So, when Fr. Pfeiffer lends possible credence to the story that Card. Ratzinger attended an event, (a black mass) at which a child was sacrificed, this indicates that he has gone over the edge, thus showing all who will listen that Fr. Pfeiffer is not to be trusted, much less followed.

It's more than "possible credence".

at 25 mins in.

Sorry, but that is Calumny by any sensible measure.  When a priest speaks from the pulpit he needs to be very careful what he is saying.  When he suggests that witnesses saw a Cardinal involved in a ritual murder, the onus is on that priest to make sure that the witnesses are credible and reliable.  You can always find some loony who claimed to witness something which never took place.  You cannot simply pass off repeating their calumny as lending "possible credence".

Your "possible credence" defence is simply displaying your sickening syncophancy and cultish following.  Basic natural justice would have any mentally well balanced person, let alone a Catholic, horrifed by the idea of a cleric being falsely accused of a dastardly crime of child murder.  I would not want my worst enemy accused falsely.

But for cult members and loons the end justifies the means when push comes to shove.

 On this hand he will tell you that Benedict is a Satanist and in the next sermon he will tell you that of course he was the pope.

This is the dual mindedness of the SSPX.

  :applause: x 1000

.

There are a couple of errors here:

Post

ggreg:

Quote

One does not need to attack the resistance. Simply wait for Fr. Pfeiffer to say something crackers and the whole thing begins to lose credibility.

I see.  "(S)omething crackers," says greg.  So, when Fr. Pfeiffer lends possible credence to the story that Card. Ratzinger attended an event, (a black mass) at which a child was sacrificed, this indicates that he has gone over the edge, thus showing all who will listen, that Fr. Pfeiffer is not to be trusted, much less followed.  

Fr. Pfeiffer didn't say "black mass" but rather a ritual child sacrifice -- it sounds like he's talking about the Bohemian Grove effigy of Moloch that is held annually with lots of security and restricted entry, a place where they say all our recent presidents have attended since around WWI or so -- that if you don't go there, you won't be elected president.  The implication seems to be that if you don't go there you won't be elected pope -- but Fr. did not SAY that, I'm speculating here (there is nothing about any of the other popes going to Bohemian Grove, and curiously, some think that Ratzinger has been the only VALID pope since erstwhile Cardinal Siri, after Pius XII!)

Also, when a priest talks like this from the pulpit and especially when he knows he's being recorded for all the world to hear, it's more than "possible credence."  There is a pretty serious issue with credibility.  This could be actionable by legal means, if it is not true, but even if there is no evidence for it.   He said in a couple of weeks this will be reported by someone -- what if it doesn't get reported?  Then Fr. Pfeiffer has taken a pretty big risk, I would think.

I guess that's what greg is driving at, right, greg?

Greg, will you go on record to deny that Ratzinger was ever present at, or participated in one of these dark ceremonies?  I want you [to] declare openly to all the members of the forum that you are certain beyond any shadow of doubt that he never was; and that even to consider or think for a moment,  that the cardinal might have witnessed one of these events is totally crazy.  [And that] There is absolutely no possibility that alleged "eyewitnesses" may be telling the truth.  How about it, son.

It isn't incuмbent on a questioner (ggreg) to prove he's correct in doubting the veracity of the original accusation about erstwhile Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  The burden of proof is on the speaker (Fr. Pfeiffer) to show evidence of what he's saying.  

I'm not sure what to make of this whole thing, but it's drawing some pretty bad attention to the Resistance, and ggreg could be correct that the Resistance will suffer for many years because of this.  As bad as other groups might act from time to time, I haven't seen the SSPX or Newchurch or sedevacantists or Orthodox or anyone else accusing Resistance priests of ritual child sacrifice.  Also, Fr. P. mentions as a source Fr. Malachi Martin in his claim that a black mass was held in two places (Rome and America) at the same time to accomplish a particular purpose with the devil.  That is not the same topic as the Ratzinger accusation, however.  

We should have a transcript of the 24-26 minute segment.  Otherwise, it's a pretty good sermon, and as usual, has a lot of strong points, things you won't hear in any diocese sermon.


.

I've come to the conclusion that the stress of seeing the visible Church collapse and orient itself towards a completely new faith has made a lot of Trads, a minority but a sizeable minority, go somewhat insane.

They are seeking answers to a VERY confusing situation and it is hard to maintain ones sanity when the thing you love is collapsing.

It's not dissimilar to your wife or husband getting Alzheimers disease.

This is a very reasonable assessment -- even though I don't normally appreciate ggreg's posts!   HAHAHAHAHA


.

Let's not forget the fact that the entire Ratzinger family had their name dragged through the mud in the sermon, not just pope Benedict. Do his parents who according to existing accounts were devout Catholics deserve that? Look at the marriage ad through which his father came in contact with his mother and ask yourself whether that sounds like a Satanist.

Pete Vere.

Quote

Mgr Williamson's recently commentary is not so much lobbing mortar rounds into the sedevacantist camp as it is negotiating the Resistance's terms of surrender to sedes.
 

It is simply Bishop Williamson returning to true SSPX format, but at the same time attempting to provide a softer cushion for them to land on.
Neither he nor the resistance will exceed the limits of their programming.

Well, Bergoglio is the best recruiting sargeant for SVism. No need to agonise over papal nuances. People outside the religious sphere are worried about his globalist intentions. .

I dare say the SSPX programming you speak of did not reckon on things going this far. But I suspect the Society is now well and truly trapped while the resistance does at least have some freedom to respond to Vatican excesses.

Quote from: J.Paul

Pete Vere.

Quote

Mgr Williamson's recently commentary is not so much lobbing mortar rounds into the sedevacantist camp as it is negotiating the Resistance's terms of surrender to sedes.
 

It is simply Bishop Williamson returning to true SSPX format, but at the same time attempting to provide a softer cushion for them to land on.
Neither he nor the resistance will exceed the limits of their programming.

Well, Bergoglio is the best recruiting sargeant for SVism. No need to agonise over papal nuances. People outside the religious sphere are worried about his globalist intentions. .

I dare say the SSPX programming you speak of did not reckon on things going this far. But I suspect the Society is now well and truly trapped while the resistance does at least have some freedom to respond to Vatican excesses.

What response can the resistance have that does not violate their fundamental R&R orientation?
And I certainly agree that their programing was never meant to address todays situation or even to have retained any measure of effect after this prolonged period of time.
 
Agreed that the Society is imprisoned by its own policy.  The resistance is in the same position unless they break out of the like policy which they still maintain along with Menzingen.
But from what we have heard from Bishop Williamson and the other resistance leaders, they will not consider altering the course of the last five decades.

Quote from: hollingsworth

You may all treat greg as you please, and give him the argument on this point.  However, I will concede nothing to him or to Pete Vere.  Benedict could very well be a Satanist.  Is it hard to believe that a pope who has known for decades all about widespread clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse among chilren, rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity involving hundereds, maybe thousands, of priests and religious,  perversion at the highest levels in the church; who knows to this day where probably most of the bodies lie, and does vitually nothing to expose this horror or to move against guilty clerics in any way, is it so hard to believe that such a one could not be a Satanist?  Is it so difficult to believe that one who knows and has covered up these monstrous deeds throughout much of his career might not at one time have taken it to the next level?  Who would have believed that some of the tribal descendants of the Chosen people coming out of Egypt might one day sacrifice their own children to Moloch and to Ashteroth?  I don't mind being called a nut or crazy by the likes of greg, believe me!

hollingworth,

ggreg and Peter are latching on to Father Pfeiiffer's error as an opportunity to forward another agenda.

This is precisely why these priests should be disciplined enough to hold their thoughts and tongues on such serious and inflammatory matters until the have proof and the need to expose them.  They give the folks like ggreg and Peter all the raw material which they need to make hay and lay a shadow over all of serious Traditional resistance.

This has been the point I've been making and attacked for it all along.