifying.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 09:18:47 AM
A 13 yr old is a young ADULT.  They are either going through or about to go through puberty.  With hormones and concupiscence.  Now's a good time to start talking about reality.  Theyre gonna talk about with their friends; might as well be proactive.  Our Lady knew about the 'birds and bees' at 15, if not sooner...

Again, this is not about whether these subjects should be spoken of but about HOW they're spoken of.  These things can be discussed with the appropriate decorum and delicacy.  Some crude, vulgar, borderline maniacal rant is unlikely to benefit souls.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 09:21:55 AM
.
I disagree.
.
Take two saints for example, St. Maria Goretti and Jacinta Marto of Fatima.  I would call the latter "St.," but I don't want to start a flame war.
.
Do you think they were "young adults" and not children? Do you think they knew all about hormones and concupiscence and "realtiy?" Do you think they heard it all from their friends or that their parents were "proactive?"
.
Everyone who knew them testified they were unquestionably virgins, and never spoke a single word of impurity nor ever hinted at having any curiosity or interest in the topic. These were both childhood saints who directed the ENTIRETY of their will toward immediate and total rejection of any slightest inclination toward impurity, or sins of the flesh. They would not have the first thing to do with it, any more than St. Philomena would or the Blessed Virgin Mary herself would have.
.
St. Maria Goretti suffered dozens of knife stabbing wounds from her assailant, Allesandro, who tried very hard to kill her when she firmly refused his impure advances. She was found bleeding to death, and was put on a horse-drawn wagon (which is very bumpy) and taken several miles that way (in agony) to get medical attention. The doctor speaking to her about her wounds heard her repeat that she only wished to forgive Allesandro. Does that sound like an adult with "proactive concupiscence?"
.
My favorite example is the last days of Blessed Jacinta of Fatima. She had the opportunity to die peacefully and soon and was assured of going directly to heaven; or alternatively, to remain for yet a while on earth during which time she would suffer more for the remission of sins and for the Holy Father, who would have much to suffer. She didn't hesitate to choose the latter.
.
Our Lady foretold she would therefore go to Lisbon and endure much pain, and would die alone without any other mortal present, but that Our Lady herself would be there to comfort her. That is exactly what happened. On the way, Dr. Castro Freire diagnosed her with "Purulent pleurisy with fistula, osteitis of the 7th and 8th ribs of the same side." If you don't know what that means, ask a nurse. Purulent is oozing pus. Pleurisy is a very painful infection of the flat cells of the pleura, the lining of the lung cavity. It makes breathing excruciating. Fistula is an open wound the size of a fist. Osteitis is bone infection, very painful, perhaps worse than pleurisy. Under all these conditions she would go into surgery without anesthesia. They didn't have an effective pain solution for her in those days. Yet knowing all this she was not afraid of the operation! She only had one fear.
.
You would never guess what her one fear was, especially if you think that children ought to be proactively informed about sexual sins.
.
Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts. Modern perverts will assure you that since there is no victim there is nothing wrong. But the something wrong is in the heart of the one who believes that, because the victim is one's own soul.
.
Now, tell me that anyone knowing about her suffering willingly to OVERCOME in others the sin of entirely subjective impurity and appreciating her sacrifice to the point of willingness to imitate her heroic virtue, could ever bring himself to enjoy the illicit allurement of sinful impurity.
.
St. Maria Goretti died offering her pains to the one who tried to kill her that way, and Blessed Jacinta died never having been accosted but nonetheless willingly offered her pains for the conversion of sinners, the reparation of sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the Holy Father because he would have much to suffer.
.
These are models of virtue whose intentions we are well advised to remember, and strive to pursue ourselves.
.

These examples of purity would do MUCH MORE to inspire youngsters to avoid these sins than Father Pfeiffer's crude rants.  And at no time did you need to mention the term "masturbation".
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 09:23:25 AM
no girly niceness or incomprehensible abstraction from him

So avoiding crude, disedifying, and vulgar language qualifies as "girly niceness" to you now?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 09:24:49 AM
What draws my attention to the sermon is saying how far self-centredness is going today with the aid of new technology and the growth of substitution and simulation to replace or manipulate the natural order.

Yes, and this could have been discussed without vulgarity and crudeness.  Again, as Matthew pointed out, just because there were some valid points in the sermon doesn't justify it.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 06, 2017, 09:26:21 AM
I've read quite a lot on Fatima, and have never heard of the above story about Blessed Jacinta. It's possible that it's credible, but it doesn't seem like it. Where did you get this information from?
Meg,  I missed this part in Neil's long post.  Thanks for pointing it out.

This must be an accurate account and inline with Holy Jacinta's warning about the sins of impurity, sending most souls to Hell.

Let's play it again:
(https://childrenoftheeucharist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BlessedJacintaColor.jpg)
Yet knowing all this she was not afraid of the operation! She only had one fear. 
.
You would never guess what her one fear was, especially if you think that children ought to be proactively informed about sexual sins.
.
Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts. 

Modern perverts will assure you that since there is no victim there is nothing wrong. But the something wrong is in the heart of the one who believes that, because the victim is one's own soul.
.
Now, tell me that anyone knowing about her suffering willingly to OVERCOME in others the sin of entirely subjective impurity and appreciating her sacrifice to the point of willingness to imitate her heroic virtue, could ever bring himself to enjoy the illicit allurement of sinful impurity.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2017, 09:28:58 AM
Quote
I disagree.
.
Take two saints for example, St. Maria Goretti and Jacinta Marto of Fatima.  I would call the latter "St.," but I don't want to start a flame war.
.
Do you think they were "young adults" and not children? Do you think they knew all about hormones and concupiscence and "realtiy?"
Nadir,
Look, your post was wonderful and the above saints were absolutely lovers of purity.  No one should disagree with that.  But it doesn't answer my question - maybe I'm not explaining it correctly?

You imply that these 2 young women were pure because they were ignorant of concupiscence.  That makes no sense and devalues their purity.  Is a 2 year old "pure" because they are innocent?  No, they are just innocent.  A 2 year old cannot be pure, because the virtue of purity necessisarily requires one to be exposed to, or have temptations against vice.  One cannot have heroic virtue without overcoming the temptations which seek to conquer the virtue. 

