Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 88

Author Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer  (Read 103872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #155 on: July 31, 2020, 05:44:33 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 05:40:13 PM
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
Logged

Offline Struthio

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #156 on: July 31, 2020, 05:53:17 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 05:04:22 PM
.
If you are going to withhold intention, why go through the charade of pretending to consecrate???

To receive the dollars?
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #157 on: July 31, 2020, 05:54:29 PM »
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #158 on: July 31, 2020, 06:10:28 PM »
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.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #159 on: July 31, 2020, 06:30:13 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 05:40:13 PM
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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 88
« previous next »