|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2020 11:27:41 GMT
There is a since-deleted short 469-Fitter video that consisted simply of picture taken of "Bishop" Pfeiffer under a large picture of Archbishop Lefebvre, set to music, entitled something along the lines of "A True Son of Archbishop Lefebvre." Interestingly, after only a few days the video was deleted/removed.
And this removal was just and right, since this move to have oneself consecrated a bishop by a doubtful, heretical bishop does not allow for the claim to be a 'true son' of Archbishop Lefebvre. That is an outright lie.
These quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Thuc line, from which "Bishop" Neal Webster descends from both in sacerdotal and episcopal lines, show clearly that this is something the Archbishop would have condemned: Abp. Lefebvre and the Thuc-line Bishops
The Archbishop also spoke about
This was seconded by Fr. Ruiz:
Fr. Hewko:
Fr. Pfeiffer has shown that he is not a son of Archbishop Lefebvre...
... but rather he is actually a 'true son' of of Bishop Thuc
... and of "Bishop" Neal Webster [on the left]
It is appropos that these are the new 'fathers' to the OLMC priests and seminarians for these two bishops have played fast and loose with the Church's teachings and with Her Sacraments. Something that no one is really talking about is that we can easily see that time and preparation were needed to arrange for pontifical vestments, miters, crosiers, episcopal rings, etc. for this "Consecration." If there was a plan known well in advance to consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer, then why the secrecy? Why was this not announced well ahead of time?
Fr. Hewko reminded us yesterday in his sermon that Archbishop Lefebvre announced the consecration of the Four Bishops a YEAR in advance. Bishop Williamson also gave several months notice, doing the same for the Bishops he consecrated. Why the cloak and dagger approach? Why the announcement AFTER the event? But we all know the answer really, the backlash from this "consecration" is answer enough.
St. Paul tells us, "For all you are the children of light, and children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." 1 Thessalonians 5:5
This is how Archbishop Lefebvre acted. He acted in the light. He did not perform the Consecrations in secret. He prepared the laity (and the world!) well in advance. He was a true Pastor of souls. Here is yet another example of the abandonment of Archbishop Lefebvre by Fr. Pfeiffer and the OLMC Seminary. In something so important as a Consecration, there is no excuse for secrecy. If this Consecration was something to be proud of, to rejoice over, it would have been announced. But it was not an event to rejoice over, it was an event to be denounced and rejected for it's doubtfulness. OLMC knew this...hence the secrecy so no warning could be sounded until after the fact.
A Catacombs member earlier this year noted, This is painfully obvious to those who 'know' Archbishop Lefebvre and who have subsequently witnessed the steady distancing by the priests and seminary of OLMC away from Archbishop Lefebvre. The Moran debacle was the first very public indication that a new path was being set; the Archbishop had been formally abandoned. Here again, a year later, it is plainly clear that OLMC is no longer a group of priests and seminarians following Archbishop Lefebvre, i.e. following the Church.
"Si palam res est, repetitio injuria non est; To say what everybody knows is no injury."
No only is there doubt about the validity of the Thuc line bishops, there is doubt about the Form of the "Consecration" of Fr. Pfeiffer. The Fake Resistance has been all over this issue. There was an obvious mangling of the essential words of the Consecration in the video footage. It was so painfully obvious even an 'objective' [non-Resistance] Sedevacantist website picked up on this issue and noted the problem. Bp. Sanborn noted the problem as well. Fr. Pfeiffer admitted this a day or so later and stated a conditional reconsecration was done immediately after the ceremony. But there is no proof of this, no video, no statement from "Bishop" Webster, etc.
Fr. Ruiz succinctly sums up what our actions must be: And Fr. Hewko keeps us focused on how to navigate and understand this event, by looking at it as Holy Mother Church does:
Such doubtful ordinations and consecrations are nothing new since Vatican II. For example, Fr. Cornelius Byman noted in the 1983 Angelus:
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2020 1:18:34 GMT
The following is an earlier edition/printing of the above newspaper clippings, by John Vennari, Catholic Family News, 2008
Modern Ecumenism Condemned by Sacred Scripture
Bishop George Hay
Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) from Scotland was one of the greatest Catholic teachers and apologists of the early 19th century. His three famous books are The Sincere Christian, The Devout Christian, and The Pious Christian (all out of print).
