Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matto on July 31, 2020, 05:31:41 PM
-
Youtube stream from Kentucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA)
-
That didnt take long. You really can't make this shit up.
-
That didnt take long. You really can't make this shit up.
I'm just enjoying the show. Another mortal blow against the fake resistance.
-
Those poor people.
-
Those poor people.
I knew a family who lived in the cult compound for a while. They seemed like good people when I knew them years ago. Thankfully they left Boston. I don't talk to them, but we have a mutual friend who I talk to who sometimes gives updates.
Looking at his seminarians. They look so young. I imagine they really want to become priests.
-
I knew a family who lived in the cult compound for a while. They seemed like good people when I knew them years ago. Thankfully they left Boston. I don't talk to them, but we have a mutual friend who I talk to who sometimes gives updates.
Looking at his seminarians. They look so young. I imagine they really want to become priests.
One word to those seminarians: RUN.
Hopefully they can find a seminary that will accept them and a Trad organization that isn't completely vainglorious.
-
One word to those seminarians: RUN.
Hopefully they can find a seminary that will accept them and a Trad organization that isn't completely vainglorious.
Any seminarian still there in 2020 (or 2015, for that matter) is not worth your warning.
-
I like his Cathedra....😳
-
Can't believe this is still going on. 2.5 hrs after first post and is not even at the gospel.
Either he's having trouble reading the texts due to eyesight or light, or his latin isn't very good.
-
Here comes the good part: The sermon!
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Here comes the good part: The sermon!
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
1) He begins by explaining that, despite his rejection of Feeneyism and sedevacantism, nevertheless, Webster agreed to consecrate him, and therefore from henceforth, until he dies he shall mention Webster in the Mass (i.e., instead of the local bishop??) until he dies...like a sede would. Hmm...
2) BOMBSHELL: He then states that because of the defect in the essential form, Webster repeated the essential form (i.e., conditionally reconsecrated)!!!!!!!
Wow.
-
Here comes the good part: The sermon!
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
"Don't keep the faith, spread it", said some priest in that same "Chapel" in 1973.
-
1) He begins by explaining that, despite his rejection of Feeneyism and sedevacantism, nevertheless, Webster agreed to consecrate him, and therefore from henceforth, until he dies he shall mention Webster in the Mass (i.e., instead of the local bishop??) until he dies...like a sede would. Hmm...
2) BOMBSHELL: He then states that because of the defect in the essential form, Webster repeated the essential form (i.e., conditionally reconsecrated)!!!!!!!
Wow.
Webster conditionally reconsecrated; essential form repeated. Somewhat surprised, but if true, that removes one particular doubt.
Would have been nice to have the video on that, but maybe in the future???
-
1) He begins by explaining that, despite his rejection of Feeneyism and sedevacantism, nevertheless, Webster agreed to consecrate him, and therefore from henceforth, until he dies he shall mention Webster in the Mass (i.e., instead of the local bishop??) until he dies...like a sede would. Hmm...
2) BOMBSHELL: He then states that because of the defect in the essential form, Webster repeated the essential form (i.e., conditionally reconsecrated)!!!!!!!
Wow.
Excuse me if I don’t take his word for the conditional consecration. Perhaps some video of it will be made available?
-
Excuse me if I don’t take his word for the conditional consecration. Perhaps some video of it will be made available?
I had exactly the same thought...
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Well, that was the shortest Fr. Pfeiffer sermon in history.
I guess he just wanted to put it out there that he was (allegedly) conditionally consecrated.
Would be more believable is Webster was there for the sermon/announcement, or, if video would come out.
-
I had exactly the same thought...
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Alas, he does not have a great track record for honesty.
-
Alas, he does not have a great track record for honesty.
Wouldn't it be appropriate for *Bishop Webster* to come out and say this?
It's easy for the consecrated "bishop" to claim this -- it's in his own best interest. But how are we to know if Bp. Pfeiffer really bugged him about it, brought it up, Bp. Webster consented, etc.?
Bp. Webster saying he did it would be the same thing as him doing it -- both would be just as easy for him. Bp. Pfeiffer claiming he was re-consecrated, on the other hand -- much easier "said" than done.
-
On the other hand, Pfeiffer has just acknowledged there was a defect in form, and a conditional consecration was necessary (he gets credit for that much).
That being the case, wouldn't the ordinands want proof that in fact Webster repeated -properly- the consecration form??
This would imply it is true (or else these seminarians/ordinands are completely hopeless).
-
One word to those seminarians: RUN.
Hopefully they can find a seminary that will accept them and a Trad organization that isn't completely vainglorious.