Jacinta was very pure, but she died at 10, so doesn't really fit my example, as she's not an adolescent.  St Maria Goretti certainly had knowledge of what her assailant was doing because she kept yelling to him that "God is not pleased; this is not what God wants."  This is when he went into a rage and started stabbing her.

I guess my questions are: 
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage. 
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity? 

Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: hollingsworth on December 06, 2017, 09:48:53 AM
Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? I'll tell you all who's gone mad.  It's at least half of CI forum members. Imagine such a topic of doubtful worth, i.e. worthless, commanding this kind of attention!  You keyboard warriors are moving the number of views closer to 3000 with each passing minute.

I did not view this video, but can pretty well figure out its contents by piecing together the indignant throw-away remarks from breathless forum members.  My goodness, how disgraceful CI commentary has become.  Matthew should lock the thread immediately.  But he probably won't.  He needs a lot of eyes viewing the ads, and making online purchases, I guess. (BTW, Matthew, if you don't like my remarks, ban me. Obviously, I wouldn't care a damn.)

As for Fr. P.  The man is a certifiable screwball with his cat's paw Mexican always hovering close at hand.  You ought to be ashamed giving this fallen cleric in the white cassock so much attention.   He apparently highlighted in vulgar detail certain mortal sins of the flesh, but I'm not so certain that some of you who viewed this video atrocity did not yourselves commit mortal sin merely by watching it.

Of course, the likes of Wessex was eventually be enticed into entering the discussion.  He is irrepressible.


Quote
Fr. Pfeiffer guarantees that you don't fall asleep during his sermons; no girly niceness or incomprehensible abstraction from him; go to the SSPX or any other antique simulation if you want that and know your happy family comfort zones remain intact. I often wonder how children and retarded adults are spared the violence and depravity so illuminated in the bible and can cope with the flesh and blood sacrifice of the Mass, let alone the lurid mechanics of the Crucifiction. Perhaps they grow numb to such things over the years and wait to be free of their parents' and grandparents' 'weird' religion!

Well, there you go.  See what your frenzied efforts have unleashed?  Obviously, you folks didn't fall asleep.  You were not treated to "girly niceness," for certain.  And the 'weird' religion of your parents and grandparents received a 'healthy' trashing. Are you proud and happy now?

I expect and await a number of thumbs-down from resident CI morons.

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 10:02:13 AM
Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? I'll tell you all who's gone mad.  It's at least half of CI forum members. Imagine such a topic of doubtful worth, i.e. worthless, commanding this kind of attention!  You keyboard warriors are moving the number of views closer to 3000 with each passing minute.

It got as much attention as it did because several posters defended the vulgarity in this sermon.  So it turned into a heated debate.  In addition, other topics were raised that were of interest, such as whether priests are beyond criticism for this kind of thing and whether or not crude/vulgar language and images are appropriate among devout Catholics.  So the interest and attention is quite understandable.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 10:04:52 AM
St. Paul taught that certain types of sins (related to impurity) should not even be mentioned among Christians.

Ephesians 5:3-4

Quote
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: stgobnait on December 06, 2017, 10:14:15 AM
Absolutely correct Ladislaus,  this thread is about whether or not people thought the content of the sermon was appropriate, and a lot of people thought it was not, and said so.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 06, 2017, 10:19:55 AM
Even if a particular 13-year-old "knew" the terms, to hear them repeatedly used in crude and vulgar ways by a priest during Mass can't exactly be edifying.
How exactly were they "repeatedly used in crude and vulgar ways" in the sermon, again?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 06, 2017, 10:24:03 AM
Nadir,
Look, your post was wonderful and the above saints were absolutely lovers of purity.  No one should disagree with that.  But it doesn't answer my question - maybe I'm not explaining it correctly?

You imply that these 2 young women were pure because they were ignorant of concupiscence.  That makes no sense and devalues their purity.  Is a 2 year old "pure" because they are innocent?  No, they are just innocent.  A 2 year old cannot be pure, because the virtue of purity necessisarily requires one to be exposed to, or have temptations against vice.  One cannot have heroic virtue without overcoming the temptations which seek to conquer the virtue.

Jacinta was very pure, but she died at 10, so doesn't really fit my example, as she's not an adolescent.  St Maria Goretti certainly had knowledge of what her assailant was doing because she kept yelling to him that "God is not pleased; this is not what God wants."  This is when he went into a rage and started stabbing her.

I guess my questions are:
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage.
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?
Exactly. Not only that, but ignorance at late ages makes it hard for such sheltered individuals to respond to them, and therefore don't know how to react and (most importantly) resist such temptations once they are finally exposed to them. That's why it is important to denounce such sins(by exposing them first, of course) in order to ensure the sheep know which lines not to cross in order to stay on the straight-and-narrow.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 10:24:51 AM
How exactly were they "repeatedly used in crude and vulgar ways" in the sermon, again?

Just listen to the sermon.  I'm not going to go to the trouble of transcribing every single instance where he used the term.  Anyone with proper sensibilities and sense of decorum can recognize the crudeness and vulgarity.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 10:25:22 AM
Exactly.

Another Pfeiffer cult member and lackey?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 06, 2017, 10:29:14 AM
Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? I'll tell you all who's gone mad.  It's at least half of CI forum members. Imagine such a topic of doubtful worth, i.e. worthless, commanding this kind of attention!  You keyboard warriors are moving the number of views closer to 3000 with each passing minute.

I did not view this video, but can pretty well figure out its contents by piecing together the indignant throw-away remarks from breathless forum members.  My goodness, how disgraceful CI commentary has become.  Matthew should lock the thread immediately.  But he probably won't.  He needs a lot of eyes viewing the ads, and making online purchases, I guess. (BTW, Matthew, if you don't like my remarks, ban me. Obviously, I wouldn't care a damn.)

As for Fr. P.  The man is a certifiable screwball with his cat's paw Mexican always hovering close at hand.  You ought to be ashamed giving this fallen cleric in the white cassock so much attention.   He apparently highlighted in vulgar detail certain mortal sins of the flesh, but I'm not so certain that some of you who viewed this video atrocity did not yourselves commit mortal sin merely by watching it.