Bishop Hay was a formidable opponent of Liberalism, and his works have received high praise from numerous Catholic Bishops of the 19th century. Paul Cardinal Cullen said: "The learned Bishop's writings display a great power of reasoning, and great critical acumen, while they supply an inexhaustible mine of erudition and Scriptural knowledge."
What follows is taken from pages 548 to 556 of his magnificent book, The Sincere Christian. After a masterful explanation from the Holy Bible that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, (1) Bishop Hay demonstrates that Sacred Scripture absolutely and infallibly forbids all religious intermingling between Catholics and those of false religions. Indeed, Bishop Hay here sounds the death knell for modern ecumenism, since ecumenism, as well as the Charismatic Movement, are squarely based on interfaith principles solemnly condemned by Sacred Scripture - a condemnation that no authority in the Church can overrule.
John Vennari, Catholic Family News editor
This article was published in CFN, May 2008
Prohibition of all communication in Religion with those of a false religions
Q. What are God's laws which prohibit this in general?A. They are principally these following: The first is grounded upon the light in which all false religions are considered in the Holy Scripture; for there we are assured that they arise from false teachers, who are called seducers of the people, ravenous wolves, false prophets, who speak perverse things: that they are anti-Christs, and enemies of the cross of Christ; that, departing from the true faith of Christ, they give heed to the spirits of error; that their doctrines are the doctrines of devils, speaking lies; that their ways are pernicious, their heresies damnable, and the like. In consequence of which, this general command of avoiding all communication with them in religion is given by the Apostle: "Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers; for what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbelievers? or what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God." (2 Cor. 6:14) Now it is the true religion of Jesus Christ, the true doctrine of His Gospel, that is justice and light. All false doctrines are injustice and darkness. It is by our Holy Faith that we belong to Christ, and are temples of the living God. All false religions flow from the father of lies, and make those who embrace them unbelievers. Therefore, all participation, all fellowship, all communication with false religions is here expressly forbidden by the Word of God. We have seen above (2) that we are obliged to love the persons of those who are engaged in false religions, to wish them well, and to do them good; but here we are expressly forbidden all communication in their religion - that is, in their false tenets, and worship. Hence the learned and pious English divines who published at Rheims their translation of the New Testament, in their note upon this passage, say: "Generally, here is forbidden conversation and dealing with unbelievers in prayers, or meetings at their schismatical service, or other divine office whatsoever; which the Apostle here speaks of in more particular terms, that Christian people may take the better heed of it."
Avoid all religious communication with heretics
The second general command to avoid all religious communication with those who are heretics, or have a false religion, is this: "A man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he that is such a one is subverted, and sins, being condemned by his own judgment" (Tit. 3:10). Here we see another general command to avoid all such heretics - that is, to flee from them, to have no communication with them. But in what are we commanded to flee from them? Not as to their persons, or the necessary communications of society; for then, as the same holy Apostle says upon a similar occasion, "You must needs go out of the world" (1 Cor. 5:10.) Not as to the offices of Christian charity; for these we are commanded by Christ himself, in the person of the good Samaritan, to give to all mankind, whatever their religion be. Therefore, in the most restricted and limited sense which the words can bear, the thing in which we are commanded to avoid them is in all matters of religion; in that in which they themselves are subverted and sin; in things relating to God and His service. In these they err, in these they are subverted, in these they are condemned; therefore in these we must avoid them. Hence the pious translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note on this text, say, "Heretics, therefore, must not wonder if we warn all Catholics, by the words of the Apostle in this place, to take heed of them, and to shun their preachings, books, and religious meetings."
