Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: MaterDominici on July 30, 2020, 01:12:37 AM

Title: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: MaterDominici on July 30, 2020, 01:12:37 AM
Moderator edit: 
Apparently Fr. Pfeiffer has had himself consecrated Bishop. No details were given, but this is from his website mailing list.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: St Frumentius on July 30, 2020, 03:35:32 AM
No way.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: TKGS on July 30, 2020, 06:20:10 AM
So...who did he get to consecrate him?  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 07:48:11 AM
Who’s in the picture with him?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 07:54:54 AM
No way.

Oh, come on, we all knew it was just a matter of time.  He was desperate to be consecrated a bishop, and there are plenty out there willing to offer their services.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 08:22:04 AM
Oh, come on, we all knew it was just a matter of time.  He was desperate to be consecrated a bishop, and there are plenty out there willing to offer their services.
This.

Besides the issue of VALIDITY, there is a much bigger issue going forward: poorly trained and formed priests.
For those Traditional Catholics not running the other way from everything Pfeiffer -- those willing to attend an "independent chapel" -- their lives just got more difficult.

I'll repeat what I've said before: BEWARE any "independent chapel" and do your due diligence/research. Right now we have the Resistance which is basically as safe as the SSPX as far as validity/training. But Trad Catholics must always ask the question, WHERE DID THIS BISHOP/PRIEST COME FROM? How was he trained -- and formed? You have to know what you're getting. Don't just bless your apparent good luck and chomp down on the bait -- look into it and question it. If a "trad" bishop wasn't known until 2020, WHY wasn't he known until then? Does he have skeletons in his closet? Is he really a bishop? etc.

That's why 90% of Traditional Catholics went with the SSPX over the past decades, and many still do! I don't blame them really. Part of being a Traditional Catholic is *safety* of one's Faith. Sticking with a known good. Why go to some chapel where the priest might turn out to not even be a priest? Don't scoff -- that has actually happened to some hapless Trads over the past decades! Imagine finding out all your confessions were invalid, and that all your "communions" with that priest were just bread.

But even if Fr./Bishop Pfeiffer turns out to be validly consecrated, that is only 10% of the problem. His "seminary" is a joke and that isn't going to change any time soon. He and his seminary are still under the demonic influence of Pablo "el Diablo" Hernandez. He is going to unleash on the STARVING TRAD WORLD a flood of poorly trained and/or bewitched priests -- like the Church suffered in the 1400's, which led to the Protestant reformation. You know, the ones who were living in concubinage, selling indulgences. They were trained by hanging around a Bishop for a while, like an apprenticeship. They were horribly ignorant, full of vice, poorly trained -- causing more problems than if they didn't exist. Read your Church history.

Woe unto the world for bad priests. That is the mind of the Catholic Church on the matter -- not my personal opinion.

If the Church thought it was better to have legions of bad, poorly trained priests -- She wouldn't have instituted and required Seminaries right after the Protestant Revolt, and She would make becoming a priest much easier. But she doesn't. Because, as I said -- She would rather see a priest shortage than a plethora of bad priests. And we're talking about the Bride of Christ who wants only what is good for souls -- souls bought with the most precious Price of Jesus Christ's own Blood.

With a lack of priests, you can still keep the Faith at home with your family. A bad priest? Not so much. That is how atheists and anti-Catholics are made.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: TKGS on July 30, 2020, 08:51:24 AM
There has been no verification
It does appear that the photo may have been photoshopped.  But I don't know how this can be verified.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 09:00:54 AM
It's from the "In This Sign" mailing list. Pablo just released a "teaser" and promised more details to follow.

You're still in Denial. I expect "Anger" and "Bargaining" to follow. I'm over here at "Acceptance".

It's horrible, it's bad news for the Trad world, but it's all too real.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 09:04:03 AM
It does appear that the photo may have been photoshopped.  But I don't know how this can be verified.

Come on!

You make us look like a bunch of kooks. HOW does it look photoshopped? You're damaging not only your own credibility, but the general credibility of CathInfo as well. Don't be the boy who cried "PHOTOSHOP!"

This is clearly a case of Denial.

When there really IS a Photoshop (like Ambrose Moran photos) I'd like people to believe us.

I'm a computer guy with a lot of photoshop skills myself. I see NO evidence that photo was photoshopped.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 09:04:47 AM
Can we begin the countdown to the ordination of Pablo to the priesthood?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on July 30, 2020, 09:08:00 AM
Come on!

You make us look like a bunch of kooks. HOW does it look photoshopped? You're damaging not only your own credibility, but the general credibility of CathInfo as well. Don't be the boy who cried "PHOTOSHOP!"

This is clearly a case of Denial.

When there really IS a Photoshop (like Ambrose Moran photos) I'd like people to believe us.

I'm a computer guy with a lot of photoshop skills myself. I see NO evidence that photo was photoshopped.


It certainly doesn't look photoshopped.
..
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 09:09:44 AM

It certainly doesn't look photoshopped.
..

No, but the techniques are getting better (deep fake) ... though I doubt Pablo would have access to that level of technology.

The only suspicion that it might be photoshopped is the source ... Pablo.

I mean, they were promoting those OBVIOUSLY photoshopped pictures of Moran with Cardinal Slipijy
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 09:13:24 AM
Come on!

You make us look like a bunch of kooks. HOW does it look photoshopped? You're damaging not only your own credibility, but the general credibility of CathInfo as well. Don't be the boy who cried "PHOTOSHOP!"

This is clearly a case of Denial.

When there really IS a Photoshop (like Ambrose Moran photos) I'd like people to believe us.

I'm a computer guy with a lot of photoshop skills myself. I see NO evidence that photo was photoshopped.

What hurts the credibility of CI is posting a picture without any announcement or proof of authenticity (particularly in something so important).

Please post the announcement you received in the mailing list.

I’m not saying it’s not true, but I do refuse to believe it merely on the basis of a pic I could create myself.

I want details.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 09:17:49 AM
No, but the techniques are getting better (deep fake) ... though I doubt Pablo would have access to that level of technology.

The only suspicion that it might be photoshopped is the source ... Pablo.

I mean, they were promoting those OBVIOUSLY photoshopped pictures of Moran with Cardinal Slipijy

Yes, but logically that made sense. He wanted (or "needed") to establish Ambrose's legitimacy as a bishop, so HE could benefit (getting consecrated, having his "seminarians" ordained, etc.) Ambrose was his only option at the time.

But as you yourself said, there are plenty of "garage bishops" out there for ANY priest to get himself consecrated, if they reach that low point in their spiritual life. So it's most likely Fr. Pfeiffer eventually found and convinced one or two of these.

But something like this, he'd want to broadcast the REAL consecration ceremony to make sure everyone knows he's a "valid bishop". Nevermind Fr. Pfeiffer's spiritual problems brought up in the past by Fr. Voigt, the complete lack of order or discipline at the seminary, or the demonic influence of Pablo. THOSE are the real issues with Fr. P.

The problems with this scene happened when he approached those bishop(s) for consecration -- not the scene of the consecration itself. What I'm trying to say is, when you can get shifty bishops to consecrate you bishop, you don't need shifty photoshop fakes.

The problem in this case is Father resorting to shifty bishops who will consecrate any priest.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 09:18:27 AM
What hurts the credibility of CI is posting a picture without any announcement or proof of authenticity (particularly in something so important).

Please post the announcement you received in the mailing list.

I’m not saying it’s not true, but I do refuse to believe it merely on the basis of a pic I could create myself.

I want details.

The Catacombs Forum is posting this:

“Well, dear friends, it seems that Fr. Pfeiffer has been "consecrated" by the dubious "Bishop" Neal Webster.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kMtcs4BR/DB2-AAAE1-789-A-480-F-ABE8-0-C0-AEA606-C82.jpg)

It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite. But of even more concern is the fact that[color=71101d] "Bishop" Webster is a Thuc line priest and bishop, placing great doubt on the validity of both his ordination and consecration, and consequently on the "consecration" of "Bishop" Pfeiffer.[/font][/size][/color]

It is rumored that there will be a video published later today from OLMC with details of this "consecration" of Fr. Pfeiffer.“
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 09:20:03 AM
Remember a couple years ago when Fr. Hewko left, and I made a prediction?

I said that in the NEAR future Fr. Pfeiffer will either have to

A) repent, apologize to Bp. Williamson and humbly join the real Resistance
B) Keep the status-quo and watch his seminary dry up and die as he runs out of funds and doesn't have the priests to bring in $$$
C) double-down on the insanity, turn up the crazy to 11, do something drastic.

Sure enough, Fr. Pfeiffer went with C. I suspected he would.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 09:22:54 AM
Sean, I updated the OP.

My wife isn't as good at things like taking screenshots, so I took one and cropped it nice. I added it to the OP.

Here it is, for those who can't be bothered to scroll up to the OP.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 09:28:18 AM
I can’t wait to see the video :popcorn:

:facepalm:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 30, 2020, 09:33:02 AM

Quote
It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite.
.
C) double-down on the insanity, turn up the crazy to 11, do something drastic.
So, Fr Pfeiffer, one of the most outspoken, anti-feeneyite, if-you're-not-3-baptisms-you're-a-heretic priests i've ever heard of, is consecrated by (in his view) a feeneyite heretic.  Hahaha.  You can't make this stuff up.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on July 30, 2020, 09:33:46 AM

As Bishop William used to say in his seminary lectures:


"Remind you of something... naturally?"


(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Flotr%2Fimages%2F4%2F47%2FGrima_and_King_Theoden_-_Two_Towers.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20121011122914&f=1&nofb=1)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 30, 2020, 09:47:06 AM
I first saw this post from my phone this morning, and now looking at it from PC, the man to the left definitely looks like Neal Webster.
.
I am surprised that Fr. Pfeiffer would resort to Webster's services, since he (Pfeiffer) is militantly anti-Feeneyite (though for perspective, there is nothing that Pfeiffer is against that he isn't militantly against), and the only reason people know Webster's name is that he's the only traditional bishop on record who denies baptism of desire. 
.
I guess perhaps he (Pfeiffer) realized that his choices were between a doubtfully ordained liar and schismatic (Moran), any number of obscure sede bishops, MBA-grad Old-Catholic 'cardinals' (Rutherford Johnson), and a mild and infirm Feeneyite.  This sounds like a Coen brothers movie.
.
I personally labor under doubts about the validity of Webster's orders.  The documentation of these orders is around, and it goes through quite a few Palmarian clerics before 'emerging' out of that schismatic sect.  Some of the men along that line of orders later sought conditional ordinations/consecrations.  Plus, the Palmarians changed the rite of mass, which has always made me uneasy because it raises legitimate questions about whether or not they changed other rites (I have tried to find out specifically if they changed the rites of orders and to no avail; some people claim they have, but I have not seen any proof).
.
Anyways, I do echo Matthew's sentiment that no one should be surprised at the fact of Fr. Pfeiffer pursuing episcopal orders.  That has been in the pipe ever since he left the SSPX, I think.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 30, 2020, 09:51:13 AM
The man to the right is Fr. Pancras, is it not?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 09:56:59 AM
The man to the right is Fr. Pancras, is it not?
Yes it's 100% him. Pablo has sermons by him posted, and it's certainly the same man.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Minnesota on July 30, 2020, 09:58:34 AM
The Trad world already suffers from a faction with poorly-trained priests and bishops who have no business being bishops.

This just made everything much worse.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on July 30, 2020, 10:01:52 AM
It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite.

I am surprised that Fr. Pfeiffer would resort to Webster's services, since he (Pfeiffer) is militantly anti-Feeneyite (though for perspective, there is nothing that Pfeiffer is against that he isn't militantly against), and the only reason people know Webster's name is that he's the only traditional bishop on record who denies baptism of desire.  
So, Fr Pfeiffer, one of the most outspoken, anti-feeneyite, if-you're-not-3-baptisms-you're-a-heretic priests i've ever heard of, is consecrated by (in his view) a feeneyite heretic.  Hahaha.  You can't make this stuff up.
.
And one of the most militantly outspoken, anti-sedevacantist, if-you-don't-believe-Francis-is-pope-you're-a-heretic priests i've ever heard of, is consecrated by (in his view) a sedevacantist heretic. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 30, 2020, 10:02:56 AM
Here is an old thread on Webster, with quite a few different links and sources gathered documenting his lineage: 

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bp-neal-webster/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bp-neal-webster/)

http://www.thetradforum.com//index.php?topic=318.0
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 30, 2020, 10:03:57 AM
.
And one of the most militantly outspoken, anti-sedevacantist, if-you-don't-believe-Francis-is-pope-you're-a-heretic priests i've ever heard of, is consecrated by (in his view) a sedevacantist heretic.
I don't believe Webster is a sedevacantist. 
.
If he were, that would indeed compound the irony.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on July 30, 2020, 10:14:03 AM
I don't believe Webster is a sedevacantist.  
.
If he were, that would indeed compound the irony.
.
Thanks.  I was under the impression he was, and also going by what was written earlier, and it did seem to "compound the irony."  Interesting to know if he isn't.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 10:16:11 AM
The Catacombs Forum is posting this:

“Well, dear friends, it seems that Fr. Pfeiffer has been "consecrated" by the dubious "Bishop" Neal Webster.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kMtcs4BR/DB2-AAAE1-789-A-480-F-ABE8-0-C0-AEA606-C82.jpg)

It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite. But of even more concern is the fact that[color=71101d] "Bishop" Webster is a Thuc line priest and bishop, placing great doubt on the validity of both his ordination and consecration, and consequently on the "consecration" of "Bishop" Pfeiffer.[/font][/size][/color]

It is rumored that there will be a video published later today from OLMC with details of this "consecration" of Fr. Pfeiffer.“

Well, now I see the resemblance.  I had not seen Bishop Webster in 30 years, so it didn't strike me at first, but, yes, that's Bishop Webster in red there.

He seems to be a very SOFT Feeneyite, since Father Pfeiffer put out some very hostile anti-Feeneyite materials before.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 10:18:49 AM
Some sobering words from Hebrews chapter 5. This applies to priests but even more to bishops:

[1] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=5&l=1-#x) For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: [2] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=5&l=2-#x) Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. [3] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=5&l=3-#x) And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. [4] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=5&l=4-#x) Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.


This may be super-obvious, but it's a fact that a bishop will receive more money, gifts, honor, fame than a priest. Even today in the wilderness of "Traddieland".
Woe to the priest who takes that honor and responsibility upon himself, and wasn't called to such a state by God. If it wasn't God's idea, then he won't have the supernatural strength to withstand the new temptations from the WORLD, FLESH and the DEVIL which will assault the bishop in his new state.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 10:19:25 AM
I am surprised that Fr. Pfeiffer would resort to Webster's services, since he (Pfeiffer) is militantly anti-Feeneyite (though for perspective, there is nothing that Pfeiffer is against that he isn't militantly against), and the only reason people know Webster's name is that he's the only traditional bishop on record who denies baptism of desire.

Well, I'm not surprised.  I suspect that Father Pfeiffer would have accepted consecration from Pope Michael if it came down to it.  He was just desperate to be consecrated a bishop.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 30, 2020, 10:23:29 AM
Well, now I see the resemblance.  I had not seen Bishop Webster in 30 years, so it didn't strike me at first, but, yes, that's Bishop Webster in red there.

He seems to be a very SOFT Feeneyite, since Father Pfeiffer put out some very hostile anti-Feeneyite materials before.
.
He is a soft Feeneyite in the sense that the CMRI are soft sedevacantists, as neither insist that anyone else agree with them (in order to be Catholic, in order to receive sacraments, and so on).  But his own conviction of it is quite steadfast.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 10:39:52 AM
I'm not one who holds the Thuc line to be doubtful, but Bishop Webster's line has some issues due to one Jean Laborie.

Bishop Webster was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Slupski (I don't believe there are any doubts about his line).

But he had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Timothy Henneberry.

Henneberry, in turn, had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Carmona (no issue for me) and was consecrated a bishop by a Bishop Terrasson.

Terrasson had been consecrated by Clemente Dominguez Gomez (of Palmar fame).  Apart from the fact that Gomez had no training and could easily have botched the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, this was likely valid ...

except, and here's the problem

Terrasson had been ordained a priest by in 1974 by Jean Laborie.

But in 1977 Bishop Thuc CONDITIONALLY consecrated Laborie.  There's no record of who ordained Laborie, but his pre-1977 consecrationS (plural) went as follows ...

[Laborie] had already been consecrated a bishop on 10/02/1966 at xxxxx by Jean Pierre Danyel, a bishop of the Sainte Église Celtique. Later he was consecrated sub conditione a bishop on 08/20/1968 at xxxxx by Louis Jean Stanislaus Canivet, a bishop known as "Patriarch Aloysius Basilius III" of the Patriarchate Orthodoxe de l'Europe Latine.

So his status in 1974 when he ordained Terrasson to the priesthood was one of clear positive doubt.  So much so, that in 1977, Bishop Thuc consecrated Laborie conditionally.

NOW ... there's an allegation that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained at some point before his consecration by Clemente.  But I've seen no proof for this whatsover.  It is not even so much as listed on the Boyle site.

So unless there's documentation/proof that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained before his consecration, the whole line is in doubt.

Consequently, we have to hold there to be positive doubt regarding the validity of Bishop Pfeiffer.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 10:42:03 AM
.
He is a soft Feeneyite in the sense that ...

Right, that is the sense in which I meant the term.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 10:47:31 AM
I found this Fr. Pfeiffer Mass video from the 8th Sunday after Pentecost (ie., 4 days ago), and if you go to the sermon at the 20 minute mark, you can see he is wearing no ring (or any other episcopal vestments).

So, if he was “consecrated” (?), it must have happened in the last few days:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uAMZGIxEcgQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uAMZGIxEcgQ)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 10:48:06 AM
Father Pfeiffer has been RABIDLY anti-Feeneyite and anti-sedevacantist.  Yet now he goes with a sedevacantist Feeneyite for consecration.

Similarly, the SSPV were rabidly anti-Feeneyite, to the point of refusing the Sacraments to Feeneyites, even on their deathbeds.  But they had no issues with receiving ordination/consecration from a Bishop with Feeneyite sympathies.  Bishop Mendez was known to them through his housekeeper Natalie White (a friend of the Jenkins family).  Natalie White was an open Feeneyite.  And Natalie White's signature appears on one of the documents issued by Bishop Mendez.

So principles seems to fade away when people are seeking ordination and consecration.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matto on July 30, 2020, 10:50:01 AM
Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, though the orders were more regular. In Pfeiffer's mind, if he is genuine and not a scoundrel grifter, the faith was reduced to a small number and they needed a bishop. Even the Pope, Michael, was willing to reach out to the schismatics for valid orders when in need of consecration.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 30, 2020, 10:57:29 AM
Father Pfeiffer has been RABIDLY anti-Feeneyite and anti-sedevacantist.  Yet now he goes with a sedevacantist Feeneyite for consecration.

Similarly, the SSPV were rabidly anti-Feeneyite, to the point of refusing the Sacraments to Feeneyites, even on their deathbeds.  But they had no issues with receiving ordination/consecration from a Bishop with Feeneyite sympathies.  Bishop Mendez was known to them through his housekeeper Natalie White (a friend of the Jenkins family).  Natalie White was an open Feeneyite.  And Natalie White's signature appears on one of the documents issued by Bishop Mendez.

So principles seems to fade away when people are seeking ordination and consecration.

St Alphonsus wrote that he assumed all bishops were damned unless they were canonized.  I vaguely remember reading that those who seek consecration are almost certainly damned.

However, since trad bishops have no jurisdiction that could be a mitigating factor.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 11:07:02 AM
St Alphonsus wrote that he assumed all bishops were damned unless they were canonized.  I vaguely remember reading that those who seek consecration are almost certainly damned.

However, since trad bishops have no jurisdiction that could be a mitigating factor.

I think it would be.  Reason that they bishops are damned is because they then assume responsibility for the souls of those under his care.  But the Traditional Catholic bishops have no such authority (due to lack of jurisdiction).  Mostly they're just acting as Sacrament-machines.  There might be some issues if he were to ordain some unfitting men to the priesthood.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 11:08:50 AM
Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, though the orders were more regular. In Pfeiffer's mind, if he is genuine and not a scoundrel grifter, the faith was reduced to a small number and they needed a bishop. Even the Pope, Michael, was willing to reach out to the schismatics for valid orders when in need of consecration.

I've spoken about this before. I am well aware of the justification for consecrating bishops without a Papal mandate during a time of crisis.

That doesn't mean every Traditional Catholic Tom Dick and Harry should get themselves consecrated a bishop in 2020. I'll give you a pass; perhaps I've read more traditional books on the priesthood, and writings of many saints and Doctors of the Church on the topic of Episcopal dignity, than you have.

I remember criticizing Bp. Slupski for *much weaker* reasons than the criticisms of Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer to a deacon at the SSPX seminary, during an Ignatian retreat. He said that we can't criticize a priest *just* for getting himself consecrated for the sake of necessity -- it would undermine the justification for what +ABL did (and more recently, what +Williamson did). I expected him to chime in with the criticism -- his opposition took me by surprise.

So I'm well aware of that.

But Bp. Slupski was an honest man who was isolated and saw a need to provide for after he was gone. Fr. Pfeiffer has desired the honor of the Episcopacy since at least 2012, and his desire and ambition were so great that once he was turned down, and his seminary refused, Fr. Pfeiffer was willing to split with, attack, and lie about Bp. Williamson for years on end ever since!

Getting consecrated during a Crisis in the Church is not cause for criticism. SEEKING the episcopacy, against all advice, against the wisdom of your elders and superiors, adhering to demonic men like Pablo, promoting pedophile and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests, promoting fɾαυdulent con-men like Ambrose, destroying vocations by seeking out pious young men (who might have vocations!) and keeping them in a slipshod, inadequate, discipline-free, curriculum-free seminary for years on end -- those are things to criticize.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 11:11:08 AM
Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, though the orders were more regular. In Pfeiffer's mind, if he is genuine and not a scoundrel grifter, the faith was reduced to a small number and they needed a bishop. Even the Pope, Michael, was willing to reach out to the schismatics for valid orders when in need of consecration.

There is, however, a well known phenomenon among Traditional clerics ... that of the Sacrament-seekers.  Seminarians and priests who go from one seminary to another, one bishop to another, seeking ordination, consecration, etc.  It's like they make a career of it.

This is not the mind of the Church regarding vocations.  It is the Church who proposes to consecrate or ordain an individual.  Individuals merely present themselves for consideration.  When individuals embark on a mission to acquire ordination and consecration, it's usually not for the right motives.

Are you a Pope Michael follower, Matto?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 11:15:26 AM
Getting consecrated during a Crisis in the Church is not cause for criticism. SEEKING the episcopacy ...

You posted this just as I was writing my own response.  We're on the same page here.  There's a very fine line between seeking episcopal consecration for the genuine good of souls and seeking it for one's own personal glory.  And the devil is very skilled at blurring this line, convincing a person seeking out of self-will that it's actually being done for the good of souls.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 11:22:48 AM
Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, though the orders were more regular. In Pfeiffer's mind, if he is genuine and not a scoundrel grifter, the faith was reduced to a small number and they needed a bishop. Even the Pope, Michael, was willing to reach out to the schismatics for valid orders when in need of consecration.

Whoa there...

There is no similarity between the circumstances surrounding the consecrations of Bishop Zendejas and Bishop(?) Pfeiffer:

The former was called to the episcopacy by three other bishops who requested his consecration (same as the SSPX bishops were called by ++Lefebvre).

The latter appears to have scoured the world in search of a bishop who would consent to consecrate him.

The process is reversed:

In the former cases, it is the Church calling men to the episcopacy, while in the latter, it is a priest trying to find and convince a bishop(?) to consecrate him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mr G on July 30, 2020, 11:28:09 AM
Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, ...
Sean beat me to it, he wrote the post above mine as I was writing this below:

Not so similar in need, as Fr. Zendejas was not seeking to be consecrated, he was asked "would you consent to being consecrated a bishop?". Whereas Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking "please, someone consecrate me!"
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 11:29:33 AM
Bishop Pfeiffer Consecration Video:

https://www.cathinfo.com/files/pfeiffer.mp4


Right-click and select "Save video as..." to download the video.


The original has been taken down by Pablo (or made Private, which amounts to the same thing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=428R9_MuTeE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=428R9_MuTeE)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on July 30, 2020, 11:37:37 AM
Sean beat me to it, he wrote the post above mine as I was writing this below:

Not so similar in need, as Fr. Zendejas was not seeking to be consecrated, he was asked "would you consent to being consecrated a bishop?".   Whereas Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking "please, someone consecrate me!"
This.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 11:43:06 AM
I notice the youtube ID ends with "MuTeE"

Wouldn't that be "changed" in French or something?

muté means "changed" in French. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matto on July 30, 2020, 11:48:49 AM
Are you a Pope Michael follower, Matto?

No, that part of my post was a joke, but a joke with a point similar to the point you made about the SSPV. My main point, that the consecration of Pfeiffer is similar to the Williamson consecrations, I would stand by "if and only if Bishop Pfeiffer is not a scoundrel, but if he is a true believer in his message and the gospel". I expected him to go to a Thuc Bishop years ago. I don't know what took him so long. And I wonder if there will be a revolt among his followers now similar to how there was over Moran. And it would be cool if Moran came out with videos excommunicating Pfeiffer and Webster.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 11:53:46 AM
I just skimmed the video (it's pretty long; I don't have that kind of time to watch a 2.5 hour video).

Pretty standard fare, as in your "standard" post-Vatican II, Trad group doing their best to hold a Consecration ceremony during the Crisis in the Church.
I personally doubt anyone will find problems or issues with the ceremony itself.

I refer readers to my posts above, talking about the real issues.

The whole time I'm watching this, I'm reminded of how I felt when I attended my brother-in-law's wedding. He was raised Catholic but became Lutheran after he met a Lutheran girl in college. (It was a Lutheran wedding service of course -- my wife and I had to attend for social reasons.) In other words, I couldn't imagine how a guy could go through with it. I felt sorry for the "star of the show", which is normally not the case. If I was watching another man get consecrated bishop, I would be in admiration and awe. But I can't shake the specter of everything that has led up to this point -- including the many evils worked by this man personally.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 11:58:50 AM
I wish to draw attention to and underline this fact:

The issue of validity of consecration is very small. It is less than 10% of the "Bishop Pfeiffer" problem. He actually has much bigger issues in his apostolate, life, "seminary", and all that.

His spiritual life (if you can call it that), lack of discipline, adherence to an actual warlock, public sins of slander/lying against Resistance bishops, etc. are much bigger issues than his validity as a bishop.

Whether or not they are real priests, the men he ordains/"ordains" will be sorry excuses for priests. Unless they received 5-6 years training at a real Seminary somewhere else, they will be hopeless. They will be *worse* than if they had self-studied for the priesthood for 4-6 years at home.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 12:01:52 PM
I wish to draw attention to and underline this fact:

The issue of validity of consecration is very small. It is less than 10% of the "Bishop Pfeiffer" problem.

I agree about all the other problems you mention, but the doubt surrounding the validity of his consecration suffices in and of itself to warn ll Catholics to steer clear.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 12:12:23 PM
As for the Consecrator of Bp. Pfeiffer --

1. He can't be very good, if he's willing to consecrate the likes of Fr. Pfeiffer
2. Boomers are hopeless! If he had done a single Google search, maybe he wouldn't have consecrated him. A Bishop Pfeiffer will do tons of harm to the Traditional movement and God's Church in general. But I guess if Fr. Pfeiffer wasn't in the MAGAZINES or NEWSPAPERS His Excellency subscribed to, he probably knew nothing about Fr. Pfeiffer.

Add that to the long list, along with "Vatican II", of the "gifts" the Baby Boomers gave the world. (They didn't design or create the new religion, but they accepted it. They were teens when the New Mass was foisted on the Church, and only a few of them resisted. Most of them stayed in the sappy new religion, and raised their families in it. They gave it legitimacy.) Vatican II would be dead today if it weren't for the baby boomers. Who are the remaining priests, extraordinary ministers, Lectors, who stubbornly defend Vatican II and want no part of Tradition? A bunch of aging baby boomers. Younger people are much more open to Tradition. Who defended, and held the line for the past 50 years to keep Vatican II and the New Mass? Boomers.

No offense to the Boomers on CI, but the world will only have a chance to heal and become a better place AFTER their generation has passed on.

Again, there are/were some heroic men and women of that generation -- both cleric and lay. But as a generation, they have done more harm to the world than any generation since the French who lived around 1789 and cheered on as priests were guillotined.

It makes me want to go hug a Millennial or Generation Z (Zoomer). Their generations have plenty of problems of their own, but at least they can use the blasted Internet. They aren't completely apathetic about getting to the truth of the matter. They are certainly quicker to be "redpilled" about the truth. They are more open to the truth, more willing to go against state-sponsored propaganda. I'll give them credit for that.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on July 30, 2020, 12:24:45 PM
Did anyone see his parents in the pews?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matto on July 30, 2020, 12:53:43 PM
No offense to the Boomers on CI, but the world will only have a chance to heal and become a better place AFTER their generation has passed on.

Perhaps we are like the Israelites in the desert. We can only reach the promised land after all of the boomers have passed away.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Is it just me, or was Bishop Webster REALLY STRUGGLING with saying the essential form?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 01:40:12 PM
Is it just me, or was Bishop Webster REALLY STRUGGLING with saying the essential form?
I didn't watch.  Could you tell me roughly at what minute mark it occurs?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 01:49:06 PM
I didn't watch.  Could you tell me roughly at what minute mark it occurs?

Sorry, I shut it down.  I'll try to find it again.  I think it was about an hour in, but I'm not 100%.  Needless to say, I didn't watch the entire thing but skipped around a lot.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 02:30:46 PM
He struggles with the entire preface beginning at about 54:45 minutes in.

54:50 - 54:54, he seems to say "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" (Receive the Holy Ghost) while laying on his hands.  But he fumbles even this and appears to say "Spiritum Sanctum"t wice.

Then he really strumbles through the preface.

Finally ... at about 59:10/11 he starts in on the essential words of the form.

Here are the words of the essential form --
Quote
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.

First of all, he rolls into the "comple" from the previous sentence without a pause, making it sound like it goes with the previous thought.

so then it goes like this ... "comple in Sacerdote tuo Sacerdotibus tuis [he says both the singular and alternate plural forms ... you're supposed to pick one depending on whether you're consecrating one or more than one] misteri misterii tui [he botches ministerii confusing it with mysterii, confused by the word so he says it a second time, neither correctly ... I didn't hear any "n"] e tui [repeats the tui] sanum [botches "summam"] et ornamentis totius gori-fi-cationis [dashes being slight pauses] instructum

I'm going to have to listen another dozen times to completely get what follows, it's some garbled mess where he has to take a very long pause and someone has to fill him in.  I'll come back soon to try finishing this off.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 02:35:56 PM
Based one what I heard, I seriously doubt that this consecration was valid.  Someone correct me if they think they can make out anything resembling the actual form.

He misses ministerii and replaces it with mysterii,

misses summam (supreme, a key word) and replaces it with sanum (saving or healthy)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 30, 2020, 02:41:09 PM
Was he reading the latin prayer?  Maybe his pronunciation is just bad?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 03:33:55 PM
Based one what I heard, I seriously doubt that this consecration was valid.  Someone correct me if they think they can make out anything resembling the actual form.

He misses ministerii and replaces it with mysterii,

misses summam (supreme, a key word) and replaces it with sanum (saving or healthy)

Considering the whole Boston operation, and "Bishop Pfeiffer" in particular, is going to be a disaster for the Church and Tradition going forward, it would be fitting (icing on the cake) if God allowed the consecration itself to be invalid.

It would be appropriate somehow, considering the demonic presence in Boston for the past several years.


I would also like to inject my opinion here: that any Trad Catholics contemplating "where should I attend Mass?" and they have two choices, the SSPX and a Fr. Pfeiffer chapel -- DEFINITELY go with the SSPX. If you can't stay home for some good reason, your faith will be FAR MORE SECURE at the SSPX, even as it exists today, than with Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer.

Leaving the SSPX to go with Fr. Pfeiffer is a classic example of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. And I'm not complimenting the SSPX either -- they are completely losing it. But it's a testament to *how bad* Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer's operation is.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 03:57:12 PM
In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII declared:

"The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

'Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.'
['Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.']  
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm)

If any of these words are missing, the consecration is invalid.

If therefore it is true that the consecrator botched "ministerii tui summam" (instead saying "mysterii tui sanum," which is nonsensical) as reported by Ladialaus, then...

Note that I have not listened to the essential form in this consecration yet, so I am just commenting on what is the case if Ladislaus's hearing is correct.

But as stated previously, for me the doubtful validity of the consecrating bishop was already a critical impediment.

Now there is a concern regarding the recitation of the essential form as well.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 04:00:11 PM
He struggles with the entire preface beginning at about 54:45 minutes in.

54:50 - 54:54, he seems to say "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" (Receive the Holy Ghost) while laying on his hands.  But he fumbles even this and appears to say "Spiritum Sanctum" twice.

Then he really strumbles through the preface.

Finally ... at about 59:10/11 he starts in on the essential words of the form.

Here are the words of the essential form --
First of all, he rolls into the "comple" from the previous sentence without a pause, making it sound like it goes with the previous thought.

so then it goes like this ... "comple in Sacerdote tuo Sacerdotibus tuis [he says both the singular and alternate plural forms ... you're supposed to pick one depending on whether you're consecrating one or more than one] misteri misterii tui [he botches ministerii confusing it with mysterii, confused by the word so he says it a second time, neither correctly ... I didn't hear any "n"] e tui [repeats the tui] sanum [botches "summam"] et ornamentis totius gori-fi-cationis [dashes being slight pauses] instructum

I'm going to have to listen another dozen times to completely get what follows, it's some garbled mess where he has to take a very long pause and someone has to fill him in.  I'll come back soon to try finishing this off.

after the instructum, he says something garbled resembling "ecce structis" ... so structis.  Then there's a very long pause (about 5 seconds) which confirms that he lost his place, and the MC helps him get started back up with the coe...coe...coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

So putting it altogether, here's what he said:
Comple in Sacerdote tuo sacerdotibus tuis misteri misterii tui e tui sanum et ornamentis totius glori-fi-cationis instructum ecce structis [5 second pause] coe-coe-coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

compared with the actual form.
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.


Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 30, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
Getting consecrated during a Crisis in the Church is not cause for criticism. SEEKING the episcopacy, against all advice, against the wisdom of your elders and superiors, adhering to demonic men like Pablo, promoting pedophile and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests, promoting fɾαυdulent con-men like Ambrose, destroying vocations by seeking out pious young men (who might have vocations!) and keeping them in a slipshod, inadequate, discipline-free, curriculum-free seminary for years on end -- those are things to criticize.
For once I agree with you.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 30, 2020, 04:04:18 PM
after the instructum, he says something garbled resembling "ecce structis" ... so structis.  Then there's a very long pause (about 5 seconds) which confirms that he lost his place, and the MC helps him get started back up with the coe...coe...coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

So putting it altogether, here's what he said:
Comple in Sacerdote tuo sacerdotibus tuis misteri misterii tui e tui sanum et ornamentis totius glori-fi-cationis instructum ecce structis [5 second pause] coe-coe-coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

compared with the actual form.
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.
Yeah, that would seem to be a problem.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 04:05:50 PM
In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII declared:

"The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

'Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.'
['Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.']  
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm)

If any of these words are missing, the consecration is invalid.

If therefore it is true that the consecrator botched "ministerii tui summam" (instead saying "mysterii tui sanum," which is nonsensical) as reported by Ladialaus, then...

Note that I have not listened to the essential form in this consecration yet, so I am just commenting on what is the case if Ladislaus's hearing is correct.

But as stated previously, for me the doubtful validity of the consecrating bishop was already a critical impediment.

Now there is a concern regarding the recitation of the essential form as well.

That's what I heard after listening to it repeatedly.  He was obviously strumbling, tripping up, losing his place, etc.

At the end of the day, this doesn't mean too much to me because I already had issues based on the dubious ordination to the priesthood of Bishop Terrasson.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 04:05:57 PM
For once I agree with you.
That's great I guess, but I'm a bit disturbed that this is the only time you agree with me. I'm sure Rachel Maddow would agree with me that Fr. Pfeiffer's operation is messed up.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: TKGS on July 30, 2020, 04:07:11 PM
So putting it altogether, here's what he said:
Comple in Sacerdote tuo sacerdotibus tuis misteri misterii tui e tui sanum et ornamentis totius glori-fi-cationis instructum ecce structis [5 second pause] coe-coe-coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

compared with the actual form.
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.
These are very different.  Where might he have gotten the additional words?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matto on July 30, 2020, 04:09:31 PM
So far I listened to the first half of the video and watched much of it. As one who is unlearned, from listening to the way they spoke, it seemed like the ministers involved in the ceremony did not know enough Latin to really understand what they were saying.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 30, 2020, 04:20:36 PM
So far I listened to the first half of the video and watched much of it. As one who is unlearned, from listening to the way they spoke, it seemed like the ministers involved in the ceremony did not know enough Latin to really understand what they were saying.
I think I would agree with you.  
Bottom line is, he tried to say the words he was supposed to.  The fact that they came out wrong, I think, doesn't matter.
In all likelihood, as much as we may not like it, fr. Pfeiffer is probably now b. Pfeiffer. 
Would I receive sacraments from him?
Not unless I was dying...
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 04:27:01 PM
So far I listened to the first half of the video and watched much of it. As one who is unlearned, from listening to the way they spoke, it seemed like the ministers involved in the ceremony did not know enough Latin to really understand what they were saying.
Wait until a bunch of "seminarians" are ordained by Bishop Joseph "da mihi shpudibus" Pfeiffer. Just remember "nemo dat quod non habet" -- no one gives what he doesn't have. That means the priests formed at his "seminary" will lack:
- discipline
- organization
- formal training
- humility
- common sense
- Catholic sense
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: St.Patrick on July 30, 2020, 04:29:01 PM
Ad multos annos Episcope Pfeiffere!

Just joking. It is sad he chose the doubtful line of Thuc, thus rendering all his priests unworthy of trust even in time of death.

If he had picked a schismatic bishop, it would have been wrong, but at least understandable, and it would have given him and his seminarians the means to come back and repent.

Now they would all have to get conditionally ordained and consecrated.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Sam Smith on July 30, 2020, 04:57:57 PM
The Trad world already suffers from a faction with poorly-trained priests and bishops who have no business being bishops.

This just made everything much worse.
Nothing wrong with more bishops.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 30, 2020, 05:25:06 PM
Ad multos annos Episcope Pfeiffere!

