Skip to main content

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

Image
By
+
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:
  1. 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. 
  2. 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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

By
+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year:  "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'.  The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage.  The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.
Post a Comment
Read more

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

By
 + JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden  communicatio in sacris  [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

By
Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014  District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on  supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity  exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles,  The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X  which in summary demonstrat...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

By
 + 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
Post a Comment
Read more