Of course, the likes of Wessex was eventually be enticed into entering the discussion.  He is irrepressible.


Well, there you go.  See what your frenzied efforts have unleashed?  Obviously, you folks didn't fall asleep.  You were not treated to "girly niceness," for certain.  And the 'weird' religion of your parents and grandparents received a 'healthy' trashing. Are you proud and happy now?

I expect and await a number of thumbs-down from resident CI morons.
Considering that OLMC is still "in business" there must still be some supporters.
Something, eventually, will click with them.  
Thus the need to point out new issues with the place.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Merry on December 06, 2017, 10:31:22 AM
The sermon was too explicit - the words too explicit. I only got to the first part.  The spiritual books say that purity and humility are two subjects that are delicate - to say too much or say the wrong thing is to wilt them, like a delicate flower.  And yes, St. Paul says some things shouldn't even be mentioned.  A word/phrase alluding to what the priest has in mind (and he'd better be right about the need of it) can be acceptable and effective -- but you don't wade whole hog into the subject with crass vocabulary that makes those trapped in the pew not just uncomfortable but perhaps vulnerable to impure thoughts or temptations, especially if it carries on and on. 

We don't have sex ed classes for, among other things, reasons exactly along these lines.  If one is modest, one is most careful about anything approaching the subject of purity - much less spewing broadside, rough words or expressions that one would not say if Our Lady was sitting there listening.  But some of us go where angels would fear to tread.  His approach/method, was out of place.  
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2017, 10:31:40 AM
I'm not defending every aspect of this sermon.  There are many valid points from those who are offended by the 'm' word and other terms they consider improper.

However, some have gone to the other extreme and have implied that, even if Fr had used 'proper' terms, that the topic should be 'off limits' for a sermon (in their opinion).  This is what i'm debating.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 06, 2017, 10:40:19 AM
Just listen to the sermon.  I'm not going to go to the trouble of transcribing every single instance where he used the term.  Anyone with proper sensibilities and sense of decorum can recognize the crudeness and vulgarity.
I did listen to the sermon, and(if you were paying attention), I said that I don't think he should have explicitly mentioned "masturbation" or "prostitutes" in it.
 However, though these words may be inappropriate to use in front of children, that doesn't mean they were necessarily used in a crude manner. I don't see how mentioning them in order to denounce them for the good of the faithful counts as "crass talking". 
Maybe for "delicate flowers" as some of you admire, but not for mature adults. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 06, 2017, 10:44:47 AM
Another Pfeiffer cult member and lackey?
Actually, I have been disillusioned from him and his dysfunctional "seminary" for more than a year now. Too bad I didn't realize it sooner. 
Nice try though. Maybe you'll hit the bullseye on your next throw. Next time I suggest you use a real argument rather than resorting to pathetic ad-hominem attacks.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 11:06:14 AM
I did listen to the sermon, and(if you were paying attention), I said that I don't think he should have explicitly mentioned "masturbation" or "prostitutes" in it.
 However, though these words may be inappropriate to use in front of children, that doesn't mean they were necessarily used in a crude manner. I don't see how mentioning them in order to denounce them for the good of the faithful counts as "crass talking".
Maybe for "delicate flowers" as some of you admire, but not for mature adults.
NP, it is more that these words are not appropriate to use at all, certainly inappropriate in Church.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2017, 11:09:47 AM

Quote
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks.
 
Secondly, when St Paul said 'let it not be named among you' he was not talking about the 'words' but the actions.  He was saying let not a christian be named a fornicator.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 06, 2017, 11:13:04 AM
NP, it is more that these words are not appropriate to use at all, certainly inappropriate in Church.
You honestly think that it would be inappropriate for adults to use these words when talking amongst themselves in a conversation that's not am inherently impure one?
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Meg on December 06, 2017, 11:22:08 AM
Meg,  I missed this part in Neil's long post.  Thanks for pointing it out.

This must be an accurate account and inline with Holy Jacinta's warning about the sins of impurity, sending most souls to Hell.

Let's play it again:
(https://childrenoftheeucharist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BlessedJacintaColor.jpg)
Yet knowing all this she was not afraid of the operation! She only had one fear.
.
You would never guess what her one fear was, especially if you think that children ought to be proactively informed about sexual sins.
.
Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts.

Modern perverts will assure you that since there is no victim there is nothing wrong. But the something wrong is in the heart of the one who believes that, because the victim is one's own soul.
.
Now, tell me that anyone knowing about her suffering willingly to OVERCOME in others the sin of entirely subjective impurity and appreciating her sacrifice to the point of willingness to imitate her heroic virtue, could ever bring himself to enjoy the illicit allurement of sinful impurity.

I'm not understanding the point you are making here, Incredulous. I'm contesting that blessed Jacinta ever had that concern in the first place. It just sounds odd. In what account (book?) have you read it? I'd like to know where this account comes from. I don't think it's true.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 11:28:55 AM
You honestly think that it would be inappropriate for adults to use these words when talking amongst themselves in a conversation that's not am inherently impure one?
It is firstly inappropriate to use those words in Church, in the presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle. There is no reason on earth for them, not ever imo. In private conversation with your own child while educating them, it MIGHT be appropriate only if they push for it, but there are much more prudential ways to get the message across without mentioning it by name. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 06, 2017, 11:54:00 AM
It is firstly inappropriate to use those words in Church, in the presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle. There is no reason on earth for them, not ever imo. In private conversation with your own child while educating them, it MIGHT be appropriate only if they push for it, but there are much more prudential ways to get the message across without mentioning it by name.
It IS appropriate if they push for it or if they need it. In which case, it would be best to mention it by name. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2017, 12:07:23 PM
The sermon was too explicit - the words too explicit. I only got to the first part.  The spiritual books say that purity and humility are two subjects that are delicate - to say too much or say the wrong thing is to wilt them, like a delicate flower.  And yes, St. Paul says some things shouldn't even be mentioned.  A word/phrase alluding to what the priest has in mind (and he'd better be right about the need of it) can be acceptable and effective -- but you don't wade whole hog into the subject with crass vocabulary that makes those trapped in the pew not just uncomfortable but perhaps vulnerable to impure thoughts or temptations, especially if it carries on and on.