Just joking. It is sad he chose the doubtful line of Thuc, thus rendering all his priests unworthy of trust even in time of death.

If he had picked a schismatic bishop, it would have been wrong, but at least understandable, and it would have given him and his seminarians the means to come back and repent.

Now they would all have to get conditionally ordained and consecrated.
Fr. Pfeiffer told me, on more than one occasion, he did not believe the Thuc line to be either valid or legitimate. 
.
How many sermons has he done against sedevecantism and feenyism?
.
Fr. Pfeiffer is a hypocrite
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 30, 2020, 05:27:27 PM
Video suddenly taken down. Hmm...
No, it isn't.  Pablo just made it "private" so we can't dissect it to make sure matter and form were done correctly.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew 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:

https://www.cathinfo.com/files/pfeiffer.mp4


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..."
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 05:49:02 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?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: duck2050 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 (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:

 

(http://./about Fr neal webster_files/henneberry.jpg)

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.

 

(http://./about Fr neal webster_files/carmonazamora.jpg)

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.


 

(http://./about Fr neal webster_files/clementeconsecrating.jpg)

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.

 

(http://./about Fr neal webster_files/thucconsecrating.jpg)

Bishop Thuc consecrating Bishop Clemente Dominguez Gomez (?)



 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.

:facepalm:  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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis 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. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 08:47:01 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 08:52:47 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Motorede on July 30, 2020, 09:25:18 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? 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on July 30, 2020, 09:42:55 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist 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?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on July 30, 2020, 10:00:13 PM
Huh?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on July 30, 2020, 10:01:50 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf_Mountain_(Rowan_County,_Kentucky) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf_Mountain_(Rowan_County,_Kentucky))
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: ElAusente 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. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SaintJude on July 31, 2020, 12:03:35 AM
I’ve been asked to come on here to correct a few errors currently circulating regarding the consecration of Bp. Pfeiffer. In justice and the right to defend against the unjust damaging of another's good name I provide the following:

1. To say that Bp. Pfeiffer went looking for himself to be consecrated is calumny. Bp. Pfeiffer did his best to find a bishop to ordain OLMC seminarians. He first approached Bp. Williamson who refused (despite previous assurances) and then to the other Resistance bishops. Then he reached out to other traditional bishops. The frailty of Bp. Webster is clear and a one off ordination would be no solution to the crisis (the obvious solution being for OLMC to have its own auxiliary bishop). Had, Fr. Hewko remained or other Resistance priest joined OLMC Fr. Pfeiffer would have let Bp. Webster (or Bp. Williamson for that matter) decide who to consecrate. But It just so happens that in the current circumstance Fr. Pfeiffer was the obvious choice.

2. Whether Bp. Webster mispronounced his words (the audio isn’t very clear) or there was a loss of attention does not render the sacrament invalid. A good and in-depth article on these points, which references Thomas Aquinas, is given here:
https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/ (https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/)

3. Regarding the doubtful validity of Terrasson’s ordination, the episcopal consecration itself makes up for the deficiency of ordination as, to quote Bp. Williamson, “the greater contains the lesser” (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html)). Further, if Laborie was conditionally consecrated because of whatever reason (who got to determine that?) is there not a duty on him to communicate that to those priests he previously ordained or does he allow them to continue to minister potentially invalid sacraments to the faithful? In any event Terrasson sort a conditional ordination from Clemente prior to him being consecrated.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 31, 2020, 12:56:18 AM
"SaintJude",

You're conveniently leaving out the most obvious, rational, sensible solution: shutting down the seminary and sending the candidates away to other seminaries, if they indeed have vocations.

When God says "no", "no", "no", "no" about 10-20 times, you don't thereby have permission to do crazy things and even commit sins, in order to circumvent God's obvious will in the matter.

You can't tell me God is spelling out loud and clear that Fr. Pfeiffer (or Bp. Pfeiffer) running a seminary is His will. Quite the contrary is obvious to any objective Catholic with a brain, and no dog in this fight.

The simple fact that Fr. Pfeiffer *couldn't* find a bishop to ordain seminarians is sufficient to demonstrate God's will in the matter. Also the fact that there aren't enough priests to teach or run a proper seminary. Any SANE person would conclude, "Maybe God wants me to do something else..."

But Fr. Pfeiffer wouldn't take anyone's will but his own -- hence his seeking out and going through with consecration to the Episcopate.

I TOTALLY REJECT Bp. Pfeiffer's premise that "Well, SOMEONE has to ordain my seminarians." No, you need to shut down your shameful excuse for a seminary before any more souls suffer damage.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: maccabeansoft on July 31, 2020, 01:52:13 AM
I’ve been asked to come on here to correct a few errors currently circulating regarding the consecration of Bp. Pfeiffer. In justice and the right to defend against the unjust damaging of another's good name I provide the following:

1. To say that Bp. Pfeiffer went looking for himself to be consecrated is calumny. Bp. Pfeiffer did his best to find a bishop to ordain OLMC seminarians. He first approached Bp. Williamson who refused (despite previous assurances) and then to the other Resistance bishops. Then he reached out to other traditional bishops. The frailty of Bp. Webster is clear and a one off ordination would be no solution to the crisis (the obvious solution being for OLMC to have its own auxiliary bishop). Had, Fr. Hewko remained or other Resistance priest joined OLMC Fr. Pfeiffer would have let Bp. Webster (or Bp. Williamson for that matter) decide who to consecrate. But It just so happens that in the current circumstance Fr. Pfeiffer was the obvious choice.

2. Whether Bp. Webster mispronounced his words (the audio isn’t very clear) or there was a loss of attention does not render the sacrament invalid. A good and in-depth article on these points, which references Thomas Aquinas, is given here:
https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/ (https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/)

3. Regarding the doubtful validity of Terrasson’s ordination, the episcopal consecration itself makes up for the deficiency of ordination as, to quote Bp. Williamson, “the greater contains the lesser” (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html)). Further, if Laborie was conditionally consecrated because of whatever reason (who got to determine that?) is there not a duty on him to communicate that to those priests he previously ordained or does he allow them to continue to minister potentially invalid sacraments to the faithful? In any event Terrasson sort a conditional ordination from Clemente prior to him being consecrated.

Uh oh, Ladies and Gentleman, we have ourselves a Bishop Pfeiffer supporter. As I was posting my thoughts on this about 2-3 hours ago, I noticed "SaintJude" here has only one post on all of CathInfo and it's this post. I was writing my own response on this matter and how much I agreed with Matthew 100% on this subject of "Bishop" Pfeiffer and how disappointed I was that "Bishop" Pfeiffer's organizations he's affiliated with posts youtube videos of Fr. Gregory Hesse because (in my opinion) I think that Fr. Gregory Hesse (may he rest in peace) would definitely not support "Bishop" Pfeiffer's consecration. But, I then saw that "SaintJude" posted this malarkey. Let's hope this isn't like a Croix or a Karen Yapper situation again. Anyways, Four questions for "SaintJude"

1. Are you a parishioner at "Bishop" Pfeiffer's Chapel?
2. Did you attend "Bishop" Pfeiffer's consecration?
3. You joined CathInfo in May and you didn't post anything until now?
4. Do you know "Bishop" Pfeiffer personally?

I would love to hear the answers from you "SaintJude". Now to destroy all your points on "Bishop" Pfeiffer's consecration with one paragraph, it would be this which explains Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's condemnation of these types of people many years ago which I quote from the Catacombs Forum:

"During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."

I rest my case...
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 03:16:53 AM
St. Thomas also discusses the validity of a sacrament if the words are mispronounced. He wrote:
Quote
If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words—does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he does this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounces the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say “in nomine matris” instead of “in nomine Patris.” If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say “patrias et filias.” For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them in accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same. … Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it destroys it. (S.T. III, q. 60, a. 7, ad. 3)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 04:18:35 AM
And:

“With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. One is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament. …
The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since, in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above (7, ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and, consequently, the sacrament is invalid. (S.T. III, q. 60, a. 8)”
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stubborn on July 31, 2020, 05:00:34 AM
"SaintJude",

You're conveniently leaving out the most obvious, rational, sensible solution: shutting down the seminary and sending the candidates away to other seminaries, if they indeed have vocations.

When God says "no", "no", "no", "no" about 10-20 times, you don't thereby have permission to do crazy things and even commit sins, in order to circumvent God's obvious will in the matter.

You can't tell me God is spelling out loud and clear that Fr. Pfeiffer (or Bp. Pfeiffer) running a seminary is His will. Quite the contrary is obvious to any objective Catholic with a brain, and no dog in this fight.

The simple fact that Fr. Pfeiffer *couldn't* find a bishop to ordain seminarians is sufficient to demonstrate God's will in the matter. Also the fact that there aren't enough priests to teach or run a proper seminary. Any SANE person would conclude, "Maybe God wants me to do something else..."

But Fr. Pfeiffer wouldn't take anyone's will but his own -- hence his seeking out and going through with consecration to the Episcopate.

I TOTALLY REJECT Bp. Pfeiffer's premise that "Well, SOMEONE has to ordain my seminarians." No, you need to shut down your shameful excuse for a seminary before any more souls suffer damage.
Definitely this!

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on July 31, 2020, 05:06:58 AM
Shocked. Terribly Sad.  
This after links to pornography appeared in the comments section of the last two sermons from OLMC.
As someone said previously, “only if I were dying.”
And even then...
He does not look happy.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: St.Patrick on July 31, 2020, 06:20:34 AM
I’ve been asked to come on here to correct a few errors currently circulating regarding the consecration of Bp. Pfeiffer. In justice and the right to defend against the unjust damaging of another's good name I provide the following:

1. To say that Bp. Pfeiffer went looking for himself to be consecrated is calumny. Bp. Pfeiffer did his best to find a bishop to ordain OLMC seminarians. He first approached Bp. Williamson who refused (despite previous assurances) and then to the other Resistance bishops. Then he reached out to other traditional bishops. The frailty of Bp. Webster is clear and a one off ordination would be no solution to the crisis (the obvious solution being for OLMC to have its own auxiliary bishop). Had, Fr. Hewko remained or other Resistance priest joined OLMC Fr. Pfeiffer would have let Bp. Webster (or Bp. Williamson for that matter) decide who to consecrate. But It just so happens that in the current circumstance Fr. Pfeiffer was the obvious choice.

2. Whether Bp. Webster mispronounced his words (the audio isn’t very clear) or there was a loss of attention does not render the sacrament invalid. A good and in-depth article on these points, which references Thomas Aquinas, is given here:
https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/ (https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/)

3. Regarding the doubtful validity of Terrasson’s ordination, the episcopal consecration itself makes up for the deficiency of ordination as, to quote Bp. Williamson, “the greater contains the lesser” (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html)). Further, if Laborie was conditionally consecrated because of whatever reason (who got to determine that?) is there not a duty on him to communicate that to those priests he previously ordained or does he allow them to continue to minister potentially invalid sacraments to the faithful? In any event Terrasson sort a conditional ordination from Clemente prior to him being consecrated.
The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.
How well formed the seminarians are, is beside the point.
"Bishop" Pfeiffer will always have doubt over all priests he attempts to consecrate. The whole situation is very, very sad.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:21:39 AM
The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.
How well formed the seminarians are, is beside the point.
"Bishop" Pfeiffer will always have doubt over all priests he attempts to consecrate. The whole situation is very, very sad.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SaintJude on July 31, 2020, 07:19:59 AM
The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.
How well formed the seminarians are, is beside the point.
"Bishop" Pfeiffer will always have doubt over all priests he attempts to consecrate. The whole situation is very, very sad.
There is no doubt:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 07:24:47 AM
The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.
How well formed the seminarians are, is beside the point.
"Bishop" Pfeiffer will always have doubt over all priests he attempts to consecrate. The whole situation is very, very sad.

It's not addressed here, but mentioned in passing, because there have been dozens of long threads about this.  Some people, mostly of the SSPV mindset, consider them doubtful.  I, on the other hand, have not seen anything that would suffice to establish any positive doubt.  It is due entirely to SSPV propaganda that people have negative doubts about them.  Meanwhile, the same people that doubt the +Thuc ordinations have no issues with the +Mendez ordinations and consecration ... despite the fact that it labors under the same difficulties.  I don't have a problem with either line.

Now, there are some strange +Thuc lines that are very difficult to verify, but the main lines have little doubt about them, especially the +Guerards des Laurier->+McKenna, and the +Carmona lines.

Someone offline sent me a signed conditional ordination certificate for Terrasson, which would put that doubt to bed.

There's little doubt about the validity of the Clemente Dominguez line either per se, but I do have some questions about Clemente's training.  He was ordained/consecrated with little training, and I would have some questions about whether he could competently perform an ordination or consecration.  Part of the presumption of validity has to do with the assumption that a properly-trained priest or bishop can validly confect the Sacraments ... another reason why proper clerical training is so important.

It is my personal opinion, however, that Bishop Webster sufficiently botched the essential form during this consecration to render it positively doubtful.  Had they not released this video, there would have been presumption of validity, but with this evidence, there's now positive doubt.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 07:28:58 AM
St. Thomas also discusses the validity of a sacrament if the words are mispronounced. He wrote:

Right, there's an allowance for a certain amount of botching ... especially messing up the Latin inflection (the word ending).  But he's saying that if the root of the word remains the same, it's considered valid.

But if ministerii summam becomes misterii sanum .... it's a big stretch.  I think that this is bad enough to constitute positive doubt.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 07:31:14 AM
Right, there's an allowance for a certain amount of botching ... especially messing up the Latin inflection (the word ending).  But he's saying that if the root of the word remains the same, it's considered valid.

But if ministerii summam becomes misterii sanum .... it's a big stretch.  I think that this is bad enough to constitute positive doubt.
Me too.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 07:33:01 AM
Me too.

If he had messed some stuff up later in that sentence, I would not be as concerned, but the MINISTERII SUMMAM is in fact the precise grace that is being conferred, the culmination of the priestly ministry, i.e. the episcopacy.  Those two words are absolutely essential, and from what I heard, he got them wrong.  If he had said minister summum or something like that, it would be close enough, since it would be a mere botching of word endings.  But what he ended up saying is not the same thing.  SANUM (from sanus) means healthy or whole in Latin, and MISTERII (or MYSTERII) (from mysterium) means mystery.  Those are both different root words from the original, not just a question of endings.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 07:37:37 AM
3. Regarding the doubtful validity of Terrasson’s ordination, the episcopal consecration itself makes up for the deficiency of ordination as, to quote Bp. Williamson,

This is highly debated among theologians and conferral of the episcopacy on someone who is not a priest is considered to be positively doubtful.

Nevertheless, someone did produce a document that I saw (which looked legitimate) that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained by Clemente before his consecration.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 07:39:13 AM
2. Whether Bp. Webster mispronounced his words (the audio isn’t very clear) or there was a loss of attention does not render the sacrament invalid. 

This is not true.  If the words were changed enough so as to change their essential meaning, the consecration would not be valid.  SeanJohnson cited St. Thomas in this regard.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on July 31, 2020, 07:46:00 AM
This is what came to my mind.  Get out your Douay Rheims.  Read 1 Kings 13.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on July 31, 2020, 08:07:42 AM
This is not true.  If the words were changed enough so as to change their essential meaning, the consecration would not be valid.  SeanJohnson cited St. Thomas in this regard.
"so as to change their essential meaning"

Even if the bishop spoke the words inaccurately, it seems this would have to be proven.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:16:10 AM
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.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aRqi1bGoNLI/Tk2a3WDQ90I/AAAAAAAAAfQ/O5dLUm_FREk/s400/IfIRan.gif)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:20:36 AM
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.
I believe this is true.
However, pope Pius xii (?) Said that certain words MUST be said for validity of a consecration (see previous post on this thread).  I wonder if bad latin can be cited here?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:25:12 AM
I’ve been asked to come on here to correct a few errors currently circulating regarding the consecration of Bp. Pfeiffer. 

1. To say that Bp. Pfeiffer went looking for himself to be consecrated is calumny. 
Who asked you and why is your opinion important?  What are your credentials?
.
It is not calumny to say that Fr. Pfeiffer went looking for himself to be consecrated if, in fact, you KNOW this to be true.  Fr. Pfeiffer is a very public figure and the laity have a right, nay a duty, to know their shepherd.
.
The question is, does it matter as to validity of the consecration?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:30:38 AM

He does not look happy.
Because he knows what he has done is not only hypocritical but also wrong.  It goes against everything he has ever said and taught.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:34:43 AM
There is no doubt:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna)
In Fr. Pfeiffers mind there was doubt.
He told me, on more than one occasion, that he believed the entire Thuc line to be invalid and their masses invalid.
It seems to me, if there is doubt in the mind of the one being consecrated, as to the validity of the consecrator, the validity of the consecrations comes in to play.
Also, doesn't canon law require a minimum of two bishops to perform a valid consecration, unless the bishop is a missionary?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:36:10 AM
It's not addressed here, but mentioned in passing, because there have been dozens of long threads about this.  Some people, mostly of the SSPV mindset, consider them doubtful.  I, on the other hand, have not seen anything that would suffice to establish any positive doubt.  It is due entirely to SSPV propaganda that people have negative doubts about them.  Meanwhile, the same people that doubt the +Thuc ordinations have no issues with the +Mendez ordinations and consecration ... despite the fact that it labors under the same difficulties.  I don't have a problem with either line.

Now, there are some strange +Thuc lines that are very difficult to verify, but the main lines have little doubt about them, especially the +Guerards des Laurier->+McKenna, and the +Carmona lines.

Someone offline sent me a signed conditional ordination certificate for Terrasson, which would put that doubt to bed.

There's little doubt about the validity of the Clemente Dominguez line either per se, but I do have some questions about Clemente's training.  He was ordained/consecrated with little training, and I would have some questions about whether he could competently perform an ordination or consecration.  Part of the presumption of validity has to do with the assumption that a properly-trained priest or bishop can validly confect the Sacraments ... another reason why proper clerical training is so important.