Cult followers tend not to leave.
-
1) He begins by explaining that, despite his rejection of Feeneyism and sedevacantism, nevertheless, Webster agreed to consecrate him, and therefore from henceforth, until he dies he shall mention Webster in the Mass (i.e., instead of the local bishop??) until he dies...like a sede would. Hmm...
2) BOMBSHELL: He then states that because of the defect in the essential form, Webster repeated the essential form (i.e., conditionally reconsecrated)!!!!!!!
Wow.
.
To my knowledge, sedevacantist priests do not name a bishop in the canon.
.
The una cuм clause identifies one's juridical superior, i.e., one's ordinary. It is totally incorrect for Pfeiffer to mention Webster in the una cuм, so far as I can tell.
-
On the other hand, Pfeiffer has just acknowledged there was a defect in form, and a conditional consecration was necessary (he gets credit for that much).
That being the case, wouldn't the ordinands want proof that in fact Webster repeated -properly- the consecration form??
This would imply it is true (or else these seminarians/ordinands are completely hopeless).
.
Except for obvious exceptions (danger of death), sacraments conditionally re-administered have/ought to have witnesses.
.
Who are the witnesses?
-
(One of) the scary things is that it appears Pfeiffers strategy is to initiate a blitzkreig. Now that he regards himself as a bishop, he's going to put his hands on everyone within reach and send out ministers at the rate of rabbits... you know.
-
(One of) the scary things is that it appears Pfeiffers strategy is to initiate a blitzkreig. Now that he regards himself as a bishop, he's going to put his hands on everyone within reach and send out ministers at the rate of rabbits... you know.
That should be obvious -- not even worth a prediction. The more priests/"priests" under him, the more glory for the Holy See of Boston, KY. And remember, he considers himself to be in a worldly fight for numbers, recognition, popularity. It's easier to call Bp. Zendejas and all the other priests "the fake resistance" when he has similar numbers to them -- or even higher numbers!
You know Fr. Pfeiffer is proud and competitive. A king over 100,000 has more glory than a king over 200.
Also, the more priests he can send out to old ladies and other desperate Trads starving for Mass (1-2 families here and there, all over the world) the more money he can bring into his coffers. He must have been hurting financially ever since his biggest draw -- Fr. Hewko -- left him. There were many locations that were "Fr. Hewko YES, Fr. Pfeiffer NO, any other random priest NO". His biggest limiting factor up till now is lack of priests. It's taken him this long to find a bishop will will consecrate him. It's a fact that he has been seeking consecration since at least 2013.
Remember, this is Fr. Pfeiffer we're talking about -- he thinks the whole world is his jurisdiction. When he plants his flag somewhere, it's his forever. Even if he abandons it. He came to San Antonio a few times in 2013, and totally abandoned the area after that. He never said Mass in Houston. Nevertheless, if you ask him today, he'll tell you Bp. Zendejas "stole" San Antonio and Houston from him. He really thinks he has "dibs" on the entire country, and even the entire world. Is he Pope now?
-
(One of) the scary things is that it appears Pfeiffers strategy is to initiate a blitzkreig. Now that he regards himself as a bishop, he's going to put his hands on everyone within reach and send out ministers at the rate of rabbits... you know.
I hadn't even considered that far ahead yet. :facepalm:
-
.
To my knowledge, sedevacantist priests do not name a bishop in the canon.
.
The una cuм clause identifies one's juridical superior, i.e., one's ordinary. It is totally incorrect for Pfeiffer to mention Webster in the una cuм, so far as I can tell.
.
Correction: I actually listened to the sermon, and Pfeiffer said he would 'pray for' Webster at all his masses. This is ambiguous, and it is not clear (to me) that he meant he would be inserting his name in the una cuм.
-
.
Correction: I actually listened to the sermon, and Pfeiffer said he would 'pray for' Webster at all his masses. This is ambiguous, and it is not clear (to me) that he meant he would be inserting his name in the una cuм.
Right. He could (and most likely does) mean saying his name during the Memento for the living.
-
It's taken him this long to find a bishop will will consecrate him. It's a fact that he has been seeking consecration since at least 2013.
And this tells you something. If I had a bit of time and money, I could go out right now and find a bishop to ordain and consecrate me (despite being married). In fact, I had a +Thuc-line bishop offer to ordain me to the priesthood many years ago (but that was before I was married).