We don't have sex ed classes for, among other things, reasons exactly along these lines.  If one is modest, one is most careful about anything approaching the subject of purity - much less spewing broadside, rough words or expressions that one would not say if Our Lady was sitting there listening.  But some of us go where angels would fear to tread.  His approach/method, was out of place.  

best articulation of the problem right here
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nadir on December 06, 2017, 02:51:20 PM
Nadir,
Look, your post was wonderful and the above saints were absolutely lovers of purity.  No one should disagree with that.  But it doesn't answer my question - maybe I'm not explaining it correctly?

You imply that these 2 young women were pure because they were ignorant of concupiscence.  That makes no sense and devalues their purity.  Is a 2 year old "pure" because they are innocent?  No, they are just innocent.  A 2 year old cannot be pure, because the virtue of purity necessisarily requires one to be exposed to, or have temptations against vice.  One cannot have heroic virtue without overcoming the temptations which seek to conquer the virtue.

Jacinta was very pure, but she died at 10, so doesn't really fit my example, as she's not an adolescent.  St Maria Goretti certainly had knowledge of what her assailant was doing because she kept yelling to him that "God is not pleased; this is not what God wants."  This is when he went into a rage and started stabbing her.

I guess my questions are:
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage.
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?

Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil.
Pax Vobis, Your questions should be directed to Neil. It was not my post. I just thought it a font of wisdom and I thanked him for it.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2017, 03:32:44 PM
My bad.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nadir on December 06, 2017, 05:56:22 PM
I guess my questions are:
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage.
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?

Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil.
Nevertheess, I would make some comments.
.
1. realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction should be tailored to the needs of the receiver, either individually or as a couple. 12 to 14 year olds do not need to hear the same thing as those who are close approaching marriage. Discretion is not very puritantical and uncatholic.
.
2. A child is not a subject for sex instruction, which can actually interfere in their natural learning processes. Children should be allowed to be children - without being burdened with knowledge they have no need of. Children can be naturally inquisitive and their questions should answered in such a way that their natural innocence is not disturbed by any unnecessary information that they are not asking for. 
.
3. Knowledge should be at the appropriate time, by the parents, and in a manner which will lead the child to understand God's plan and have a healthy attitude to sex. Knowledge does not lead to impurity, and neither does lack of it.

I think you have a poor understanding of what purity is. Of course a 2 year old is pure and innocent. Purity is more than a virtue. It means uncontaminated. Parents have a duty to keep their children uncontaminated as far as they are able. That means protecting the from unwanted influences.

There are folk posting here who unfortunately have been contaminated by what is loosely known as modern "education" 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 06, 2017, 09:30:11 PM
Butlers lives of the saints reflection for today, feast of st. Nicholas:

"Those who would enter heaven must be as little children, whose greatest glory is their innocence.  Now, two things are ours to do: first to reserve it in ourselves, or regain it by penance; secondly to love and shield it in others."
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 06, 2017, 11:56:39 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 07:28:58 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-pfeiffer-gone-mad-very-inappropriate-sermon/msg582742/#msg582742)
Quote
I guess my questions are:
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage.
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?

Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil.
.
Nevertheess, I would make some comments.
.
1. realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction should be tailored to the needs of the receiver, either individually or as a couple. 12 to 14 year olds do not need to hear the same thing as those who are close approaching marriage. Discretion is not very puritantical and uncatholic.
.
2. A child is not a subject for sex instruction, which can actually interfere in their natural learning processes. Children should be allowed to be children - without being burdened with knowledge they have no need of. Children can be naturally inquisitive and their questions should answered in such a way that their natural innocence is not disturbed by any unnecessary information that they are not asking for.
.
3. Knowledge should be at the appropriate time, by the parents, and in a manner which will lead the child to understand God's plan and have a healthy attitude to sex. Knowledge does not lead to impurity, and neither does lack of it.

I think you have a poor understanding of what purity is. Of course a 2 year old is pure and innocent. Purity is more than a virtue. It means uncontaminated. Parents have a duty to keep their children uncontaminated as far as they are able. That means protecting the from unwanted influences.

There are folk posting here who unfortunately have been contaminated by what is loosely known as modern "education"
.
Nadir, your post is refreshing to read.
.
I have some comments:
.
Pax Vobis wrote:
Quote
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage.
.
I do not approve of your choice of the word "reproduction." It suggests atheism, scientism, animalistic, mechanical/plumbing aspect of what should be a sacred human function. For man, it is procreation that you are talking about and it is procreation that you should say, not "reproduction."  Reproduction is what a Xerox machine does, or a widget factory. The marital act is man's cooperation with God's act of creating an immortal soul, or perhaps more than one. It has nothing to do with "reproducing" anything, and this word ought to be abandoned by all Catholics like it's radioactive.
.
The enemies of the Church selectively use "reproduction" and they do so for a reason.
.
Beyond that, sex education should have no part of Catholic education. The recent innovation of its introduction in so-called Catholic schools is entirely a consequence of the putrid errors of Vatican II. There is nothing "realistic" about the need for an adolescent to learn about the mundane specifics of sexual intercourse. It is rather the parents' place to make sure that the important things are kept in their important places so as not to be overtaken by prurient passions and brute impulses. The parents' place is to safeguard purity and to encourage the development of virtue so the child can weather the storm of impurity that he will ultimately face out in the world.
.
Why should a parent have to explain the various physical impacts of narcotics to a child in order to discourage the child's use of them? Nor should a parent have to resort to lying about it in order to induce avoidance.
.
It is insulting to a virtuous child to have a priest in confession suggest that the child might be holding back on confessing a sin of the flesh, and no priest should ever ask a penitent if he or she has committed "masturbation."
.
PV:
Quote
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
.
Children are going to learn the physical facts of human sexual relations by listening to their friends or reading certain publications, and there isn't anything a parent can do about that. But those things are not what a parent needs to teach his children. His example of NOT talking about them is added emphasis to how powerful they are and they are a matter of deepest personal intimacy, not meant for casual conversation. If a boy is going to enter the priesthood, or a girl, should she become a sister, what good would it have done for his or her parents to have explained "the birds and the bees" to them?
.
PV:
Quote
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?
.
It's possible that a parent being terrified of the subject could lead the child to impurity. The parents' place is to be sure the child learns that purity is very important and something to be greatly treasured. Furthermore, that any sin against purity, even if it does not involve physical acts, should be confessed to a priest under the seal of confession. That is the "knowledge" that takes first place in priority, not daring to explain mechanics.
.
PV:
Quote
Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction [procreation] and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction [procreation] is better than avoiding the issue.
.
You really need to learn the difference it makes in your thinking when you stop using "reproduction" (which is a falsehood) and START using the proper word in its place. Maybe you're much too proud to listen and learn from the likes of me, but you would be doing yourself a favor and a work of improvement that could have long-reaching consequences, if you would recognize that the use of the word "reproduction" destroys the virtuous sense and holiness that you should be trying to develop, protect, and pass along to the next generation. Just by changing out that one word, your two sentences above take on a whole new meaning!
.
.
.
Very appropriate post by Fanny:
.
Posted by: Fanny
« on: Today at 07:30:11 PM »


