It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:04 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 60
New post The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Incredible. It's as if the "canonizations" of Roncalli and Wojtila have made some sedeplenists even more steadfast in their conviction that Bergoglio is pope.




A few quotations:

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer wrote:
Our religion is in God. Our truth is is God, and therefor we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven. It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does.


Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer wrote:
If we had no pope for the last fifty years, it would not mean that he's not the pope. The correct conclusion would be Jesus Christ is not God, because he lied.


Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer wrote:
The longest you could get away with without pope would be one generation, which is twenty years.


I don't doubt that Fr. Pfeiffer is of good will and is well-intentioned, but this is nonsensical.

_________________
Thomas Williams


Mon May 05, 2014 12:45 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
I guess he never read Father 'O'Reilly:

Fr. O'Reilly On The Idea Of A Long-Term Vacancy Of The Holy See

By John Daly. Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999.
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.

For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:


that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).

Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:

Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.

Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.

Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.

He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.

The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circumstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.

At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.

In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.

Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):

"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."

Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.

We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):

"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."

Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".

Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):

"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."

This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:

"The Council assembled in 1414...

"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."

Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...

"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)


Mon May 05, 2014 1:21 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Looks like the resistance is more against SV'ism then the neo-SSPX. Good to know :idea: that, I very much love his sermons. Yeah when it comes to this topic, he is in over his head. I wrote a comment from a previous anti-SV'ist sermon he gave on Youtube. It might be the very same one except it was someone else who posted it.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun May 18, 2014 9:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Looks like the resistance is more against SV'ism then the neo-SSPX. Good to know :idea: that, I very much love his sermons. Yeah when it comes to this topic, he is in over his head. I wrote a comment from a previous anti-SV'ist sermon he gave on Youtube. It might be the very same one except it was someone else who posted it.


Yes, it seems that the "resistance" is much more anti-sedevacantist than the mainstream SSPX. That was the first thing I noticed when people started sending me "resistance" sermons.


Sun May 18, 2014 10:58 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
TKGS wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Looks like the resistance is more against SV'ism then the neo-SSPX. Good to know :idea: that, I very much love his sermons. Yeah when it comes to this topic, he is in over his head. I wrote a comment from a previous anti-SV'ist sermon he gave on Youtube. It might be the very same one except it was someone else who posted it.


Yes, it seems that the "resistance" is much more anti-sedevacantist than the mainstream SSPX. That was the first thing I noticed when people started sending me "resistance" sermons.


Fr. Pfeiffer is, anyways. I do not think you find this among the Resistance priests throughout the world. It seems to be uniquely American, and at that particularly unique (at least in this form of rampant non-sequiturs) to Fr. Pfeiffer.


Sun May 18, 2014 1:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Father Hewko is NOT like him with regards to sedevacantism and is a wonderful priest.


Sun May 18, 2014 3:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Mithrandylan wrote:
TKGS wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Looks like the resistance is more against SV'ism then the neo-SSPX. Good to know :idea: that, I very much love his sermons. Yeah when it comes to this topic, he is in over his head. I wrote a comment from a previous anti-SV'ist sermon he gave on Youtube. It might be the very same one except it was someone else who posted it.


Yes, it seems that the "resistance" is much more anti-sedevacantist than the mainstream SSPX. That was the first thing I noticed when people started sending me "resistance" sermons.


Fr. Pfeiffer is, anyways. I do not think you find this among the Resistance priests throughout the world. It seems to be uniquely American, and at that particularly unique (at least in this form of rampant non-sequiturs) to Fr. Pfeiffer.


This is good to know. Frankly, I don't know any "resistance" priests and the only two that seem to be held up by "resistance followers" that I see are Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson, and both of these men (especially Fr. Pfeiffer) seems to be radically anti-sedevacantist. I have been assuming, until now, that this was typical of the "resistance".


Sun May 18, 2014 4:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Well, it's typical of the loudspoken American faction, anyways. Or, it's typical of Fr. Pfeiffer. I have had dealings with Fr Hewko and as Recusant just testified he is not like that. Neither are any of the other priests I've heard sermons from. Fr. Chazal is opposed to sedevacantism, and has written against it though in a far more calm and collected way, completely absent of the cultish sensationalism exhibited by Fr. Pfeiffer.

I am not a French reader and my Spanish could be much better, but there are many on these forums who report on the happenings in the French and Latin American areas, and this convicted and rampant anti-sedevacantism of Fr. Pfeiffer does not seem to be a part of the international program either. +Williamson has significantly softened his position towards it recently.

It's really just Fr. Pfeiffer and some very loud disciples of his who are on this bent, not unlike how people often mistake +Sanborn, Cekada et al. as being the official spokespersons for sedevacantism. "The Resistance" has its problems but an unchecked and sensational anti-sedevacantism seems to be more of Fr. Pfeiffer's pet project than anything else.


