Fr. Pfeiffer Sermon on Bishop Fellay’s Statements at Recent Angelus Conference

I received the following email, and it seems the author has a good point.

Please read and reflect:

Slick rhetoric and fluid presentation do not necessarily equate with accuracy and truth, it would seem.

Shame on me for having been taken in by it, and having commented before having followed through on my pledge to listen to the full conference and sermon first.

The chastisement is just and deserved, and since this email can serve for the general correction of an injustice, I am sure he will not mind me posting it for the common good:





"Sean,

I find it unbelievable that you praise Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon – “his best ever” – which misrepresents so grossly what Bishop Fellay said from the pulpit in KC.

The 41 minute mark, referenced – and misread – by Fr. Pfeiffer, textually reads thus:

“How much time will it (sic) be needed for people in the Church, in authority, to stand up and say ‘By no means!’  If we continue this way, I really hope and pray that with (sic) this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church! ( . . . ) We’ll have a mess!”

Both the text (including the word “but”, which Fr. Pfeiffer conveniently leaves out) and the voice inflections make it clear  in Bishop Fellay’s actual sermon that what he “hopes and prays” for, is that men in the Church will soon stand up and protest – not  (as Fr. Pfeiffer pretends) that they create a schism by turning to the former Pope (which Bishop Fellay clearly states would be a disaster: “We’ll have a mess!”).

Did you actually listen to Bishop Fellay’s sermon? Or are you simply so disposed against him that what you hear is what Fr. Pfeiffer claims was said?"

:scratchchin:
I think both are partly wrong.  I listened to both and while I disagree with Fr. Pfeiffer that Bp. Fellay is calling for an outright division in the Church, I agree that Bp. Fellay apparently longs for the "good old days" of Benedict.  His analogy to the Israelites looking back with affection to the "onions of Egypt" is a fitting description.  To be honest, the thought has occurred to me that Francis might not be the Pope, that it is actually still Benedict.  Of course this is mere speculation.  I have no way of finding out for sure.  I am not a sedevacantist, therefore, I believe Francis is the Pope unless it is proven otherwise.  IMO, Bp. Fellay is now speaking out because Pope Francis is not interested in Tradition and does not dialogue with him and the SSPX.  He has yet to formally retract his willingness to accept a deal with unconverted Rome, and until he does so, I don't trust him.  
IMO, this is not one of Fr. Pfeiffer's best sermons.  Look up "The Sin of Silence" from Danbury, CT on August 25(?) of this year.  

I disagree. Clearly there is to be no deal now. It wouldn't matter if
Bishop Fellay still wanted one or not.  Does it matter why he is speaking out? Thank God he is speaking out! We cannot guess at his motives. From the sound of his sermon, and I did listen to it, it seemed as though he realizes fully that we narrowly escaped disaster.
 
Any deal proposed would require a vote and that is simply not happening. Period.
Pope Francis seems only interested in pleasing liberals. He dislikes traditionals so why would he trouble himself with getting us "back into the fold"?

It is patently obvious that the destruction within the Church will continue and increase exponentially from now until the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. For the Society, disaster has been averted. Now it is time for traditionals, to stand with the Society and stop this nit picking. Thank God also that most of our priests who love and believe in Archbishop Lefebvre's work are still with the Society.

In Bishop Fellay's sermon, he still defends his Doctrinal Declaration as being misunderstood.  He either refuses to repent or he just doesn't get it.  Either way, he cannot be trusted.

Particularly prescient are Fr. Pfeiffer's comments (around minute 30), in which he observes Bishop Fellay creating a division between the ultra-modernist Pope Francis, and the less shocking modernist "Pope" Benedict, expressing his hopes that the conservatives will follow the moderate modernism of Benedict.

Is +Fellay referring to the same Benedict who "utterly deceived" him?

Wow, this is textbook co-dependent behavior.

Zeitun:

Is +Fellay referring to the same Benedict who "utterly deceived" him?