Butler's Lives of the Saints reflection for today, feast of St. Nicholas:

"Those who would enter heaven must be as little children, whose greatest glory is their innocence.  Now, two things are ours to do: first to reserve it in ourselves, or regain it by penance; secondly to love and shield it in others."
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 07, 2017, 05:42:25 AM
I'm not understanding the point you are making here, Incredulous. I'm contesting that blessed Jacinta ever had that concern in the first place. It just sounds odd. In what account (book?) have you read it? I'd like to know where this account comes from. I don't think it's true.

I couldn't find the reference Meg. Maybe Neil has something?

I recall reading an antique book on the Fatima children.  It was one that had been published, perhaps in the 1940's and was free, not done through a publishing house.  It contained many insights into Bl. Jacinta's and Bl. Francisco's final days.  It seems they died of the Spanish influenza pandemic?

Jacinta's physician had cut a whole in her chest to try and relieve pressure there. 
He took out some ribs and her suffering must have been terrible?  
Of course, Our Lady foretold that she would die alone and she offered it up for the conversion of poor sinners.

The emphasis on modesty in the hospital seems to be inline with her piety and concern for purity.  That is my point.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Motorede on December 07, 2017, 07:18:26 AM
Certainly not, I would have been mortified, and such things should never be spoken of in mixed company,  delicacy  demands it.
One of the Fathers of the Church (can't remember exactly which one) said:
 "The ears of the people are holier than the mouths of the priests". I read that many, many years ago and was never sure what he really meant--until now, after listening to Fr.P's words and then observing the reactions from the people here. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Meg on December 07, 2017, 10:29:40 AM
I couldn't find the reference Meg. Maybe Neil has something?

I recall reading an antique book on the Fatima children.  It was one that had been published, perhaps in the 1940's and was free, not done through a publishing house.  It contained many insights into Bl. Jacinta's and Bl. Francisco's final days.  It seems they died of the Spanish influenza pandemic?

Jacinta's physician had cut a whole in her chest to try and relieve pressure there.
He took out some ribs and her suffering must have been terrible?  
Of course, Our Lady foretold that she would die alone and she offered it up for the conversion of poor sinners.

The emphasis on modesty in the hospital seems to be inline with her piety and concern for purity.  That is my point.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I know that Bl. Jacinta had the surgery to remove some or part of her ribs, and that she didn't want any anesthesia during the surgery. But in all of the accounts I have read, there's not been anything about what Neil described. It's not a big deal, though. I just thought that it didn't sound right. She died just short of her 10th birthday. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 07, 2017, 11:29:05 AM
One of the Fathers of the Church (can't remember exactly which one) said:
 "The ears of the people are holier than the mouths of the priests". I read that many, many years ago and was never sure what he really meant--until now, after listening to Fr.P's words and then observing the reactions from the people here.
According to this website the quote is from Calvin.
http://puttingoutthefire.blogspot.com/2006/09/explaining-kurt-marquart-sort-of.html?m=1
But this one says it was st. Chrysostom.
http://michaelnewnham.com/things-i-used-to-think-duane-w-h-arnold-phd/
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Merry on December 07, 2017, 01:57:53 PM
Calvin could quote  Chrysostom.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 07, 2017, 02:54:48 PM

Incredulous Quote
Quote
Typical of Fr. Pfeiffer, the grown-up, incorrigible "fat-boy", who has always sought after attention.

The fact the OLMC's priests are under the control of the fake lay-exorcist, Paul Hernandez, should put a chill down our spines.

Just ignore them.
It's Advent, so I'd want to apologize for breaking charity, and making this statement. 
As discouraging as the OLMC situation is, I should keep my patience and prayers for them.
:pray:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nadir on December 07, 2017, 03:24:55 PM
I'm not understanding the point you are making here, Incredulous. I'm contesting that blessed Jacinta ever had that concern in the first place. It just sounds odd. In what account (book?) have you read it? I'd like to know where this account comes from. I don't think it's true.
"That concern" being: Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts.
.
I also had heard, not read, this. I don't see any reason to doubt it. 
.
Normal children raised in our society have an innate sense of modesty, and we are talking about a little Catholic girl who had personal communications with the Blessed Virgin, who had warned her of souls falling into Hell for reasons of impurity. So should not be surprised at this claim. In fact we should think it not only credible and true.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nooseph Polten on December 07, 2017, 07:39:10 PM

Incredulous Quote
Quote
Quote
Typical of Fr. Pfeiffer, the grown-up, incorrigible "fat-boy", who has always sought after attention.

The fact the OLMC's priests are under the control of the fake lay-exorcist, Paul Hernandez, should put a chill down our spines.

Just ignore them.

It's Advent, so I'd want to apologize for breaking charity, and making this statement. 
As discouraging as the OLMC situation is, I should keep my patience and prayers for them.

