How far does the Apple fall from the Tree? Fr. Pfeiffer as the Apple and Bishop Williamson as the Tree.

How far does the Apple fall from the Tree? Fr. Pfeiffer as the Apple and Bishop Williamson as the Tree. - The Sequel

JMJ

Earlier I had commented on an article on the Four Marks that allegedly reflected Fr. Pfeiffer's thoughts and opinions on the Four Marks of the Church.

I had concluded that his opinions were inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

A friend of mine has taken the time to review one of the source "youtube" videos upon which the Recusant article was based. As background here's the Church Teaching on the Four Marks.

My friend's core observations were that:

Father Pfeiffer fails to teach the true meaning of the Marks, and adds other elements giving the impression that they are truly parts of the Marks of the Church.
He briefly mentions, sotta voce, that Apostolicity includes the Church going back to the apostles, then states that the other half is that "the Church want's to spread to the whole world."

I've already noticed that 'resistors', such as Tony La Rosa (example) of the Toronto 'resistance', when faced with a doctrinal deviation (ie heresy) of the 'resistance' won't answer the challenge. The problem is that resistors appear to have given up rational thought in defense of their opinions (see cognitive dissonance and the End of the World Again). As such when confronted with a real deviation of a serious matter, instead of answering the challenge directly - they ignore it and offer up some excuse (usually lame).

Here's some clear thinking:

If Fr. Pfeiffer really said these things (thanks to YouTube we know he did), we can safely conclude that he believes them.
The beliefs contained in the words are objectively contrary to or obfuscate Church Teaching on the Four Marks. Both of these are degrees of heresy
Conclusions:

Fr. Pfeiffer cannot be trusted as a guardian of the Catholic Faith as he is following Luther in re-imagining it to suit his own perception of reality.
By extension the 'resistance' associates (priests, bishops) adhere to an erroneous notion of the nature of the Church and Church Teaching. This is supported by the writings of other 'resistance' leaders.
The 'resistance' is following its own path, not the one laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre
The 'resistance' is not working for the restoration of the Church, they are working for themselves. They have no obedience.

After that here's a thought for the resistance:

Matthew 7:5. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

What is the Beam in the eyes of the 'resistance'?

Simply this: The abandonment of Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Principles. They've abandoned them and are blinded without them. They have become what they abhor, Traditionalist Modernists.

Once they embrace all of Catholic Teaching, not just the bits they like, they will then realize that the 'resistance' is nothing more than sede-vacantists with a paper Pope.

Then they will face a harder decision, what to do next.

I pray they make the right decision.

P^3

Comments

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches: "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles. From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.

Tradicat

Search This Blog