It is my personal opinion, however, that Bishop Webster sufficiently botched the essential form during this consecration to render it positively doubtful.  Had they not released this video, there would have been presumption of validity, but with this evidence, there's now positive doubt.
What matters more is what Fr. Pfeiffer thinks of the Thuc line.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:40:19 AM
This is what came to my mind.  Get out your Douay Rheims.  Read 1 Kings 13.  
 was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel. [2] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=2-#x) And Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel: and two thousand were with Saul in Machmas, and in mount Bethel: and a thousand with Jonathan in Gabaa of Benjamin, and the rest of the people he sent back every man to their dwellings. [3] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=3-#x) And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines which was in Gabaa. And when the Philistines had heard of it, Saul sounded the Tɾυmρet over all the land, saying: Let the Hebrews hear. [4] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=4-#x) And all Israel heard this report: Saul hath smitten the garrison of the Philistines: and Israel took courage against the Philistines. And the people were called together after Saul to Galgal. [5] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=5-#x) The Philistines also were assembled to fight against Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and a multitude of people besides, like the sand on the sea shore for number. And going up they camped in Machmas at the east of Bethaven.
[1] "Of one year": That is, he was good and like an innocent child, and for two years continued in that innocency.
[6] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=6-#x) And when the men of Israel saw that they were straitened, (for the people were distressed,) they hid themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in dens, and in pits. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=7-#x) And some of the Hebrews passed over the Jordan into the land of Gad and Galaad. And when Saul was yet in Galgal, all the people that followed him were greatly afraid. [8] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=8-#x) And he waited seven days according to the appointment of Samuel, I and Samuel came not to Galgal, and the people slipt away from him. [9] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=9-#x) Then Saul said: Bring me the ɧơƖơcαųst, and the peace offerings. And he offered the ɧơƖơcαųst. [10] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=10-#x) And when he had made an end of offering the ɧơƖơcαųst, behold Samuel came: and Saul went forth to meet him and salute him.
[11] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=11-#x) And Samuel said to him: What hast thou done? Saul answered: Because I saw that the people slipt from me, and thou wast not come according to the days appointed, and the Philistines were gathered together in Machmas, [12] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=12-#x) I said: Now will the Philistines come down upon me to Galgal, and I have not appeased the face of the Lord. Forced by necessity, I offered the ɧơƖơcαųst. [13] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=13-#x) And Samuel said to Saul: Thou hast done foolishly, and hast not kept the commandments of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee. And if thou hadst not done thus, the Lord would now have established thy kingdom over Israel for ever. [14] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=14-#x) But thy kingdom shall not continue. The Lord hath sought him a man according to his own heart: and him hath the Lord commanded to be prince over his people, because thou hast not observed that which the Lord commanded. [15] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=15-#x) And Samuel arose and went up from Galgal to Gabaa of Benjamin. And the rest of the people went up after Saul, to meet the people who fought against them, going from Galgal to Gabaa in the hill of Benjamin. And Saul numbered the people, that were found with him, about six hundred men.
[16] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=16-#x) And Saul and Jonathan his son, and the people that were present with them, were in Gabaa of Benjamin: but the Philistines encamped in Machmas. [17] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=17-#x) And there went out of the camp of the Philistines three companies to plunder. One company went towards the way of Ephra to the land of Sual; [18] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=18-#x) And another went by the way of Beth-horon, and the third turned to the way of the border, above the valley of Seboim towards the desert. [19] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=19-#x) Now there was no smith to be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines had taken this precaution, lest the Hebrews should make them swords or spears. [20] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=20-#x) So all Israel went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his ploughshare, and his spade, and his axe, and his rake.
[21] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=21-#x) So that their shares, and their spades, and their forks, and their axes were blunt, even to the goad, which was to be mended. [22] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=22-#x) And when the day of battle was come, there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan, except Saul and Jonathan his son. [23] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=23-#x) And the army of the Philistines went out in order to advance further in Machmas.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:40:47 AM
This is what came to my mind.  Get out your Douay Rheims.  Read 1 Kings 13.  
"And Samuel said to him: What hast thou done? Saul answered: Because I saw that the people slipt from me, and thou wast not come according to the days appointed, and the Philistines were gathered together in Machmas, [12] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=12-#x) I said: Now will the Philistines come down upon me to Galgal, and I have not appeased the face of the Lord. Forced by necessity, I offered the ɧơƖơcαųst. [13] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=13-#x) And Samuel said to Saul: Thou hast done foolishly, and hast not kept the commandments of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee. And if thou hadst not done thus, the Lord would now have established thy kingdom over Israel for ever. [14] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=13&l=14-#x) But thy kingdom shall not continue."

We can only pray. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 09:42:20 AM
"so as to change their essential meaning"

Even if the bishop spoke the words inaccurately, it seems this would have to be proven.

We have it on video.  If you hear something different than what I heard, it's up to you.  All I'm saying is that, based on this alone, I would not receive any Sacraments tied to Bishop Pfeiffer due to positive doubt.  Other people entertain doubts about the Thuc line in general.  Unfortunately, we don't have any relevant and trustworthy Church authority to decide this matter for us.

This could be remedied quite easily, since Bishop Webster would merely have to do it again conditionally.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 09:45:01 AM
Right, there's an allowance for a certain amount of botching ... especially messing up the Latin inflection (the word ending).  But he's saying that if the root of the word remains the same, it's considered valid.

But if ministerii summam becomes misterii sanum .... it's a big stretch.  I think that this is bad enough to constitute positive doubt.  

Yes, I think you are right about that.  I didn't watch the video.  Is there any chance that the audio was bad and it just sounds like he mispronounced the words?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 09:47:21 AM
Yes, I think you are right about that.  I didn't watch the video.  Is there any chance that the audio was bad and it just sounds like he mispronounced the words?

I don't think so.  It was clear enough that I heard what he said, both the parts he got right and the parts he got wrong.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on July 31, 2020, 09:54:42 AM
We have it on video.  If you hear something different than what I heard, it's up to you.  All I'm saying is that, based on this alone, I would not receive any Sacraments tied to Bishop Pfeiffer due to positive doubt.  Other people entertain doubts about the Thuc line in general.  Unfortunately, we don't have any relevant and trustworthy Church authority to decide this matter for us.

This could be remedied quite easily, since Bishop Webster would merely have to do it again conditionally.
I didn't hear something different, but wondered if the words he spoke meant something specific or were just non words which may prove he didn't mean to change anything to mean something different?  Or does that not really matter in the sense that the words simply must be said.  I agree, he could remove doubt by conditionally reconsecrating.    
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on July 31, 2020, 10:12:01 AM
Other people entertain doubts about the Thuc line in general.  Unfortunately, we don't have any relevant and trustworthy Church authority to decide this matter for us.
There is this regarding the Thuc consecrations:
Quote
 Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in forceuntil repentance.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 10:37:14 AM
I didn't hear something different, but wondered if the words he spoke meant something specific or were just non words which may prove he didn't mean to change anything to mean something different?  Or does that not really matter in the sense that the words simply must be said.  I agree, he could remove doubt by conditionally reconsecrating.    

Yes, for the purposes of our discussion (ie., validity of form), it does not matter whether or not he chose to mispronounce words of the essential form, but only the degree to which he mispronounced them (ie., whether the degree of the mispronunciation changes the sense and meaning which the words convey), although in the same passages cited earlier, St. Thomas teaches that one who deliberately mispronounced would manifest a contrary intention to “do what the Church does,” and invalidate the sacrament for defective intention.

It would seem to me that replacing “minister” with “mystery,” and replacing “summam” with “sanum” (ie., “sound”) are substantial mutations which do not at all convey the same sense as the words of the essential form.

This alone suffices to introduce positive doubt (and possibly outright invalidity) into this consecration.

In fact, I would consider this consecration more doubtful than the three main Thuc consecrations, because as regards the latter, we have only some concerning speculations regarding Thuc’s mental state, and how this might impact his intention which, to a large degree is a matter of the internal forum, whereas with the Pfeiffer consecration, we have a substantial and recorded botching of the words of the essential form (presuming always that Ladislaus has heard properly, but which nobody is challenging; I will listen myself tonight).

Ps: Interestingly, as the video is recorded, Rome (albeit modernist Rome) will have an opportunity to pronounce upon the validity of this consecration, and if they did not dishonestly declare the “ɧơƖơcαųst denying” bishop’s consecrations invalid, I might still have grounds for an honest determination in the case of this one.  In fact, petitioning tgem for a judgment might be the charitable thing to do.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 11:06:51 AM
I have no horse in this race.  I wouldn't have much to do with the Bishop(?) Pfieffer's group even if they were undoubtedly valid ... just like I tend to stay away from the dogmatic sedevacantists groups who have valid bishops.

So if someone heard differently, I'm open to it.  I have no political agenda.  I just like to call it like I see it (or hear it in this case).  If it serves no other purpose than to have Bishop Pfeiffer have it re-done conditionally, then that's fine too.

But perhaps there's something providential in this botching, as I think Matthew suggested.  Perhaps it'll give some people a bit of a pause with regard to getting involved with them.

I was present when Neal Webster first received the Minor Orders from Bishop Hesson in Philadelphia.  I was the only one there, and I made a long drive to get there.  Bishop Hesson really slurred his words.  But I didn't say anything because I couldn't verify what he said or didn't say and had to presume its validity ... plus the potential consequences in terms of Minor Orders were not grave.  

In this case, however, I had to say something because this could potentially lead to people receiving invalid Sacraments.  So I felt obliged in conscience to at least call it out.  Now, people can do whatever they want with my observations, including to completely ignore them.  But I felt an obligation to bring this up because not only did I hear it, but I had the luxury of replaying it over and over again on the recording to make sure I didn't hear it wrong.   Of course, for those who generally doubt the +Thuc line, well, this adds nothing for them.  But for those who consider the line valid, I want to at least call attention to this issue for their consideration.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 11:12:46 AM
Guess what?

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

https://www.cathinfo.com/files/pfeiffer.mp4


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..."

For those who want to listen on this video, the essential form here begins right around 59:10.  It's hard to pick up because he doesn't pause between sentences but runs into it almost making it sound like "comple" goes with the previous sentence, so you may want to start at 59:08 or something and listen for "comple".

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 11:18:09 AM
You know, with all the Sacramental validity wars, I don't understand why in charity the various groups can't get together and work it out.

Bishop Kelly and, say, Bishop Sanborn, could conditionally consecrate one another.  Then Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Kelly could conditionally ordain all the priests they had ordained.  Problem solved, and they could start working together again.  But everyone appears too stubborn and proud to do something like this.

In this case too, just have Bishop Webster conditionally redo it.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 11:26:00 AM
So there's a story out there very similar about when Bishop Mendez ordained Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger.

When he got to the essential form, Bishop Mendez sped up and started garbling the words to the point that the priests there could not verify that he said it correctly.  So they asked him to repeat it.  Finally, Bishop Kelly asked Father Zapp, "Did he get it right that time?" to which he responded, "I think so."

http://www.fathercekada.com/2001/09/11/bp-mendez-sspv-and-hypocrisy/ (http://www.fathercekada.com/2001/09/11/bp-mendez-sspv-and-hypocrisy/)

Didn’t Bp. Mendez show he was a tra­ditionalist by ordain­ing two priests for SSPV in September 1990?

-Had no wish to be identified publicly as traditional Catholic or even associ­ated with ceremony.
-Arrived, as usual, in lay clothes.
-Performed ordination ceremony in se­cret.
-Followed Novus Ordo rules and did not ordain can­didates to subdiaconate before. (Subdiaconate is when semi­narians take on celibacy obligation.)
-Refused to wear all the traditional vestments.
-Insisted ceremony not be videotaped: “Get that thing out of here!”
-When he arrived at Preface of Ordin­ation, which contains the essen­tial sacramental form, sud­denly began rac­ing through it so quickly that it was incomprehensible.
-Became angry when asked to repeat es­sential part.
-Then repeated it in way that prompted following exchange: Fr. Kelly: “Did he get it right that time?” Fr. Thomas Zapp: “I think so.”
-Ceremony continued on basis of “Think so.”
-Fr. Zapp says he cannot vouch for cer­tain that Mendez finally said essential words properly.
-Bishop’s conduct during ceremony was such that af­terwards in sacristy Fr. Kelly shook his head, told Fr. Zapp: “Never again. I’ll never do this again.”
-Mendez used a false name to disassoci­ate himself from ordination: “Bishop Francis Gonzalez.”
-Lied and denied in writing that he per­formed ordi­nation, calling it “an ugly rumor.” (Letter to Fr. Scott, 17 October 1990)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on July 31, 2020, 11:52:24 AM
Bishop Kelly and, say, Bishop Sanborn, could conditionally consecrate one another. 
What?  If both are in need of conditional consecration don't they need a valid bishop to consecrate one of them first?   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 12:59:22 PM
What?  If both are in need of conditional consecration don't they need a valid bishop to consecrate one of them first?   :facepalm:

No, each believes that the OTHER is in need of conditional consecration.  So this way they could make peace and start working together again.  Entire families were torn apart when the two camps broke with one another, with Cincinnati being split in two (between the school and original chapel), then there were competing churches in the same town, etc.  It was a mess that didn't need to happen.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 12:59:51 PM
Bishop Sanborn and Fr Desposito have viewed the consecration video and they both agree that it was invalid.

See https://ƚwιƚƚeɾ.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1289246165439885312
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 01:02:26 PM
Bishop Sanborn and Fr Desposito have viewed the consecration video and they both agree that it was invalid.

See https://ƚwιƚƚeɾ.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1289246165439885312
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 01:07:11 PM
Bishop Sanborn and Fr Desposito have viewed the consecration video and they both agree that it was invalid.

See https://ƚwιƚƚeɾ.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1289246165439885312

Looks like NovusOrdoWatch might have been on CI here, since the link to the video starts up exactly at 59:08, where I suggested to start looking.  Yes, it looks like they heard the same thing I did.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 01:12:34 PM
Looks like the video is still accessible on Pablo's youtube channel.

I also found this there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZScyYlYPDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZScyYlYPDc)

Enjoy.   :popcorn:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 01:15:17 PM
Looks like the video is still accessible on Pablo's youtube channel.

I also found this there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZScyYlYPDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZScyYlYPDc)

Enjoy.   :popcorn:

Actually, this one is just a picture, accompanied by the usual out of tune Mexican music.  But Matthew has it downloaded somewhere a couple pages ago.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 01:16:04 PM
So now that a couple of well-trained priests have chimed in with their opinion that it was not valid, what will the response be from the +?Pfeiffer camp?

This would be pretty easy to rectify, with Bishop Webster still being around and available to conditionally redo it.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on July 31, 2020, 01:16:47 PM
No, each believes that the OTHER is in need of conditional consecration.  So this way they could make peace and start working together again. 
If your first sentence is accurate why would either of them submit to the other?  They wouldn't.
Sorry I just don't see any logic.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 01:17:18 PM
Actually, this one is just a picture, accompanied by the usual out of tune Mexican music.  But Matthew has it downloaded somewhere a couple pages ago.

Sorry for the confusion.  This video and the "Enjoy!" comment was separate from the video still being there.  In the NovusOrdoWatch tweet he links to the youtube on Pablo's channel to the full consecration.  But I added this gem here for everyone's enjoyment.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 01:18:03 PM
If your first sentence is accurate why would either of them submit to the other?  They wouldn't.
Sorry I just don't see any logic.

It wouldn't be an act of submission.  It would be a way to make peace so that everyone could in good conscience go to either or both groups.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on July 31, 2020, 01:20:01 PM
Any predictions on when the first ordinations from Pfeifferville will take place?

I predict August 15th, 2020
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 01:20:51 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:

https://www.cathinfo.com/files/pfeiffer.mp4


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..."

Critical, for the record.

I just listened to it, and definitely heard "mysterii" and "sanam" instead of the proper words of the essential form (and I'm pretty sure I heard the former repeated twice).

Good job, Lad!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 01:25:14 PM
Critical, for the record.

I just listened to it, and definitely heard "mysterii" and "sanam" instead of the proper words of the essential form (and I'm pretty sure I heard the former repeated twice).

Good job, Lad!

I just watched it because I have never actually seen a full video of a consecration.  I've seen snippets.  So I was curious about things like when the laying on of the hands took place in relation to the actual form being spoken.  Then when i heard it, I was taken aback and had to rewind it multiple times.  I was actually hoping to hear some kind of statement or sermon from Bishop Webster about why he consecrated Fr. Pfeiffer, given the latter's views on Feeneyism and sedevacantism.  But that didn't happen.  Instead I found myself doubting the validity of the consecration.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 01:45:01 PM
I hope Bishop Zendejas and Bishop Williamson will make a statement.  I would hope they specifically address the validity issue especially the essential form of the consecration.  Fr Hewko's statement only addressed the validity of the Thuc line and since there is a tremendous amount of documentation refuting that position, I don't think it carries much weight.  But if the consecration was so badly done that the essential form was unintelligible, and several well-trained traditional Catholic clergy agreed, I think that would be dagger through the heart for "Bishop" Pfeiffer.  Maybe the Terrason connection is already enough to produce doubt?  I listened to the essential form of the consecration and I agree it was badly muffed.  It was bad enough that now I'm questioning Webster's competence.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 01:49:17 PM
Critical, for the record.

I just listened to it, and definitely heard "mysterii" and "sanam" instead of the proper words of the essential form (and I'm pretty sure I heard the former repeated twice).

Good job, Lad!

Here is a comparison to the 1988 SSPX consecrations.

Begin at 11:47, with the cameras only catching the 2nd half of the essential form, beginning at 12:34 ("et ornamentis totius..."):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECDuVVFo4oc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECDuVVFo4oc)

PS: Prior to the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre had already served as the principal consecrator three times (and as coconsecrator an unknown number of times).  He knew what he was doing, and having received doctorates in Rome at a time when he would have been tested in Latin, he understood what he was saying and doing.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: In Principio on July 31, 2020, 02:05:54 PM
Would Bp. Webster's mangling of the essential words in this instance be sufficient for positive doubt about other ordinations he's performed?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 02:22:27 PM
Would Bp. Webster's mangling of the essential words in this instance be sufficient for positive doubt about other ordinations he's performed?

Well, let's just say this:

My understanding is that when the SSPX receives a refugee from the conciliar church, it conducts an investigation into the priest's ordination (which in turn evolves into an investigation of the consecrating bishop).  

In the absence of a recording of the ordination, where such a bishop is known to habitually violate the form of the sacrament (among other reasons), the SSPX would probably (at least formerly) conditionally ordain.

That modus operandi seems to imply that they believe an invalid sacrament in one instance could imply invalidity for the same reasons in other instances.

So my answer to your question is a big fat "maybe" (i.e., I am not sure), but I am inclined to say yes, with a big asterisk*

* Because perhaps his mangling was the result of a new eye problem, whereas before he was very careful and precise?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 31, 2020, 02:23:47 PM
To expand on what I said earlier, that this botched consecration might be providential --

I knew a man IRL, a Traditional Catholic, who taught me by his example a LOT about lying, manipulation, and many other things.

The thing about liars is that they throw up so much "chaff" (distractions, like the chaff released by fighter jets to attract and confuse the missiles launched against them) that they end up believing their own lies -- they end up confusing themselves. It's as if God punishes them by taking away their ability to discern and grasp the truth, even when it stares them in the face. What a fitting punishment -- how infinitely just is God!

Also, liars are so NOT detail oriented and sloppy, that they end up lying about things that careful people with clear consciences see right through.

It's much like pride is punished by letting the person get puffed up with that pride they love so much -- and soundly humiliated (think: Hillary Clinton in 2016).
sơdơmites are punished in those members in which they have sinned: trips to the emergency room, HIV, damage to their bodies, poor health.

Another related point: criminals (and sinners) ALWAYS project their own thoughts and failings onto others. A thief thinks everyone is a thief. A liar thinks others are lying. Their crowning achievement is to accuse others of the very specific crimes they are guilty of (Hillary Clinton accusing Tɾυmρ of colluding with Russia).

It is fitting somehow, that Fr. Pfeiffer, who obviously cared little about proper rubrics, probably didn't even notice. He was befuddled, so he assumed we all would be befuddled as well. Moroever, there's the pride aspect: "I'm smarter than all of them, and >I< don't see a problem. Go ahead and post it." He allowed this video to be posted!

Think of all the times Fr. Pfeiffer had no regard for the truth, as he assaulted Bp. Zendejas, Bp. Williamson. Think of all the times he promoted Ambrose Moran the fɾαυdulent, or the pederast Tetherow. Or all the times he called his warlock controller Pablo "good". He has called black "white" and white "black" so many times, he has lost all bearing on what is true.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 02:31:33 PM
Here is a comparison to the 1988 SSPX consecrations.
...
PS: Prior to the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre had already served as the principal consecrator three times (and as coconsecrator an unknown number of times).  He knew what he was doing, and having received doctorates in Rome at a time when he would have been tested in Latin, he understood what he was saying and doing.

