Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 40082 times)

johnb104 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 05, 2014, 07:01:25 PM »

I like Fr. Pfeiffer's Catechism audios on the St. Isadore website...I don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation but I thought I'd mention it :dancing-banana:

Mabel · « **Reply #61 on:** May 05, 2014, 07:04:07 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

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.

That depends on a few things. There are little tiffs within the Resistance that might make certain sedevacantist chapels appealing, I don't know if they will fizzle out or ever become a major factor--I'm thinking mostly of the Holy Week issue here.

The biggest factor would probably be the individual, does he care about the truth of the matter, or does he want to tow the party line? Has he been exposed to anti-sedevacantism and does he believe those arguments without question? What does he believe the status of sedevacantists to be, are they Catholic or not? Is he willing to change based on new evidence, in the form of Bergoglio's actions or Catholic sources?

I don't think I've been anywhere yet since the Resistance began that has reported an influx of SSPX refugees. If they aren't going to the SSPX and are waiting for that annual mass, while CMRI or other options are available, they are probably staying home.

I find this so ironic because most sedevacantists who deal with irregular mass availability have no problem with SSPX or even Resistance masses. You do not see this the other way around, old habits die hard. Though, as a sedevacantist, I would be concerned now of being denied Holy Communion at Fr.Pfieffer's masses in the future. That, and his outstanding sermons (I definitely wouldn't want my children to hear some of the content) would keep me away.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #62 on:** May 05, 2014, 07:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam

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.

Interesting comment in light of the most recent posts in the online debate between John Lane and RJS:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606&sid=524be5f6b166bb6a6a88fd4d5bf0fc2e&start=60

hugeman · « **Reply #63 on:** May 05, 2014, 07:48:33 PM »

Quote from: Mabel
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. [/quote

Careful, Mabel-- someone's liable to tag you a eccuмentalist! :furtive: :)

Mabel · « **Reply #64 on:** May 05, 2014, 08:00:30 PM »

Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Mabel
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. [/quote

Careful, Mabel-- someone's liable to tag you a eccuмentalist! :furtive: :)

If they do, it says more about them than me. :cool:

If we are to persevere in this crisis we must be careful to maintain unity with our fellow Catholics. I'd would rather be called a made-up word that appears in nowhere in Catholic theology than a schismatic! Yikes!

:heretic:

:cheers:

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #65 on:** May 05, 2014, 08:58:49 PM »

There was a thread not too long ago about Black Irish being a troll.

I didn't pay much attention to the thread, but it seems evident that she is, and a truly tremendous one.

Unfortunately, if this thread had any promise, she killed it with her obnoxious and brainwashed pre-programmed responses.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #66 on:** May 06, 2014, 08:31:28 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

There was a thread not too long ago about Black Irish being a troll.

I didn't pay much attention to the thread, but it seems evident that she is, and a truly tremendous one.

Unfortunately, if this thread had any promise, she killed it with her obnoxious and brainwashed pre-programmed responses.

Interesting, oh most Pope-ish Mithrandylan . . . different strokes for different folks. Better to be a troll than a sad sede.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #67 on:** May 06, 2014, 09:02:51 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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.

Give me a second Tyler Ambrose, I have to put my black, pointy hat aside . . .

Well, perhaps, it's just a bit too close for comfort:

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/cath.html

http://www.alhambralodge.com/category/lodge-gallery/

Cyber huggs & kisses,

The Troll

hugeman · « **Reply #68 on:** May 06, 2014, 11:15:56 AM »

I didn't have the patience nor the time to keep going through these posts, so I finally listened to the sermon of Father Pfeiffer 's featured in the original post.

I don't have time right now to go through all the errors and problems with this "excellent sermon on SedeVantism." Suffice if to say right now, however, it is far from excellent. If the worldwide resistance movement against the sspx' slide into modernism is based on the theological thinking in this sermon, they are wasting their time. Fellay, Pflugger, Rostand could have written this stuff (well, okay, Rostand could not have even thought it, let alone write it).

