Author Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer  (Read 16748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline St.Patrick

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • Reputation: +142/-42
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #150 on: July 31, 2020, 03:40:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Thucs consecrations are in doubt because he himself admitted that he witheld his intention.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1808
    • Reputation: +1153/-533
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #151 on: July 31, 2020, 04:05:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thucs consecrations are in doubt because he himself admitted that he witheld his intention.
    In the case of the Palmarian sect he may have admitted to withholding his intention but not for any other.  He had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight.  I question the accuracy of the Angelus article where they reported this.  Supposedly he wrote a letter but I've never seen a copy of the letter where he admits to simulating any consecration.  That article was written in 1982.  In 1985 Fr Sanborn visited Bishop Castro de Mayer.
    Quote
    Father Sanborn said that he doubted the validity of Bp. Guerard’s episcopal consecration. The bishop replied: “If it’s valid for Guerard, it’s valid for me.” Father Sanborn explained some of his hesitations. Bp. Mayer answered: “Guerard is the most qualified person in the world to determine if the consecration was valid.”
    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna
    So if they already doubted +Thuc in 1982 why was Bishop Mayer sure that +Thuc's consecration of Bishop des Lauriers was valid in 1985?


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7698
    • Reputation: +5788/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #152 on: July 31, 2020, 05:04:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • In the case of the Palmarian sect he may have admitted to withholding his intention but not for any other.  He had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight.  I question the accuracy of the Angelus article where they reported this.  Supposedly he wrote a letter but I've never seen a copy of the letter where he admits to simulating any consecration.  That article was written in 1982.  In 1985 Fr Sanborn visited Bishop Castro de Mayer.http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna
    So if they already doubted +Thuc in 1982 why was Bishop Mayer sure that +Thuc's consecration of Bishop des Lauriers was valid in 1985?

    Yet not even des Lauriers can read the internal forum to know whether intention was withheld (in a bishop who admitted to withholding intention during other episcopal consecrations).

    Note also that, in this regard, the Church's rule (i.e., that intention is presumed to exist unless there is something in the external forum which evinces a contrary intention) would have failed.

    In the case(s) where Thuc went through the form and matter, with nothing external contrary to the presumed intention, he nevertheless withheld it, and the sacrament which by rule would be presumed to be valid was in fact invalid.

    This goes back to the earlier question regarding whether, since there is question regarding the validity of the form in the Pfeiffer consecration, is there also question surrounding Webster's other sacraments/consecrations for the same reason (i.e., It was pointed out that when refugee conciliar priests come to the SSPX, and their ordaining bishop is investigated, if it is found he has a habit of violating the form of the sacrament, conditional ordination is -or was- usually given).

    Same thing here with Thuc: He acknowledged withholding intention during his consecrations (which in addition to being evil, is invalidating and crazy).

    If you are going to withhold intention, why go through the charade of pretending to consecrate???
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Miseremini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2111
    • Reputation: +1338/-169
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #153 on: July 31, 2020, 05:27:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you are going to withhold intention, why go through the charade of pretending to consecrate???
    But isn't that exactly what the devil would want?  Think of all the future invalid confessions, marriages, extreme unctions administered by all the invalid priests that bishop would ordain.
    To withhold intention is an evil act.
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1808
    • Reputation: +1153/-533
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #154 on: July 31, 2020, 05:40:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no evidence that +Thuc withheld intention for any other consecration and +Lefebvre was sending people to Thuc after 1976.  +Castro de Mayer was sure Bishop des Lauriers was valid 3 years after that Angelus article so if Thuc consecrations are invalid then the whole traditional movement is suspect.  More likely the one piece of evidence you have against Thuc is suspect.  Where’s the letter?


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7698
    • Reputation: +5788/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #155 on: July 31, 2020, 05:44:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • There is no evidence that +Thuc withheld intention for any other consecration and +Lefebvre was sending people to Thuc after 1976.  +Castro de Mayer was sure Bishop des Lauriers was valid 3 years after that Angelus article so if Thuc consecrations are invalid then the whole traditional movement is suspect.  More likely the one piece of evidence you have against Thuc is suspect.  Where’s the letter?