No kidding
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Meg on December 08, 2017, 10:09:05 AM
"That concern" being: Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts.
.
I also had heard, not read, this. I don't see any reason to doubt it.
.
Normal children raised in our society have an innate sense of modesty, and we are talking about a little Catholic girl who had personal communications with the Blessed Virgin, who had warned her of souls falling into Hell for reasons of impurity. So should not be surprised at this claim. In fact we should think it not only credible and true.

So you had heard of this, but not read it. I suppose that makes it true for you. So far, no one has provided any actual verifiable source for this claim. Blessed Jacinata didn't have that many people around her when she was ill in the hospital who could have heard her say this, and then passed it on. Who was it that claimed that she said this? Not Sister Lucy, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Nadir on December 08, 2017, 05:31:32 PM
So you had heard of this, but not read it. I suppose that makes it true for you. So far, no one has provided any actual verifiable source for this claim. Blessed Jacinata didn't have that many people around her when she was ill in the hospital who could have heard her say this, and then passed it on. Who was it that claimed that she said this? Not Sister Lucy, as far as I know.
Meg, it is a shame that you have such an offensive manner of speaking.
.
I have no desire or need to prove it and it not an article of faith. My only reason for my post was to point out that is a very reasonable thing to believe that a Catholic child who had warnings from the Blessed Mother to pray for poor sinners who might otherwise be headed for hell, would care about being seen naked by doctors and that she might care about the state of their souls.
.
And as I said, I heard it, not read it, so no "actual verifiable source".
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Merry on December 08, 2017, 06:32:45 PM
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/truestory/pdf/tspg65.pdf

The bottom of page 71 -


"Yet she appears to have suffered more from the humiliation of having to expose her body and to place herself into the hands of the strange doctors."









Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 08, 2017, 10:13:48 PM
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/truestory/pdf/tspg65.pdf

The bottom of page 71 -


"Yet she appears to have suffered more from the humiliation of having to expose her body and to place herself into the hands of the strange doctors."
Thanks for the research and source Merry!  :chef:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: chrstnoel1 on December 09, 2017, 12:06:58 AM
Incredulous QuoteIt's Advent, so I'd want to apologize for breaking charity, and making this statement.
As discouraging as the OLMC situation is, I should keep my patience and prayers for them.
:pray:
AMEN  :pray:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 06:59:36 AM
Meg, it is a shame that you have such an offensive manner of speaking.
.
I have no desire or need to prove it and it not an article of faith. My only reason for my post was to point out that is a very reasonable thing to believe that a Catholic child who had warnings from the Blessed Mother to pray for poor sinners who might otherwise be headed for hell, would care about being seen naked by doctors and that she might care about the state of their souls.
.
And as I said, I heard it, not read it, so no "actual verifiable source".

Actually, Nadir, you just don't like the fact that I challenged you on the subject. You can't seem to handle that.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 10, 2017, 12:49:12 AM
Actually, Nadir, you just don't like the fact that I challenged you on the subject. You can't seem to handle that.
.
Are you aware it's now Advent, Meg, a season of penance? You know, there is a Sacrament by that name. I recommend you ask your priest under the seal of the Sacrament about the sufferings of Blessed Jacinta. Maybe that will help you, and it might even help the priest! Blessed Jacinta suffered for your sins and mine, just like Our Lord did. When we sin again we add to their pain. Think about that.
.
I spent some time researching the life of this holy child, and I was surprised to find so many things that are rarely mentioned. Her surgeon's name was Fr. Castro Freire -- do you doubt that? His diagnosis was "Purulent pleurisy of the large left cavity, with fistula; osteitis of the 7th and 8th ribs of the same side." Do you also doubt that? It's part of the Lisbon Hospital public record in Portugal. Go ask them. Do you know the name of the Postulator for the cause of her beatification? Do you know he wrote books on the subject? Did you ever read his books? Do you know the orphanage mother's name who was personally caring for Jacinta before she went in to the hospital? I could tell you her name and some of the things she revealed about her private conversations with Jacinta, like she told the Postulator, but then you'd have even more things to doubt in your persistently uncharitable, catty manner. You really ought to go to Confession about this bad habit of yours.
.
And take a break from the Internet for Advent. It's not doing your bad habit any good.
.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 10, 2017, 02:45:45 AM
.
The parish priest of Fatima, who knew Jacinta personally, wrote in his notes about her most remarkable piety and wisdom over a year before she died (author, James W. Demers):
.
This is the same Jacinta to whom Our Lady would appear at the church in Fatima to teach her how to pray the Rosary in consolation for the suffering to come. On August 6, 1918, Father Ferreira, the parish priest of Fatima confirmed in his Memoir:
.
“Jacinta affirms that Our Lady appeared to her another three times. The first time was in the church at Fatima, during Mass, on Ascension Thursday, May 18, 1918. At that time Our Lady taught her how to say the Rosary. The second time was at night, at the opening of the cave (the Cabeço), while the whole family was sleeping. The third time, in the house, was above a table; the Blessed Virgin was immobile and silent.”
.
The reality of Jacinta living out her full martyrdom in her primary years contains for critics and advocates alike a cherished lesson. Throughout history the faith and the Church have been edified, fortified and often rectified by mature women of great sanctity, the most commonly remembered being Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Thèrése of Lisieux, all now Doctors of the Church (as of 1997). The world-weary observer who in true humility can accept that his own sin-laden soul is momentarily out of the running for such honors, will be unable to resist a generous movement of the heart toward Jacinta, one that will overthrow cynicism so that he can say with pride in the child Jacinta of Fatima that she was a Doctor of Suffering.
.
Jacinta’s purity in imitation of Mary and Her Divine Son also affirms the dignity of the truly virginal priesthood.
.
When Sister Lucy wrote in a poem about Jacinta, “In deepest suffering, Jesus loving,…” she could have found no more precious words to describe the sacrificial celibate priesthood. In today’s disorientation, both within and without the Church, the priest who cherishes his virginity and lives his life in daily immolation of his human sexuality, who would face death rather than surrender his purity to any but God, is our hope for the future, for the faith, for the Church, for the salvation of souls. To these priests the very mention of the name Jacinta provokes tender emotion, an involuntary acknowledgment that in her they find an example which gloriously justifies the sacrifice which their striving for chastity demands of them.
.
There is even a more profound lesson to be learned for the priesthood from the tiny child of Fatima. Our Lady Herself was the tabernacle of the Most High, carrying God in Her virginal womb. Yet Christ did not call even Her to the priesthood.
.
Jacinta, in all her humility, stands in complete contrast to the ‘we would be as priest’ women of today’s Church. In everything she did she matched pain-for-pain the suffering of her brother and of the adults who surrounded her. She never made any claim for attention or special treatment and spurned any praise from pilgrims in search of a saint. She was pure and virginal first and last, with the heart of a martyr and a soul wide open to God. That is the perfect description of the priest who daily sacrifices the good of marriage for the greater good of souls.
.
It is the virgin priest, living in imitation of Christ’s holy purity, who is ensuring for the Bride of Christ the eternal husbandry of the Order of Melchisidech. Jacinta, now a flower on their altars, is a gift from the Church to the virgin priest. Jacinta was, and remains, definitive proof that, as in all things, in His choice of flowers God is always right.
.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 10, 2017, 12:36:11 PM
Perhaps fr. Pfeiffer learned from fr. Vassal from post falls, ID:  "Children should be exposed to evil, so they learn how to deal with it." 


