-

Just out of curiosity, where does Fr Pfeiffer stand with regards to the validity of the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II? Does Fr Pfeiffer recognize their validity?

Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?

out·stand·ing


/ˌoutˈstandiNG,ˈout-/


adjective

adjective: outstanding


1.exceptionally good.
"the team's outstanding performance"

synonyms: excellent, marvelous, magnificent, superb, fine, wonderful, superlative, exceptional, first-class, first-rate;  

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I notice that it's only the women who took anything away from this.

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Now, I don't know what the situation on Quebec is besides what Graham has relayed, but there are plenty of men guilty of this too. Mired in the SSPX for however many years, they have an emotional (and probably financial, too) investment in this position. They just want to hear it affirmed. That is all they're looking for.  I mentioned women because this is a characteristic which one could reasonably expect from the average woman; for men to involve themselves in these antics is much more abhorrent.

Men are leaders and as such need to make sound judgements, when those judgements relate to the Catholic faith they must be informed by the Catholic faith as taught by those who were sent to teach it (the saints, popes, theologians, etc.) and reason.

Just look at the arguments against the canonizations: faithful accepting the word of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfeiffer over St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Benedict XIV, the list goes on.  This is not good.  Besides the immediate problem of denying the common (at least common if not certain) opinion of the theologians on canonizations, there is the much deeper set and more egregious error viz. the way the Church teaches about her own infallability and authority, and her very essence.

If a true Catholic pope isn't infallible when he says: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own... we declare and define [such and such] .... established for the whole Church" then there is simply no such thing as infallibility.  I know, I know, "the process" has been altered so the definition is meaningless.  WRONG.  The definition is literally all that matters.  The pope, though he would sin against prudence in doing so, could wake up and declare something on his breakfast napkin and it would be infallible given the proper requisites, requisites which do not include a specific "process."  The Holy Ghost guides the Church in it's ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, not human diligence.

Suddenly, according to this novel theology, the Holy Ghost guides each individual Church member in discerning what is infallible, rather than guiding the Church to infallibly teach each individual Church member.  What a wicked inversion of the natural and supernatural order.  This is going to cause a lot of problems.  There is literally NO reason why a R&R Catholic could not, under this insidious way of believing, deny that a given solemn definition (forget about the ordinary magisterium which is habitually thrown in the dustbin by this group of Catholics) is infallible.

I am very disappointed right now.  The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.  It does not differ substantially at all from the NSSPX from which it fled and demanded the faithful to free from.  It is marginally better in the practical order because it claims to want no business with heretics.  That is all.  So long as it clings to this despicable preversion of Church teaching on infallibility and authority, it can hardly puff it's chest out the way it is wont to do as a guardian of the traditional faith.  It butchers the traditional faith and undermines it's own mission.  What authority does Fr. Pfeiffer have, why should I listen to HIM if I can't trust the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas or any of the others?  What a joke, what hubris.  If I can't trust the Church to teach me the faith, I can't trust anyone to.  Certainly not Fr. Pfeiffer.

I made this comment in the thread on Archbishop Lefebvre forums about this sermon...

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I notice that it's only the women who took anything away from this.

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Now, I don't know what the situation on Quebec is besides what Graham has relayed, but there are plenty of men guilty of this too. Mired in the SSPX for however many years, they have an emotional (and probably financial, too) investment in this position. They just want to hear it affirmed. That is all they're looking for.  I mentioned women because this is a characteristic which one could reasonably expect from the average woman; for men to involve themselves in these antics is much more abhorrent.

Men are leaders and as such need to make sound judgements, when those judgements relate to the Catholic faith they must be informed by the Catholic faith as taught by those who were sent to teach it (the saints, popes, theologians, etc.) and reason.

Just look at the arguments against the canonizations: faithful accepting the word of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfeiffer over St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Benedict XIV, the list goes on.  This is not good.  Besides the immediate problem of denying the common (at least common if not certain) opinion of the theologians on canonizations, there is the much deeper set and more egregious error viz. the way the Church teaches about her own infallability and authority, and her very essence.

If a true Catholic pope isn't infallible when he says: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own... we declare and define [such and such] .... established for the whole Church" then there is simply no such thing as infallibility.  I know, I know, "the process" has been altered so the definition is meaningless.  WRONG.  The definition is literally all that matters.  The pope, though he would sin against prudence in doing so, could wake up and declare something on his breakfast napkin and it would be infallible given the proper requisites, requisites which do not include a specific "process."  The Holy Ghost guides the Church in it's ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, not human diligence.

Suddenly, according to this novel theology, the Holy Ghost guides each individual Church member in discerning what is infallible, rather than guiding the Church to infallibly teach each individual Church member.  What a wicked inversion of the natural and supernatural order.  This is going to cause a lot of problems.  There is literally NO reason why a R&R Catholic could not, under this insidious way of believing, deny that a given solemn definition (forget about the ordinary magisterium which is habitually thrown in the dustbin by this group of Catholics) is infallible.

I am very disappointed right now.  The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.  It does not differ substantially at all from the NSSPX from which it fled and demanded the faithful to free from.  It is marginally better in the practical order because it claims to want no business with heretics.  That is all.  So long as it clings to this despicable preversion of Church teaching on infallibility and authority, it can hardly puff it's chest out the way it is wont to do as a guardian of the traditional faith.  It butchers the traditional faith and undermines it's own mission.  What authority does Fr. Pfeiffer have, why should I listen to HIM if I can't trust the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas or any of the others?  What a joke, what hubris.  If I can't trust the Church to teach me the faith, I can't trust anyone to.  Certainly not Fr. Pfeiffer.

Excellent Post!  :applause:

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

Ugh - cheque, please!

 :judge:  

I'm not making an argument, but an observation.  Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there.  So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.

Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact.  A matter of fact is either true or false.  Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.  

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.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

Ugh - cheque, please!

 :judge:  

This supports your point nicely, Mithrandylan.