Author Topic: Were you asked by Father Pfeiffer if he should be a bishop? (Read 8527 times)

TheRealMcCoy · « **on:** October 16, 2015, 09:13:34 AM »

Were you ever directly asked by Father Joseph Pfeiffer if he should be consecrated a bishop or your thoughts on him being consecrated a bishop?

Please answer in the poll rather than posting a message. Thanks.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:21:22 AM »

He never brought up the topic with me, though I only dealt with him personally in 2013. Back then, he still "publicly" or "officially" got along with Bishop Williamson.

Even if he never brought it up explicitly with anyone, or produced "Joseph Pfeiffer for Bishop" signs to place in one's front yard, it doesn't mean he doesn't want to be a bishop. There are other ways of expressing this desire.

Actions speak louder than words.

Publicly opposing the only Resistance bishop? Check.
Publicly criticizing the only Resistance bishop? Check.
Starting, running a seminary? Check.
Happily taking (or trying to take) a nationwide/global leadership and administrative role, even as a priest? Check.
Inviting a dubious con-man "bishop" Ambrose to work with your group? Check.
Ignoring countless red flags about this con-man "bishop" Ambrose? Check.
In many cases, stubbornly going one's own way, even in opposition to the guidance of the Resistance bishop? Check.
Already acting the part? Check.

Any motivational book will tell you: if you want to be promoted, start acting the part now. SEE yourself as a manager. Act like a manager. Take on extra duties and show that you could manage the operation. Show initiative. Eventually, you'll get promoted to that position. Meanwhile, these books will point out that you can't say, "Trust me, give me a chance, and I'll show you what a good job I'll do! Give me a raise, and I'll work much harder!" No, you have to work much harder and THEN you get the raise. That's how the world works.

See, even if Fr. Pfeiffer said with apparent sincerity, "I would never want to be a bishop." I would have a hard time believing it; it would be shocking to hear, since everything he's doing in his life goes against this. If he expressed sentiments of humility or unworthiness, it would also be HUGELY out of character to his usual modus operandi of "I know best".

Yes, I'm criticizing Fr. Pfeiffer here. But come on, this is very clear-cut. I'm not nitpicking. Just look at Pablogate! He won't dis-involve a known apostate like Pablo who has certainly done A, B and C and probably X, Y, and Z as well. On the contrary, he stubbornly keeps him as his right-hand man. What, is he waiting for him to become the next St. Augustine? Father seemed a bit overboard in his sermon about St. Augustine "The greatest bishop to ever walk on the ground." I didn't think that was the common opinion -- surely there were other bishops at least equal to St. Augustine. What about St. Athanasius? or St. Pius X?

So, to summarize, I've never heard Fr. Pfeiffer express an explicit interest in becoming a bishop. But he has shown a desire for power, leadership, prominence/fame, a refusal to follow the existing 2 Resistance bishops, and he has a seminary (which he started completely on his own volition) that needs a bishop to ordain and confer minor orders.

Simple priests -- who want to stay simple priests -- don't start and found seminaries. Archbishop Lefebvre started several...but he was a Bishop, not a simple priest. Normally Church authorities take care of the business of forming new priests, or at least (in a Crisis situation) a bishop -- he has a certain responsibility just by virtue of his office.

AJNC · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:56:28 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

He never brought up the topic with me, though I only dealt with him personally in 2013. Back then, he still "publicly" or "officially" got along with Bishop Williamson.

Even if he never brought it up explicitly with anyone, or produced "Joseph Pfeiffer for Bishop" signs to place in one's front yard, it doesn't mean he doesn't want to be a bishop. There are other ways of expressing this desire.

Actions speak louder than words.

Publicly opposing the only Resistance bishop? Check.
Publicly criticizing the only Resistance bishop? Check.
Starting, running a seminary? Check.
Happily taking (or trying to take) a nationwide/global leadership and administrative role, even as a priest? Check.
Inviting a dubious con-man "bishop" Ambrose to work with your group? Check.
Ignoring countless red flags about this con-man "bishop" Ambrose? Check.
In many cases, stubbornly going one's own way, even in opposition to the guidance of the Resistance bishop? Check.
Already acting the part? Check.