Thank you.  Yes, it is clear that the Archbishop was very fluent with the Latin here.  This is another reason why under-trained priests and bishops can cause problems.  Clemente Dominguez was totally untrained.  We have no idea if he ever knew more than a word or two of Latin.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 02:33:11 PM
Someone sent me a link to the documents of Bishop Terrasson being ordained the same day he was consecrated.  There appears to be no indication that the ordination to the priesthood was conditional, but I haven't studied these in depth either.

https://www.reddit.com/gallery/hvza0d (https://www.reddit.com/gallery/hvza0d)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 02:34:36 PM
Well, let's just say this:

My understanding is that when the SSPX receives a refugee from the conciliar church, it conducts an investigation into the priest's ordination (which in turn evolves into an investigation of the consecrating bishop).  

In the absence of a recording of the ordination, where such a bishop is known to habitually violate the form of the sacrament (among other reasons), the SSPX would probably (at least formerly) conditionally ordain.

That modus operandi seems to imply that they believe an invalid sacrament in one instance could imply invalidity for the same reasons in other instances.

So my answer to your question is a big fat "maybe" (i.e., I am not sure), but I am inclined to say yes, with a big asterisk*

* Because perhaps his mangling was the result of a new eye problem, whereas before he was very careful and precise?

Right.  I think it very possible that Bishop Webster stumbled due to his frailty (vs. when he was younger).
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 03:20:32 PM
I have to give credit to Fr Pfeiffer and Pablo for one thing.  They recorded the consecration ceremony and then made it public.  It's too bad all traditional clergy hadn't done the same thing.  Even back in the 70s and 80s audio tape recorders were cheap and readily available.  And by the early 90s video cameras were very affordable.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on July 31, 2020, 03:25:05 PM
But will Pfeiffer be content to stay a "bishop" or will we be hearing about a Kentucky Conclave with chicken sacrifices?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: St.Patrick on July 31, 2020, 03:40:06 PM
Thucs consecrations are in doubt because he himself admitted that he witheld his intention.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 31, 2020, 04:05:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 05:04:22 PM
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???
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on July 31, 2020, 05:27:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 05:44:33 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 (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_Lauriers.html)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Struthio on July 31, 2020, 05:53:17 PM
.
If you are going to withhold intention, why go through the charade of pretending to consecrate???

To receive the dollars?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 05:54:29 PM
To receive the dollars?
::)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:30:13 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 31, 2020, 06:34:19 PM
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:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:37:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 06:38:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 31, 2020, 06:39:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:41:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:50:41 PM
Hearsay is not proof. Show the proof or retract.
No need; his supporters consent to the claim that he withheld intention at Palmar.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:56:11 PM
Sean you’re better than that. That is completely disingenuous.

Ahem..."I'm better than" accepting what Thuc advocates accept?

A frivolous post devoid of content.

You should be challenging your fellow schismatic, Clemens Maria.

After all, he introduced the Palmarian fɾαυd, not me.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 06:59:37 PM
I completely misjudged your character. Mea culpa.
Apology accepted.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 07:20:24 PM

Always remember Sean that the only thing that that saves you from being in schism is the FACT that Bergoglio is NOT a true pope. If he were a true pope, your picture would be posted under the definition of the term schismatic.
Sede-craziness.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 07:21:53 PM
It has been explained.  Read Mario Derkson’s web site defending +Thuc.  Ladislaus did a good job summarizing it.  I know you won’t read it because you don’t really care about truth.  All you care about is your team winning.  Where’s the letter Sean?  All you have is a second hand report in the 1982 Angelus.  No solid evidence that he ever admitted simulating a sacrament.  But we do have evidence after 1982 that he affirmed the validity of the 1976 consecration.

Ahem, I should be asking YOU for the letter, since it was YOU who told the world Thuc withheld intention at Palmar.

Idiot.

Why are you so hostile to the Thuc'ies?

You shouldn't be slandering the great Thuc like that, and hurting faith in sedevacantism!   :facepalm: :jester: :laugh2: :laugh1:

YOU need to produce a letter to refute....YOURSELF!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on July 31, 2020, 07:23:15 PM
Now this is photoshopped !
Is he trying to convey his consecration is somehow linked to the four original bishops?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlQoDeeiI
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 31, 2020, 07:29:01 PM
Ahem, I should be asking YOU for the letter, since it was YOU who told the world Thuc withheld intention at Palmar.

Idiot.

Why are you so hostile to the Thuc'ies?

You shouldn't be slandering the great Thuc like that, and hurting faith in sedevacantism!   :facepalm: :jester: :laugh2: :laugh1:

YOU need to produce a letter to refute....YOURSELF!
Seriously Sean, swallow your pride and admit you are wrong. I know you can, you’ve done it in the past.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 07:30:54 PM
Seriously Sean, swallow your pride and admit you are wrong. I know you can, you’ve done it in the past.
Desperate attempts to salvage the sede enterprise, devoid of argument, are frivolous.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 08:06:40 PM
Thuc admitted he faked the Palmarian consecrations; it was discussed earlier in the thread.  If you can disprove it, I would not be disappointed.

You should know that it's nearly impossible to prove a negative.  I've never seen it proven that he said that he withheld his intention at Palmar.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 08:08:38 PM
Sede-craziness.

Come on, Sean.  You're degenerating this into ad hominems.  There's no need for this.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on July 31, 2020, 08:10:03 PM
Now this is photoshopped !
Is he trying to convey his consecration is somehow linked to the four original bishops?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlQoDeeiI

He should have Father Feeney and Archbishop Thuc in the background too.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 08:29:00 PM
Come on, Sean.  You're degenerating this into ad hominems.  There's no need for this.

C'mon, Lad.

You know me, homie.

Give some, get some.

If some sede is going to come at me with some BS, I'm going to give some back.

QVD has no business approaching me about what CLEMENS MARIA -A SEDE- introduced into the conversation.

And then he goes on to use the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ's tactic of pretending he is on the high ground against me, by requiring of ME proof for an allegation SOMEONE ELSE -A SEDE- made.

I'm not having that, son.

He might score points against Poche or some rookie, but I've been around a long time.

You gotta do better than that against me, or you're just spinning your wheels, and wasting everyone's time.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: duck2050 on July 31, 2020, 08:57:54 PM
He should have Father Feeney and Archbishop Thuc in the background too.
...and Jean Laborie, Jean Pierre Danyel, Hugh George de Willmott-Newman, William Bernard Crow, Aleister Crowley, Theodor Reuss, et al. by way of Terrasson’s ordination.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 31, 2020, 09:00:03 PM
Gentlemen --

Take the fight elsewhere. You're derailing the thread.

This is not the place for pro and con Sedevacantist rhetoric.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: duck2050 on July 31, 2020, 09:01:28 PM
Pfeiffer certainly hasn’t wasted any time getting down to business!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 31, 2020, 09:01:47 PM
...and Jean Laborie, Jean Pierre Danyel, Hugh George de Willmott-Newman, William Bernard Crow, Aleister Crowley, Theodor Reuss, et al. by way of Terrasson’s ordination.  

Indeed!

Bp. Zendejas, on the other hand, could have a big picture of +ABL on his website, pamphlets, etc. if he wanted to, because he DOES have a connection to +ABL -- in fact, his episcopal consecration comes directly from +ABL (through +Williamson).

"Bp" Pfeiffer on the other hand, cannot claim this. He had to go FAR AFIELD outside the SSPX fold to find a bishop who could consecrate him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2020, 09:06:07 PM
Pfeiffer certainly hasn’t wasted any time getting down to business!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA)

He ordained Sub-Deacons and Deacons?

How many?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on July 31, 2020, 10:22:36 PM
ENOUGH!

(Those I am talking to know who they are)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 10:23:54 PM
Pfeiffer certainly hasn’t wasted any time getting down to business!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA)
Pure insanity.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Minnesota on July 31, 2020, 10:29:26 PM
And the channel, 469fitter, is nothing but blind praise towards Bp? Pfeiffer and this whole farce. Even with people in the comments of the recent videos rightly decrying all this
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 08:10:10 AM
...and Jean Laborie, Jean Pierre Danyel, Hugh George de Willmott-Newman, William Bernard Crow, Aleister Crowley, Theodor Reuss, et al. by way of Terrasson’s ordination.  

Ah, how could I forget?  There should be a prominent picture of His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII, Clemente Dominguez, from whom his orders partially derive (leading to the priestly ordination of Fr. Webster).

(https://alchetron.com/cdn/clemente-domnguez-y-gmez-aaec4ab4-e112-4ca3-b8b2-f74c8859a70-resize-750.jpeg)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 08:11:56 AM
Ah, how could I forget?  There should be a prominent picture of His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII, Clemente Dominguez, from whom these episcopal orders derive.

And who knows?  Since +?Pfeiffer has red-lighted pretty much every single Traditional Catholic left in the world, he might become the spiritual successor of Gregory XVII.  Given his current theological/mental trajectory, I do not consider it far-fetched to speculate about a future Pope Shpudibush I.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 08:23:44 AM
OK, I've poked fun at +?Pfeiffer about the "Da michi shpudibush," but I'm sure it was largely a joke on his part.  I cannot speak to his grasp of Latin because he was a year or two ahead of me at Seminary and I never had any classes with him (and I didn't take Latin there at all).

Joe (before he became a priest) was actually a very jovial, fun-loving guy ... and I really like him.  I'm not sure what happened over the years to make him bitter.  People say he changed a lot after the summer-camp drowning, and I surmise that Pablo has had a diabolical influence upon him.  We should really pray for him, and see is an exorcist if available to go after Pablo.  I really looked up to and respect his brother Tim, Father Timothy Pfeiffer, but the latter was much more serious, while Joe like to goof around a fair bit, so the "Shpudibush" was at least partly a joke.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 08:28:02 AM
Based on what I've seen and Fr. Pfeiffer's past history, I would need to see a video of the conditional consecration before my doubt would be lifted regarding his validity.

Fr. Pfeiffer has a history of dishonesty, as has been well documented here, and of spinning things in his favor.

Also, even if Bishop Webster came out and confirmed the conditional consecration, based on how badly I saw him struggling with it during the initial video, I would not have a lot of confidence that he got it right he second time.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 08:37:56 AM
OK, so I just now had a chance to listen to his sermon.

Did he REALLY refer to the "Holy Papacy of Francis"?

Also, when he started talking about repeating the essential form afterward, he stuttered very badly, to the point of sounding like porky pig (in those old cartoons).  He was fairly fluent until he got that point and then started stuttering badly.  That suggests to me that he's not being totally honest.  I doubt very much that they noticed during the ceremony that it was a problem, since if they had, they would have had Bishop Webster repeat it right away.  He implies that this was corrected immєdιαtely after the ceremony.  I doubt it.  They probably just became aware of the problem after this thread and the Novus Ordo Watch post.

Without a video, I don't buy it.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 01, 2020, 09:38:59 AM
Now he is a "bishop" from the line of this "pope"?

https://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2005/493/1111878014.html (https://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2005/493/1111878014.html)

Quote
Gregorio XVII reconoció que en su juventud fue presa del desenfreno sɛҳuąƖ, y que acosó a hombres y mujeres adscritos a su secta. Pero eso no ha sido óbvice para que miles de personas permanezcan fieles a su credo. ¿Incluso después de su muerte?  

"Gregory XVII recognized that in his youth he fell prey to sɛҳuąƖ debauchery, and that he molested men and women attached to his sect. But that has not been an obstacle for thousands of people to remain faithful to their creed. Even after his death?"

Quote
El propio Clemente, conocido como La Voltio en círculos gαys de la Sevilla del franquismo, confesó a sus acólitos hace pocos años sus pecados de incontinencia sɛҳuąƖ, en aparente referencia a su acoso a monjas y obispos bajo su mando.  

"Clemente himself, known as 'La Voltio' in gαy circles in Franco's Seville (***he used to work at an electricity company), confessed to his acolytes a few years ago his sins of sɛҳuąƖ incontinence, in apparent reference to his molestation of nuns and bishops under his command."

Pfeiffer is marked for destruction many times over. He is the archetypal priest who forged his own calling, forged his own seminary, forged his own bishopric.

I pray for his swift removal from the face of the earth. What a disgusting spectacle. Don't anyone dare put this all on the Mexican. If God's grace were enough for Pfeiffer, he'd never have resorted to Satan's power.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 01, 2020, 09:57:33 AM
OK, so I just now had a chance to listen to his sermon.

Did he REALLY refer to the "Holy Papacy of Francis"?

Also, when he started talking about repeating the essential form afterward, he stuttered very badly, to the point of sounding like porky pig (in those old cartoons).  He was fairly fluent until he got that point and then started stuttering badly.  That suggests to me that he's not being totally honest.  I doubt very much that they noticed during the ceremony that it was a problem, since if they had, they would have had Bishop Webster repeat it right away.  He implies that this was corrected immєdιαtely after the ceremony.  I doubt it.  They probably just became aware of the problem after this thread and the Novus Ordo Watch post.

Without a video, I don't buy it.

If I were in his shoes, given all the issues surrounding the first doubtful/invalid attempt, I would certainly have recorded any subsequent conditional consecration, so that prospective seminarians, parents, faithful, and adversaries would have one less concern.

If such a recorded video does not emerge demonstrating not only the fact of the conditional consecration, but also a valid rendition of the essential form, I think I am inclined to agree with Ladislaus that doubts will be justified (despite my own previous common sense observations that it would be crazy for the seminarians to accept orders in the very ceremony in which Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer acknowledges the defect of form).
A fact Tɾυmρs conjecture.

Lad has been hitting the nail on the head this entire thread.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 10:04:56 AM
Now he is a "bishop" from the line of this "pope"?

To be fair, it's only the priestly orders of Neal Webster that derive from Terrasson/Clemente.  +Webster was consecrated by +Slupski, who comes from the +McKenna/+desLaurier line.

BTW, there was a controversy earlier about whether a non-priest could be directly consecrated a bishop.  Based on the essential form of episcopal consecration in the Roman Rite, I would think it not possible.  Perhaps the Eastern Rites are different, but in the Roman Rite the reference in the essential form is to completing or fulfilling "in your priest" the peak/summit of the ministry.  I doubt that would be efficacious if pronounced over a layman.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 01, 2020, 10:25:27 AM
If I were in his shoes, given all the issues surrounding the first doubtful/invalid attempt, I would certainly have recorded any subsequent conditional consecration, so that prospective seminarians, parents, faithful, and adversaries would have one less concern.


Indeed! Especially with that "cesspool" of CathInfo. ::) You don't want to give those guys any rope to hang you with!

Seriously, from his perspective we're all a bunch of Al-qaeda terrorists, and I sit in a chair all day twirling my mustache and petting a cat. Even though our collective "fraternal correction" calling out Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer is actually the best form of charity called for in this situation -- he sees it differently. From his perspective, he has many "enemies".

If the only thing out there on the Internet forever is the video showing how slipshod the ceremony was, how frail the consecrator was, etc. I would be the first one getting that conditional consecration video out there POST HASTE.

The correction needs to be as concrete, certain, popular, and available as the original defective ceremony *which now Fr. Pfeiffer himself admits was defective*. And might I point out that first ceremony is available everywhere "forever" since I've mirrored it on my server now. So he has to match THAT.

If Father didn't record and/or refuses to release the conditional consecration ceremony, he has a lot to learn about marketing, propaganda, etc. You don't want the last thing people see to be a screw-up. Everyone is going to see it and walk away shaking their heads, "THAT needs to be fixed..."

Seeing something on video? That's real. Taking Fr. Pfeiffer's word for something? Much more hit-and-miss. Proof Tɾυmρs hearsay. And when it comes to verbal testimony from Fr. Pfeiffer, sometimes it's true, but many times it's not. Sad, but true. I could list many lies Fr. Pfeiffer has told publicly, but I don't have time right now. There are many threads on CI about this.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 01, 2020, 10:59:16 AM
To be fair, it's only the priestly orders of Neal Webster that derive from Terrasson/Clemente.  +Webster was consecrated by +Slupski, who comes from the +McKenna/+desLaurier line.

BTW, there was a controversy earlier about whether a non-priest could be directly consecrated a bishop.  Based on the essential form of episcopal consecration in the Roman Rite, I would think it not possible.  Perhaps the Eastern Rites are different, but in the Roman Rite the reference in the essential form is to completing or fulfilling "in your priest" the peak/summit of the ministry.  I doubt that would be efficacious if pronounced over a layman.

Man, it just keeps going and going, doesn't it? If their situation hadn't been an absolute sham for years already, I might be inclined to give these over-extended lines of various doubt a chance. All I see right now are more footholds of "maybe" for the devil to operate. Everything associated with Boston at this point is in ashes.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 01, 2020, 12:37:00 PM
Now he is a "bishop" from the line of this "pope"?

https://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2005/493/1111878014.html (https://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2005/493/1111878014.html)

"Gregory XVII recognized that in his youth he fell prey to sɛҳuąƖ debauchery, and that he molested men and women attached to his sect. But that has not been an obstacle for thousands of people to remain faithful to their creed. Even after his death?"

"Clemente himself, known as 'La Voltio' in gαy circles in Franco's Seville (***he used to work at an electricity company), confessed to his acolytes a few years ago his sins of sɛҳuąƖ incontinence, in apparent reference to his molestation of nuns and bishops under his command."

Pfeiffer is marked for destruction many times over. He is the archetypal priest who forged his own calling, forged his own seminary, forged his own bishopric.

I pray for his swift removal from the face of the earth. What a disgusting spectacle. Don't anyone dare put this all on the Mexican. If God's grace were enough for Pfeiffer, he'd never have resorted to Satan's power.
I can't believe I am going to say this, but you are right on target, Croixalist.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 01, 2020, 12:45:12 PM
 it would be crazy for the seminarians to accept orders in the very ceremony in which Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer acknowledges the defect of form).
You assume they think for themselves.
You are mistaken.
.
Proof 1:  They accept the "conditional ordination" of Fr(?) Poisson by William Moran at the instruction of Pfeiffer.
.
Proof 2: They accept Fr. Roberts to be innocent of all crimes of perversion, despite evidence to the contrary, at the instruction of Pfeiffer and Pablo.
.
Proof 3:  They revere Pablo and think him a "very good Catholic".
.
There are many other indications that these young men and women at OLMC, 80% of whom are either Pfeiffers or Blaszaks, have given their minds to Pfeiffer under Pablo. .
.
I agree with Croix: God needs to torch the place, and all movers and shakers in it.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 01, 2020, 03:45:11 PM
The video linked below was recently posted. It is a still picture with several scrolling statements saying that sacraments do not depend on the faith of the minister.

I'm guessing he's being defensive that Webster is sedevacantist, but if so, the message in the video below is very strange. I don't think anyone is questioning the validity based on differences of opinion on some issues. Is something else going on here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVs4yIXJBo
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Miseremini on August 01, 2020, 04:05:08 PM
I think they are just trying to convince themselves and everyone else that the ceremony was valid, thereby keeping everyone from remembering that no solid Catholic Bishop found the candidate worthy of the honour.
:sleep:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 04:17:10 PM
Even though our collective "fraternal correction" calling out Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer is actually the best form of charity called for in this situation -- he sees it differently.

Indeed.  If I had been in this situation and someone pointed out the defective form while I still had a chance to correct it, I would be most grateful.  If we really wanted to get at him, we'd save the video and then pull it out after Bishop Webster was no longer capable of fixing the problem (e.g. after incapacity or death) ... after he had performed large numbers or ordinations or confirmations.  During his sermon, he might have publicly thanked CathInfo for pointing this out to him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 01, 2020, 04:21:56 PM
The video linked below was recently posted. It is a still picture with several scrolling statements saying that sacraments do not depend on the faith of the minister.

Are they implying that Bishop Webster is a heretic?  How long do we give it before +?Pfeiffer is throwing Bishop Webster under the bus, publicly denouncing and excoriating him?  Nor would I feel too sorry for +Webster, since he should have researched who this man is before having consecrated him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 01, 2020, 05:19:33 PM
Are they implying that Bishop Webster is a heretic?  How long do we give it before +?Pfeiffer is throwing Bishop Webster under the bus, publicly denouncing and excoriating him?  Nor would I feel too sorry for +Webster, since he should have researched who this man is before having consecrated him.


See my rant about Baby Boomers ;)

If you are going to stay aloof from the Internet, you need an equally efficacious, current, and broad source of information/knowledge/intelligence about persons in the Trad world -- especially if you're a bishop and some of those persons are going to contact you seeking ordination.

Considering the distributed, isolated nature of the Trad world, it would seem to be most imprudent to neither use the Internet NOR have a group of people keeping you up-to-speed about events, which they found out about on the Internet. I know Bp. Zendejas has a large group like this. I'm sure Bp. Williamson does as well. They are always well informed about all the personages and characters in Tradition.

It's not like God doesn't hold bishops accountable for who they consecrate. If it's true that bad priests lead to apostate laymen, what does it mean for the bishop who ordained those bad priests? Wouldn't God hold him accountable? Indeed He does.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 01, 2020, 05:21:28 PM
From the mailbag:


From: Archbishop Ambrose <ambrosemet@gmail.com>
Subject: "Bishop " Joseph Pfeiffer
We are sad to announce that We cannot accept the validity of the recent attempted consecration 
of Joseph Pfeiffer to the episcopate. There are several reasons for this .This was done without
our knowledge or agreement.
Archbishop +Ambrose
Metropolitan



IP Address98.29.48.65
CountryUnited States of America (https://www.geolocation.com/assets/img/flags/us.png)
RegionOhio
CitySpringboro
ZIP or Postal Code45066
Latitude39.55228
Longitude-84.23327
ISPCharter Communications Inc
Domain Namespectrum.com [WHOIS] (https://www.ip2whois.com/domain/spectrum.com) [Check Mail Server] (https://www.mailboxvalidator.com/domain/spectrum.com)
[/pre]
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 01, 2020, 05:22:24 PM
I don't know if that is really Ambrose, but you're welcome to look into it. I posted everything I have.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: TKGS on August 01, 2020, 05:31:56 PM
I don't know if that is really Ambrose, but you're welcome to look into it. I posted everything I have.
Does Ambrose claim some sort of jurisdiction in the matter?  Isn't he a fake bishop too?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 01, 2020, 06:04:56 PM
Does Ambrose claim some sort of jurisdiction in the matter?  Isn't he a fake bishop too?
He's a fake Arch-bishop, and perhaps thinks that gives him some power over fake just-bishops.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 01, 2020, 06:53:53 PM
From the mailbag:


From: Archbishop Ambrose <ambrosemet@gmail.com>
Subject: "Bishop " Joseph Pfeiffer
We are sad to announce that We cannot accept the validity of the recent attempted consecration 
of Joseph Pfeiffer to the episcopate. There are several reasons for this .This was done without
our knowledge or agreement.
Archbishop +Ambrose
Metropolitan











IP Address98.29.48.65
CountryUnited States of America (https://www.geolocation.com/assets/img/flags/us.png)
RegionOhio
CitySpringboro
ZIP or Postal Code45066
Latitude39.55228
Longitude-84.23327
ISPCharter Communications Inc
Domain Namespectrum.com [WHOIS] (https://www.ip2whois.com/domain/spectrum.com) [Check Mail Server] (https://www.mailboxvalidator.com/domain/spectrum.com)
[/pre]

Well, Fr. Pfeiffer did one thing right....
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 01, 2020, 06:58:40 PM
He's a fake Arch-bishop, and perhaps thinks that gives him some power over fake just-bishops.
I think he and Pfeiffer had a deal of some sort, hence "conditionally ordaining" Poisson at Pfeiffer's behest.
.
Moran lives in a rental house of a Pfeiffer supporter just a 3 hour drive from OLMC.
.
Wonder if Moran will excommunicate Pfeiffer now.  That would solve everything because Fr. Pfeiffer considers Moran a legitimate Archbishop.   Hence, Fr. Pfeiffer would have to cease and desist all operations.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 01, 2020, 07:07:48 PM
The video linked below was recently posted. It is a still picture with several scrolling statements saying that sacraments do not depend on the faith of the minister.
.
If the sacraments do not depend on the faith of the minister, why couldn't Pfeiffer work with b. Williamson?  Or Fellay?  
.
Fr. Pfeiffer will do or say anything to benefit himself and his operation.   
.
To him, the end justifies the means.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 01, 2020, 07:43:57 PM
I literally laughed out loud and spit some chuck roast across the table when reading that Ambrose Moran 1) does not accept the consecration, 2) on the grounds that it was done without HIS approval, 3)and that he thought CathInfo should know. 
.
I couldn't be more entertained by a circus. Even if the email is fake, I applaud the sense of humor. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 01, 2020, 07:45:04 PM
He's a fake Arch-bishop, and perhaps thinks that gives him some power over fake just-bishops.
:laugh1:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 02, 2020, 08:56:30 PM
OK, so I just now had a chance to listen to his sermon.

Did he REALLY refer to the "Holy Papacy of Francis"?

Also, when he started talking about repeating the essential form afterward, he stuttered very badly, to the point of sounding like porky pig (in those old cartoons).  He was fairly fluent until he got that point and then started stuttering badly.  That suggests to me that he's not being totally honest.  I doubt very much that they noticed during the ceremony that it was a problem, since if they had, they would have had Bishop Webster repeat it right away.  He implies that this was corrected immєdιαtely after the ceremony.  I doubt it.  They probably just became aware of the problem after this thread and the Novus Ordo Watch post.

Without a video, I don't buy it.
Here, here.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 03, 2020, 07:53:11 AM
Olmc records and posts everything.
Why is it the one thing they NEED to post, the conditional consecration, they don't?
.
I smell foul play.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: MarcelJude on August 03, 2020, 08:49:04 AM
This sermon is regarding the consecration of Fr.(Bp.) Joe Pfeiffer. Fr. Chazal clearly states his take on how the cosecration went. The consecration creates a question of validity. The line that Fr.(Bp.) Joe Pfeiffer is creating could be a noxious line. Dangerous, POISONOUS!!The consecration is a question of validity.By the looks of it, Fr.(Bp.) Joe Pfeiffer has officially cut the line between him and the late Archbishop Lefebvre. Please watch the video. 

 https://youtu.be/TZW0UHUPrkg (https://youtu.be/TZW0UHUPrkg)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on August 03, 2020, 10:42:13 AM
Fr. Chazal is right.  Nobody but the ‘inner circle’ of Pfeifferville will place any trust in him, in the sacraments, the masses.  Who is the inner circle?  His parents, Pablo the demoniac, the widow lady with the kids across the street, the ‘seminarians,’ a few local hangers-on, the occasional odd-balls who wander in and out. The only thing he can do now is to continue the charade until God or circumstances force a complete shutdown, get conditionally and publicly reconsecrated by a valid bishop and work under him, go all in by consecrating more bishops, have a conclave, and become Pope Joe I.  I feel very sorry for his parents and Fr. Tim who is likely banned from the premises (by the resident warlock) AND visiting Fr. Joe (by the SSPX).  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 03, 2020, 10:47:39 AM
Here, here.

Yes, Father Chazal said the same thing, that we can't simply take his word for it.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 03, 2020, 05:40:46 PM
Years ago when Arshbichop Ambrose said those false Masses at Boston with their idolatry of unconsecrated bread from unconsecrated hands, all of those priests who let it happen were guilty. The guilt will follow them to their graves and will keep gathering volume and momentum, particularly in Pfeiffer's case. Pablo is only their to ensure that there are no diversions. If you can't sense the stench of Hell from these men by now, you probably never will.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 03, 2020, 05:50:26 PM
Years ago when Arshbichop Ambrose said those false Masses at Boston with their idolatry of unconsecrated bread from unconsecrated hands, all of those priests who let it happen were guilty. The guilt will follow them to their graves and will keep gathering volume and momentum, particularly in Pfeiffer's case. Pablo is only their to ensure that there are no diversions. If you can't sense the stench of Hell from these men by now, you probably never will.
I can't believe I am agreeing with you, again.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 03, 2020, 06:08:18 PM
I can't believe I am agreeing with you, again.  

:laugh1: :confused:

Since you keep making a point to say this, might I ask which subject(s) do you vehemently disagree with me over? You only started posting a short while ago. I tend to take long breaks. I don't have a clue who you are and what I'm supposed to be so wrong about. Enlighten me!

Choose a category:
-Flat Earth (been awhile)
-Feeney (been awhile)
-Putin (been around a year)
-Russia (been around a year)
-Tɾυmρ (briefly)
-Jҽωs
-GaJҽωski (been awhile)
-Malachi Martin
-Tetherow (briefly)
-Taylor Marshall

Or more! PM me if you want. If you're gonna comment like I'm some fringe lunatic, I think I ought to know why.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 03, 2020, 06:34:37 PM
Oh, and one more... How could I forget to include Voris???

:facepalm:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 04, 2020, 10:46:33 AM
The conditional consecration was videotaped.
OLMC needs to release it to end the question of the validity of the consecration.
.
Then, what is this I hear about Webster's ordination being in question?  
.
Does the consecration supersede the ordination? 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 04, 2020, 11:00:43 AM
The conditional consecration was videotaped.
OLMC needs to release it to end the question of the validity of the consecration.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: brianhope on August 04, 2020, 12:13:09 PM
An interesting piece of trivia in this matter is that Neil Webster attended the Young Adult Gathering (YAG) in Estes Park, Colorado as a layman 1999. The event was hosted by Frs. Joseph Pfeiffer and Kenneth Novak. I was there. A few days ago, I pulled out my YAG yearbook that was put out after the event and confirmed that it was indeed the same individual that "consecrated" +P. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: brianhope on August 04, 2020, 12:25:42 PM
An interesting piece of trivia in this matter is that Neil Webster attended the Young Adult Gathering (YAG) in Estes Park, Colorado as a layman 1999. The event was hosted by Frs. Joseph Pfeiffer and Kenneth Novak. I was there. A few days ago, I pulled out my YAG yearbook that was put out after the event and confirmed that it was indeed the same individual that "consecrated" +P.
Here's a photo from said Young Adult Gathering. Most of the photos of the attendees were taken in groups of three:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: TKGS on August 04, 2020, 12:54:42 PM
The conditional consecration was videotaped.
OLMC needs to release it to end the question of the validity of the consecration.
Perhaps the conditional consecration was also botched so they don't want to release another video, if it really does exist.  Frankly, this is the only reason I can imagine they would not have already released the video.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 01:54:11 PM
The conditional consecration was videotaped.
OLMC needs to release it to end the question of the validity of the consecration.
.
Then, what is this I hear about Webster's ordination being in question?  
.
Does the consecration supersede the ordination?

If he's not a priest, then he's not a bishop (and no amount of conditional consecrations can make Fr. Pfeiffer a bishop).

And, if he's not a bishop, then no amount of conditional consecrations can make Fr. Pfeiffer a bishop.

And, if they don't release an undoctored videotape of the conditional consecration, there is no way to ascertain the validity of the form, and Fr. Pfeiffer's consecration will remain in doubt for this third reason.  "Trust me, the words were pronounced properly" isn't good enough.  

There's a reason these things are to be done publicly and with witnesses.

PS: If the video is released, and the words are right, but the lip movements look like a dubbed 1970's kung-fu movie, the doubts will linger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxjrxIGnvVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxjrxIGnvVk)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 04, 2020, 02:05:53 PM
Then, what is this I hear about Webster's ordination being in question?  
Does the consecration supersede the ordination?
To clarify - there is some doubt whether a man who is not a priest can be made a bishop directly without first being ordained a priest. A consecration that would otherwise be valid therefore becomes doubtful if the man consecrated is doubtfully a priest.
That's why people might want to know about Webster's ordination.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 02:15:50 PM
St. Thomas Aquinas:

"On the contrary, One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). But the episcopal (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) power depends on the priestly (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) power, since no one can receive the episcopal (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) power unless he have previously the priestly (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) power. Therefore the episcopate (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) is not an Order."

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5040.htm#article4 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5040.htm#article4)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 02:50:27 PM
It is further to be remembered that scholastic theologians mostly required the previous reception of priest's orders for valid episcopal consecration, because they did not consider episcopacy an order, a view which is now generally abandoned.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm)

Are you arguing a layman can be consecrated a bishop?

I think you misread the passage you quoted:

That which is "now generally abandoned" is the idea that the episcopacy is not a holy order, not that one must be a priest to be consecrated a bishop.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 03:34:34 PM
Are you arguing a layman can be consecrated a bishop?

I think you misread the passage you quoted:

That which is "now generally abandoned" is the idea that the episcopacy is not a holy order, not that one must be a priest to be consecrated a bishop.

Here is the full paragraph from which you are quoting (which opines in the exact opposite sense from which your fragment represents it):

"For the subdiaconate (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14320a.htm) and the higher orders there is, moreover, required a title, i.e., the right (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) to receive maintenance from a determined source. Again, the candidate must observe the interstices, or times required to elapse between the reception of various orders; he must also have received confirmation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm) and the lower orders preceding the one to which he is raised. This last requirement does not affect the validity of the order conferred, as every order gives a distinct and independent power. One exception is made by the majority of theologians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) and canonists [i.e., regarding validity not being affected], who are of opinion that episcopal consecration (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm) requires the previous reception of priest's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) orders for its validity. Others, however, maintain that episcopal power includes full priestly (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) power, which is thus conferred by episcopal consecration (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm). They appeal to history and bring forward cases of bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) who were consecrated (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm) without having previously received priest's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) orders, and though most of the cases are somewhat doubtful (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) and can be explained on other grounds, it seems impossible to reject them all. It is further to be remembered that scholastic (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm) theologians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) mostly required the previous reception of priest's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) orders for valid episcopal consecration (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm), because they did not consider episcopacy (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) an order, a view which is now generally abandoned."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm)

In other words, both the Scholastics and the majority of canonists and theologians are of the opinion that a priestly ordination is requisite for a valid episcopal consecration.

You are free, of course, to cling to those unnamed inexplicable situations from early Church history in which it appears that a layman did receive episcopal consecration (validly or invalidly??) without having first received priestly ordination (none of whom are named, by the way), but if you choose to adopt that minority position as a rebuttal to those who are questioning the validity of Webster's priestly ordination, it does nothing to remove the doubt surrounding your episcopal consecration, but instead adds one more concern to the list of possibly invalidating concerns:

1) Webster's ordination;
2) Websters consecration;
3) The botching of the form on attempt #1;
4) The lack of video showing a properly enunciated essential form;
5) And now, the argument, apparently, that even if Webster wasn't a priest (#1), he is still a bishop (despite #2), in virtue of unknown but presumed historical examples in the early Church who received consecration as laymen.  

But supposing laymen received consecration, did they receive it validly or invalidly?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 04:26:52 PM
But that opinion was based on the belief that they did not consider episcopacy an order, a view which is now generally abandoned. That’s the point, namely, the implications of it being considered an order.
 
Bishop Williamson wrote about precisely this point when the Sedevacantists were claiming exactly the same thing about the archbishop (that his ordination was invalid).
 
I already mention this on page 7 and gave a link to Bishop Williamson’s letter. His explanation is “the greater contains the lesser” (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html (http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/validity-of-archbishop-lefebvres.html)).

 

If the majority of canonists and theologians (then and now) affirm the necessity of ordination for the validity of consecration, BUT today (against the Scholastics) consider the episcopacy an Order, then it is evident that the basis for the Scholastics rejecting the validity of consecrated laymen was NOT because they denied the episcopacy was an Order (ie., The majority view on the question of Order changed, but the majority view regarding the invalidity of consecrated laymen was the same among the scholastics as it was/is in the post-Tridentine Church).

In short, if the opinion on Order changed, and Order was the basis for the conclusion (ie., laymen are consecrated invalidly), then the conclusion should also have changed (ie.,   the episcopacy is an Order, therefore laymen can validly be consecrated).

But that didn’t happen.

Consecrated laymen are still regarded as invalid.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 04, 2020, 04:49:23 PM
PS: If the video is released, and the words are right, but the lip movements look like a dubbed 1970's kung-fu movie, the doubts will linger.

(https://i.imgur.com/8PsTGAg.gif)

He did talk about how they "cleaned up the audio".
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 04, 2020, 04:55:19 PM
Direct episcopal consecration is almost certainly invalid in the Roman Rite.  That's a separate question of whether it's theoretically possible to consecrate a non-priest as a bishop.

In the Roman Rite consecration, the essential formula refers to "fulfill[ing] IN YOUR PRIEST the fullness/completeness of the ministry".  That formula cannot be valid when pronounced over a layman.  There's nothing there to complete and fill out, and there's no proper designated recipient in the form.  It's being conferred upon "your priest," but there is no priest there.  Now, perhaps one or another Eastern Rite formula does not confer the episcopacy in this manner, but the Roman Rite does.  So the theoretical discussion is moot.

Father Chazal agreed with this in his sermon.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 04, 2020, 05:01:20 PM
I've read the claim that there is in fact video of the conditional consecration.  If so, I'm perplexed about why it hasn't been released, when Pablo releases everything almost real-time ... or at least within minutes, after he's had a chance to overlay some bad Mexican music.

Watch, Pablo ruined the only existing copy of the conditional ordination by dubbing in Mexican music right as the form was being pronounced.  :laugh1:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 05:44:45 PM
How does a dead theologian make known to the world that because a certain view is now abandoned his own view has changed?
You have descended into Pfeifferian gibberish.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 05:47:19 PM
Direct episcopal consecration is almost certainly invalid in the Roman Rite.  That's a separate question of whether it's theoretically possible to consecrate a non-priest as a bishop.

In the Roman Rite consecration, the essential formula refers to "fulfill[ing] IN YOUR PRIEST the fullness/completeness of the ministry".  That formula cannot be valid when pronounced over a layman.  There's nothing there to complete and fill out, and there's no proper designated recipient in the form.  It's being conferred upon "your priest," but there is no priest there.  Now, perhaps one or another Eastern Rite formula does not confer the episcopacy in this manner, but the Roman Rite does.  So the theoretical discussion is moot.

Father Chazal agreed with this in his sermon.
Case closed.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 04, 2020, 09:04:48 PM
Case opened. (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11228b.htm)

Who ever heard of a priest shopping for bishops just so they can get one to consecrate them?

Case torn up and burned.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 04, 2020, 09:12:22 PM
Who ever heard of a priest shopping for bishops just so they can get one to consecrate them?

