I am shocked to learn from this sermon of Fr Pfeiffer that he considers the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to have been properly performed by Pope Francis in accordance with the wishes of Our Lady of Fatima: around 1:31 - 1:32

I think the suggestion of Ladislaus has merit, and I have thought about it myself.

Strictly speaking, what Mater Dominici says is right, but we are not in normal times.

I'm certainly in no place to judge all the issues that may be involved such as Pablo, as Pax mentions.

However, while the positions adopted by Frs Pf and Hewko were gravely scandalous at the time, they are not heretics and we are in a crisis. Their concerns were, after all, understandable, even if their reactions were exaggerated (to say the least). There is no longer a clear moral head of the Resistance and it is well and truly divided into isolated pockets. The greater scandal may be to leave them with doubtful orders. I don't think it will create a precedent in terms of emboldening priests to appoint themselves to the bishopric. In terms of their formation, the priests trained at OLMC will not be the most ignorant priests in the Resistance to have been given orders. I think the proposal deserves consideration by those in authority.

I appreciate this rational and cool-headed reponse.

Agreed.  We are not in normal times, and if you read the interview Bishop Williamson gave in response to criticisms for his consecration of Bishop Zendejas, that if anything was THE recurring theme.  End times, great apostasy, no jurisdiction (normal authority), emergency dispensers of Sacraments, for the salvation of souls.

AND, while I concede there might be some fuzzy cases, I did qualify it by saying that groups operating in (relative) "good faith" should be assisted.  Bishop Williamson always assited them, even if he didn't agree with them completely.  He didn't agree with +Vigano 100% either.

At the very least, an effort should be made to reach out to him ... especially given his change of tone in this latest.  Perhaps discussions could be had about consolidating a seminary effort, eliminating the influence of Pablo, etc. ... though even then the faithful should not be punished with dubious Sacraments just because of Pablo, thereby letting Pablo potentially destroy more souls than he's already harming.

Agreed, yes, bad behavior in the past, bad Pablo.  But to leave the poor faithful to potentially losing their souls because Pablo and because holding a grudge for past bad behavior?  Do Catholics not promote the idea of forgiveness and real conversion and change?  Looks to me like Bishop Pfeiffer has changed, and his bad behavior was probably born of frustration.  We're all human and we all make mistakes.

Even if ONE SINGLE soul were lost because he didn't get valid absolution from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest, that's an incalculable cost compared to putting up with some Pablonian nonsense ... and by making peace, you might be in a position to mitigate his influence more than if you're at odds.  Sit down like adults and rationally discuss these matters, and accept what appears to be a major unmistakable olive branch from Bishop Pfeiffer.  That should happen at the very least ...

Can the man get much bigger?

Wasn't there mentioned in an epistle to impose hands carefully? I see the point you make, but I still think caution should be maintained. Why not just consecrate 100 bishops to help all the more souls?

Well, Bishop Williamson may have been on his way to consecrating dozens.  Again, you speak as if we live in normal times, and not the end times and in the time of great apostasy.  Those admonitions about being cautious are particularly intended toward bishops who had actual episcopal authority, jurisdiction, not just Sacramental assistants.  Even today, the Eastern Rite chor-bishops generallly speaking are just glorified Monsignors, since there even priests can administer confirmations (whereas in the West they can not, although some debate it).  Those chor- or auxliary bishops only came about centuries later, as the early bishops all had actual jurisdiction and authority.

Nor are we talking about randomly imposing hands, but about a man you were fighting side by side with in the trenches not too many years ago and don't have any significant doctrinal differences with.

But, then, i get the impression from you that you don't think anything nefarious is taking place in the world, that our civil authorities are above board, etc.

That's why Bishop Slupski was offering to ordain some married men, including Matthew here.  Having grown up under Communism, he sees coming what will inevitably hit us, where the Plandemic 1.0 will be childsplay.

If we had such a lockdown for something that had the mortality rate of a flu, imagine now if they release something with even a 10% mortality rate, or, worse, 25%.  If you walk out of your house without a deep-sea-diving helmet on, an angry mob will likely lynch you on the nearest utility pole within minutes.  If we thought people dying in hospitals couldn't get the Last Rites or even absolution THEN, what will happen this next time around?  If we thought that SSPX and the Conciliars folded like accordions during the last one, what would happen this time around?  SSPX will be right there side by side with Jorge declaring it a grave moral obligation to get the next jab.  If I had orders, per Bishop Slupski, I would be looking to set up a secret, underground, very quiet group of "simplex priests", priests who nobody would know about but would be able to perhaps have slightly more access to others and at least provide absolutely for the dying.  We have plenty of former +Williamson seminarians floating around out there who are qualified (and in many cases more qualified that many currently-functioning Trad priests) to validly confect Sacraments.  Not only would they NOT function until TSHTF, but they would be under strict orders NOT to function until such a time, and they'd be "activated" by being given some "go" signal, not unlike the so-called "terror cells".  They would just continue living ordinary lives as laymen until needed.  We'd have an underground cell of +Williamson-derived and formerly-+Williamson-trained underground secret priests, just like they had them in Commie countries before who could go around saving souls.  I'm a big believer in this.  I have many extended family here in NE Ohio, and the thought of them dying w/o Sacraments, without being able to absolve them if I could, would be heart-breaking.  And we could do something about it.  Not only that but there are a half dozen Trad chapels up here, but apart from the >90-year-old Father Carley, who can't get around too well anymore, you just have one that doesn't merely "fly in" on weekends (note +Williamson's comments about +Zendejas being unable to fly in the future), and even he would be a known priest and would likely be shut down, leaving a half dozen chapels' worth of faithful without any source for Sacraments, especially Sacramental absolution.  That would be a tragedy, and there are those out there now with the power to set something like that up.  I am convinced that such days are closer than we think ... and so was Bishop Williamson (and Bishop Slupski).

