Let's talk about a hypothetical.

Say Fr. Pfeiffer became sedevacantist (or, some might say, "embraced his inner sedevacantism"). And being a man of action, he embraced Conclavism. He called for another one of his priest meetings, inviting all the priests that will still talk to him, and gets ? of them to meet in Boston, KY or elsewhere to elect a Pope. (The exact number isn't important, so I will pass on that point)

Obviously, himself being the de-facto leader and alpha male, most (or all) of the priests vote for Fr. Pfeiffer, who takes the name Pope Joseph I.

What would he do in the coming weeks?

1. He would wear a white cassock.
2. He would also wear a white skullcap (or Papal crown, if he could get one).
3. He would be isolated from other Catholic communities, treating his group as if they were the whole Church.
4. Building on #3, he would insist that his followers red-light other "Trad" groups, including the SSPX, sedevacantists, indult, or even Resistance priests not in union with Boston, KY
5. He would take a commanding role in the Traditional movement against Vatican II, insisting that all priests and bishops follow his leadership.
6. He would bind and loose, controlling his followers and dispensing them from Sunday Mass attendance if they aren't physically able to attend Mass at a chapel in union with Boston, KY.
7. He would tell his "faithful" that the Church commandment "Contribute to the support of the Church" is only met by donating to the TRUE Church, which is centered in Boston, KY with himself as Pontiff.
8. He would attack all other so-called Traditional Catholics as infidels, since they are at the very least schismatic, not recognizing his Papacy and authority.
9. Building on #8, he would probably focus MOST of his attacks in this direction (against other Trads), since it's easiest to make converts from among existing Traditional Catholics, compared to Novus Ordo Catholics, protestants, or atheists.
10. He would insist on running a seminary, since the Catholic Church needs at least one seminary, and there certainly aren't any others in the world! After all, only CATHOLIC seminaries count, and being in union with the Holy Father is a requirement for being Catholic. All other Trads are at least schismatic, since they don't acknowledge his papacy.
11. He would not go easy on those who don't acknowledge his papacy, especially priests and bishops. He would treat them with a heavy hand, as malicious schismatics and enemies of God. He would preach against them often.
12. He would have a bunker/remnant mentality, and would encourage such an attitude in all his "faithful".  He would fly around the country, and even around the world, rallying the troops and encouraging them to "keep the faith".
13. Building on #12, he would be the center of unity for his "faithful". It wouldn't be a cult of personality, because he is the Pope, and the Pope is the principle of unity in the Catholic Church.
14. He would pontificate as one with authority, and one with a special destiny from God.
15. When anyone (layman, priest, or even bishop) disagreed with him on any point of morality or theology, Fr. Pfeiffer would denounce him as being in-the-wrong and heretical, and probably malicious as well.
16. He would think nothing of setting up small "missions" everywhere, even in cities that already have a thriving Resistance chapel, albeit a chapel not in union with Boston, KY. So it's not Catholic, of course, but schismatic! What good is it?



Obviously you see my point. Except for #2, these things are all happening today, May 3rd, 2016!

Just like we say, "Who cares if the SSPX deal with Rome has been consummated or not. They've already changed, they've already given away the farm!" The same with Fr. Pfeiffer. Who cares if he ACTUALLY CALLS A CONCLAVE, gets elected and takes a Papal name, and puts on the white skullcap. He's doing everything else today!

The SSPX singing a formal deal, or Fr. Pfeiffer getting elected, is just a formality. The consequences of such a "formality" are already with us as a reality, so who cares if the formality never comes, at this rate?

It's like they say, "with friends like this, who needs enemies".

In this case, it's "With non-claimants to the Papacy that act like this, who needs minor antiPopes?" or "With not-officially-approved-by-rome-organizations that compromise like the SSPX has, who needs an actual contract or dotted line signature"?

Why does everyone here make such a big deal about Fr. Pfeiffer wearing the white cassock when it signifies nothing, other than his time in India?

We just had a visiting priest here in PHX a few weeks ago (can't remember his name) who wears the white cassock - do you think that means he also secretly wants to be a Pope?

Get real.

 

With all due respect, I *wish* the only Papal behavior Fr. Pfeiffer displayed was the wearing of a white cassock.

There is nothing wrong with that, as every Traditional missionary priest does it. I am well aware of that.

Please read my *entire* post, not just the first few lines, before you comment. It will make your comments more valuable -- as in, worth more than garbage.

Thank you.

EDIT: I added a few more points to the OP.

So, I googled it...

It's for the heat! That's why they wear them in India, Africa, the Phillipines, etc.

Quote

A priest's cassock is usually black although white is sometimes used in tropical climates. Bishops and some other honorific prelates wear a purple cassock. A cardinal's cassock is red. These colored cassocks are usually reserved for liturgical functions, however, and both bishops and cardinals typically don a black cassock with colored buttons, trimmings and sash indicating the wearer's hierarchical status.

The Pope's cassock is white, a custom that arose after St. Pius V (1504-1572), a member of the Order of Preachers, continued to wear his Dominican habit even after his elevation to the papacy in 1566.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur105.htm

He hasn't been stationed in India for years.

Obviously the white cassock isn't an issue in itself. Its a contributing factor which colors the picture that is Fr Pfeiffer. It is against convention and custom, even if there is nothing "wrong" with it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but something similar could be done for the resistance or SSPX in general, with +Lefebvre as Pope.

Matthew,

I think it has been quite clearly demonstrated that he doesn't need to be Pope in name. He does need to be a Bishop and once that happens, which could be any time, he will consecrate all the Bishops he needs to perpetuate the SSPX-MC and will conditionally consecrate Moran, if he is not in fact his own consecrating Bishops.

Even conclavism is, I think, a step too far for +Pfeiffer.  But he can do everything in your OP as a consecrated Bishop and Superior General.

Missing from your list is setting up a marriage tribunal.

Most of what you (Matthew) say is true at present.  It is indeed a sad and serious situation.  Have you prayed for Fr. Pfeiffer today?  

Why is it assumed by some if a person calls out Fr Pfeiffer's errors that same said person lacks charity and doesn't pray for Fr Pfeiffer?  Many people in Kentucky have suffered real tangible harm from Pfeiffer & his sidekick and remained silent about it.  Have you prayed for those families that have been and are being destroyed by this "ministry"?  How about the souls that have or are losing their faith because of what goes on in Boston?  The SSPX has brainwashed the sheeple for so many years to believe that evil priests are caused by the lack of praying for them.  What a lie.  They are evil because they like to do evil.

Yes I pray.  I pray that God have mercy and shut that place down.

I've seen Fr. Pfeiffer's "works" close up.

Just recently Fr. P visited San Antonio (the last time was 5 months ago) for one family, which used to attend the chapel here (St. Dominic's).

They were sad to see Fr. Voigt go, and haven't been back since. Oh, but just one problem -- when Fr. Voigt came back (after he started working with Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, and Fr. Zendejas) twice to St. Dominic's, this family was nowhere to be found. Even though I invited them personally.

So Fr. Voigt is a good, holy priest and they loved him -- as long as Fr. Pfeiffer approved of him. Once he was dismissed (with only slander in place of gratitude for all Fr. Voigt did for the Boston, KY operation), the family was quick to drop him like a bad habit.


But the patriarch is a die-hard Pfeiffer fanatic. He literally doesn't go to any priest that he hasn't cleared with Fr. Pfeiffer first. I guess he believes Fr. Pfeiffer has a special anointing from God?

Anyhow, we're about to have First Communions in a few days, along with a May Crowning. This man, his daughter, and his 5 grandchildren will NOT be there, because of his rabid loyalty to Fr. Pfeiffer (and/or his uncharitable views against Mexicans -- it could be either or both which motivates him).

One of his granddaughters received First Communion 1 year ago. She could have only received twice since then -- unless she's going to the Novus Ordo with her dad (in which case, what a beautiful fruit Fr. Pfeiffer has produced here!)

This family has missed out on countless graces, countless Masses, and countless chances to PRACTICE the Catholic Faith. Religion is a habit of life. Especially thinking about the poor kids in this situation -- they are all under 13. They won't get to smell incense, attend a High Mass, attend Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, hear Marian hymns, hear Gregorian chant, see other Catholics (including peers) every Sunday, see a priest every Sunday, go to frequent confession, receive Holy Communion weekly, or any other elements of the Catholic Faith. So many graces and benefits, both huge and small. All of which add up to "growing up Catholic".

This can't end well. Both for this family, and for any other which places their trust so completely and so foolishly in a cult like the one Fr. Pfeiffer is running.

I have a newsflash for you -- even children who attend Mass every Sunday aren't guaranteed to keep the Faith, or save their souls. Where does this leave those who DON'T form the habits of religion while still young?

It often happens that a man or woman will leave the Faith when they grow up, but eventually come back to it, because it's the religion of their youth. So many memories are tied up with the Faith. It's part of them, and eventually they repent and realize it. How can a parent even hope in this, if their children didn't attend Mass on a regular basis while they were children?

I know this much: calling yourself "Catholic", or ticking off "Catholic" on the US Census form does precisely nothing for a person. What really matters is what HABITS (virtues, vices) we have developed. Believing the Faith and putting that belief into practice by a long habit of attending Mass every Sunday -- now THAT is a solid foundation for life-long fidelity. That is what truly makes us a Catholic.

"Faith without works is dead", said St. James.