Case torn up and burned.
And how many priests has Fr. Pfeiffer chastised and refused to call "father" for his thinking they shopped for a priesthood?  Yet we KNOW fr. Pfeiffer has been bishop-shopping since at least 2013.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 09:13:54 PM
Case opened. (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11228b.htm)

Reclosed, by this account:

"In 1570 Pope Pius V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_V) excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England) in the papal bull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull) Regnans in Excelsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis). This led to the Second Desmond rêbêllïon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Desmond_rêbêllïon) in 1579-83, which was still in progress when O'Hurley was required to travel to Ireland. On 11 September 1581, while still a layman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity), he was appointed Archbishop of Cashel by Pope Gregory XIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XIII). He was ordained and consecrated and set out on his mission in 1583.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_O%27Hurley#cite_note-FOOTNOTEO'Doherty2005-3)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_O%27Hurley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_O%27Hurley)

The Menzingen shill strikes out again!

[NB: The same article, in the far right-hand column, notes he was ordained on September 9, and consecrated on September 10, 1581.  That contradicts the information provided in the same article above, that he was still a layman on September 11, but both the above quote, and the right-hand column declare he was ordained a priest before he was consecrated a bishop. -SJ]
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 04, 2020, 09:19:08 PM
And how many priests has Fr. Pfeiffer chastised and refused to call "father" for his thinking they shopped for a priesthood?  Yet we KNOW fr. Pfeiffer has been bishop-shopping since at least 2013.

I'll be nice for once. In recognition of his great efforts in this regard, if there were a bishopric of Craigslist I think he should have it.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 04, 2020, 09:23:11 PM
I'll be nice for once. In recognition of his great efforts in this regard, if there were a bishopric of Craigslist I think he should have it.
There is one!
(http://www.rutherfordjohnson.org/intro.jpg)
Just kidding...  but this guy takes the cake.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 04, 2020, 09:27:57 PM
I forgot about him. How precious!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 09:33:52 PM
Reclosed, by this account:

"In 1570 Pope Pius V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_V) excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England) in the papal bull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull) Regnans in Excelsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis). This led to the Second Desmond rêbêllïon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Desmond_rêbêllïon) in 1579-83, which was still in progress when O'Hurley was required to travel to Ireland. On 11 September 1581, while still a layman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity), he was appointed Archbishop of Cashel by Pope Gregory XIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XIII). He was ordained and consecrated and set out on his mission in 1583.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_O%27Hurley#cite_note-FOOTNOTEO'Doherty2005-3)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_O%27Hurley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_O%27Hurley)

The Menzingen shill strikes out again!

[NB: The same article, in the far right-hand column, notes he was ordained on September 9, and consecrated on September 10, 1581.  That contradicts the information provided in the same article above, that he was still a layman on September 11, but both the above quote, and the right-hand column declare he was ordained a priest before he was consecrated a bishop. -SJ]

Still another account that he was not consecrated a bishop until having first received all the other minor and major orders:

http://www.limerickcity.ie/mєdια/saints016.pdf (http://www.limerickcity.ie/mєdια/saints016.pdf)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 10:05:15 PM
Ah, Wikipedia with no reference. Who’d have thought it. Well, if you’re using these two as an authority I’m using this:
https://www.academia.edu/33566151/diaconate_and_women_newton_academia_pdf (https://www.academia.edu/33566151/diaconate_and_women_newton_academia_pdf)

But it’s all academic really. Bishop Pfeiffer is a bishop - there’s absolutely no doubt about that - and he’ll prove to be the greatest of all the Resistance bishops.


Get ready for a new Society with its own bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, third order etc.

Except only the first one was Wiki, not the second.

But if your Menzingn bosses require more haggling, here is yet a 3rd reference showing him to be a priest before being consecrated:

https://www.exclassics.com/foxe/dermot.htm (https://www.exclassics.com/foxe/dermot.htm) (See 1st paragraph).

Seriously, this is too easy.

Fr. Pagliarani: You can find better help!

[PS to those who do not understand why a Menzingen shill would be arguing in favor of the validity of Pfeiffer's consecration: It reflects poorly upon the Resistance, as many do not distinguish between the Pfeifferian and real Resistance.  He WANTS Pfeiffer to be accepted as a real bishop, to the detriment of all Resistance generally, by careless association.]
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 10:19:56 PM
Oh dear, doesn’t say what you want it to “Holy Orders” - that’s just the name of the sacrament, doesn’t mean he received more than one.
You thought that you could keep him down by refusing to ordain his seminarians?Well, it’s over now for the other Resistance bishops as the faithful will now leave to join Bishop Pfeiffer.

Nope: It says he was consecrated a bishop after having taken Holy Orders.

But I do thank you (for the duller on the forum) for validating my outing of you yet again.  

It hardly gets a rise any more, and you seem to decline on an annual basis.  

Its as though you were some British computer guy working in California who had no friends, and strangely, I am as close as you get.

Hmm...
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 10:26:36 PM
This is all completely false. 
Already debunked by Ladislaus, and everyone else who heard the botched form.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 04, 2020, 11:09:52 PM
[PS to those who do not understand why a Menzingen shill would be arguing in favor of the validity of Pfeiffer's consecration: It reflects poorly upon the Resistance, as many do not distinguish between the Pfeifferian and real Resistance.  He WANTS Pfeiffer to be accepted as a real bishop, to the detriment of all Resistance generally, by careless association.]
OK, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's unlikely.
Is it not more likely Jude is a Pfeiffer follower, or Pfeiffer himself?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 04, 2020, 11:14:40 PM
OK, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's unlikely.
Is it not more likely Jude is a Pfeiffer follower, or Pfeiffer himself?
Either of you could be right.
Frankly, it's impossible to know for sure.

But in either case, such a propaganda machine is most unwelcome on CI. He had his shot, he made his case.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 04, 2020, 11:33:15 PM
OK, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's unlikely.
Is it not more likely Jude is a Pfeiffer follower, or Pfeiffer himself?
No.  But that's definitely what he wanted you to think.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 05, 2020, 05:01:03 AM
OK, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's unlikely.
Is it not more likely Jude is a Pfeiffer follower, or Pfeiffer himself?

It's probably Pablo. No one could shill like that for Pfeiffer without demonic inspiration.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 05, 2020, 07:22:36 AM
It's probably Pablo. No one could shill like that for Pfeiffer without demonic inspiration.
Aren't they all a bit like pablo now?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 05, 2020, 12:00:33 PM
It's probably Pablo. No one could shill like that for Pfeiffer without demonic inspiration.

Comes across as a bit too articulate to be Pablo, but definitely a +?Pfeiffer follower.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 05, 2020, 12:12:53 PM
It was the same old Menzingen shill trying to discredit the Resistance by arguing in favor of a valid +Pfeiffer.

Textual criticism leaves no doubt about this.

Also, the shill was defending the validity of the consecration primarily by implicitly conceding the invalidity of Webster’s priestly ordination (ie., arguing a layman can be validly consecrated).

That is not a position Boston would concede or accept.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 05, 2020, 12:37:42 PM
It was the same old Menzingen shill trying to discredit the Resistance by arguing in favor of a valid +Pfeiffer.

Textual criticism leaves no doubt about this.

Also, the shill was defending the validity of the consecration primarily by implicitly conceding the invalidity of Webster’s priestly ordination (ie., arguing a layman can be validly consecrated).

That is not a position Boston would concede or accept.

Sounds plausible.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 05, 2020, 12:50:41 PM
It was the same old Menzingen shill trying to discredit the Resistance by arguing in favor of a valid +Pfeiffer.

Textual criticism leaves no doubt about this.

Also, the shill was defending the validity of the consecration primarily by implicitly conceding the invalidity of Webster’s priestly ordination (ie., arguing a layman can be validly consecrated).

That is not a position Boston would concede or accept.
.
I'm not so sure. 
.
Why would Menzingen waste their time fanning a self-fueling fire?  I mean, Boston conceded to and accepted Ambrose Moran.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Merry on August 05, 2020, 06:50:15 PM
(http://α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)

Who is in that avatar that "469 Pipefitter" uses with those YouTube postings? 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: maccabeansoft on August 05, 2020, 08:04:47 PM
(http://α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)

Who is in that avatar that "469 Pipefitter" uses with those YouTube postings?

I was actually thinking the same thing. Who are these people?

(https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AATXAJxbTp5xLQZKcqf48FJqAVNLGYi3DnHkTxnNP9OMVQ=s176-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj-mo)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 05, 2020, 11:24:37 PM
I was actually thinking the same thing. Who are these people?

(https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AATXAJxbTp5xLQZKcqf48FJqAVNLGYi3DnHkTxnNP9OMVQ=s176-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj-mo)

Looks like an old photo of Pabs and his wife/girlfriend from about 25 years ago.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: RevolveBooks on August 06, 2020, 07:46:38 AM
Looks like an old photo of Pabs and his wife/girlfriend from about 25 years ago.
It's PtM and one of his daughters.  Yes it's a very old photo.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 06, 2020, 08:56:16 AM
Pablo told me it was his wife.  Well, his legal ex-wife but he still considers her his wife.  Funny he would say that and yet treat the Blaszak residence as his own, walking in at all hours of the day and night, drinking with Mrs. Blaszak, while she was still married but noticing with her husband, to all hours of the night. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 06, 2020, 08:58:44 AM
.
I'm not so sure.  
.
Why would Menzingen waste their time fanning a self-fueling fire?  I mean, Boston conceded to and accepted Ambrose Moran.
Exactly.  OLMC is their own worst enemy.  One scandal after another.  How many souls will lose their Faith due to the actions of Boston?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: In Principio on August 07, 2020, 01:22:58 PM
Well, let's just say this:

My understanding is that when the SSPX receives a refugee from the conciliar church, it conducts an investigation into the priest's ordination (which in turn evolves into an investigation of the consecrating bishop).  

In the absence of a recording of the ordination, where such a bishop is known to habitually violate the form of the sacrament (among other reasons), the SSPX would probably (at least formerly) conditionally ordain.

That modus operandi seems to imply that they believe an invalid sacrament in one instance could imply invalidity for the same reasons in other instances.

So my answer to your question is a big fat "maybe" (i.e., I am not sure), but I am inclined to say yes, with a big asterisk*

* Because perhaps his mangling was the result of a new eye problem, whereas before he was very careful and precise?
If his mangling of the essential words was just caused by a new health or eye issue that didn't exist during previous ordinations, then I think it might be safe to say there aren't reasons to let this botched attempt at consecrating reflect upon previous ordinations.  

It seems, though, that this recent failure was due more to general incompetence and negligence.  It appears he's not trained and competent enough to be doing what he's doing, and that he was negligent in taking the proper care to learn the essential form.  This was the most important and serious thing he could ever attempt to do as a bishop, and he didn't even practice enough to make sure it was done validly.  This would seem to reflect on his two previous ordinations, and be reason to doubt whether he was competent and careful enough in those.  If Webster's own orders are valid, I'd still want to see video of any attempts he made of ordaining priests before I was certain I could receive valid sacraments from them.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 08, 2020, 09:32:17 AM
If his mangling of the essential words was just caused by a new health or eye issue that didn't exist during previous ordinations, then I think it might be safe to say there aren't reasons to let this botched attempt at consecrating reflect upon previous ordinations.  

It seems, though, that this recent failure was due more to general incompetence and negligence.  It appears he's not trained and competent enough to be doing what he's doing, and that he was negligent in taking the proper care to learn the essential form.  This was the most important and serious thing he could ever attempt to do as a bishop, and he didn't even practice enough to make sure it was done validly.  This would seem to reflect on his two previous ordinations, and be reason to doubt whether he was competent and careful enough in those.  If Webster's own orders are valid, I'd still want to see video of any attempts he made of ordaining priests before I was certain I could receive valid sacraments from them.
Good point.
And I would want to see the uncut video of the conditional consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer before I will accept him as a bishop or accept any major orders he confects.
.
I sure wish the 4 bishops would speak up regarding this mess.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on August 08, 2020, 10:09:00 AM
Quote
I sure wish the 4 bishops would speak up regarding this mess.
This is imperative surely!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 08, 2020, 12:44:23 PM
Whether it was invalid or a valid forced consecration, this entire operation does not have the blessings of God. Pfeiffer has been employing evil tactics, enabling evil men, and doing everything in his power for his power for the better part of a decade. He's an evil man. Avoid, get out, stay away, don't go near... caveat fidelis!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 08, 2020, 03:39:07 PM
Whether it was invalid or a valid forced consecration, this entire operation does not have the blessings of God. Pfeiffer has been employing evil tactics, enabling evil men, and doing everything in his power for his power for the better part of a decade. He's an evil man. Avoid, get out, stay away, don't go near... caveat fidelis!
Absolutely correct.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 08, 2020, 10:16:41 PM
Can.  1044 §1. The following are irregular for the exercise of orders received:
2/ a person who has committed a delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 2, if the delict is public;

Can.  1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;

Fr. Pfeiffer said Webster is a heretic.

Can.  1045 Ignorance of the irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them.

Can. 1047 §2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:
1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3

Seems to me Webster had no right to confect any sacrament.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Cryptinox on August 09, 2020, 12:44:57 AM
Can.  1044 §1. The following are irregular for the exercise of orders received:
2/ a person who has committed a delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 2, if the delict is public;

Can.  1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;

Fr. Pfeiffer said Webster is a heretic.

Can.  1045 Ignorance of the irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them.

Can. 1047 §2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:
1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3

Seems to me Webster had no right to confect any sacrament.  
I called Pfeiffer on the phone and he seems to have had a double standard with Webster where he regarded him as Catholic
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 09, 2020, 08:09:05 AM
I called Pfeiffer on the phone and he seems to have had a double standard with Webster where he regarded him as Catholic
Of course he did.  
He considers Moran Catholic, too.
The end always justifies the means in Fr. Pfeiffer's mind.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on August 09, 2020, 03:16:22 PM
Of course he did.  
He considers Moran Catholic, too.
The end always justifies the means in Fr. Pfeiffer's mind.
I don’t think he was raised that way, but maybe he was a childhood liar and it wasn’t caught, so it developed into a vice.  PTM encourages him in wrong-doing.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 10, 2020, 05:01:18 PM
I don’t think he was raised that way, but maybe he was a childhood liar and it wasn’t caught, so it developed into a vice.  PTM encourages him in wrong-doing.
I suspect it is more from PTM than just encouragement
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 10, 2020, 05:49:20 PM
When I saw him offer Mass as a priest in 2007, I was horrified at how irreverent his Low Mass was. To this day I haven't seen a priest who raced through a Mass nearly as fast. He sounded like a two-bit auctioneer.

I think Seraphina is on to something. A deep flaw was never properly addressed in this man, probably from before he entered the seminary. Hindsight is... what it is... but looking back I suspect he never had an actual vocation. Considering all the damage he's done, it would have been better had he never been a priest at all.

Pablo may turn out to be his just reward for a career bent on building his own cult of personality. He certainly aided the "cult" aspect.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: clarkaim on August 10, 2020, 08:15:58 PM
You posted this just as I was writing my own response.  We're on the same page here.  There's a very fine line between seeking episcopal consecration for the genuine good of souls and seeking it for one's own personal glory.  And the devil is very skilled at blurring this line, convincing a person seeking out of self-will that it's actually being done for the good of souls.
A thought (hopefully not too evil a thought):  If I were GOD (thank GOD I am NOT)  I would walk around and pretty much every one I saw, good bad or indifferent ( me too), I would light on fire and let them burn until Judgement day, not dying until, which would be in about a million years.
If  GOD made me pope, I'd get Bishops Kelly, Sanborn, Dolan, Pivarunas & Williamson to conditionally ordain and consecrate me so there would be no doubts, then excommunicate the whole rest of the Nervous Ordeal until they submitted to re-education and ordination, then clean up this mess.  Have a nice bottle of Chianti subsequently.
If GOD made me fuehrer of this mess of the United States at this moment, I'd blast the whole world with ɳυƙҽs. Kill 'em All, GOD knows his own.  Kind of feelin' a bit acerbic this evening. 
Sad this crisis in the world today.  Gotta go say the family ROSARY now. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 10, 2020, 08:31:15 PM
A thought (hopefully not too evil a thought):  If I were GOD (thank GOD I am NOT)  I would walk around and pretty much every one I saw, good bad or indifferent ( me too), I would light on fire and let them burn until Judgement day, not dying until, which would be in about a million years.
If  GOD made me pope, I'd get Bishops Kelly, Sanborn, Dolan, Pivarunas & Williamson to conditionally ordain and consecrate me so there would be no doubts, then excommunicate the whole rest of the Nervous Ordeal until they submitted to re-education and ordination, then clean up this mess.  Have a nice bottle of Chianti subsequently.
If GOD made me fuehrer of this mess of the United States at this moment, I'd blast the whole world with ɳυƙҽs. Kill 'em All, GOD knows his own.  Kind of feelin' a bit acerbic this evening.  
Sad this crisis in the world today.  Gotta go say the family ROSARY now.
(https://api.curtisbrown.co.uk/mєdια/35173/show/square)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 10, 2020, 08:36:10 PM
When I saw him offer Mass as a priest in 2007, I was horrified at how irreverent his Low Mass was. To this day I haven't seen a priest who raced through a Mass nearly as fast. He sounded like a two-bit auctioneer.

I think Seraphina is on to something. A deep flaw was never properly addressed in this man, probably from before he entered the seminary. Hindsight is... what it is... but looking back I suspect he never had an actual vocation. Considering all the damage he's done, it would have been better had he never been a priest at all.

Pablo may turn out to be his just reward for a career bent on building his own cult of personality. He certainly aided the "cult" aspect.
You must have never seen the low mass of Fr. Asher.  20 min.  I kid you not.
.
Yes, I am sure Seraphina is on to something, too, but I think it is more related to his unnatural attachment to Paul Hernandez, "lay exorcist", "pablo the mexican".
.
Fr. Pfeiffer has much too much pride, as evidenced in his searching for consecration these last eight years, at least.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on August 10, 2020, 10:59:15 PM
I have been told that:

Concerning Fr Pfeiffer's consecration, Fr Hewko does not seem to be correct on Abp Lefebvre's views on
Abp Thuc. Mr Lundberg, a Lutheran scholar and professor on Christianity, takes an interest in the
Catholic Traditional movement.


https://magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/11/schism-at-palmar-palmarian-bishops/ (https://magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/11/schism-at-palmar-palmarian-bishops/)

Opinions?

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 10, 2020, 11:21:19 PM
You must have never seen the low mass of Fr. Asher.  20 min.  I kid you not.
.
Yes, I am sure Seraphina is on to something, too, but I think it is more related to his unnatural attachment to Paul Hernandez, "lay exorcist", "pablo the mexican".
.
Fr. Pfeiffer has much too much pride, as evidenced in his searching for consecration these last eight years, at least.

Way too fast, but the Piper wasn't far behind!