The most glaring error is equating Our Lord Jesus Christ as a jew like Caiphas and Judas. Our Lord Jesus Christ was an Israelite, born of the House of David, as the scriptures said He would be. He had no relationship to the Babylonian jews who returned intermixed with the tribes of Israelites from the captivity. These leeches have been forever sucking off of the Israelites. Christ our God said to their very face "you don't hear me because you are not of My Father--if you were of My Father, you would here my
words," Christ explained that He had been sent to redeem the lost "sheep of the House of Israel"--not the jews.

The Jєωιѕн people today have no connection to the House of Israel, or to the Israelites-- this is a myth bandied about to con the Israelites into selling away their birthright. The consequences of this faulty thinking is that "jews are our elder brothers" ( Ratzinger, Brogoglio, Fellay and Pfeiffer), and, "they are justified in awaiting the Messiah" (Ratzinger, Brogoglio, Fellay?, Pfeiffer?).

Only after one buys this falsehood can one then accept the notion that Almighty God selected a communist, atheidtic, socialistic, heretic as the Vicar of Jesus Christ-- to lead the sheep of the Catholic Church. Why, praytell, wouldn't He have just put the wolves in charge in the desert, and just annihiliatef the whole lot of His people right there--right then-- instead of preserving them for the Promised Land?

Ambrose · « **Reply #69 on:** May 06, 2014, 12:18:49 PM »

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Ambrose
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.

Give me a second Tyler Ambrose, I have to put my black, pointy hat aside . . .

Well, perhaps, it's just a bit too close for comfort:

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/cath.html

http://www.alhambralodge.com/category/lodge-gallery/

Cyber huggs & kisses,

The Troll

I read your links, the first proves nothing, the second has nothing to do with the topic.

You should be careful, to allege that this group is Masonic is to harm the reputations of all members since it was founded in 1904. It doesn't seem that you have done any serious research into this and are relying on rash judgment.

curioustrad · « **Reply #70 on:** May 06, 2014, 12:22:25 PM »

As one who has been (in the past) not hesitant in advancing my thoughts on Father Pfeiffer's qualifications for a pointed hat (just look through my posts) I must say that this time I did find his sermon to be EXACTLY what the Archbishop would have said and EXACTLY what the church teaches on the questions he raised.

I am not, however, surprised that the bitterness of the attacks the talk and this thread has engendered are not the direct consequence of the complete collapse in other areas of ecclesiology.

First, the combative tones used here demonstrate the reality of the dictum of what happens when the "shepherd is struck"... armchair theology holds sway.

Second, Francis' confusing activities have driven more sensitive types directly into the arms of the sedevacantists with their (on the face of it) plausible theological arguments but upon careful comparison with ALL the magisterial teachings clearly problematic opinions.

Mr Arent (above) for example is a classic case of one who in the first fervor of the resistance fled to the sede refuge of Bishop Sanborn and now quite readily parrots lines from Vatican I that seem to "prove" ole' Frankie ain't what they think he is.

However, the same Council infallibly teaches a perpetual succession in the primacy until the end of time. Frankie isn't the only fly in the ointment if that teaching is to be held of faith (which it is) so where does that leave the Church since 1958 ? Bp. Sanborn officially (now) holds there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, though for the first year of his priesthood he mentioned Paul VI in the Canon of the Mass.

Clearly inquiring minds are just that INQUIRING and if sedes think they can magisterially bamboozle us into holding opinions upon which they have themselves changed (and continue to change) they are quite mistaken.

Bp. Williamson is quite correct to repeatedly say :"we live in confusing times" which means we are all confused because of these events but the Lord God is quite in control of the matter so why worry ?

crossbro · « **Reply #71 on:** May 06, 2014, 12:23:01 PM »

I have never seen him before, I surprised by the obesity.

Carry on.

Cantarella · « **Reply #72 on:** May 06, 2014, 12:31:11 PM »

St. Paul cautioned Timothy to stay clear of those who make pretense of religion but mitigate his power, and who are "always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3: 5-7).

He also predicted "the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables".

God has not failed in His promise to be with His Church. Modernism is not the first battle the Church has defeated not will be the last one. There is a purpose to heresies. They must exist until the end of time as a testing factor, as st..Paul states.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #73 on:** May 06, 2014, 01:22:27 PM »

Quote from: eddiearent

So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

:applause: :applause:

Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #74 on:** May 06, 2014, 01:24:58 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: eddiearent
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

:applause: :applause:

Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

Sounds similar to the real reason the FSSP was created.