Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 46056 times)

wallflower · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2014, 10:02:20 AM »

Too bad for the bad reviews. I very much enjoyed and agreed with this sermon.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2014, 10:29:50 AM »

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.

wallflower · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2014, 12:10:00 PM »

Of course it affirmed what I already believed but I somehow had to get to what I already believed in the first place. Kind of a superfluous "observation". If a sermon came out affirming what you believe, you'd be in the exact same boat, taking something away from a sermon that affirmed what you believe lol. (And then I could use the exact same "weakness" against you. Especially if I'm looking to believe you're bad-willed, stupid or want to be patronized.). Though that may be a general weakness of women, I don't think it fits here. You're really stretching it.

I hope that hanging out over there you doesn't put you in that habit of turning everything into male/female combats. I understand generalities but I don't know how some people can live with distilling EVERYthing down to that. Even down to how men respond to the Crisis. That's what it's going to come down to for you? The men are being womanish and needy and want to be patronized? That's it?

As an aside, in response to your affirmation theory, don't forget that intuition works in the same way. Intuition hits, a woman *knows* something and she has to work backwards to figure out the reason behind it. When that happens, she is miles ahead of man and has to backtrack to try and get him caught up. (I wouldn't trust this to determine doctrine or where to stand in the Crisis but since you mention it, generally speaking...) There is both a weakness and a strength to the characteristic of being "unreasonable", in the sense of not reasoning things out in the same way as men. (Angels are also "unreasonable" in that sense.)

The same goes for men, there are weaknesses and strengths associated with the way they depend on reason. The whole enlightenment is based on an adoration of reason. Where did that get us? I understand that you are simply calling on people to reason their way through the Crisis and I can't argue that. What I'm arguing is the attitude that those who disagree with you are not using their reasons. You may believe their reasons are wrong or misled but to act as if they simply aren't using them displays its own bit of hubris.

The Resistance was MEANT to be like the SSPX, in that it is modeled after the ways of the original SSPX. You've been following this closely from the beginning, this can't be a new realization to you. Did you have other hopes? That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?

If that's the case, I am not sorry that you are disappointed.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2014, 12:21:20 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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:

BlackIrish · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2014, 12:38:01 PM »

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: