Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 46103 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2014, 12:47:09 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

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.

wallflower · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2014, 12:54:05 PM »

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

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2014, 01:04:29 PM »

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2014, 01:14:37 PM »

And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.

There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.

*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.

Mabel · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2014, 01:43:57 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

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.