Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 45150 times)

Bernardus · « **Reply #45 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:29:52 PM »

Black Irish said:

Quote

Dear Pope Mithrandylan:

It seems that even if I were to give the most detailed refutation of the sede position, that you and your obviously numerous cronies would prefer your brand of Protestantism - to be your own Pope. I did not realize that this site was infested with anti-Roman cyber-termites. :shocked:

Black Irish, who is the anti-roman? The ones who defend the dogma of papal infallibility and the Popes from saint Peter to Pius XII, or the ones (like Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson and you) that propagate the lies and false theology of the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the liberals, the anti-infallibilists and the modernists? All those lies were already refuted and condemn in the XIXth Century before and after the (First) Vatican Council.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #46 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:31:54 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

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

:shocked:

By your icon are you indicating that Fatima and LaSalette are merely private revelation and not the affirmed words of our Lady to warn the faithful as a whole?

Mabel · « **Reply #47 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:34:45 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

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?

1. I try to separate the laity from the priests in the Resistance.

As for the priests, the Resistance has been, in my view, their way out of the SSPX. Many priests have left the SSPX over the years for various reasons. I won't evaluate the reasons but this has been one of the more vocal departures, which accounts for why people know more about it.

Judging what I know about most of these situations, this is how many independent chapels develop. When the dust settles, we will probably see most in a permanent location, operating a chapel alone.

As for the laity, some are just following the movement for the time. Others have seen the SSPX at it's best and highest standards, they want a return to those standards. Still some want to preserve the status quo where they are independent of the man they call Pope. Many felt betrayed by Fellay and want the SSPX to return to it's former status and standards. In essence they are resisting the auto-demolition of the SSPX, it isn't coming back. Those who are invested in SSPX are trying to create a replacement or at least contribute to one.

2. The Resistance is trying to preserve the Faith, they love the Church and want to save their souls. The problem is that they can't recreate the SSPX, the other problem is they don't have justification to keep resisting "Rome." They are trying to reconcile contradictory positions, this leads to instability and hurts some of their efforts.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #48 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:36:09 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: BlackIrish
Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!

:shocked:

By your icon are you indicating that Fatima and LaSalette are merely private revelation and not the affirmed words of our Lady to warn the faithful as a whole?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #49 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:45:18 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]

Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...

BlackIrish · « **Reply #50 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:46:03 PM »

Quote from: Bernardus

Black Irish said:

Quote
Dear Pope Mithrandylan:

It seems that even if I were to give the most detailed refutation of the sede position, that you and your obviously numerous cronies would prefer your brand of Protestantism - to be your own Pope. I did not realize that this site was infested with anti-Roman cyber-termites. :shocked:

Black Irish, who is the anti-roman? The ones who defend the dogma of papal infallibility and the Popes from saint Peter to Pius XII, or the ones (like Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson and you) that propagate the lies and false theology of the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the liberals, the anti-infallibilists and the modernists? All those lies were already refuted and condemn in the XIXth Century before and after the (First) Vatican Council.

Proof for all of these accusations?: . . . Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson and you . . . propagate the lies and false theology of the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the liberals, the anti-infallibilists and the modernists

Wow . . . I'm in the same sentence as Father Pheiffer and Bishop Williamson - what an honour! Thank you.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #51 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: BlackIrish
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]

Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...

Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #52 on:** May 05, 2014, 05:56:43 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: BlackIrish
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]

Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...

Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.

In light of some of the other conversations taking place on this thread, that I find of more immediate interest, I will pass on your above invitation. But thank-you anyway for your sincere concern in extending it.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #53 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:01:30 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: BlackIrish
Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: BlackIrish
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]

Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...

Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.

In light of some of the other conversations taking place on this thread, that I find of more immediate interest, I will pass on your above invitation. But thank-you anyway for your sincere concern in extending it.

Shucks, and you're a member of this proto-masonic organization and you're not able to fill such a simple request? Hmmm . . .

Pete Vere · « **Reply #54 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:05:29 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

1. I try to separate the laity from the priests in the Resistance.

Fair enough. I think one could go even further in separating the simple priests of the Resistance from its one bishop.

Quote

Judging what I know about most of these situations, this is how many independent chapels develop. When the dust settles, we will probably see most in a permanent location, operating a chapel alone.

Interesting.

Not to put words in your mouth, but do you foresee more a Mgr Williamson model of "loose association" between local groups than an internationally-organized worldwide apostolate that mimics the early SSPX?

Quote

As for the laity, some are just following the movement for the time. Others have seen the SSPX at it's best and highest standards, they want a return to those standards. Still some want to preserve the status quo where they are independent of the man they call Pope. Many felt betrayed by Fellay and want the SSPX to return to it's former status and standards. In essence they are resisting the auto-demolition of the SSPX, it isn't coming back. Those who are invested in SSPX are trying to create a replacement or at least contribute to one.

2. The Resistance is trying to preserve the Faith, they love the Church and want to save their souls. The problem is that they can't recreate the SSPX, the other problem is they don't have justification to keep resisting "Rome." They are trying to reconcile contradictory positions, this leads to instability and hurts some of their efforts.