So, I was thinking about Bishop Webster, the one who messed up initially at least in attempting to consecreate Father Pfeiffer, and found that he had passed away on December 29 of 2024, so not long before Bishop Williamson, and was laid to rest at Boston by Bishop? Pfeiffer.

He was a friend of mine for some years, a good man, who had a down-to-earth sermon style reminiscent of a Father Corapi (of Novus Ordo fame, or, rather, infamy).

I was the only one in attendance when he received Minor Orders from Bishop Hesson (I drive from Cleveland to Philly to be there), and I went to some Pro Life Rosary rallies with him.

God rest his soul.

https://www.barlowfh.com/obituary/BishopNeal-Webster

Agreed, yes, bad behavior in the past, bad Pablo.  But to leave the poor faithful to potentially losing their souls because Pablo and because holding a grudge for past bad behavior?  Do Catholics not promote the idea of forgiveness and real conversion and change?  Looks to me like Bishop Pfeiffer has changed, and his bad behavior was probably born of frustration.  We're all human and we all make mistakes.

I'm sorry, but you underestimate the influence of Pablo.  He's a self-admitted lay-exorcist; there's mounds of evidence/stories that he's into Santeria practices and he NEVER goes to church.  He's a walking scandal.  Why is he even involved in the "seminary" at all?  Until Fr P gets rid of him, then Fr P hasn't changed.  The spiritual dangers posed by Pablo are real. 

Very nice words,

I'm a little stunned he believes Rusia was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart properly. 

I'm sorry, but you underestimate the influence of Pablo.  He's a self-admitted lay-exorcist; there's mounds of evidence/stories that he's into Santeria practices and he NEVER goes to church.  He's a walking scandal.  Why is he even involved in the "seminary" at all?  Until Fr P gets rid of him, then Fr P hasn't changed.  The spiritual dangers posed by Pablo are real.

No, I underestimate nothing.  I weigh Pablo against the harm done to souls not receiving valid Sacraments, and don't believe those souls should be punished even more on account of Pablo.  Just have a look at all the young men participating in Bishop Williamson's or Bishop Webster's funerals, mostly all of good faith and sincerity ... and you go tell them they can't receive valid Sacraments and so potentially go to Hell for eternity ... because Pablo.  Pablo seems to be some kind of mental obsession with some of you, so that perhaps that IS a sign of his spells having effect.

No, I underestimate nothing.  I weigh Pablo against the harm done to souls not receiving valid Sacraments, and don't believe those souls should be punished even more on account of Pablo.  Just have a look at all the young men participating in Bishop Williamson's or Bishop Webster's funerals, mostly all of good faith and sincerity ... and you go tell them they can't receive valid Sacraments and so potentially go to Hell for eternity ... because Pablo.  Pablo seems to be some kind of mental obsession with some of you, so that perhaps that IS a sign of his spells having effect.

You both have a point. The "sanation" of Fr. Pfeiffer's questionable orders is one thing.

However, I think it is better for a given Catholic to *stay at home indefinitely* than to attend Mass with Fr. Pfeiffer, on account of Pablo's diabolical influence. What good does attending a specific Tridentine Mass do you, if you end up in sin, perhaps your marriage destroyed, perhaps your soul ends up in hell?

I've seen the fruits of Pfeifferville, and they are *horrible* in every sense of that word.

Diabolical influence is a real threat. The devil is real. Yes, the Mass is infinite and important, but it's not everything! Just like eating food is important for life -- but taking food with some poison mixed in is NOT advisable. Better to eat from the dumpster, than food that will kill you!

Just look at what the devil has done to both Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, for crying out loud! I knew both of these priests before 2012. They were both good priests. And now look at them! They'd rather see you support Fr. Tetherow or the conman Moran, than warm the pews even once at a Mass said by a decent priest (read: any priest they don't control or "get along with"). They don't care what happens to your soul (or your childrens' souls) as a result. We're talking about serious danger here.

Better to uproot and move across the country to LITERALLY ANY OTHER Mass center, even if it means you're homeless. Then you have your Mass of infinite value AND you avoid being cursed by the devil.

You can go to hell easily with regular Mass. Just remember that. Plenty of Catholics have done it and proven it over the ages. Perhaps it's a "grace vs. nature" thing. The Mass is powerful like the greatest jet fighter, but if you destroy the runway, it can't land.

Pablo is a red light.

To me, the major problems in Pfeifferville involve the occult and the complete lack of seminary formation/structure.  (Isn't a lack of formation a canon law issue?  There's a reason the church requires 6 years and only Bishops can dispense with such rules.)  Even if these priests were 100% valid, I wouldn't use them if they were the last priests on earth.  Validity is an afterthought, when listing the issues with this seminary.

That's the flip side of the coin.
Perhaps convalidating the orders would lead to more faithful following these priests and result in more souls actually putting themselves in greater danger...
I don't know enough about the situation. It's a most unfortunate mess from something that was so promising.