    But we know des Lauriers was a liar, so is it really beyond the pale that he should, in self-interest, promote the validity of his own consecration or conservator?

    PS: The lie I refer to is here (and I was the one who sent this to TIA): https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_Lauriers.html
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1415
    • Reputation: +375/-274
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #156 on: July 31, 2020, 05:53:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    If you are going to withhold intention, why go through the charade of pretending to consecrate???

    To receive the dollars?
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7698
    • Reputation: +5788/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #157 on: July 31, 2020, 05:54:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22451
    • Reputation: +12589/-3460
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #158 on: July 31, 2020, 06:10:28 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have never seen it proven that +Thuc said he withheld his intention at Palmar, just a repetition of this allegation in various anti-Thuc articles.

    In fact, in 1981, he issued the following declaration in a German magazine (though it's not a great translation):

    Quote
    I testify to have done the ordinations of Palmar in complete lucidity.  I don't have anymore relations with Palmar after their chief nominated himself pope.  I disapprove of all that they are doing.  The declaration of Paul VI has been made without me; I heard of it only afterwards.  Given the 19.XII.1981 at Toulon in complete possession of all my faculties.

    As far as his withholding of intention for the NOM, he didn't exactly say that either.  He said that he didn't really con-celebrate because he did not receive Communion and that it's not a Mass (on the priest's part) if he does not receive Communion.
    Vigano for Pope !!!

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7698
    • Reputation: +5788/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #159 on: July 31, 2020, 06:30:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no evidence that +Thuc withheld intention for any other consecration and +Lefebvre was sending people to Thuc after 1976.  +Castro de Mayer was sure Bishop des Lauriers was valid 3 years after that Angelus article so if Thuc consecrations are invalid then the whole traditional movement is suspect.  More likely the one piece of evidence you have against Thuc is suspect.  Where’s the letter?

    Supposing that were true, minimally he would be held to the same level of opprobrium for feigning a sacrament (mortal sin, if he wasn’t crazy) as Rifan was.

    it’s a problem that can’t be explained away.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1564
    • Reputation: +646/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #160 on: July 31, 2020, 06:34:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Supposing that were true, minimally he would be held to the same level of opprobrium for feigning a sacrament (mortal sin, if he wasn’t crazy) as Rifan was.

    it’s a problem that can’t be explained away.
    By the same logic, I guess we must question all of his baptisms too.  :facepalm:
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7698
    • Reputation: +5788/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #161 on: July 31, 2020, 06:37:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • By the same logic, I guess we must question all of his baptisms too.  :facepalm:

    There are some people who are comfortable dealing with a guy known to have faked consecrations, and there are some people who aren’t.

    I’m in the latter camp.

    In any case, this thread served its purpose.

    I have no desire to discuss Thuc further; I see “Bishop” Pfeiffer is busy ordaining already.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Venantius0518

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 277
    • Reputation: +59/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #162 on: July 31, 2020, 06:38:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But isn't that exactly what the devil would want?  Think of all the future invalid confessions, marriages, extreme unctions administered by all the invalid priests that bishop would ordain.
    To withhold intention is an evil act.
    The priest is only a witness to the sacrament of marriage.  He does not confect the sacrament.

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1564
    • Reputation: +646/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #163 on: July 31, 2020, 06:39:44 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • There are some people who are comfortable dealing with a guy known to have faked consecrations, and there are some people who aren’t.
    I’m in the latter camp.
    Where’s the proof Sean? You keep avoiding this.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7698
    • Reputation: +5788/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #164 on: July 31, 2020, 06:41:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Where’s the proof Sean?
    Thuc admitted he faked the Palmarian consecrations; it was discussed earlier in the thread.  If you can disprove it, I would not be disappointed.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16