Author Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer (Read 31766 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #75 on:** July 30, 2020, 05:45:16 PM »

Guess what?

I already archived the video. Here it is (625 MB) and anyone can download it -- not just those who are logged in:

It looks like the software auto-inflates the link into a playable video. That's neat.
For those who want to DOWNLOAD it, just right click and select "Save Video as..."

Matthew · « **Reply #76 on:** July 30, 2020, 05:49:02 PM »

Quote from: Sam Smith on July 30, 2020, 04:57:57 PM

Nothing wrong with more bishops.

The Church disagrees with you. The Church doesn't consider bishops to be "the more, the merrier". Otherwise it would be a lot easier to legally become a bishop. If it were really "the more the merrier" regardless of special vocation, proper training, proper formation -- why shouldn't most laymen, let alone most priests, become bishops?

Seriously, are you new to the Catholic Faith?

duck2050 · « **Reply #77 on:** July 30, 2020, 06:01:21 PM »

For those interested here is the archive.org of Fr. Neal Webster’s website. https://web.archive.org/web/20090204155255/http://true-doctrine.com/about.html
Scroll to the bottom to read his ordaining bishop’s (Henneberry) lineage.

A Priest of Jesus Christ

Father Neal Webster's right to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be traced back to Christ and the Apostles. By the grace of God, he is free from the Montinian revisions to Holy Orders. It is true the God writes straight with crooked lines. Many valid priests and bishops today are schismatics or notorious men, and many "authorized priests" are ordained in the doubtful Montinian rite. There is a difference between validity and Catholicity however. This demonstrates that Fr. Webster is a valid priest.

Father Neal Webster was ordained Priest in the Traditional Roman Rite of Ordination by Bishop Timothy Henneberry independently of the Modern Vatican. Bishop Timothy Henneberry has valid Priest and Bishop Orders as I will illustrate below:

Left to right, Fr. Andrew Bonet, C.R., Bishop Henneberry

Bishop Timothy Henneberry has valid Priest orders with no trace of Montinian revision

Bishop Timothy Henneberry was ordained Priest in the Traditional Roman Rite of Ordination by Bishop Moisés Carmona-Rivera independently of the Modern Vatican.

Left to right, Bishop Zamora, Bishop Thuc, Bishop Carmona

    Bishop Moisés Carmona-Rivera was ordained Priest in the Traditional Roman Rite of Ordination by a Catholic Bishop before Vatican II. Bishop Moisés Carmona-Rivera was consecrated Bishop in the Traditional Roman Rite of Consecration by Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dihn Thuc, independently of the Modern Vatican.

    Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc was ordained Priest and consecrated Bishop in the Catholic Church before Vatican II.

Bishop Timothy Henneberry has valid Bishop orders with no trace of Montinian revision

    Bishop Timothy Henneberry was consecrated Bishop in the Traditional Roman Rite of Consecration by Bishop Raymond Maurice Terrasson independently of the Modern Vatican.

    Bishop Raymond Maurice Terrasson was conditionally ordained Priest in the Traditional Roman Rite of Ordination and consecrated Bishop in the Traditional Rite of Consecration by Bishop Clemente Dominguez Gómez independently of the Modern Vatican.

Bishop Clemente Dominguez Gomez (?) consecrating a bishop

Bishop Clemente Dominguez Gomez was ordained Priest and consecrated Bishop in the Traditional Rites of Ordination and Consecration by Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc.

Bishop Thuc consecrating Bishop Clemente Dominguez Gomez (?)

tdrev123 · « **Reply #78 on:** July 30, 2020, 06:02:31 PM »

I talked with "Bp" Webster on the phone a few years ago.

He does not believe that the CMRI or Bishop Dolan/Sanborn group are catholic. He told me that if they profess and teach heresy (baptism of desire) then they are not Catholic and he heavily implied I should not go their masses.

So for him to be consecrating a feeney hater it makes no sense.
Combined that with him garbling the essential form, it is very possible he does not have all his mental faculties.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 on:** July 30, 2020, 06:29:23 PM »

Quote

He does not believe that the CMRI or Bishop Dolan/Sanborn group are catholic. He told me that if they profess and teach heresy (baptism of desire) then they are not Catholic and he heavily implied I should not go their masses.