Any motivational book will tell you: if you want to be promoted, start acting the part now. SEE yourself as a manager. Act like a manager. Take on extra duties and show that you could manage the operation. Show initiative. Eventually, you'll get promoted to that position. Meanwhile, these books will point out that you can't say, "Trust me, give me a chance, and I'll show you what a good job I'll do! Give me a raise, and I'll work much harder!" No, you have to work much harder and THEN you get the raise. That's how the world works.

See, even if Fr. Pfeiffer said with apparent sincerity, "I would never want to be a bishop." I would have a hard time believing it; it would be shocking to hear, since everything he's doing in his life goes against this. If he expressed sentiments of humility or unworthiness, it would also be HUGELY out of character to his usual modus operandi of "I know best".

Yes, I'm criticizing Fr. Pfeiffer here. But come on, this is very clear-cut. I'm not nitpicking. Just look at Pablogate! He won't dis-involve a known apostate like Pablo who has certainly done A, B and C and probably X, Y, and Z as well. On the contrary, he stubbornly keeps him as his right-hand man. What, is he waiting for him to become the next St. Augustine? Father seemed a bit overboard in his sermon about St. Augustine "The greatest bishop to ever walk on the ground." I didn't think that was the common opinion -- surely there were other bishops at least equal to St. Augustine. What about St. Athanasius? or St. Pius X?

So, to summarize, I've never heard Fr. Pfeiffer express an explicit interest in becoming a bishop. But he has shown a desire for power, leadership, prominence/fame, a refusal to follow the existing 2 Resistance bishops, and he has a seminary (which he started completely on his own volition) that needs a bishop to ordain and confer minor orders.

Simple priests -- who want to stay simple priests -- don't start and found seminaries. Archbishop Lefebvre started several...but he was a Bishop, not a simple priest. Normally Church authorities take care of the business of forming new priests, or at least (in a Crisis situation) a bishop -- he has a certain responsibility just by virtue of his office.

And his wearing the red sash. He claims to be from SSPX Asia hence the white cassock. His last posting was in the Philippines where the black sash is worn. The red sash is worn by priests of the Archdiocese of Madurai, in India, as well as some of its suffragan dioceses.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:10:49 AM »

Father has spoken about his wearing the white cassock on several occasions.

I'd like to get the quote exact, but it was something along the lines of "I was unjustly expelled from the SSPX; I'm still a Society priest in the Asian district, so I wear the white cassock." He also said that "Bishop Fellay is my superior."

Normally I wouldn't have much problem with that. But keeping in mind his whole campaign against Fr. Zendejas -- I specifically remember Fr. Voigt cutting me off with "has he left the SSPX?"

In other words, we have a double-standard here. Could you imagine if Fr. Zendejas announced he was still an SSPX priest, or that Bishop Fellay was his superior? Boston, KY would go positively bananas.

I'm sorry, but double-standards and hypocrisy are two things I cannot stand.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:51:33 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Father has spoken about his wearing the white cassock on several occasions.

Papal aspirations?

LOL

Paul FHC · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:09:05 PM »

I disagree with Matthew that simple priests should not start seminaries. We need priests, therefore, seminaries are necessary. "Simple" priests have been starting seminaries and congregations from time immemorial. In fact, it's probably better if our seminaries are run by priests because then the bishops can devote themselves completely to the duties that are of an Episcopal nature. Irrational complaints made against father Pfeiffer like this make us lose credibility.

Regarding the other point, I totally think that father has episcopal ambitions. I know a few people whom he has approached and asked. It's also obvious from his empire-building activities. Running the seminary, saying mass at over 30 locations, attempting to open a convent, flying around the world every few months to "shore up" the other priests.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:32:27 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

I disagree with Matthew that simple priests should not start seminaries. We need priests, therefore, seminaries are necessary. "Simple" priests have been starting seminaries and congregations from time immemorial. In fact, it's probably better if our seminaries are run by priests because then the bishops can devote themselves completely to the duties that are of an Episcopal nature. Irrational complaints made against father Pfeiffer like this make us lose credibility.

Regarding the other point, I totally think that father has episcopal ambitions. I know a few people whom he has approached and asked. It's also obvious from his empire-building activities. Running the seminary, saying mass at over 30 locations, attempting to open a convent, flying around the world every few months to "shore up" the other priests.

Do you know the definition of a priest? Besides the other definitions (Alter Christus, etc.) a priest is fundamentally a HELPER TO A BISHOP. The Bishop wears the ring, he is married to a diocese. But the diocese is too large for him to say Mass everywhere for his whole flock, so he has authority over a number of priests who help him in his work of spiritually ministering to the Catholics in that diocese.

If a priest starts ANYTHING, it should be OUT OF OBEDIENCE, not out of a self-appointed position or crusade he picked out for himself. He should be working for someone, following someone's orders.

Priests are only leaders of the laymen beneath them. They are not even part of the Ecclesia Docens (Church teaching). There is a reason the book of the Gospels is not placed on priests' heads during Ordination -- that only happens for a bishop during his Consecration. A Bishop has a special obligation to teach and preserve Tradition and the Faith.

Even today, among trads, why wouldn't the Trad priests (in the Resistance for example) let the Bishop(s) lead? Would the world REALLY be a worse place today if Fr. Pfeiffer had just followed +Williamson's direction and stuck with the "loose association of priests" structure? Do we have any more priests because of that seminary, or do we actually have less? Didn't at least one seminarian in Boston, KY give up the faith when he left? And of those who left, how many gave up on their vocation at least after experiencing Boston KY in all its splendor?

Bishop Williamson knew what he was doing. Today we already have a REAL seminary over in France with +Faure. The Dominicans can also take in new vocations. Do you really think +Williamson was going to let Tradition die out?

Fr. Pfeiffer's seminary hasn't done any good yet -- he has what, one seminarian with a couple years' training under his belt. The other(s) are brand-new. Those newbies could have gone to +Faure's seminary at this point.

It's questionable how much +Williamson ever supported the Boston seminary. At best, he gave it tacit approval at the beginning. But when he visited and discovered the inadequacy of the setup, the ignorance of the seminarians, and said he would never be back -- at that point Fr. Pfeiffer should shut it down. Instead of happily opposes himself to Bishop Williamson. Who does he think he is, a bishop?

It's not the "running" a seminary that's the problem. It's the starting of one, and not even that. It's particularly when you start one AND you don't have the requisite means/gifts/support to start one properly, and without the blessing of the (only) bishop (who supports your cause).

And if +Williamson was/is against the Boston seminary, I don't think it's so much against the concept (he doesn't have a problem with +Faure's seminary, does he?) but against this seminary IN PARTICULAR since he checked it out and it was found wanting. Just like he has ordained +Faure and has promised to ordain others -- just not on Fr. Pfeiffer's timetable, and not Fr. Pfeiffer personally.

If Fr. Pfeiffer had to close down his seminary, it wouldn't mean the Catholic Church is doomed. That's exactly what Fr. Pfeiffer would have us all believe! But I know better. Father obviously believes that "God needs him", otherwise he wouldn't be going to such imprudent, disastrous lengths (Pablo, Ambrose Moran, etc.) to keep it going.

Paul FHC · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2015, 01:18:49 PM »

Let's get one thing straight so we can avoid wasting time. I agree that the Boston seminary should be shut down. It's terribly run, and wastes the time of true vocations, as well as the money of benefactors.

However, this cutesy belief that "priests can only do what is explicitly ordered by their bishop" is so sentimental and out of touch with reality, that it's not even funny. This view ignores the 50 year old crisis in the church as well as the recent implosion of our beloved society. For better or for worse, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure have not taken an authoritative position in the resistance. Any priest fighting for tradition who is not directly working with the bishops is left to his own devices.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2015, 01:36:19 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

However, this cutesy belief that "priests can only do what is explicitly ordered by their bishop" is so sentimental and out of touch with reality, that it's not even funny. This view ignores the 50 year old crisis in the church as well as the recent implosion of our beloved society. For better or for worse, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure have not taken an authoritative position in the resistance. Any priest fighting for tradition who is not directly working with the bishops is left to his own devices.

