Another thought that comes to mind --
You know how countless times you have a good priest in the Novus Ordo converting to Tradition, but he doesn't want to jump into the "Traditional Catholic" world (because they fight so much, there's so much messiness there) and he wants to have it both ways, so he tries to not get fired or suspended by his Bishop and still say the Tridentine Mass.
Well, these priests always have to choose eventually. They discover that no, Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't rash to end up in the "Traditional Catholic" milieu. If anyone could have had it both ways, it was a prudent, balanced, wise prelate like +ABL.
It's like they judge him, "Oh, he went off right away and left the Church. I like the Tridentine Mass and know that it's the only Mass I can say in good conscience, but I'm sure I can handle it a bit better than +ABL..."
Then a number of months and years pass, and these priests have to decisively choose: stop saying the Latin Mass entirely like their angry, red-faced Bishop demands, or go "Traditional" and lose their position in the diocese (health insurance, pension, good standing with their bishop, etc.)
And so, in the end, they finally understand why SO MANY priests before them had to leave the Novus Ordo just to do something clearly good like keep the Faith and say the Mass of All Times.
But then, a couple years later, a young priest with a deep spiritual life and a good heart discovers the Latin Mass, and decides he can only say that Mass. He thinks, "Oh, I don't want to join that mess in the Traditional World; I'm going to be different! I'll be the first one to be a good holy priest and still be on good terms with the Church authorities. How hard can it be, to be civil and charitable rather than feisty and abrasive?"
And so the process begins again. Lather, rinse, repeat...
It gets wearisome though, for those who have seen it a MILLION TIMES (or what feels like a million times).
This also applies to laymen. In their case, they are also reluctant to embrace the "Trad" label, trying to deny it as long as possible. They say things like, "Why can't we just be Catholics? Why all the labels?" They try to be some kind of "first" or "pioneer", like they were the first to think of this, and they believe they're somehow above the whole struggle. The Indulters are often guilty of this -- they want to be on good terms with the Conciliar Church, while trying to be faithful to the Catholic Faith like a good Trad.
But you can't have it both ways. The sad fact is that the two are diametrically opposed, and so eventually you WILL have to choose.
To answer their first question: "Why can't we just be Catholics?" Well, because words mean things, that's why. "Catholic" today means "maybe Catholic, poorly catechized, attending a de-facto protestant service on Sunday, and little-to-no fasting or abstinence".
Here is my point:
This applies to Fr. Pfeiffer as well. So many want to give him a 10th chance, a 150th helping of benefit of the doubt, hope beyond all reason, etc.
But in doing so, you judge those of us who have already been there, done that. You assume we haven't given him many, many chances! You assume we jumped off the boat at the first opportunity, anxious to attack the poor priest. No, we were as reluctant as you. Don't think yourself so special!
I supported Fr. Pfeiffer every bit as much as you. He was NOT a popular priest at my SSPX chapel, but I talked him up to everyone I could, trying to organize a local Resistance. And I was very reluctant to publicly excoriate Fr. Pfeiffer; I only did so for the greater good and past/present/future I don't do it because it was fun for me. It's extremely sad and frustrating. I wish I could have the old Fr. Pfeiffer from 4 years ago back. He was a good priest, a good fighter in the trenches. He was a go-getter. Now he's using his oratorical gifts to slam perfectly innocent priests and bishops.
By giving him a "chance" under these circuмstances, what I'm actually doing is siding with him against his victims. His victims are ALSO priests, only they are doing good RIGHT NOW. Fr. Pfeiffer needs to convert first before he can be in that category.
If you have two human beings, one holding a baseball bat and hitting the other and the other on the ground taking a beating, how can you be charitable towards both? That charity is going to look DIFFERENT applied to each of these men. The attacker doesn't have the same claim on your love as the victim. The attacker needs to be OPPOSED FOR HIS OWN GOOD, whereas the victim has first claim on your money, time, and love. He's good RIGHT NOW whereas the attacker is only POTENTIALLY good (if he converted).
That doesn't mean you can hate either of them, but the dictates of charity say that you should give to each something different:
Attacker: opposition, even beat him up/call the cops, for the sake of charity (the good of his soul)
Victim: go full-on good Samaritan with him: take care of him, take him to the hospital, make him comfortable, etc.
Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who? (Read 126306 times)