Perhaps some of the delay can be attributed to his reluctance to use a +Thuc-line bishop, most of whom are also sedevacantists. And very few +Thuc-line bishops would consecrate a hard-line R&R. Bishop Webster is not a theological hard-liner that way. He has his opinions, but he doesn't bind the consciences of others with them. I do have a lot of respect for him that way. Maybe this might be an example of Traditional Catholics working together and helping each other out, despite such differences. Unfortunately, he made a tragic error in judgment with this particular candidate ... not unlike +Thuc did on a number of occasions.
-
Why not ordain more bishops and hold a conclave on the compound and be made Pope?
Or maybe he’s holding off on that until next weekend?
I see nothing good coming out of this.
-
Why not ordain more bishops and hold a conclave on the compound and be made Pope?
Not sure at this point he would want to make people not dependent on him. Or potential competition.
-
Did anyone else notice the breaking of canon law when he conferred subdiaconate and then diaconate immediately following?
.
Canon law says two major orders cannot be conferred the same day.
-
Excuse me if I don’t take his word for the conditional consecration. Perhaps some video of it will be made available?
I actually talked to the MC that said he caught the irregularity of the words Bishop Webster and because of that, they reconsecrated afterward.
-
I actually talked to the MC that said he caught the irregularity of the words Bishop Webster and because of that, they reconsecrated afterward.
Prove it.
-
I actually talked to the MC that said he caught the irregularity of the words Bishop Webster and because of that, they reconsecrated afterward.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.u-yAguhT8RjfObtvWXFFbgHaG4%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
-
I actually talked to the MC that said he caught the irregularity of the words Bishop Webster and because of that, they reconsecrated afterward.
They video everything, but the one thing most important to the career of Fr. Pfeiffer, the conditional consecration, they don't record? Hmm.....
-
I actually talked to the MC that said he caught the irregularity of the words Bishop Webster and because of that, they reconsecrated afterward.
Sorry, but I don't believe this. If they caught the "irregularity", then they had an obligation to notify Bishop Webster during the ceremony because the rest of the ceremony was improperly held with the assumption that Pfeiffer was already a bishop.
I doubt they caught anything. And, even if they did, given how difficult a time Bishop Webster had with the Latin, I don't have a lot of confidence that he got it right the second time.
-
They video everything, but the one thing most important to the career of Fr. Pfeiffer, the conditional consecration, they don't record? Hmm.....
There's a good chance this never happened. Thus, no video.
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.u-yAguhT8RjfObtvWXFFbgHaG4%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
I agree. Either "Tradman" or the MC is lying.
Pfeifferville isn't known for keeping a low profile. They record and publish everything. Where is the super important "conditional consecration" ceremony?
It also doesn't surprise me that Fr. Pfeiffer fails to thank Ladislaus and others on CathInfo for catching this. It was actually a great favor. But of course, no gratitude.
-
I agree. Either "Tradman" or the MC is lying.
Pfeifferville isn't known for keeping a low profile. They record and publish everything. Where is the super important "conditional consecration" ceremony?
It also doesn't surprise me that Fr. Pfeiffer fails to thank Ladislaus and others on CathInfo for catching this. It was actually a great favor. But of course, no gratitude.
It would not be appropriate for him to thank CathInfo ... IF in fact things went down as he claimed, where he caught the defect immediately and had it corrected right afterward. But I agree with Father Chazal who also seems to think that he only later became aware of it after word got back through CathInfo and/or NovusOrdo Watch (Bishop Sanborn's take).
In my mind, there was a dead giveaway when he mentioned the conditional consecration in his first sermon. He started stuttering badly and looking down. Just had the body language of lying.
-
Sorry, but I don't believe this. If they caught the "irregularity", then they had an obligation to notify Bishop Webster during the ceremony because the rest of the ceremony was improperly held with the assumption that Pfeiffer was already a bishop.
I doubt they caught anything. And, even if they did, given how difficult a time Bishop Webster had with the Latin, I don't have a lot of confidence that he got it right the second time.
I've since talked to other seminarians in order to get clarity. All were in agreement, although each had his own description. Basically, the MC caught the error and warned the bishop(s). Pfeiffer dismissed the warning and said everything was ok. Discussion ensued. They reviewed the recording and reconsecrated. Pfeiffer says a reconsecration was done when he spoke the following day at the sermon at the diaconate. I agree it would be nice to see a statement from Bishop Webster but I'm no longer in doubt about whether or not Pfeiffer is a bishop.
-
I've since talked to other seminarians in order to get clarity. All were in agreement, although each had his own description. Basically, the MC caught the error and warned the bishop(s). Pfeiffer dismissed the warning and said everything was ok. Discussion ensued. They reviewed the recording and reconsecrated. Pfeiffer says a reconsecration was done when he spoke the following day at the sermon at the diaconate. I agree it would be nice to see a statement from Bishop Webster but I'm no longer in doubt about whether or not Pfeiffer is a bishop.
