Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 48086 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2014, 02:34:10 PM »

Black Irish,

I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.

The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.

wallflower · « **Reply #21 on:** May 05, 2014, 02:35:35 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: wallflower

Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?

I mean the SSPX no longer under the influence of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was justified in his resistance because of his doubts about these men's papacies.

One who is certain that X is the pope, if guided by the Catholic rule of faith, cannot allow for X to teach all manner of error and use his papal infallibility to declare a falsehood or something harmful to the faith. This is a radical departure from the traditional understanding of teaching and authority.

Personally, I do not think that any traditionalist has moral certainty about these papacies. But when they claim and act as if they do, it is hard to not rebuke them. If they really are certain, they are certainly schismatic. I don't like to think they're schismatic, so I say in most cases, their hubris aside, they doubt these papacies.

That's where we disagree. I do not believe that they are using papal infallibility to teach error. I find it telling that they purposely DON'T use papal infallibility and it's a wonder of the protection of the Holy Ghost. But you've heard the arguments before...I know the intent isn't to get into them again.

The thing about doubt is that it's fine to have in theory but you have to act on something concrete. Will you pray for the Pope or not? This is a big question. And there are only two possibilities. Yes or no. ABL may have had doubts but in action he still leaned towards them being Popes. It's no surprise that the SSPX continues that example. People who choose the SSPX or the Resistance do so because they choose to lean that way as well.

I don't think it is just at all to say that such people (as Fr Pfeiffer) are telling people to follow ME. I've seen enough rounds between R&R and sedes to know, as you do, that both sides have a lot of points and evidence on their side. This issue is not clear and each side can pull out Church teachings, theologians, saints, Popes and general examples to bolster their side. You may disagree with the conclusions of R&R but it is rather false and perhaps malicious to claim they stand solely on their own words and do not refer to a higher authority to guide them.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** May 05, 2014, 02:40:45 PM »

Wallflower,

Have you read the canonization formula?

"In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [name] to be a saint [or "to be blessed"], and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Please explain how that is NOT an exercise of papal infallibility.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #23 on:** May 05, 2014, 02:45:41 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Black Irish,

I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.

The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.

vice/weakness - they are all the same thing! You jumped from one point to the next within your original post, but the logic did not follow. Is that a sede vice?

Is the Resistance movement akin to the feminine in your reasoning and thereby in need of constant affirmation? From where does this affirmation come en masse?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #24 on:** May 05, 2014, 02:47:21 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Black Irish,

I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.

The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.

vice/weakness - they are all the same thing! You jumped from one point to the next within your original post, but the logic did not follow. Is that a sede vice?

Is the Resistance movement akin to the feminine in your reasoning and thereby in need of constant affirmation? From where does this affirmation come en masse?

I have nothing more to say to you on this issue. If something is unclear, it's because you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote what I wrote and I mean it, and only it.