Author Topic: Matthew: Please explain like Im 5 (Read 11992 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #30 on:** November 17, 2014, 12:01:35 PM »

Quote from: Nado

1. Personally, from all I have read (but surely not reading all) I think the opposition to Pablo and Fr. Pfieffer is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy.

2. There were 25 people with their information made public on a web site. It seems that ill-intention was presumed, but we should not presume that.

3. I can see if the information was actually secret, confidential or explicitly promised to not be made widely known, then it could be more serious. In moral theology, if there was no promise, but an understanding, it could be called a "natural secret", but this still doesn't fit, because the information was already semi-public to lots of people. As well, anyone desiring that information could, with a little focus, learn it through multiple channels. It may have been unexpected, surprising and/or embarrassing, but when someone does something we consider imprudent, we shouldn't be making enemies out of them. In Scripture, St. Paul broke off working with Barnabas without becoming an enemy.

4. As well, in Scripture the Apostles complained to Our Lord that there were some other people not accompanying them that were casting out devils in Christ's name. Our Lord corrected them about that. Yes, today Pablo is doing something uncanonical, but all traditionalists are doing uncanonical things in the extrordinary circuмstances.

5. Can't we disagree with out becoming so intolerant that we create an enemy?

1. No, it is not. It is factual, calm, and rational. How can you say it's emotional when it's clearly not? You can't just say something and have it be so.

2. Yes, ill intention can be presumed when the person's words surrounding the action SCREAM malice and ill-intent. When a person says, "This will show you all!" or something equivalent -- yes, he did that out of spite. We don't have to be foolish or naive to be Catholics. And Pablo very much did this. He said words evincing an INTENSE hatred.

3. The list was clearly marked "all information private -
please do not pass this information on or put it on the internet"
Don't try to claim it wasn't private when it was clearly marked private! Moving on...

4. This has nothing to do with supplied jurisdiction, the Crisis in the Church, or the salvation of souls. It has more to do with Mexican superstition and an unholy fixation on the devil. And Pablo's hobby exorcism business is NOT his only major, public fault. Anyone who writes public letters like he has (See "Pablo explodes - Matthew publicly admonishes him" thread) does not belong in the position of "Chief of the Resistance".

So you're giving Pablo the benefit of the doubt. How about his verbal abuse of Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer? I'm sure he was justified for that as well?

5. Even St. Paul said, "Insofar as it lies within you, be at peace with all men." For St. Paul knew that even Our Lord had enemies, and that having enemies was not always one's own fault.

OHCA · « **Reply #31 on:** November 17, 2014, 12:16:04 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Not only does he claim that he does not have a website, he states at 23:49 that "we do not have means of communication".....means of communication are NOT websites. Means of communication are telephones, e-mail (computers), walkie talkies, etc. I do not believe that he does not have a single means of communication. It is difficult to believe that this is an intelligent statement.

Maybe intelligent?

Maybe deceitful?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #32 on:** November 17, 2014, 12:47:35 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Centroamerica
Not only does he claim that he does not have a website, he states at 23:49 that "we do not have means of communication".....means of communication are NOT websites. Means of communication are telephones, e-mail (computers), walkie talkies, etc. I do not believe that he does not have a single means of communication. It is difficult to believe that this is an intelligent statement.

Maybe intelligent?

Maybe deceitful?

Maybe he was referring to newspapers, magazines, official publications, that would be media also means of communication, but it sounds tricky. I'll give him the benefit of a doubt I suppose.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #33 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:07:32 PM »

this is probably not the time to weigh in for the first time on a hot topic, but i have been around the SSPX @ 20+ years and knew that many priests were not going to leave and join Kentucky, and if Matthew was a seminarian he probably can guess why and the reason is starting to blow up now. I know and love all the priests involved and many Traditional Priests have strong personalities (i mean they had to grow up amidst the destruction and keep their vocation). strong personalities clash and they need to be lead by someone dispassionate. (hopefully the problem will be addressed before larger damage is done)

OHCA · « **Reply #34 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:11:13 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Nado

1. Personally, from all I have read (but surely not reading all) I think the opposition to Pablo and Fr. Pfieffer is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy.

2. There were 25 people with their information made public on a web site. It seems that ill-intention was presumed, but we should not presume that.

