Author Topic: Important Bishop Williamson endorsement - 1 minute video! (Read 7019 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM »

This video is significant, because there is more than one argument why we should trust a given priest:

1. A priest joins a group, or makes a statement about his views. (You choose to trust him)
2. A priest "walks the walk" for years or even decades, letting his reputation do the talking (You choose to trust the evidence of decades of faithful service)
3. A priest gets an endorsement from a Bishop the caliber of Bishop Williamson (You choose to trust a faithful bishop)

Personally, I think (2) is the most compelling argument for trust, followed by (3). (1) is too easy -- talk is cheap. Any infiltrator could gain access this way.

Ironically, in "certain quarters" the 1st method is considered the ONLY way to determine a priest is trustworthy.

I say: rubbish.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2015, 07:36:31 PM »

Well, it's time for Fr. Pfeiffer to make a choice.

There are only 3 choices.

A) Apologize to Fr. Zendejas, or at least stop persecuting his apostolate. He needs to tell his followers that Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia are Resistance priests in good standing, and their Masses as just as good as the ones he/Fr. Hewko/Fr. Voigt can fly in and offer. He should cancel the standing "boycott" or red-light on these two priests, whose steadfastness in the Faith has now been personally vouched for in no uncertain terms by +W.

Some light criticism or disagreement is a different story. Priests will often disagree on different matters of prudence, priorities, etc. But advising the faithful to boycott other priests' Masses? That crosses the line.

B) Stop the public deception and come clean to the Traditional Catholic world that he is AT WAR with Bishop W, and that he works in full opposition to the good bishop. Actually, Fr. Pfeiffer must vocally denounce +W as dangerous to the Faith, since the latter publicly endorses 2 priests "dangerous in doctrine". At least then the Faithful could make a clear, well-informed choice about who they will choose to follow and support.

C) Continue to operate in this grey area, persecuting the two priests (perhaps +W as well?) when no one is looking, but giving the general impression to the world that he is "buddy buddy" with the good Bishop -- after all, no one has more Resistance "street cred" than +W. Or more actual power -- who else can consecrate bishops or ordain priests for Resistance seminaries?

I literally pray to God that he doesn't choose C. But if, God forbid, he does -- I will not be silent.

P.S. Fr. Pfeiffer is the head of his Boston, KY operation. He gets to choose his organization's "official" position. But I call on all the priests that work with him to do the right thing. Don't oppose the original faithful Bishop of the Resistance! (What? Bishop Faure you say? Well, who consecrated him? Again, we come back to +W being the faithful bishop of the Resistance)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2015, 09:09:31 PM »

I agree Matthew and I know Fr. Garcia to be an excellent priest suffering a bit of slander from that sector. I hope that the Kentucky operations will go well, but only they have a right to request a clarity of position. Thier attitude is harmful to the growth of any real resistance. Their camp is plagued with the worst sort of arrogance (not necessarily from the priests).

JPaul · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2015, 09:34:23 PM »

From the little that I know, these two priests are doing, and not talking. Independent priests who have initiative and are responsible to their calling, should be presumed to have integrity, unless that were to be clearly proven, not to be the case.
Matthew is a bright young man, and if he says they are good, then, that is good enough for me, anyway.

Precisely, who is doing what to these priests?