Quote from: Mithrandylan

I am very disappointed right now.  The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.

At the risk of offending most of this discussion board:

1) What purpose does the Resistance serve within the overall traditionalist movement?

2) How well does the Resistance serve this purpose?

Quote from: BlackIrish

It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.[/color][/b]

And the Order of Alhambra fits into this how?

Quote from: wallflower

That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?

That outcome, I believe, is inevitable. Give it another five years.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.  

dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?

There is nothing within the quoted material that could lead someone to think that.  You have been trained very well with these canned responses.

That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith.  Are you familiar with Vatican I?

You refer to destroying the dogma of infallibility . . . where has Francis assumed the dogma of ex cathedra to his person or where has anyone thought that of him?

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.  

dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?

There is nothing within the quoted material that could lead someone to think that.  You have been trained very well with these canned responses.

That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith.  Are you familiar with Vatican I?

Your reaction is protestant.  When hearing the term "dogma of infallibility" a Catholic's reaction should not be the one you gave, mischaracterizing the doctrine and making a caricature out of it.

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.  

Father Pfeiffer acknowledged the crisis of the Church. His life has been dedicated to fighting the errors of Modernism.

I don't care.  He's leading the faithful into error.  He's employing novelty himself in his explanations, which is why you nor any of his followers can every quote anyone but Fr. Pfeiffer or some other SSPX "theologian" when trying to make your case.

Quote

Also, Father P. distinguished between the Pope and his Papacy. Are you united to Pope Francis - yes. Are you united to his Papacy - no.[/i]

*sigh*

This is just ridiculous.  Next time you find Fr. P, ask him to show you where he learned this idea of being united to the pope but not the papacy.  Fr. P has divorced the pope from the papacy, so that nothing the pope does has anything to do with the Church or the papacy (including a solemn definition, as was witnessed last Sunday).  

If he's united in any way at all to a heretic, I don't want anything to do with him and neither should you.  He literally has no idea what he's talking about.  If he was united to Frank the Prank he wouldn't have given the sermon in question.  It's utter and complete novelty.

Quote

Father P. also refers to the issue of scandal being allowed in order to test our Faith.

No, he refers to the issue of scandal in being allowed in order to test our resolve in the R&R position.  You are being tested in your resolve in maintaining mutually exclusive propositions.  

Quote

Don't you think that our Lady would have warned us if the Chair of Peter was to be vacant for such a long period of time at Fatima, LaSalette . . .[/b]

In the first place, private revelation is not what guides a discussion like this.  Relevant Catholic principles (nature of the Church and membership, authority, infallibility, etc.) do.  

In the second place, there is hardly any conflict between Fatima or La Salette and an extended interregnum.  In fact, the dire warnings given at those apparitions are perfectly compatible with our present situation.  

Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: BlackIrish

It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.[/color][/b]

And the Order of Alhambra fits into this how?

For starters . . . symbolism!  

Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!