Withdraw from meetings and prayers of all the false sects
A third general command on this subject is manifestly included in this zealous injunction of the Apostle: "We charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us" (2 Thes. 3:6). In this passage, all the different sects of false religions are particularly pointed out; for, however they may differ in other respects they generally agree in this, of rejecting apostolic traditions handed down to us by the Church of Christ. So the Apostle here charges us, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid all such - to withdraw ourselves from them. Now it is evident that the most limited sense in which this command, so ardently laid on us by the Apostle, can be taken, is to withdraw ourselves from them in everything relating to religion - from their sacraments, prayers, preachings, religious meetings, and the like. It is in these things that they "do not walk according to the tradition received from the Apostles." In these things, then, we are here commanded, in the name of Christ Himself, "to withdraw ourselves from them." Seeing, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of this holy Apostle, has so often, and in such strong terms, forbidden all manner of fellowship in religion with those who are out of His Holy Church, let us not be deceived by the specious but vain sophistry of cunning men, who lie in wait to deceive. Let us not offend our God, by transgressing these His express commands, by joining in the prayers or going to the meetings of such as are separated from His Holy Church, lest He should withdraw His holy grace from us, and as we expose ourselves to the danger, leave us to perish in it. Let us hear and follow the advice and command of the same holy Apostle: "As therefore ye have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in Him; rooted and built up in Him, and confirmed in the faith; as also ye have learned, abounding in Him in thanksgiving. Beware lest any man impose upon you by philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:6). Therefore, to all those arguments which may be brought from human, worldly or interested motives, to induce us to join in or to partake of any religious duty with those of a false religion, though in appearance only, we ought to oppose them with this one: "God has expressly forbidden it, therefore no human power can make it lawful." 1. The Sincere Christian,Dublin: James Duffey and Son, pp. 474-533.
2. Ibid.
* * *
Modern Ecumenism Condemned by Sacred Scripture
Bishop George Hay
In Part I, the great Catholic apologist Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) showed the three general commands from Scripture that forbid all religious intermingling between Catholics and those of false religions. Here, he continues his teaching, demonstrating that Scripture provides strong reasons to be obeyed. Texts taken from The Sincere Christian , Dublin: James Duffey and Son, pp. 474 -533 - published in Catholic Family News, May 1998.
Laws of God and reasons forbidding communication with false religions
Q. What are the particular laws on this subject? In the three general commands mentioned in Part I, God Almighty speaks, by the mouth of His holy Apostle, as Lord and Master, and lays His orders upon us absolutely. In what follows, He unites the merciful Savior to the Sovereign; and while He no less strictly commands us to avoid all religious communication with those who are separated from His Holy Faith and Church, He at the same time condescends to engage our obedience by showing us the strongest reasons for it. 1. Beware of false prophets"Beware of false prophets", says our blessed Master, "who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Mat. 7:5). Here Jesus Christ commands His followers to "beware of false prophets" - that is, to flee from them, to be on their guard against them; and He adds this powerful motive, "lest ye be seduced and ruined by them." For, whatever appearance of godliness they may put on, though they come to you in the clothing of sheep, yet within they are ravenous wolves, and seek only to slay and to destroy. To the same purpose He says in another place, "Take heed that no man seduce you; for many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and they will seduce many." "And many false prophets shall arise and seduce many" (Matt 24:4, 2). Here He foretells the cunning of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them, and commands us to take care of ourselves, that such be not our fate. But how shall we escape from them? He afterwards tells us how: Do not believe them, have nothing to do with them, have no communication, with them. "Then", He says, "if any man shall say, to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Behold. I have told it you beforehand. If therefore, they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out; behold he is in the closet, believe it not" (Mat. 24:23). Can there be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of His command, or a stronger motive to induce His followers to have no religious communication with such false teachers? Many will be certainly seduced by them; and so will you, if you expose yourself to the danger.
2. All false religions are separated from the Kingdom of Christ
St. Peter, considering the great mercy bestowed upon us by the grace of our vocation to the true faith of Christ, says, that it is our duty to "declare the praises and virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His admirable light" (1 Pet. 2:9). St. Paul also exhorts us to "give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col 1:12.)
From this it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom - that is, in His Church - where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity.
And indeed, what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and "departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1.) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they "have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts" (Eph. 4:18).
On this account the same holy Apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God. To prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error: "Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light ... and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:6).
Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness - that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments - but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.
3. The signs to discover heretics
St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent" (Rom 16:17).
See here are those whom we are to avoid: "those who cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine"; that is, all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world.
And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by "pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" - that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible.
But rather they practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the Gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.
4. Avoid all communication with false teachers
The same argument and command the Apostle repeats in his Epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive: "having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof." Then he immediately gives this command: "Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires."
And he adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His Holy Church - the only sure rule for knowing the truth - they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth," because, as he adds, "they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith" (2 Tim. 3:5).
Here it is to be observed that, though the Apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the Epistle is directed particularly to him. It is to him he says, as well as to all others, "Now these avoid," though Timothy was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the Apostle himself in all the truths of religion. This is because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others.
5. The prescript applies to both the clergy and the people
Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves that you lose not the things that you have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolts, and continues not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that continues in the doctrine, the same has both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that says to him, God speed you, communicates with his wicked works" (2 John, 8).
Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" - that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion - is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls." And if this holy Apostle declares that the very saying of God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament justly observe in their note, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well-instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than should ignorant people do them, because they know their duty better.
The Church's constant teaching
Q. These laws are very clear and strong; but has the Catholic Church always observed and enforced the observance of them? The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same. Therefore, in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" (Can. 44). Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion" (Can. 63) . So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated" (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73) . The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that "no man can serve two masters: we cannot serve God and Mammon"; and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy Apostle has protested that there can be no "participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever"; and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 9, 2020 3:19:42 GMT
Here is one from Fr. Scott on the same subject.
Is one permitted to maintain social contact with apostate family members? The question here concerns what is called by the theologians communication with heretics. Here it concerns profane or civil communication, namely that concerning commerce, business and friendly conversation, as distinct from communication in sacred things pertaining to the worship of God, and prayer. Active participation of this latter kind is forbidden by the traditional law and practice of the Church (canon 1258, §1 of the 1917 Code), but encouraged by the post-Conciliar Church in the name of ecumenism (canon 844 of the 1983 Code). There was a time in the history of the Church when the Church’s law forbade communication in civil or friendly matters with those who were or who had become notorious heretics, and who apostatized. However, the sad conditions of modern society, in which we must constantly live alongside heretics and apostates, forced the Church to mitigate this law. Consequently the injunction to avoid civil communication with heretics and apostates only applied to the special class of excommunicated persons classified as having to be avoided in the 1917 Code. Furthermore, even then such civil communication was permissible for any reasonable cause, such as necessary commerce (canon 2267). In addition, the same canon explains that the forbidding of civil communication does not apply to a person’s spouse, parents, children, servants, or subjects, since manifestly such communication cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, although the Church’s law does not bind us to avoid all personal and friendly contact with apostates, and especially not with relatives, such contact is frequently highly dangerous to the faith of Catholics, bringing with it the possibility of indifferentism. For, in practice, such contact presumes that the Faith is not discussed, and the beliefs or not of the apostate person are accepted as such. For this acceptation is the basis of ordinary friendly, social contact. In such instances contact even with relatives would be opposed to the natural law, and even to the divine law. St. Paul is, indeed, very explicit: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Tit. 3:10). Likewise St. John, the apostle of charity: "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works" (II Jn. 10, 11). However, this being said, it cannot be denied that there is no true Catholic who is not zealous for the conversion of heretical or apostate relatives to the true Faith, and that if there were no friendly contact or conversation, there would be no human possibility of initiating that conversion. It will consequently depend upon the virtue of prudence to balance the possible advantage of maintaining some contact with the grave danger of indifferentism of keeping up that contact, either affecting one’s own soul, or giving one’s relatives the impression that religion does not matter, or finally inducing other persons or relatives into indifferentism by the example of such contact. The prudent man will generally resolve this question by using the opportunity of a social contact to speak openly and frankly about the true religion and Faith, in an attempt to encourage the apostate or heretical relative to show interest in it. In so doing, he will faithfully fulfill Our Lord’s command: "Everyone therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 10:32). If this effort brings a positive response, then he will maintain the contact, speaking regularly about the Faith. If it does not, but rather seems futile, then he will avoid all friendship, but simply limit his contact to social necessities, thus fulfilling the recommendation of St. Paul: "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?…Wherefore, go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (II Cor. 6:14-17). Indeed, for what do we have in common with those who refuse to believe in supernatural realities, in God, His grace, the teachings of the Church, and the Cross, our only hope. This being said, the prudent man will always be ready to practice charity towards his relatives, even apostate, and in case of need he will always be available to provide physical help or emotional support, even when the spiritual is rejected, as St. Paul teaches: "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good" (Rom. 12:21). [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2020 11:40:05 GMT
14:14 I have to add this now, since it happened so recently, open brackets, the answer is not now with Fr. Pfeiffer being consecrated a bishop in the Thuc line. He made a huge mistake with so-called Bishop Ambrose. I warned Fr. Pfeiffer this is, you're driving the seminary off the cliff. Now we can say it's a free-fall. Because he got himself consecrated, about two weeks ago, by a bishop, so-called Bishop Neal Webster, who was ordained a priest in the line of those who elected their own pope in Spain. And, its just a chaos, a mess, so his priesthood is doubtful, absolutely questionable. And his episcopacy as a bishop, Neal Webster was in the Thuc line. And Archbishop Lefebvre said 'The Thuc line of bishops is questionable, it's at least doubtful. And it not certain.' Bishop de Castro Mayer, he said,'The Thuc line is absolutely doubtful.' He had no qualms, he was clear cut about it.