It begs the question: Why would they publish a video that contains obvious errors without a rider explaining the correction?
-
It begs the question: Why would they publish a video that contains obvious errors without a rider explaining the correction?
Aren't we talking Pfeiffer?
-
I've since talked to other seminarians in order to get clarity. All were in agreement, although each had his own description. Basically, the MC caught the error and warned the bishop(s). Pfeiffer dismissed the warning and said everything was ok. Discussion ensued. They reviewed the recording and reconsecrated. Pfeiffer says a reconsecration was done when he spoke the following day at the sermon at the diaconate. I agree it would be nice to see a statement from Bishop Webster but I'm no longer in doubt about whether or not Pfeiffer is a bishop.
That bolded statement is the only thing there that has a ring of truth about it.
I'm still in doubt.
Did everybody hang around for hours after the long ceremony discussing and reviewing the video? It takes a while to find it and to review it. Was the video immediately available for playback?
-
It begs the question: Why would they publish a video that contains obvious errors without a rider explaining the correction?
EXACTLY RIGHT. They published the video right away because they did not notice the error.
-
I actually talked to the MC that said he caught the irregularity of the words Bishop Webster and because of that, they reconsecrated afterward.
Tradman, in this particular case, where there is indisputable evidence which proves he received a doubtful/invalid consecration, word of mouth that this was corrected is not good enough to serve as proof, not by any stretch. As it is now, now he *has to* provide evidence of validity.
-
Tradman, in this particular case, where there is indisputable evidence which proves he received a doubtful/invalid consecration, word of mouth that this was corrected is not good enough to serve as proof, not by any stretch. As it is now, now he *has to* provide evidence of validity.
I definitely won't argue. It would be prudent to post the video.
-
I've since talked to other seminarians in order to get clarity. All were in agreement, although each had his own description. Basically, the MC caught the error and warned the bishop(s). Pfeiffer dismissed the warning and said everything was ok. Discussion ensued. They reviewed the recording and reconsecrated. Pfeiffer says a reconsecration was done when he spoke the following day at the sermon at the diaconate. I agree it would be nice to see a statement from Bishop Webster but I'm no longer in doubt about whether or not Pfeiffer is a bishop.
Methinks the right had does not know what the left is doing.
-
It begs the question: Why would they publish a video that contains obvious errors without a rider explaining the correction?
A rider is not enough.
They put out the video proving invalidity of the co secretion. They need to put out the video of the conditional consecration.
.
Then there is still the discussion of the validity of Webster's ordination.
.
And of tonsure, subdiaconate and diaconates.... major orders are in question.
-
I definitely won't argue. It would be prudent to post the video.
Prudent?
Necessary.
-
A rider is not enough.
Right. I think his point, though, was that if they did in fact noticed it immediately, as they now claim, why not give an explanation before publishing the video? ANSWER: because they clearly did NOT notice the problem right away like they claim.
-
Right. I think his point, though, was that if they did in fact noticed it immediately, as they now claim, why not give an explanation before publishing the video? ANSWER: because they clearly did NOT notice the problem right away like they claim.
They may have noticed before they put out the video. Remember 10 year old girl productions.... Perhaps she didn't get the memo not to post it. Then it was quickly taken down.
.
Moot point, though.
.
The consecration was invalid. Fr. Pfeiffer admitted such. To prove the conditional consecration is valid, a video is needed.
-
It would seem that the not all of the Pfeiffer clan is supporting the "episcopacy" because 9 of them assisted at the SSPX mass yesterday instead of OLMC.
-
They may have noticed before they put out the video. Remember 10 year old girl productions.... Perhaps she didn't get the memo not to post it. Then it was quickly taken down.
.
Moot point, though.
.
The consecration was invalid. Fr. Pfeiffer admitted such. To prove the conditional consecration is valid, a video is needed.
Yes, I'm sure Pablo published it as soon as he possibly could. But evidently they were viewing the video immediately after the ceremony (so they say), so presumably that would have delayed Pablo.
-
It would seem that the not all of the Pfeiffer clan is supporting the "episcopacy" because 9 of them assisted at the SSPX mass yesterday instead of OLMC.
hmmmmmm
Of course, +?Pfeiffer's Mass would still be valid regardless.
Either that or +?Pfeiffer was already out travelling, spreading the episcopal joy.
-
hmmmmmm
Of course, ?+Pfeiffer's Mass would still be valid regardless.
True but you have to take the culture of the family into account. Blood is thicker than faith so this is hugely significant.