Sometimes I think our Trad clerics cause more problems that they fix. If you could get 75% of Trad clerics on the same page, and all agree that the TLM and sacraments are priority #1, all other theological issues being minimized, then Traditionalism could conquer the world. It's so simple, it's scary. And the devil knows it.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #80 on:** July 30, 2020, 07:15:19 PM »

Quote

And put Bp. W at the top of that list, since he stood aloof from responsibility for the "Resistance" from the start.

You missed my point entirely. +Williamson has NEVER said to stay away from this-or-that-mass, or this-or-that-group. I'm talking about the problem of Trad groups fighting against Trad groups, which applies to (apparently) +Webster and some Sede bishops.
.
Traditionalism = staying true to orthodoxy, regardless of Trad group, Trad priest or Trad bishop.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #81 on:** July 30, 2020, 08:47:01 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 30, 2020, 02:41:09 PM

Was he reading the latin prayer? Maybe his pronunciation is just bad?

Yes, this was Latin. There is some allowance for simple mispronunciation, of course, but in my mind, this crossed a line. ministerii summam is in fact the essential thing that is being conferred upon the consecrand, the pinnacle of the priesthood, and it came across as misterii sanum. That's what I heard.

I don't quite get this. I can see that the Pontificale appeared to be formatted in a difficult way and he was struggling to find his place and perhaps it was small type. If I had been consecrating, I would have had the essential form printed out on paper in larger type and better formatting and would have practiced it a few times. At the very least, after I had stumbled through it like that, I would have certainly said it again until I got it right. DURING the essential form at one point there was a 5-second pause as he lost his place. At that point, I would have been starting over.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** July 30, 2020, 08:52:47 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on July 30, 2020, 04:07:11 PM

These are very different. Where might he have gotten the additional words?

In the first case, most Sacramental texts have alternate words, either singular or plural, or masculine or feminine, and the priest/bishop has to pick one depending on the context. But Bishop Webster read them both "in sacerdote tuo in sacerdotibus tuis" In other cases, he tries some words a couple times, and in one spot it appears as though he skipped a line.

Motorede · « **Reply #83 on:** July 30, 2020, 09:25:18 PM »

Quote from: tdrev123 on July 30, 2020, 06:02:31 PM

I talked with "Bp" Webster on the phone a few years ago.

He does not believe that the CMRI or Bishop Dolan/Sanborn group are catholic. He told me that if they profess and teach heresy (baptism of desire) then they are not Catholic and he heavily implied I should not go their masses.

So for him to be consecrating a feeney hater it makes no sense.
Combined that with him garbling the essential form, it is very possible he does not have all his mental faculties.

He certainly looked feeble at the processional. Didn't it appear to you that he was needing to be supported as he walked?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #84 on:** July 30, 2020, 09:28:43 PM »

Quote

At the very least, after I had stumbled through it like that, I would have certainly said it again until I got it right. DURING the essential form at one point there was a 5-second pause as he lost his place. At that point, I would have been starting over.

Totally agree. With something this important, even if you have to say it twice, because of a stutter or speech impediment, it's important enough to do so.

donkath · « **Reply #85 on:** July 30, 2020, 09:42:55 PM »

Quote from: Motorede on July 30, 2020, 09:25:18 PM

He certainly looked feeble at the processional. Didn't it appear to you that he was needing to be supported as he walked?

Yes. I noticed that.

Croixalist · « **Reply #86 on:** July 30, 2020, 09:51:12 PM »

The moment we've all been waiting for... if only it could have been Archphotoshop Ambrose!

Now that he is the Bishop in White, pray tell which mountain will he die on? Sugarloaf?

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #87 on:** July 30, 2020, 10:00:13 PM »

Croixalist · « **Reply #88 on:** July 30, 2020, 10:01:50 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf_Mountain_(Rowan_County,_Kentucky)

ElAusente · « **Reply #89 on:** July 30, 2020, 11:52:17 PM »

Perhaps relevant: St Boniface came across a priest who was baptizing “in nomine patria et filia et Spiritus Sancti.” St Boniface wrote to the pope, claiming this was invalid. However, Pope Zachary did not agree. Bad Latin did not invalidate the sacrament.

Author Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer (Read 31766 times)

Matthew

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Matthew

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

duck2050

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

tdrev123

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Pax Vobis

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Pax Vobis

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Motorede

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Pax Vobis

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

donkath

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Croixalist

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

Croixalist

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer

ElAusente

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer