Dubious Sermons from a Dubious "Deacon"
Aug 19, 2020 20:15:17 GMT
Post by therecusant on Aug 19, 2020 20:15:17 GMT
Will somebody out there please have a word in the ear of Steve Kaldawi, before he makes an even greater fool of himself? It's so embarrassing to witness, I'm not sure I can take much more of it!
On 15th and 16th of August (Assumption and XI Sunday after Pentecost), the sermon at Boston KY was preached by Mr. Kaldawi, videos of which are on 469fitter (here and here).
It must be quite a daunting thing to get up and preach for the first time, especially knowing that whatever you say is going straight onto the internet. I think most people, if not all, would easily forgive the halting, nervous delivery, the more than once forgetting what he was about to say next, the embarrassing pauses, the not being able to remember the details of the story on which he was about to make his next point, the not being able to find the quote he was about to read next, and so on... if only the content weren't so objectionable.
Having listened to both sermons, here is what I think stands out a mile concerning the content.
The August 15th sermon is really a sermon on the previous day's Gospel, it deals with the Blessed Virgin Mary being called "Blessed" and Mr. Kaldawi tells everyone that just as it isn't her parentage per se which makes her fidelity (that she "hears the word of God and keeps it"). All very well and good. But he then goes off on something of a tangent and starts indirectly addressing (with a certain amount of insinuation, it must be said) the thorny question of Fr. Pfeiffer's scandalous non-consecration by a man who denies the teaching of the Church. Mr. Kaldawi draws a not-very-satisfactory parallel between the idea of a family tree, Our Lady's ancestors in particular, and that of episcopal succession. One ought hardly need add that that Gospel doesn't really have anything to do with episcopal lineage, and that what he says is not really relevant to the Blessed Virgin Mary's parentage. The analogy just doesn't work, in other words.
Firstly, it doesn't work because people aren't pointing to Fr. Pfeiffer's (supposed) episcopal lineage because they object to it being somehow "dirty". They are objecting to the fact that it may well not exist at all!
Secondly, if, as Mr. Kaldawi seems to be saying, what matters is not lineage but fidelity to the word of God, then Fr. Pfeiffer stands condemned on that count too. I agree that that is what matters most. Validity matters, yes, but fidelity matters more. And what can one say about the fidelity of one who publicly attempts to be consecrated by a sedevacantist Feeneyite, all the while claiming to be fighting against sedevacantism and Feeneyism? How can concelebrating the Mass of a man who denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood be seen as "Hearing the word of God and keeping it"..?
The either/or fallacy (lineage vs. fidelity) which Mr. Kaldawi seems to be presenting is in reality a false dichotomy. In the case of Fr. Pfeiffer is it not either/or, it is neither. Neither is there any fidelity, nor is there a great deal of chance (if any at all) in it being valid. The validity isn't there and the fidelity isn't there either. It's the worst of both worlds.
The Sunday 16th August Sermon, seems to be about sins of the tongue, calumny and detraction. Once again, it seems to involve a rather large dolop of insinuation to try to address people who aren't happy about "Bishop" Pfeiffer's bogus episcopal orders, and once again, it is all a little bit irrelevant. Mr. Kaldawi at one point even mentions Cathinfo and this website in the same breath as being sources of gossip. I can't speak for that other place, but nobody here is either speaking public lies against Fr. Pfeiffer, nor are they revealing hidden sins, nor are they saying evil things without justification. Nobody who has written here about "Bishop" Pfeiffer, from what I can see, is the least bit guilty of "sins of the tongue." On the contrary, if the standard is that what we say needs to be 1. true and 2. necessary, then what has been said here has, if anything, been remarkably restrained.
Given which, I would like to challenge Mr. Kaldawi on behalf of everyone else here. If he is right, then I will retract everything I have written and urge everyone else to do the same. How does that sound, Steve? If, on the other hand, we are right and it turns out that what has been said here is true, and that it is urgently necessary to say it publicly, to warn everyone of the danger, then I think there will be consequences for Mr. Kaldawi too. Let him demonstrate in front of everyone why it is wrong for the faithful to go to Fr. Gavin Bitzer's Feeneyite chapel for Mass, Communion and confession, but it's somehow OK for Fr. Pfeiffer to go to a feeneyite "bishop" for episcopal consecration. Let him demonstrate how is it wrong for families to go to the sedevacantists to have their children confirmed, but it is somehow a good thing for Fr. Pfeiffer to go to sedevacantist for holy orders. Furthermore, if Fr. Pfeiffer is justified in obtaining holy orders from a sedevacantist "bishop", why would it be wrong for a seminarian to, say, sneak off to a sedevacantist seminary (the CMRI, or Bishop Sanborn in Florida) and stay there long enough to get ordained, before coming home to Kentucky as a priest..? What is the essential difference? Does the end justify the means, or does it not? Why does one rule apply to episcopal consecration and another (totally the opposite) rule apply to the other sacraments?
I have already asked ten questions of Fr. Pfeiffer. Perhaps he will at some point respond, but don't hold your breath. The silence has so far been deafening.
And if, going forwards, there continues to be no response to what are surely reasonable questions for any faithful to ask, then in the meantime please let's not hear any more whiny insinuating sermons about gossip or sins of the tongue or Our Blessed Lady's episcopal lineage. Let's not hear any more almost-sobbing emotional sermons about how persecuted we are by all those wicked people on the internet who like to speak evil things. Because it isn't true and you know it. Time to put up or shut up. Either defend your scandalous un-Catholic fiasco, or own up to it.
Steve, if you're reading this - Fr. Pfeiffer almost certainly isn't a bishop. And if he's not a bishop, that means you're not a deacon. Stop preaching. Don't handle the sacred host. And please, please, when the time comes, don't go through the sacrilegious simulation of being ordained a priest!
On 15th and 16th of August (Assumption and XI Sunday after Pentecost), the sermon at Boston KY was preached by Mr. Kaldawi, videos of which are on 469fitter (here and here).
It must be quite a daunting thing to get up and preach for the first time, especially knowing that whatever you say is going straight onto the internet. I think most people, if not all, would easily forgive the halting, nervous delivery, the more than once forgetting what he was about to say next, the embarrassing pauses, the not being able to remember the details of the story on which he was about to make his next point, the not being able to find the quote he was about to read next, and so on... if only the content weren't so objectionable.
Having listened to both sermons, here is what I think stands out a mile concerning the content.
The August 15th sermon is really a sermon on the previous day's Gospel, it deals with the Blessed Virgin Mary being called "Blessed" and Mr. Kaldawi tells everyone that just as it isn't her parentage per se which makes her fidelity (that she "hears the word of God and keeps it"). All very well and good. But he then goes off on something of a tangent and starts indirectly addressing (with a certain amount of insinuation, it must be said) the thorny question of Fr. Pfeiffer's scandalous non-consecration by a man who denies the teaching of the Church. Mr. Kaldawi draws a not-very-satisfactory parallel between the idea of a family tree, Our Lady's ancestors in particular, and that of episcopal succession. One ought hardly need add that that Gospel doesn't really have anything to do with episcopal lineage, and that what he says is not really relevant to the Blessed Virgin Mary's parentage. The analogy just doesn't work, in other words.
Firstly, it doesn't work because people aren't pointing to Fr. Pfeiffer's (supposed) episcopal lineage because they object to it being somehow "dirty". They are objecting to the fact that it may well not exist at all!
Secondly, if, as Mr. Kaldawi seems to be saying, what matters is not lineage but fidelity to the word of God, then Fr. Pfeiffer stands condemned on that count too. I agree that that is what matters most. Validity matters, yes, but fidelity matters more. And what can one say about the fidelity of one who publicly attempts to be consecrated by a sedevacantist Feeneyite, all the while claiming to be fighting against sedevacantism and Feeneyism? How can concelebrating the Mass of a man who denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood be seen as "Hearing the word of God and keeping it"..?
The either/or fallacy (lineage vs. fidelity) which Mr. Kaldawi seems to be presenting is in reality a false dichotomy. In the case of Fr. Pfeiffer is it not either/or, it is neither. Neither is there any fidelity, nor is there a great deal of chance (if any at all) in it being valid. The validity isn't there and the fidelity isn't there either. It's the worst of both worlds.
The Sunday 16th August Sermon, seems to be about sins of the tongue, calumny and detraction. Once again, it seems to involve a rather large dolop of insinuation to try to address people who aren't happy about "Bishop" Pfeiffer's bogus episcopal orders, and once again, it is all a little bit irrelevant. Mr. Kaldawi at one point even mentions Cathinfo and this website in the same breath as being sources of gossip. I can't speak for that other place, but nobody here is either speaking public lies against Fr. Pfeiffer, nor are they revealing hidden sins, nor are they saying evil things without justification. Nobody who has written here about "Bishop" Pfeiffer, from what I can see, is the least bit guilty of "sins of the tongue." On the contrary, if the standard is that what we say needs to be 1. true and 2. necessary, then what has been said here has, if anything, been remarkably restrained.
Given which, I would like to challenge Mr. Kaldawi on behalf of everyone else here. If he is right, then I will retract everything I have written and urge everyone else to do the same. How does that sound, Steve? If, on the other hand, we are right and it turns out that what has been said here is true, and that it is urgently necessary to say it publicly, to warn everyone of the danger, then I think there will be consequences for Mr. Kaldawi too. Let him demonstrate in front of everyone why it is wrong for the faithful to go to Fr. Gavin Bitzer's Feeneyite chapel for Mass, Communion and confession, but it's somehow OK for Fr. Pfeiffer to go to a feeneyite "bishop" for episcopal consecration. Let him demonstrate how is it wrong for families to go to the sedevacantists to have their children confirmed, but it is somehow a good thing for Fr. Pfeiffer to go to sedevacantist for holy orders. Furthermore, if Fr. Pfeiffer is justified in obtaining holy orders from a sedevacantist "bishop", why would it be wrong for a seminarian to, say, sneak off to a sedevacantist seminary (the CMRI, or Bishop Sanborn in Florida) and stay there long enough to get ordained, before coming home to Kentucky as a priest..? What is the essential difference? Does the end justify the means, or does it not? Why does one rule apply to episcopal consecration and another (totally the opposite) rule apply to the other sacraments?
I have already asked ten questions of Fr. Pfeiffer. Perhaps he will at some point respond, but don't hold your breath. The silence has so far been deafening.
And if, going forwards, there continues to be no response to what are surely reasonable questions for any faithful to ask, then in the meantime please let's not hear any more whiny insinuating sermons about gossip or sins of the tongue or Our Blessed Lady's episcopal lineage. Let's not hear any more almost-sobbing emotional sermons about how persecuted we are by all those wicked people on the internet who like to speak evil things. Because it isn't true and you know it. Time to put up or shut up. Either defend your scandalous un-Catholic fiasco, or own up to it.
Steve, if you're reading this - Fr. Pfeiffer almost certainly isn't a bishop. And if he's not a bishop, that means you're not a deacon. Stop preaching. Don't handle the sacred host. And please, please, when the time comes, don't go through the sacrilegious simulation of being ordained a priest!
