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?"