So when anything with the Sacraments is doubtful, the Church teaches you stay away. Because with the Sacraments we must be probiliorists, we must be certain its valid, certain that its blessed by the tradition of Mother Church. And that's why Fr. Pfeiffer made a deadly mistake. And he's now leading these seminarians, if he ordains them, their priesthood is going to be under question also. And we have to say publicly, to seek the Church says in canon law, to seek consecration or ordination from a suspended bishop or questionable bishop, or an excommunicated bishop in the normal times, is a suspension. So ... close brackets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 20, 2020 12:03:29 GMT
[...] OLMC vis a vis Steve Kaldawi on Facebook offering a plethora of sedevacantist sources to prop up the Thuc line.
Of great note and interest is the reply of Mr. Kaldawi to someone responding to this nonsense with a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre on the doubtfulness of the Thuc line. To my great amazement, Kaldawi boldly asserted that the words of Archbishop Lefebvre held "no theological reasoning" and "only uncertain implications" !!!
Do these seminarians and the OLMC priests still dare to call themselves sons of ABL?!!!!
More brashness:
When this same soul reminded Mr. Kaldawi that the Archbishop did not, nine years later, recognize "Bishop" des Laurier as such, Mr. Kaldawi arrogantly wrote this:
A New Definition of Tradition
We see once more these principles on the subject of untainted tradition and legitimate progress, in chapter six [in a book La Reforma liturgica published posthumously, Bugnini writes ...]:
Like this, we can do anything! It is enough to find the spirit of Tradition, which would do things completely differently in other times! This is what he calls Tradition! [...] With that, it's all over, we can do whatever we want! That is the spirit in which these Liberals talk and act.
- Essentially Incoherent
So if we ask them [liberals] each question in particular, they will say “oh yes, oh yes, we believe like the Church does..”, but in reality, no, they don't act like they have that faith. And this is typical for the Liberal, as defined by Cardinal Billot: “The Liberal Catholic is essentially incoherent.” What does incoherence mean? Well, he says one thing, but he does the opposite. He says one thing, but in practice he has other principles. So he is in a continuous inconsistency.
- God Does Not Bless Liars
I would like to insist on those things. It is difficult, I recognize that this is a truly painful situation, but it is unfortunate to see our confreres acting, I would say, so lightly and certainly those American confreres who have left us with a disloyalty that is inconceivable and beyond imagination: deceiving us right up to the moment of their priesthood, to sign commitments, to promise to remain faithful to the Society, to promise me obedience when I ordain them... and 48 hours later, saying goodbye and then leaving us [saying] “I don't know you anymore!” I think that these priests live in a state of continual mortal sin! It's not possible, you can't renounce your word like that, at that point, for such sacred things as ordination! To steal the ordination in a way, by a continuous lie, by continuous disloyalty, until the last minute, until the very moment of ordination, to say "yes" to the question "do you accept obedience?", and 48 hours later, to leave. It is not possible! In front of God, that's not possible! That's such a lie! God cannot allow things like that and bless such situations! That's not possible!
|
|