Ah yes, another remark made by H.E. which has virtually disappeared down the memory hole.  I believe he said this in Sydney around Sept. 2012.  But are we clear to this day just exactly what the nature of that alleged deception was?  I think it may have had something to do with assurances he had from Benedict that sspx would be soon readmitted to the Church.  But then his revised Declaration was flat out rejected in June, or at least given back to him with new pencilled in provisions which he knew he couldn't sell.   I think he meant "utterly deceived" in the sense that he stood ready to deliver sspx to Rome on a platter, but that the pope had to go and screw up a pending agreement by adding subsequent demands, which he knew would not fly.

Bishop Fellay 2013:

We have in front of us a genuine modernist.  A modernist who is capable, and who knows his faith, and who is capable of saying it, and maybe even of loving it!, but at the same time saying the contrary.   The contrary!

Bishop Tissier 2008:

Q: What do you think would be Archbishop Lefebvre’s assessment of the crisis as things stand in 2008?

    Tissier de Mallerais: He would denounce not only liberalism — that was the case with Paul VI — but modernism, which is the case of Benedict XVI: a true modernist with the whole theory of up-to-date modernism! It is so serious that I cannot express my horror. I keep silent. So Archbishop Lefebvre would shout: “You heretics, you pervert the Faith!”

Bishop Fellay 2008:

29. Does the announcement of the approaching beatification of John Paul II pose a problem?

Bishop Fellay: A serious problem, the problem of a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along “progressive” lines, toward everything that they call “the spirit of Vatican II”.  This is therefore a public acknowledgment not only of the person of John Paul II but also of the Council and the whole spirit that accompanied it.

2012:

Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope's [Benedict's] efforts to correct "progressive" deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. "Very, very delicately -- he tries not to break things -- but tries also to put in some important corrections," the bishop said.

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"

... "But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it."

+Fellay & General Council, 2012:

In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is losing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II.

Bishop Fellay 2013:

We have in front of us a genuine modernist.  A modernist who is capable, and who knows his faith, and who is capable of saying it, and maybe even of loving it!, but at the same time saying the contrary.   The contrary!

As your friend "conveniently left out" part of +BF's words, I will insert them in blue:

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I received the following email, and it seems the author has a good point.

Please read and reflect:

Slick rhetoric and fluid presentation do not necessarily equate with accuracy and truth, it would seem.

Shame on me for having been taken in by it, and having commented before having followed through on my pledge to listen to the full conference and sermon first.

The chastisement is just and deserved, and since this email can serve for the general correction of an injustice, I am sure he will not mind me posting it for the common good:

"Sean,

I find it unbelievable that you praise Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon – “his best ever” – which misrepresents so grossly what Bishop Fellay said from the pulpit in KC.

The 41 minute mark, referenced – and misread – by Fr. Pfeiffer, textually reads thus:

“40:55  "We have in front of us a genuine modernist.  A modernist who is capable, and who knows his faith, and who is capable of saying it, and maybe even of loving it!, but at the same time saying the contrary.   The contrary!

How much time will it (sic) be needed for people in the Church, in authority, to stand up and say ‘By no means!’  If we continue this way, I really hope and pray that with (sic) this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church! (And we have - as we have 2 popes alive already -  it's not difficult to understand and to think that the people who are just a little bit conservative will turn towards the other one,  towards Benedict.   ) We’ll have a mess!”

"We'll" is a contraction for "we will."  We will have a mess?  Uh, I hate to break it to you, but we've had "a mess" for decades now.  And your beloved Benedict contributed to this mess during his whole career, and in particular by abdicating so a more obvious church-destroyer could take his place.  

Quote

Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope's [Benedict's] efforts to correct "progressive" deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. "Very, very delicately -- he tries not to break things -- but tries also to put in some important corrections," the bishop said.

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"

... "But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it."

Good job, once again, B from A.  

As Fr. Pfeiffer has also flushed out, Bishop Fellay inordinately believes there are "two-Popes" in the Church...; in which, Bishop Fellay still wants to "attach" himself to Cardinal Ratziger as a Pope and call for a "division" and revolution to happen against a validly elected Pope (Frances).

Bishop Fellay, who is it that has a revolutionary and sedevacantist mind and spirit?