So is the Resistance a permanent option, or is it a gateway to sedevacantism? If the former, how does the Resistance in North America compete with a group like the CMRI that is better organized, more stable, and has wider reach?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #55 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:16:43 PM »

Quote from: Lepanto Again

Quote from: Pete Vere
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?

He makes excuses why they don't matter.

Interesting.

Given that Pope St John XXIII summoned the Council, and Pope St John Paul II did more than any other individual to implement the Council, what exactly is the Resistance resisting if these two canonizations do not matter?

Ambrose · « **Reply #56 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:18:08 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: BlackIrish
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]

Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...

Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.

What evidence do you have against this group that they are anything other than a Catholic fraternal group?

From my reading about them, they were formed in 1904 with Church approval and resemble the Knights of Columbus.

I would not want any part of any group affiliated with the Conciliar church, but that is a lot different than calling them (or even insinuating) that they are Masonic. The men in this group have a right to their good names and not to be calumniated.

Mabel · « **Reply #57 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:32:02 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Mabel
1. I try to separate the laity from the priests in the Resistance.

Fair enough. I think one could go even further in separating the simple priests of the Resistance from its one bishop.

Quote
Judging what I know about most of these situations, this is how many independent chapels develop. When the dust settles, we will probably see most in a permanent location, operating a chapel alone.

Interesting.

Not to put words in your mouth, but do you foresee more a Mgr Williamson model of "loose association" between local groups than an internationally-organized worldwide apostolate that mimics the early SSPX?

Quote
As for the laity, some are just following the movement for the time. Others have seen the SSPX at it's best and highest standards, they want a return to those standards. Still some want to preserve the status quo where they are independent of the man they call Pope. Many felt betrayed by Fellay and want the SSPX to return to it's former status and standards. In essence they are resisting the auto-demolition of the SSPX, it isn't coming back. Those who are invested in SSPX are trying to create a replacement or at least contribute to one.

2. The Resistance is trying to preserve the Faith, they love the Church and want to save their souls. The problem is that they can't recreate the SSPX, the other problem is they don't have justification to keep resisting "Rome." They are trying to reconcile contradictory positions, this leads to instability and hurts some of their efforts.

So is the Resistance a permanent option, or is it a gateway to sedevacantism? If the former, how does the Resistance in North America compete with a group like the CMRI that is better organized, more stable, and has wider reach?

The Resistance priests who maintain a good relationship with Bp. Williamson will likely use him to confirm, much like other independents do with the various traditional bishops. I do not know how closely they will work together in the future or if regular ordinations will be a part of that. They still have growing pains and I think that as they develop their theological positions (or the more the talk) there is potential for division, scandal, and alienation of themselves and laity. I can already see that it is not going to work out for them to cover for one another in all cases due to the intricacies of those developing theological positions.

In short, I don't think anything grandiose is on the horizon. In fact, I think the opposite will happen.

Resistance a gateway to sedevacantism? Not directly. That is mostly dependent on what comes out of Rome, as far as the fence sitters. The former Society priests, that I know, who have embraced sedevacantism, did so over the course of many years and it was a gradual realization. Most priests who have left the Society go in the opposite direction.

Nobody wins when it turns into a competition. There is no need for CMRI and the Resistance to compete or to be enemies. The open hostilities do no good. Signing statements against other Catholics is a serious symptom of a problem as are inflammatory sermons. I do worry that the Resistance position will cause others not to mass or confession just because it is "sedevacantist." They don't have to hold joint chapel barbecues, but they can peacefully exist in the same area.

Personally, I think an amicable relationship is the best course between all Catholics and groups.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #58 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:39:18 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Resistance a gateway to sedevacantism? Not directly. That is mostly dependent on what comes out of Rome, as far as the fence sitters. The former Society priests, that I know, who have embraced sedevacantism, did so over the course of many years and it was a gradual realization. Most priests who have left the Society go in the opposite direction.

Granted, many who leave the SSPX and the Resistance will find their way back to diocesan-sponsored TLM communities. But among those who remain committed to resistance - and here I am thinking more in terms of laity than of priests - is the Resistance a gateway to sedevacantist chapels?

I am thinking primarily in terms of availability, stability and convenience.

Emitte Lucem Tuam · « **Reply #59 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:52:04 PM »

Fr. Pfeiffer is a good man and a kind hearted priest but I don't think he really appreciates the magnitude of the crisis. He is blind and I believe instinctually refuses to see the crisis for what it is. There is a BIG difference between a Pope who is mistaken, misguided, wrong, etc. and a HERETICAL man claiming or being elected to the Papacy.
Big difference! There are sincerely WRONG and MISGUIDED people in the world from the average layman all the way up to the Popes of history. You CAN be wrong and NOT be heretical. You cannot be HERETICAL and not be wrong. The R&R position is a novelty and is in no way a Catholic response to the Crisis in the Church. The response of the Church to a heretical man assuming (claiming, stealing, etc.) the Papacy is well docuмented by the theologians and Doctors of Holy Church. There is NO such teaching of "R&R" in the Church teaching, doctrine, or tradition when it comes to the Papacy. "R&R" has no theological or rational position within the Church. Sedevacantism does.