-
True but you have to take the culture of the family into account. Blood is thicker than faith so this is hugely significant.
Was he even there, or might he have been travelling the country randomly confirming and ordaining people?
Alternatively, he was in Tennesee begging +Webster to re-consecrate him. :laugh1:
-
I still anxiously await the ordination if not consecration of Pablo.
-
::)
-
What seminary did Neal Webster attend? Did he have any training in Latin?
-
The word “summam” certainly wasn’t pronounced as “sanum”; there’s no ‘an’ sound whatever (I don’t even hear that in the unamplified YouTube audio). If you listen attentively the ‘u’ is actually pronounced like the ‘ow’ in ‘town’, which is constant with his pronunciation of ‘spiritus’.
Nonsense. Bishop Sanborn, Father Chazal, and I all concluded that he said mysterii sanum. We're all aware of pronunciation differences and this was not covered under that umbrella. Bishop Sanborn and Father Chazal both speak a number of modern languages and have heard a broad range of Latin pronunciations. I myself studied Latin formally starting with: 4 years High School, 4 Years College (B.A. in both Latin and Greek) and 3 years of Graduate School at Catholic University of America. I taught undergraduate Latin at Catholic University and also taught Latin at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary while I was there. This was not a pronunciation issue by any stretch. He was obviously confused and didn't recognize the word "summam", just like he didn't recognize that "in sacerdote tuo (in sacerdotibus tuis)" were listed as options to be chosen from depending upon whether there was one consecrand or more than one, just like he didn't understand that "comple" began a new sentence and a new thought.
-
The same is true with the pronunciation of “ministerii”, in fact if you listen very carefully to the second attempt you do hear four syllables.
Bishop Pfeiffer explains it all here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjAf94rfQ5o (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjAf94rfQ5o)
This was a pack of contradictions. He claims there was no doubt about his pronunciation of the words. He claims to have a "better recording" where it's clear.
But then he contradicts himself a few sentences later and claims that "one word was slightly mispronounced" ... slightly enough, I take it, to justify a conditional consecration. If there's no positive doubt, then it's sinful to perform a conditional consecration.
Now, the prior story was that this conditional consecration happened immediately after the ceremony. This was the story related to us by Tradman as being told by seminarians and others close to the situation. But now +?Pfeiffer claims that the conditional consecration was performed "the next morning". So we have contradictory narratives ... which means that someone is lying.
So either there was a doubt, or there was not. He's claiming BOTH that there was a doubt (by doing the conditional consecration) and there was not (attacking those who claim there was a doubt).
Then at one point he says they "cleaned up the ... audio". What does that mean? I could see saying that "we consulted the better audio". But you wouldn't use an expression like this unless some doctoring was in play.
If the earlier story was true, that the MC noticed it directly while it was being performed, then it's obviously not a function of corrupted audio.
-
This was a pack of contradictions. He claims there was no doubt about his pronunciation of the words. He claims to have a "better recording" where it's clear.
But then he contradicts himself a few sentences later and claims that "one word was slightly mispronounced" ... slightly enough, I take it, to justify a conditional consecration. If there's no positive doubt, then it's sinful to perform a conditional consecration.
Now, the prior story was that this conditional consecration happened immediately after the ceremony. This was the story related to us by Tradman as being told by seminarians and others close to the situation. But now +?Pfeiffer claims that the conditional consecration was performed "the next morning". So we have contradictory narratives ... which means that someone is lying.
So either there was a doubt, or there was not. He's claiming BOTH that there was a doubt (by doing the conditional consecration) and there was not (attacking those who claim there was a doubt).
Then at one point he says they "cleaned up the ... audio". What does that mean? I could see saying that "we consulted the better audio". But you wouldn't use an expression like this unless some doctoring was in play.
If the earlier story was true, that the MC noticed it directly while it was being performed, then it's obviously not a function of corrupted audio.
.
Just for purposes of making sure the record of claims is right, did Fr. Pfeiffer really ever say the conditional consecration took place immediately after the ceremony? When he mentioned, during his sermon the next day (when giving minor orders), he simply said that a conditional consecration occurred 'afterward,' which is non-descript. He did not specify exactly when.
ETA: at 03:14:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA&t=11681s
-
Just for purposes of making sure the record of claims is right, did Fr. Pfeiffer really ever say the conditional consecration took place immediately after the ceremony? When he mentioned, during his sermon the next day (when giving minor orders), he simply said that a conditional consecration occurred 'afterward,' which is non-descript. He did not specify exactly when.
That was reported by a poster here who says he got it directly from some of their seminarians.