  https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sodomy-scandal-in-post-falls-id-sspx-immaculate-conception-academy/
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Incredulous on December 10, 2017, 03:27:33 PM

Touche' Fanny 

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1uGyVRlJibY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 11, 2017, 01:40:53 PM
.
The three Fatima children, especially Francisco and Jacinta, provide us with a valuable lesson for how to faithfully endure suffering, how to make whatever inconveniences and difficulties and pains we encounter in this life into a prayer and a treasure we can present to God in reparation for sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. As explained by St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort in his The Secret of the Rosary, our readiness to accept such trifles as our opportunity to pray and do penance for our sins and the sins of others, offering this as our sacrifice is a signal grace of our predestination, and to the contrary, when one doggedly refuses to accept this opportunity for grace and instead shuns the Hail Mary and her Holy Rosary, it is a sign of God's eternal displeasure. 
.
From an edited excerpt from Mr. Faust's conference speech (2006): "Fatima and Pilgrimage: Conforming Our Lives to the Message of Fatima".
.
.
Jacinta and Francisco
by Edwin Faust
.
.
It is tempting to speculate how closely the experiences of the children correspond to the degrees of prayer described by the mystical doctors of the Church, such as St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. It can be said with certainty that the seers did all they could to enter actively into the dark night of the senses described by St. John of the Cross as the usual prelude to contemplation.
.
St. John tells us that the senses cannot bring us to God and that the more we indulge the senses the farther we put ourselves from God. So the first step in any advance towards a deeper prayer life must always be an increase in sensual denial, in asceticism. As St. Teresa of Avila so simply and so concisely stated “prayer and self-indulgence do not go together.” Ouch.
.
St. John of the Cross and the German mystics Meister Eckhart, John Tauler and Blessed Henry Suso tell us that Holy detachment contains the perfection of all the virtues because there we place ourselves entirely in God’s hands. We don’t want anything. Whatever He sends us is fine.
.
Meister Eckhart describes this in an interesting way. He says that “a man who is married to his self-will has something like a coating on his tongue that makes all suffering bitter to him. But a man whose will is in Holy detachment has his tongue coated with God and whatever comes to him, even suffering, tastes of God, tastes of that divine sweetness." I think Francisco achieved this state of detachment. He tended to view the world very much as the passing show that it is.
.
He even stopped attending school that he might spend his days kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament at the village church in Fatima consoling the “hidden Jesus” as he put it. When asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, and all such children are pestered by such questions, he would respond that he did not want to be anything; he only wanted to die and go to Heaven. As his detachment increased, he gave evidence of having reached deep states of contemplation. Lucy and Jacinta would sometimes find him lost in silent prayer in out of the way places: behind the wall, or lying flat on the ground, and they would have to call him insistently to bring him back to ordinary consciousness.
.
When Portugal, like the rest of Europe, was decimated by the influenza epidemic that followed World War I, the people in the vicinity of Fatima were not spared. All of Lucy’s family, except her, were stricken. And all of the Marto family, except the father, Ti Marto, also became seriously ill. Both Francisco and Jacinta knew that they would never recover from this illness and that it marked a road of penitential suffering that would only end with their deaths. But they accepted this calmly, even joyfully, for they had Our Lady’s promise that She would take them to Heaven.
.
Once when Lucy was visiting Francisco, she asked him if he suffered. “Bastante” (quite enough), he said “but it doesn’t matter. I suffer to console Our Lord, and in a little while I will be with Him.” Shortly before he died, he entrusted to Lucy a piece of rough hemp, part of a rope found by Lucy in the road a long time ago, that he and the other children had made into makeshift hair shirts.  He told Lucy to take it for he was no longer strong enough to make the exertion required to hide it from his mother. He lay motionless in his bed during the last few days of his illness, and on April 4, 1919, less than two years after the last Apparition, he died peacefully with a faint smile on his 10-year-old face. He was buried the next day at the churchyard in Fatima.
.
Jacinta
.
Jacinta was to die the following year, after a more prolonged and excruciating illness. If Francisco manifested detachment and tranquility, which are associated with the purification of the will, his younger sister displayed what might be described as a mystical illumination, a purification of the understanding. It may be that of the three children Jacinta was most immersed in a sense of the supernatural. The Blessed Mother also continued to appear to her both at her home near Fatima, when she was ill, and during her hospital stay in Lisbon, before her death.
.
Still More Holy
.
Jacinta was the youngest of the three children — only 6 years old during the apparitions of the Angel of Peace in 1916. And considering the events of Fatima, we sometimes lose sight of just how young these visionaries chosen by Heaven were. As Jacinta was just beginning to learn her catechism from Lucy who, at nine, was by no means an expert, she was wrapped in an atmosphere of the supernatural by Heavenly visitations.
.
How can we imagine her experience of the faith? I will venture to speculate that of the three seers her faith was probably the purest. And in saying this I mean no disparagement of the faith of Lucy and Francisco. But they were older. And if they knew little of the world, they at least knew and understood more than Jacinta, who was barely at the age of reason.
.
Spared that Poison
.
I think Jacinta was spared from that pull of the world that contends with our belief at the same time that we are being instructed in the faith. For even as children growing up in Catholic homes, we cannot escape the awareness that we live among many people who reject Christ’s Church; and even worse, we live among other people who accept the Catholic Faith in a lukewarm and offhand manner. So while we are learning our catechism, there runs parallel to our religious instruction the spirit of irreligion, the spirit of the world that eats away at our faith even as it is being formed, like a corrosive poison that we cannot help but ingest. I think that Jacinta never had to drink this poison. She was shielded from the spirit of irreligion and her intellect was endued with an almost angelic quality, so that her instruction in the faith was not so much passed through the filter of discursive of reasoning as it was purely infused.