Sun May 18, 2014 7:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Mithrandylan wrote:
...not unlike how people often mistake +Sanborn, Cekada et al. as being the official spokespersons for sedevacantism.


And here I thought most people consider the Dimond brothers as the "official spokesmen" for sedevacantism. I guess Restoration Radio has done some good if only it has focused attention on Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada and away from the Dimonds.

Of course there is no "official spokesman" for sedevacantism, but I rather have this be the error.


Sun May 18, 2014 8:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Mithrandylan wrote:
... absent of the cultish sensationalism exhibited by Fr. Pfeiffer.


On every subject, as far as I can tell. He looks and sounds like a Communist revolutionary, unconcerned about the accuracy of what he says, focussed only on the effect he might produce on his audience. Your description, "cultish sensationalism," is perfect.

People go to him because they are afraid that the SSPX will infect them with the doctrines of Vatican II, and what does he do? He preaches the doctrine of the French Revolution and Vatican II!

Mithrandylan wrote:
this convicted and rampant anti-sedevacantism of Fr. Pfeiffer does not seem to be a part of the international program either. +Williamson has significantly softened his position towards it recently.


The Resistance and sedevacantism have really nothing in common. The Resistance is about refusing subjection to recognised authority; sedevacantism is about refusing subjection to usurpers who have no authority at all.

Sedevacantists truly and seriously respect authority, so that if we find ourselves "avoiding our head" we are forced to realise that the "head" is nothing of the sort. As a good friend of mine who is sedeplenist says, "sedevacantists respect the papacy too much." That's wrong, but it's a cogent criticism. It makes sense, it tackles our view in a way that does us justice. Contrast it with the brainlessness of those who say we are schismatics because we refuse subjection to the pope. That criticism is merely foolish.

The Resistance, on the other hand, in the person of Fr. Pfeiffer, is openly preaching revolt from authority.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 19, 2014 12:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
TKGS wrote:
Mithrandylan wrote:
...not unlike how people often mistake +Sanborn, Cekada et al. as being the official spokespersons for sedevacantism.


And here I thought most people consider the Dimond brothers as the "official spokesmen" for sedevacantism. I guess Restoration Radio has done some good if only it has focused attention on Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada and away from the Dimonds.

Of course there is no "official spokesman" for sedevacantism, but I rather have this be the error.


You would be surprised, how google does the sedevacantist search a disservice usually! Its getting better (I don't use google anymore anyhow but I do check), so ultimately whoever gets to the page is the Official spokesman :-). I vote for the Lane magisterium, anyone else up for it? :D I used to think that the Dimond brothers really reflected the views of SV'ist.

Restoration Radio is doing a pretty good job, a whole lot of more good then whatever little poison they might put. As far as I am concerned I have never heard them talk about the whole Thuc issue, I think they have really not made the Una Cum issue a problem. I know that Fr. Cekada probably when he talks to them personally, he will probably tell them about those issues but in public he seems to be pretty tamed about this issues which in my opinion is a prudent thing to do. It shows that he has some sort of restraint as to which issues are of higher importance. In order to accept the Thuc issue and Una cum issue you first have to accept the first premises, of the licitness of the independent movement and the invalidity of the current claimant in Rome.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri May 30, 2014 9:44 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Fr. Cekada is on our side on the Thuc question - indeed, he wrote the paper that really killed the Thuc invalidity thesis. And good on him. He had to announce that he had changed opinion 180 degrees to do so, and that was edifying.

Any "taming" that happens anywhere is good. Sedevacantism as a movement has about the same outside appearance as The Resistance. Fr. Pfeiffer might be the Resistance equivalent of the Dimonds, for example, but until it is clear to outsiders that neither is representative of the whole, then serious people won't take it seriously.

I really despair when I see the typical sedevacantist debate on forums. We're getting nowhere, even in an environment where we have every advantage - i.e. Jorge Bergoglio. People continue to run this line that if he is your pope, you have to accept his heresies. Everybody with any real Catholic instincts knows that's BS. Learned men not only know it's BS, they can explain why in about fifteen seconds. So, the thing that most activists seem to think is their trump card merely hardens others against our view. It's depressing.

The main intellectual reason that most sedeplenists don't find our position attractive is that they are convinced that Vatican II is not binding, even on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope. But there's precious little serious attention paid to that problem by our side. On that issue, in English, the only study worthy of the name is the one by John Daly. Nobody else has touched it, yet it's at the heart of the problem for most of the SSPX clergy, for example. As I've said many times, if we don't take our own opinions seriously, why should anybody else?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 30, 2014 10:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
John Lane wrote:
On that issue, in English, the only study worthy of the name is the one by John Daly.


Is that study on your website or on this forum? I don't think I've read it.


Sat May 31, 2014 12:26 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Dogmatic Sedeplenism of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
It was written in the late 1980s, if memory serves: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=13

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 31, 2014 10:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.