3. I can see if the information was actually secret, confidential or explicitly promised to not be made widely known, then it could be more serious. In moral theology, if there was no promise, but an understanding, it could be called a "natural secret", but this still doesn't fit, because the information was already semi-public to lots of people. As well, anyone desiring that information could, with a little focus, learn it through multiple channels. It may have been unexpected, surprising and/or embarrassing, but when someone does something we consider imprudent, we shouldn't be making enemies out of them. In Scripture, St. Paul broke off working with Barnabas without becoming an enemy.

4. As well, in Scripture the Apostles complained to Our Lord that there were some other people not accompanying them that were casting out devils in Christ's name. Our Lord corrected them about that. Yes, today Pablo is doing something uncanonical, but all traditionalists are doing uncanonical things in the extrordinary circuмstances.

5. Can't we disagree with out becoming so intolerant that we create an enemy?

1. No, it is not. It is factual, calm, and rational. How can you say it's emotional when it's clearly not? You can't just say something and have it be so.

2. Yes, ill intention can be presumed when the person's words surrounding the action SCREAM malice and ill-intent. When a person says, "This will show you all!" or something equivalent -- yes, he did that out of spite. We don't have to be foolish or naive to be Catholics. And Pablo very much did this. He said words evincing an INTENSE hatred.

3. The list was clearly marked "all information private -
please do not pass this information on or put it on the internet"
Don't try to claim it wasn't private when it was clearly marked private! Moving on...

4. This has nothing to do with supplied jurisdiction, the Crisis in the Church, or the salvation of souls. It has more to do with Mexican superstition and an unholy fixation on the devil. And Pablo's hobby exorcism business is NOT his only major, public fault. Anyone who writes public letters like he has (See "Pablo explodes - Matthew publicly admonishes him" thread) does not belong in the position of "Chief of the Resistance".

So you're giving Pablo the benefit of the doubt. How about his verbal abuse of Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer? I'm sure he was justified for that as well?

5. Even St. Paul said, "Insofar as it lies within you, be at peace with all men." For St. Paul knew that even Our Lord had enemies, and that having enemies was not always one's own fault.

Wow! This got down-thumbed huh...

Pablo is either crazier than hell and possibly dangerous OR he gets a very abnormal kick out of going out of his way to make people think that he is. I believe that it's the former as he seems to have virtually no self-control and is always grandiosing and dramatizing things.

If he is one-fourth as obnoxious in person as he is online, then I would hardly be able to tolerate him beyond 5 minutes. Based on several personal accounts, I gather that he's at least as obnoxious, if not worse, in person.

Matthew, I'm sorry that I even had momentary pause at your decision how to handle this nonsense. Any post that starts out "I think the opposition to Pablo . . . is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy," reflects poor judgment and the shallowest of insight.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:15:31 PM »

In my experiences with various Traditional Catholics of all flavors, it's ALWAYS after someone has started to decide who is and who is not Catholic based on various narrow criteria that THEY START TO SHOW BITTER ZEAL AND GO UNSTABLE IN MANY WAYS. Fraternal charity seems to leave them. And that only seems natural, for when people begin, based on their own private judgment, to determine who's Catholic and who isn't, that's the beginning of schism, which is at its core a sin against charity. It's obvious that Lutherans, for instance, are not Catholics. But when SVs call SSPX non-Catholic or vice versa, or people call Feeneyites non-Catholic, or certain Feeneyites call those who accept BoD non-Catholic, it rots away the core fraternal charity and also demonstrate the hubris of exalting our own judgments about various THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS that aren't at the core of Catholic dogma.

Here's my rule of thumb. If you SAY THAT YOU ARE A CATHOLIC, i.e. profess Catholicism, and profess that you believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches with its supreme authority, and ... here's the key point ... if the CHURCH DOES NOT TELL ME OTHERWISE, i.e., THAT YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC DESPITE YOUR PROFESSION, then as far as I am concerned you ARE A CATHOLIC and I have absolutely ZERO business stating otherwise. I am not your keeper, and God is going to judge me based on whether I remained a Catholic (and other criteria) and not whether I made the correct judgment about which other people who consider themselves Catholic really aren't.

So I feel that the close and closer Father Pfeiffer gets to a schismatic home-alone red-lightism, the more he'll start to crack.