Well, I guess it's my turn to disagree with you.

And the fruits of your "priests gotta take the initiative, when they believe the bishop isn't doing enough." strategy are visible in Boston, KY for all to see. When priests have to become the highest authority -- a de-facto bishop -- all heck breaks loose. There are too many priests with too many views.

See, the Archbishop held things together. But without a Pope or other authority/center of unity, we are basically at the mercy of human nature just like the protestant groups. Even the SSPX has the authority (albeit tyrannical and up-to-no-good) coming from Menzingen.

I don't think the Church Crisis justifies it. It explains it on a human level, yes. But priests should humbly accept the leadership of their superior (bishop). So far, I can't see ANY downside to such a course of action.

Where would the world be today if all priests followed my position? Would the world be a better or a worse place?

See, everything you can point to that is GOOD came about because a *bishop* started something. And even in the cases where a priest had to start something, he wasn't *REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OR COUNSEL OF A TRAD BISHOP*. There's a difference. And being an independent priest (to directly serve Mass and sacraments to the Faithful) might require setting up a chapel. That's not out of bounds for a priest. But a seminary? Religious order?

It's the difference between a young 29 year old widow taking charge of the household (including getting a job to feed her 5 children), and a 29 year old woman taking charge of her husband, and getting a job so her husband could stay home with the children. See the difference? One is a true necessity, the other is disordered.

All I'm saying is that even as we embrace the Trad position, we shouldn't throw out ALL notions of authority. God will provide.

Do you really think the Church would have ended if Fr. Pfeiffer hadn't started his seminary? It's odd how you still defend him to a point, even though he was wrong from day one to start that seminary without the blessing of +Williamson.

He was the stubborn kid setting off for Disneyland on foot, with the ticket money in his pocket. His parents couldn't afford to take him, so rather than accept it as God's will, he stubbornly sets off on foot. If you try to stop him, he says, "Are YOU gonna give me a ride? No? Then leave me alone. I have another 1,000 miles to go. I hope to make 8 of them by nightfall. Good day to you."

LucasL · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2015, 03:33:33 PM »

Matthew is right. There's no need to continue the Seminary if all he wants is power and to be a Bishop. That is what is blinding him. That's why things are in the Ambrosian way of doing.

Fidelis servus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:56:38 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

[...]

Actions speak louder than words.

Publicly opposing the only Resistance bishop? Check.
Publicly criticizing the only Resistance bishop? Check.
Starting, running a seminary? Check.
Happily taking (or trying to take) a nationwide/global leadership and administrative role, even as a priest? Check.
[...]

I agree with some of ot, but not for the seminary:
the priests asked Bp Williamson to make one, but His Excelency refused, because He does not trust seminaries in our modern times....
So the priests were forced to make one...

For the attempt to be THE BOSS of the resistance, two things:
1° in summer 2012, he was elected as boss in 5 priests meeting in Vienna (Frs Pfeiffer, Chazal, hewko, Ringrose and Voigt) So he was the chief of a little structure...
2° then, human nature have taken a too great part, and he tried to be the only chief... forgotting that he can be the chief of who wants to be under him only..

Paul FHC · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2015, 05:55:42 PM »

I suppose that Dom Tomas and father chazal need to close their houses of formation, because I can guarantee you that no bishop ordered them to open any institution of the sort.

LucasL · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2015, 06:00:52 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

I suppose that Dom Tomas and father chazal need to close their houses of formation, because I can guarantee you that no bishop ordered them to open any institution of the sort.

What??

Paul FHC · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2015, 06:10:44 PM »

I'm replying toMatthew, who seems to think that a priest can't put milk in his coffee without a bishop ordering him to do so.

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2015, 06:16:30 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

I'm replying toMatthew, who seems to think that a priest can't put milk in his coffee without a bishop ordering him to do so.

Can you say Straw Man?

That's not what I said, so you slice that straw man! Tear it to pieces; be my guest. But it's not my position.