CathInfo.com

You followed, defended, and supported a priest as a good shepherd for two years who turned out to be an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock (according to current Cathinfo thought). I am sure there were numerous red flags which you ignored because you were blinded by your disillusion with the SSPX and were willing to trust those priests who opposed them. So you followed and trusted a man who is surely more of an "idiot" than Hutton Gibson or Gerry Matatics. I do not blame you at all. I am just saying it is dangerous out there and very hard to know who to trust (I do not believe all the crazy things I read but I read and consider things). For all we know the CMRI is the true path and not the resistance.

You're not giving any example.

You can't just speculate and assume there were red flags. Red flags aren't just "always there" by default. That's why they are called RED FLAGS. I'm here to say there weren't any. Fr. Pfeiffer showed no signs of evil or being controlled by an evil one.

"who turned out to be an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock"
remember, it is equally or more likely that "he eventually TURNED INTO an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock"

Isolation and lack of any higher authority has driven a lot more priests than just Fr. Pfeiffer insane over the last 50 years. The problem is, they don't go insane on Day One.

You can't say that just because someone went bad or fell, that he was ALWAYS bad. That's the mistake some people make about Bishop Fellay! They can't believe a current bad guy wasn't always a bad guy from his very conception.

It's that comic book mentality. Good guys and bad guys -- and never the twain shall meet! Your opponent is the devil, but the devil was always evil since Man was created, so...

You must know Father Pfeiffer better than me. Are you suggesting he was normal and holy until 2014 and then fell? I think the presence of Pablo from before then is evidence that there were problems with Pfeiffer from the beginning. But I can't say you are wrong. This is a silly argument anyway so I am sorry for wasting your time though I do like talking to you. You are right about me that examining crazy ideas from different perspectives (including idiotic ideas) is one of my weaknesses. I guess you have paid attention to my posts over the years as I own up to that fault. I have heard about many crazy things (and some of them I believe) and try to understand those who believe those things and not dismiss them as idiots. So the idea that Lefebvre was a part of some conspiracy and not a saint is something I can understand a paranoid isolated traditional Catholic believing (especially if one was a sedevacantist whose orders do not derive from Lefebvre) so while I disagree I do not dismiss it as mere idiocy. It comes from growing up in a liberal household and then rejecting everything I was ever taught to believe by my parents and in schools to become a conservative right wing traditional Catholic who has trouble trusting people. And the apparent fall of the SSPX makes trusting even more difficult.

Aliens are a problem because of original sin and redemption. I think aliens with free will who are not children of Adam causes difficulty because it means there are creatures who were not subject to original sin because they were not children of Adam and who were not redeemed by Christ. So if there were aliens with free will either they did not fall and needed no redeemer and were not redeemed by Christ, or there were other Adams who fell and there were other Christs who redeemed them. So the idea of creatures with free will who were not children of Adam and were not redeemed by Christ causes difficulties.