OHCA · « **Reply #36 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:18:08 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

... i have been around the SSPX @ 20+ years and knew that many priests were not going to leave and join Kentucky, and if Matthew was a seminarian he probably can guess why and the reason is starting to blow up now.

More riddles and inside talk...

As secretive as a freemason lodge...

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #37 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:19:34 PM »

Are there any actual first-hand accounts of Pablo screaming at Fr Pfieffer's mom (or parents) and him being asked to leave the property? After meeting Fr P in person, I find it hard to believe he didn't knock Pablo down at that moment. ( A loving and holy correction of error, ala P.Pio)

confederate catholic · « **Reply #38 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:24:21 PM »

Quote

More riddles and inside talk...

As secretive as a freemason lodge...

:smoke-pot:

no nothing like that it is just that when you live with priests, seminarians, monks etc. you know sometimes all too well the human side of people.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #39 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:35:20 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

this is probably not the time to weigh in for the first time on a hot topic, but i have been around the SSPX @ 20+ years and knew that many priests were not going to leave and join Kentucky, and if Matthew was a seminarian he probably can guess why and the reason is starting to blow up now. I know and love all the priests involved and many Traditional Priests have strong personalities (i mean they had to grow up amidst the destruction and keep their vocation). strong personalities clash and they need to be lead by someone dispassionate. (hopefully the problem will be addressed before larger damage is done)

Is this your polite way of saying that the SSPX attracts "eccentrics", (wild-eyed and otherwise) and the SSPXMC needs to put somebody less so in charge?

confederate catholic · « **Reply #40 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:47:09 PM »

no i was guessing that had that been the case from the beginning, more priests would have joined the resistance

Pilar · « **Reply #41 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:51:12 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Personally, from all I have read (but surely not reading all) I think the opposition to Pablo and Fr. Pfieffer is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy.

There were 25 people with their information made public on a web site. It seems that ill-intention was presumed, but we should not presume that.

I can see if the information was actually secret, confidential or explicitly promised to not be made widely known, then it could be more serious. In moral theology, if there was no promise, but an understanding, it could be called a "natural secret", but this still doesn't fit, because the information was already semi-public to lots of people. As well, anyone desiring that information could, with a little focus, learn it through multiple channels. It may have been unexpected, surprising and/or embarrassing, but when someone does something we consider imprudent, we shouldn't be making enemies out of them. In Scripture, St. Paul broke off working with Barnabas without becoming an enemy.

As well, in Scripture the Apostles complained to Our Lord that there were some other people not accompanying them that were casting out devils in Christ's name. Our Lord corrected them about that. Yes, today Pablo is doing something uncanonical, but all traditionalists are doing uncanonical things in the extrordinary circuмstances.

Can't we disagree with out becoming so intolerant that we create an enemy?

I can't imagine how you could have read all the available information on this subject and come to this conclusion. :scratchchin:

There is a good reason that Saints Paul and Barnabas were not enemies. They were both Catholic saints working for the good of souls and the Church. No one that I know of has made that claim for anyone involved in this mess. And there are no extraordinary circuмstances that would allow a layman to attempt to perform exorcism.

BostonFog · « **Reply #42 on:** November 17, 2014, 02:30:09 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Are there any actual first-hand accounts of Pablo screaming at Fr Pfieffer's mom (or parents) and him being asked to leave the property? After meeting Fr P in person, I find it hard to believe he didn't knock Pablo down at that moment. ( A loving and holy correction of error, ala P.Pio)

I was present for that. It did happen. I don't believe he was asked to leave at that moment; it came later on, like six weeks later when Pablo directly disobeyed Fr.

Marlelar · « **Reply #43 on:** November 17, 2014, 03:05:15 PM »

Quote from: BostonFog

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Are there any actual first-hand accounts of Pablo screaming at Fr Pfieffer's mom (or parents) and him being asked to leave the property? After meeting Fr P in person, I find it hard to believe he didn't knock Pablo down at that moment. ( A loving and holy correction of error, ala P.Pio)

I was present for that. It did happen. I don't believe he was asked to leave at that moment; it came later on, like six weeks later when Pablo directly disobeyed Fr.

If Father asked Pablo to leave why all the ruckus? Is Pablo still there sowing his weeds?

Marsha

Centroamerica · « **Reply #44 on:** November 17, 2014, 04:00:26 PM »

Quote from: Nado

I can agree that he should lose his position, but this still doesn't make him a traitor.

???