.
What a wonderful gift she received. But as with all divine gifts, the effect was to make the recipient conform more perfectly with the giver, who is Christ Crucified.
.
Jacinta became ill during the same influenza epidemic that sickened Francisco. But the progress of her disease was to be long, complicated and excruciating. Like her brother, she remained tranquil and resigned to her suffering which she also welcomed as a Heaven-sent opportunity to offer sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. Jacinta’s attitude towards sinners, like that of all the seers, was not one of condemnation but of great pity.
.
Jacinta's Burning Love
.
She had seen hell and she had had a foretaste of Heaven. She did not envy the wicked their forbidden pleasures, which she saw in their true light as the prelude to eternal misery. She rather pitied them for their blindness to the true and lasting joy of loving God.
.
Before she was taken from her home to begin her final sufferings in Lisbon, Jacinta told Lucy, “If only I could put in the heart of everybody that light I have here in my breast to burn and make me love the Heart of Jesus and the Heart of Mary so much. I don’t know how it is, I feel the Lord inside of me. I understand what He says and I don’t see Him or hear Him. But it is so good to be with Him.” What Jacinta appears to be describing, in the simple words of a child, is an advanced stage of mystical union in which the soul abides in the Divine Presence and burns with love.
.
Jacinta developed pleurisy. Our Lady appeared to her and told her that she would have much to suffer, that she would be taken to a dark hospital in Lisbon, and that there she would die alone, but that Mary would come in the end to take her to Heaven.
.
Jacinta's Wisdom
.
She told her family of this communication from the Blessed Mother. Only Lucy believed her. She was taken to Lisbon through the good intentions of a priest and his wealthy doctor friends, who paid the expenses for her medical torture. Thus began what Jacinta knew would be her final agony. While waiting for arrangements to be made for her to be received at the hospital, however, she stayed at an orphanage under the care of a Franciscan nun, Mother Godinho, who quickly came to love her, and to believe that this child who had been placed under her protection was a saint. “She speaks with such authority”, she said.
.
She liked to draw Jacinta into conversation and she would write down the sayings and prophecies that poured from the little girl. Jacinta told her that wars are punishment for sins; that the world is preparing for itself terrible chastisements. She warned against love of wealth and luxury and counseled instead a love of holy poverty and silence.
.
She spoke of how much Our Lord values mortification and sacrifices. And this is very interesting to me: she said that doctors do not have the light to cure illnesses because they do not love God. So all wisdom, scientific, worldly and other-worldly is somehow rooted in Divine love.
.
There are also personal prophecies. She said that her older sisters, Theresa and Florinda, both had vocations to the convent, but that her parents would prevent them from fulfilling their vocations, so God would take them away from their parents through death. As she predicted, the two girls, both in their teens, died not long after she did.
.
Her Love for Jesus and for Sinners
.
And there were stories of cures effected by her intercession while she was alive, and even one report of a bilocation in which she led a wayward older cousin lost in the mountain wilderness to the path that led him back to his home and to the practice of his faith.
.
When she was taken to the hospital, the doctors decided on an operation. Local anesthetic was administered but apparently failed to have its full effect. And Jacinta endured what can only be described as ferocious pain as two of her ribs were removed. During the operation she cried out to Our Lord, “It is for Your love my Jesus, now You can convert many sinners, for I suffer much.” For six days she continued to suffer. Then Our Blessed Mother appeared to her and took away her pain and told her the day and hour of her death, assuring her again that She would come to take her to Heaven. Four days later, on February 20, 1920, Jacinta Marto died alone in her hospital bed, at the age of nine. When her body was exhumed in the 1950s, her face was found to be incorrupt. She is now Blessed Jacinta.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 11, 2017, 02:54:16 PM
Very interesting...
https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/concerning-perversion-at-olmc-ky/
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 11, 2017, 03:33:51 PM
Fanny, why are you obsessed with the corruption at OLMC?  It's one thing to point out a sermon you disagree with.  It's quite another to continue the negativity with posts which are nothing but heresay and gossip.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 11, 2017, 07:09:50 PM
Fanny, why are you obsessed with the corruption at OLMC?  It's one thing to point out a sermon you disagree with.  It's quite another to continue the negativity with posts which are nothing but heresay and gossip.
Charity to others is never sinful.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
Post by: Fanny on December 18, 2017, 09:38:22 PM
Fr. Hewkos response to this sermon:
"my laughter was rather in surprise at your reaction to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon as being a mortal sin for him to have preached. I refer you to St. Peter Damian's treatise "The Book of Gommorah" which is far more graphic than anything Fr. Pfeiffer ever said. It has the approbation of Pope Leo IX as well. "

Fr. Hewko forgets that a treatise is not for children, nor to be read from the pulpit, and also that pope Leo ix later changed his mind:
"It caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity against its author. Even the pope, Pope Leo IX (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_IX), who had at first praised the work, was persuaded that it was exaggerated. He praised Damian's motivation in advocating chastity and condemning vice, and told him that Damian's own exemplary life did more to teach appropriate conduct than any words. He softened the suggestions for decisive action against offending clerics made by the author and excluded from the ranks of clergy only those who had offended repeatedly and over a long period of time.[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Gomorrhianus#cite_note-4) The Pope's reaction drew from Damian a vigorous letter of protest"

Fr. Hewko also forgets the words of Our Lord:
"And whosoever shall scandalize oneof these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea."