Post by therecusant on Jul 29, 2019 23:04:50 GMT
Oh dearie me. Dearie, dearie me.
I somehow received this email. As did my wife, which I find curious in itself as not many people, especially in America, will have her email address. In fact, come to think of it, I received this into my personal email address, not the Recusant Hotmail address - it's almost as though the authors have been given OLMC's bulk mailing email list.
I also detect Fr. Pfeiffer's style. Could I be mistaken? So while it is ostensibly written by two of his faithful, I cannot help wondering how much Fr. Pfeiffer told them what to say. It may just have occurred to him that a few people have decided, for whatever reason, not to listen to him any more, or that others are disinclined or tend to look askance at what he has to say on the question; and that if that were so, people would be more likely to pay attention if his arguments came from the mouth of someone else. Could that be so, or am I mistaken? Are the authors of this mass-mailing really the authors of the content, are they the authors of the ideas and arguments it contains? Or are they just mouthpieces of someone else, the real author? It seems to me not outside the realms of possibility.
I haven't time or patience to go through this blow-by-blow. Here's what I'll note.
1. No Archbishop Lefebvre. They quote Fr. Peter Scott on obedience. But not the Archbishop. Curious.
2. The timeline is all wrong. Were they there, did these people writing this witness what happened or why? Here's what I'm talking about:
to stay with OLMC, or go with Fr. Hewko, or leave OLMC and Fr. Hewko for newer pastures.
The "pain" and "trouble" didn't begin with Fr. Hewko's departure. It began well before and culminated in Fr. Hewko's departure. Fr. Hewko's departure was the fruit, the result, not the cause of the "pain" and "trouble". It began with Moran's reappearance and Fr. Pfeiffer trying to sell him to everyone everywhere he went. It began in 2018.
This is quite near the start. So right from the word go, the author(s) show that they don't have even a basic understanding of what happened or why. So why do they think they're qualified to mass-mail everyone telling us all how it is, as though they know better..?
3. "...Fr. Hewko continues to speak to the faithful the erroneous belief that Fr. Poisson's
ordination is doubtful..."
Curiously enough, however, Fr. Pfeiffer regarded Fr. Poisson's ordination as doubtful too, not so very long ago. One is simply not allowed to conditionally ordain without any justification at all, there must be at least some doubt. And it has to be a real doubt, not a whimsy, otherwise you'd have millions of conditional baptisms going on all the time, married couples constantly unsure of whether they're married or not... there must be some doubt in order to justify conditional ordination.
4. All this guff about various Popes, "Is Benedict XVI Pope, is Francis..?" and so forth is really nothing more than smoke. It is a hit-and-run debating tactic. It's irrelevant and the fact that I for one have never heard this argument before from anyone in the SSPX or Resistance perhaps because it is not something Fr. Pfeiffer or anyone connected with him would ever have said before.
5. In fact, I strongly suspect that the whole argument about Fr. Poisson and validity is a distraction. It does, sadly, appear strongly to suggest that Fr. Pfeiffer is putting the cart before the horse and allowing his position to be led by circumstance and expediency, which is a little alarming and I hope is not the case (if it is, this will not be the last example we have to witness)… the real issue is with Fr. Hewko and not Fr. Poisson. You left us. How could you.
The real problem, as I see it, is this. What does it mean to be in charge? It means to have responsibility. What does "responsible" mean? It means answerable. And what does that mean? It means you are answerable for what happens. The other way of putting it is to say that you are to blame whatever happens. To hold authority means to be prepared to accept the blame for whatever happens, even if it results from the actions of someone under you, and not directly your own actions. Ask anyone in the army what happens when a section of eight men dress onto the firing point of a rifle range and the RCO discovers that one of them has forgotten to bring his hearing defence with him. Who gets into trouble? Not the man who forgot his hearing defence - he may get a telling off later back in barracks. The man who gets into trouble is the corporal in charge of the section. He ought to have done a kit check of all his men before they set out for the range. Accepting rank means being prepared to take the blame for something someone else beneath you did. If you don't have broad enough shoulders for that, then don't accept the responsibility. The measure of any leader is how he treats his subordinates. A weak leader will always tend to be one who blames his subordinates.
In other words, if the author(s) are so concerned and troubled by Fr Hewko leaving, they would do far better to talk to the boss. He is the cause, and the solution lies with him too, and only with him. Taking out one's authority and brandishing it in people's faces as a means to get them to bend to your will is all very well, but it seems to me that anyone who is in charge during a time when everything goes horribly pear-shaped and everyone leaves, cannot then blame his subordinates - if you are in charge, then you are to blame. But who was in charge of OLMC in 2018? And yet I see not the slightest sign that the one who was in charge this whole time has learnt anything at all from the affair. He continues to blame everyone else, but will not accept any responsibility himself. Too-clever-by-half propaganda tactics like getting faithful to bulk-mail your own arguments, but privately, so that no public response can be made and so that if Fr. Hewko responds to it, it won't go very far because he doesn't know who you sent it to - all that just reeks of manipulation and a certain lack of honest, open, straightforward dealing which has been the characteristic of the Resistance, at least the bits I've seen. If you have something to say, say it, and say it openly and publicly. Or don't say it. Let the accused know who his accuser is and allow him to respond. Those of you reading this who know what I'm talking about will recognise what I'm trying to say. At any rate, I don't think this attempt has been very successful.