Back to the OLMC, those two definitely feed off of each other. My stance has always been that the guilt lies less with the wolf than the false shepherd who lets him through the gate deliberately. The much higher calling and station of Fr. Pfeiffer makes him the lightning rod. The Mexican could definitely pass as a Wormtongue, but if someone's expecting a good King Theoden to pop out here once the spell is "broken", they're sadly mistaken. This is not a parasitic relationship. What it is, is symbiotic.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Francisco on August 11, 2020, 07:16:38 AM
Hopefully his episcopal orders are valid and even more hopefully he wont bring the Traditional Catholic movement into any disrepute.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 11, 2020, 09:01:22 AM
I have been told that:

Concerning Fr Pfeiffer's consecration, Fr Hewko does not seem to be correct on Abp Lefebvre's views on
Abp Thuc. Mr Lundberg, a Lutheran scholar and professor on Christianity, takes an interest in the
Catholic Traditional movement.


https://magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/11/schism-at-palmar-palmarian-bishops/ (https://magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/11/schism-at-palmar-palmarian-bishops/)

Opinions?
Very interesting.
Fr. Hewko once told me he accepted the ab Thuc lineage 100%  and Fr. Pfeiffer told me he rejected it 100%. 
.
The Thuc lineage is squishy.   That is why many stay away from it.  Much due diligence is required.
.
An interesting point in the article:
"According to Clemente, referring to heavenly messages, the church was in a state of emergency and there was no time for a lengthy education. "
.
Sounds an awful lot like Fr. Pfeiffer's excuses...
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 11, 2020, 09:07:17 AM
Way too fast, but the Piper wasn't far behind!

Back to the OLMC, those two definitely feed off of each other. My stance has always been that the guilt lies less with the wolf than the false shepherd who lets him through the gate deliberately. The much higher calling and station of Fr. Pfeiffer makes him the lightning rod. The Mexican could definitely pass as a Wormtongue, but if someone's expecting a good King Theoden to pop out here once the spell is "broken", they're sadly mistaken. This is not a parasitic relationship. What it is, is symbiotic.

While Fr. Pfeiffer initially gave control of himself over to PTM, just as the "seminarians" have given themselves, mind, body, and soul, over to Pfeiffer, there is no doubt in my mind that they are all bewitched by the warlock.
.
The deepest pits of hell, as well as the roads in hell, are filled with the souls of priests and bishops.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 11, 2020, 09:10:08 AM
Hopefully his episcopal orders are valid
The consecration is not valid until Fr. Pfeiffer proves it is valid.

and even more hopefully he wont bring the Traditional Catholic movement into any disrepute.
Too late....


Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 11, 2020, 09:19:56 AM
I could see a priest, in some cases, offer Mass quickly ... for the benefit of the faithful.  Let's say you have an early morning Mass and people need to be at work soon afterwards.  Priests are taught that the Mass is not their own persona prayer time, but the public prayer of the Church, and also offered for the benefit of the faithful (except at private Masses).  Now, with that said, you can't give the impression of being irreverent and sloppy ... for the same reason, that it's the public prayer of the Church.  So a balance must be found between length and reverence.  If I'm a priest, I can't just go off and decide to mєdιαte for 15 minutes during the middle of the Canon right before the consecration or something (yes, I know, some saints were drawn into ecstatic states, but those are special cases) ... making people late for work or else forcing parents to deal with antsy toddlers for an extended period of time.

As a priest, I might WANT to take my time and read the entire Mass slowly while meditating on each phrase, but I make the sacrifice of not doing my own will but instead doing what's in the best interests of the faithful.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 11, 2020, 12:51:37 PM
I could see a priest, in some cases, offer Mass quickly ... for the benefit of the faithful.  Let's say you have an early morning Mass and people need to be at work soon afterwards.  Priests are taught that the Mass is not their own persona prayer time, but the public prayer of the Church, and also offered for the benefit of the faithful (except at private Masses).  Now, with that said, you can't give the impression of being irreverent and sloppy ... for the same reason, that it's the public prayer of the Church.  So a balance must be found between length and reverence.  If I'm a priest, I can't just go off and decide to mєdιαte for 15 minutes during the middle of the Canon right before the consecration or something (yes, I know, some saints were drawn into ecstatic states, but those are special cases) ... making people late for work or else forcing parents to deal with antsy toddlers for an extended period of time.

As a priest, I might WANT to take my time and read the entire Mass slowly while meditating on each phrase, but I make the sacrifice of not doing my own will but instead doing what's in the best interests of the faithful.
Sure, but a 20 min mass CANNOT be said reverently, nor can the laity participate at all. 
.
But just because a mass is said slowly does not mean it is reverent.  I recall Fr. Pazat, sspx.  He would heave a loud heavy sigh before each sentence of the mass.  The mass took a long time, but it was the most irreverent mass I have ever been to.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 11, 2020, 01:40:22 PM
You must have never seen the low mass of Fr. Asher.  20 min.  I kid you not.
.

It be the fastest Mass in the West!
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net%2Fthumb_COLOURBOX11654113.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 11, 2020, 02:02:40 PM
Sure, but a 20 min mass CANNOT be said reverently, nor can the laity participate at all.
.
But just because a mass is said slowly does not mean it is reverent.  I recall Fr. Pazat, sspx.  He would heave a loud heavy sigh before each sentence of the mass.  The mass took a long time, but it was the most irreverent mass I have ever been to.

I did know a priest who could say a reasonably-reverent Mass in about 25.  20 would be a stretch.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: lmauwnrcehnicne on August 11, 2020, 03:21:41 PM
 So a balance must be found between length and reverence.  If I'm a priest, I can't just go off and decide to mєdιαte for 15 minutes during the middle of the Canon right before the consecration or something (yes, I know, some saints were drawn into ecstatic states, but those are special cases) ... 
One of the reasons why the Roman Rite had to be standardised at Trent was because practices of individual priests had become local customs. So for example a priest might do a prostration at some stage during the Mass. Another priest would see it and say, 'oh, I think that's reverent' and then do it himself. Eventually most priests in a locality are doing it.  Eventually Rome says, no, this is how you do it. As for the short Mass, my grandmother taught us that if it's less than 20 minutes then it's not a Mass! Her youngest brother was ordained in the 1920s after many years study in Rome (and was a moral theologian). That said I see the merit in a fast Mass but never so fast that the priest does not properly pronounce all the words. Think of priests offering Mass on a battlefield or in a situation whereby he could be discovered at any moment ... Consider a priest who has, for example, reached the Consecration and there's some hue and cry ... he's offering Mass without a mask, and there's police pounding down the door, he has to finish the Mass as fast as possible. I do agree though that it is the kind of thing that can become a habit ... In Ireland there was always the 'fast' priest who would help you fulfil your obligation as quickly as possible and allow you get to the football match or some such like. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 11, 2020, 08:31:55 PM
Fr/Bp. Pfeiffer does what he wants and always has an excuse for his actions.

If he did a speed Mass, it’s: “ Oh I have to get to the airport”

Fr. Asher though, represents the new SSPX culture.  He acts as if he has an elite license to do what he wants.

His speed Masses have Latin with no inflections.  It’s as if he’s racing another priests to see who can get back to the Priory first. The faithful can’t keep up with him in their missals.

And I’ve noticed many of the younger SSPX priests do the same.  It’s as if the seminary is forming them that way?

But how can the most Holy event on earth be rushed?   Where is their love for the Mass  :facepalm:

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 12, 2020, 08:11:17 AM
Fr/Bp. Pfeiffer does what he wants and always has an excuse for his actions.

If he did a speed Mass, it’s: “ Oh I have to get to the airport”

Fr. Asher though, represents the new SSPX culture.  He acts as if he has an elite license to do what he wants.

His speed Masses have Latin with no inflections.  It’s as if he’s racing another priests to see who can get back to the Priory first. The faithful can’t keep up with him in their missals.

And I’ve noticed many of the younger SSPX priests do the same.  It’s as if the seminary is forming them that way?

But how can the most Holy event on earth be rushed?   Where is their love for the Mass  :facepalm:
You are right about Fr. Pfeiffer, because his motto is: The end justifies the means.  Whatever is his chosen end justifies whatever he has to do to get there.
.
I have tried so many times to follow Fr. Asher during mass.  It is no use.  Especially his daily masses.  Those are the really fast ones.
.
Seems the NO has affected the sspx in their loss of love for the mass.  I suspect Fr. Asher had a say in it, considering his background.  Also, he was appointed head of theology at the seminary after having been a priest just 2 years.  Out with the old and in with the new is the new sspx motto.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 12, 2020, 01:20:43 PM
You are right about Fr. Pfeiffer, because his motto is: The end justifies the means.  Whatever is his chosen end justifies whatever he has to do to get there.
.
I have tried so many times to follow Fr. Asher during mass.  It is no use.  Especially his daily masses.  Those are the really fast ones.
.
Seems the NO has affected the sspx in their loss of love for the mass.  I suspect Fr. Asher had a say in it, considering his background.  Also, he was appointed head of theology at the seminary after having been a priest just 2 years.  Out with the old and in with the new is the new sspx motto.

And recall that +ABL made poignant mention that Novus ordo priests had lost their way and didn’t know their spiritual function anymore?

But he reminded his seminarians that their key duty of state was to make the Holy Sacrifice daily.   When they did this,  they were truly fulfilling their priesthood.

So how could any SSPX priest face +ABL  (not to mention Our Lord) to explain their speed Masses?

The answer is they can’t.

They can only crawl into a hole to hide their shame, and hope their pit is not an antechamber to Hell.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 12, 2020, 06:08:07 PM
And recall that +ABL made poignant mention that Novus ordo priests had lost their way and didn’t know their spiritual function anymore?

But he reminded his seminarians that their key duty of state was to make the Holy Sacrifice daily.   When they did this,  they were truly fulfilling their priesthood.

So how could any SSPX priest face +ABL  (not to mention Our Lord) to explain their speed Masses?

The answer is they can’t.

They can only crawl into a hole to hide their shame, and hope their pit is not an antechamber to Hell.
You are right.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: cosmas on August 13, 2020, 10:21:11 PM
I would put Fr. McFarland up against Fr. Asher anytime in a speed race saying Mass. Its like its a burden and they can't wait to get done with it ! Really Sad !
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Caraffa on August 14, 2020, 12:03:45 AM
I would put Fr. McFarland up against Fr. Asher anytime in a speed race saying Mass. Its like its a burden and they can't wait to get done with it ! Really Sad !
They have something in common, both went from the Novus Ordo to SSPX seminary in just two years. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 10:50:18 AM
They have something in common, both went from the Novus Ordo to SSPX seminary in just two years.
Maybe they have more in common.  Maybe Fr. McFarland's parents are NO still, as are Fr. Asher's. 
.
Honestly, I would take Fr. Asher's speed mass over Fr. Pfeiffer's grunting mass any day of the week.  Those grunts are the sign of possession according to Fr. Ripperger.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 14, 2020, 11:22:52 AM


This is a rather important observation Venantius.  It matches with other parts of the occult farm scene.

I haven’t noticed the “grunting” comment made about Bp. “P” before?

When you have time could you dig out one of his Mass videos for us as an example.



Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on August 14, 2020, 02:29:20 PM
...Honestly, I would take Fr. Asher's speed mass over Fr. Pfeiffer's grunting mass any day of the week.  Those grunts are the sign of possession according to Fr. Ripperger.
It's been so long since I heard a Fr. Pfeiffer sermon, I'd forgotten about that grunting!  I always found it exceedingly annoying.  I had wondered if it was some sort of speech defect.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mr G on August 14, 2020, 02:52:02 PM
Maybe they have more in common.  Maybe Fr. McFarland's parents are NO still, as are Fr. Asher's.
.
Honestly, I would take Fr. Asher's speed mass over Fr. Pfeiffer's grunting mass any day of the week.  Those grunts are the sign of possession according to Fr. Ripperger.
Also, please send us the reference in which Fr. Ripperger mentions about grunting being one of the signs of possession.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on August 14, 2020, 02:55:05 PM
Also, please send us the reference in which Fr. Ripperger mentions about grunting being one of the signs of possession.
I second that request. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 14, 2020, 03:31:59 PM
It's been so long since I heard a Fr. Pfeiffer sermon, I'd forgotten about that grunting!  I always found it exceedingly annoying.  I had wondered if it was some sort of speech defect.  

He did the same thing as a young seminarian when he spoke.  I've always gotten the impression it was his own version of "uhms" and "aahs" ... to let them think of the next thing to say.  So this habit long predates his association with Pablo.  Could also be some kind of nervous tick.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on August 14, 2020, 04:20:53 PM
He did the same thing as a young seminarian when he spoke.  I've always gotten the impression it was his own version of "uhms" and "aahs" ... to let them think of the next thing to say.  So this habit long predates his association with Pablo.  Could also be some kind of nervous tick.
.
That's how I always thought of it, either "his own version of 'uhms' and 'aahs' ... to let them think of the next thing to say" or "some kind of nervous tick."    Interesting to know it goes way back.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 04:30:38 PM

This is a rather important observation Venantius.  It matches with other parts of the occult farm scene.

I haven’t noticed the “grunting” comment made about Bp. “P” before?

When you have time could you dig out one of his Mass videos for us as an example.
I won't listen to his sermons anymore.  I am certain of obsession and possibly possession.
.
He has gotten worse over the years.  There was one video I remember which has so many grunts I couldn't believe it.  And once when he was doing a conference after mass, it was SO obvious that everyone was looking around at eachother wondering what his problem was.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 04:32:19 PM
Also, please send us the reference in which Fr. Ripperger mentions about grunting being one of the signs of possession.
Sorry, no proof for you.  Was an oral conversation with him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 04:33:21 PM
It's been so long since I heard a Fr. Pfeiffer sermon, I'd forgotten about that grunting!  I always found it exceedingly annoying.  I had wondered if it was some sort of speech defect.  
His mother said it started in seminary but has gotten progressively worse the last decade or so.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 14, 2020, 05:19:15 PM
It could actually be a mild version of Tourette's.  He has both motor and vocal tics.  In addition to the grunting, he does this thing with his neck and his face.  It's only in about 10-15% of Tourette's cases that there are profanities involved (which is the popular perception)

from a site online about Tourette's:


Quote
Motor Tics
Motor tics are movements. Simple motor tics include but are not limited to: eye blinking, facial grimacing, jaw movements, head bobbing/jerking, shoulder shrugging, neck stretching, and arm jerking. Complex motor tics involve multiple muscle groups or combinations of movements and tend to be slower and more purposeful in appearance,(e.g., hopping, twirling, jumping).
 
Vocal/Phonic Tics
Vocal (phonic) tics produce a sound. Simple vocal tics include but are not limited to sniffing, throat clearing, grunting, hooting, and shouting. Complex vocal tics are words or phrases that may or may not be recognizable but that consistently occur out of context. In 10-15% of cases, the words may be inappropriate (i.e., swear words, ethnic slurs, or other socially unacceptable words or phrases). This type of vocal tic, called coprolalia, is often portrayed or mocked in the mєdια as a common symptom of TS.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 14, 2020, 05:22:28 PM
I agree with those who hypothesize that Tourettes is related to magnesium deficiency.

I can testify AS FACT that the diet at STAS during the time he and I were there ... was absolutely ATROCIOUS.  Seminarians look ghostly pale and emaciated, malnourished ... and not from fasting.

I have a daughter (now 17) who developed some bad facial/neck tics when she was about 11.  We gave her magnesium supplements, and it cleared up entirely within a few weeks.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 14, 2020, 05:26:19 PM
Also, Fr. P's weight issues can also be related, ironically, to malnourishment.  When the body is missing some key nutrients, it compensates by trying to eat more ... but is unable to satisfy its needs.

Some people cannot metabolize dietary magnesium well, so there are magnesium oils you can run on that get absorbed through the skin.

J (https://www.amazon.com/Life-Flo-Magnesium-Chloride-Zechstein-Rejuvenating/dp/B004NHN9OA/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=magnesium+oil&qid=1597443963&sr=8-6)ust do a search on Amazon for "magnesium oil".
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on August 14, 2020, 05:29:39 PM
Sorry, no proof for you.  Was an oral conversation with him.
Was Fr. Ripperger speaking of Fr. Pfeiffer specifically, having heard him?  Or was he speaking in general about grunting being part of possession? 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on August 14, 2020, 05:30:00 PM
His mother said it started in seminary but has gotten progressively worse the last decade or so.
Thanks.  That is interesting. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 05:47:36 PM
Was Fr. Ripperger speaking of Fr. Pfeiffer specifically, having heard him?  Or was he speaking in general about grunting being part of possession?
He was speaking specifically about Fr. Pfeiffer, having heard him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 14, 2020, 08:14:44 PM
I get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?

Isn't it strange that someone would jump to diagnose possession based on verbal tics he has supposedly had since youth?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on August 14, 2020, 08:51:30 PM
During his time in OLMC, Fr. Hewko developed a distracting verbal habit of constantly clearing his throat.  Maybe it’s the water in Boston, or PTM cursed the well?  I believe he may have put things in or said spells over food.  He’s constantly in the kitchen, opening refrigerators, freezer, cabinets, the oven, microwave.  He insists upon supervising other’s cooking and tastes Fr.’s food.  Anytime I’ve been there, Pablo insisted upon giving me food, getting me to taste foods, or putting food in my car so I don’t have to stop in restaurants as if I couldn’t go for an hour without stopping in a restaurant!  If I said no, he’d sulk and pout like a six year old little girl.  It was just plain creepy.  
As for Fr. Pfeiffer’s tics or whatever they are, they’re very noticeable when he’s dog-tired, which is most of the time.  His daily routine or ‘rule of life’ is non-existent.  That is the cause of his weight gain, so far as I can see.  Overweight does run in his family.  I’ve not seen him in years, but his father was quite heavy.  Mrs. Pfeiffer is the opposite, thin as a rail!  Fr. Joe must take after his father and Fr. Tim after his mother.  Pablo is a pretty pudgy Mexican.  
As for this Bishop Pfeiffer nonsense, I don’t know if it’s valid, don’t have the ability or inclination to learn.  I do know it’s ego and presumption, not blessed by God.  He has no authority other than himself, which makes him essentially a Protestant, grunting or otherwise.
I can’t understand why anyone would think he will receive a good priestly formation.  

P.S. People believe Fr. Ripperger because he leads a holy life and offers Mass reverently.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 09:28:13 PM
I get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?

Isn't it strange that someone would jump to diagnose possession based on verbal tics he has supposedly had since youth?
Fr. Ripperger is a trained exorcist, and I don't think anyone has said fr. Pfeiffer has had this problem since his youth... 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 14, 2020, 09:35:05 PM
During his time in OLMC, Fr. Hewko developed a distracting verbal habit of constantly clearing his throat.  Maybe it’s the water in Boston, or PTM cursed the well?  I believe he may have put things in or said spells over food.  He’s constantly in the kitchen, opening refrigerators, freezer, cabinets, the oven, microwave.  He insists upon supervising other’s cooking and tastes Fr.’s food.  Anytime I’ve been there, Pablo insisted upon giving me food, getting me to taste foods, or putting food in my car so I don’t have to stop in restaurants as if I couldn’t go for an hour without stopping in a restaurant!  If I said no, he’d sulk and pout like a six year old little girl.  It was just plain creepy.  
As for Fr. Pfeiffer’s tics or whatever they are, they’re very noticeable when he’s dog-tired, which is most of the time.  His daily routine or ‘rule of life’ is non-existent.  That is the cause of his weight gain, so far as I can see.  Overweight does run in his family.  I’ve not seen him in years, but his father was quite heavy.  Mrs. Pfeiffer is the opposite, thin as a rail!  Fr. Joe must take after his father and Fr. Tim after his mother.  Pablo is a pretty pudgy Mexican.  
As for this Bishop Pfeiffer nonsense, I don’t know if it’s valid, don’t have the ability or inclination to learn.  I do know it’s ego and presumption, not blessed by God.  He has no authority other than himself, which makes him essentially a Protestant, grunting or otherwise.
I can’t understand why anyone would think he will receive a good priestly formation.  

P.S. People believe Fr. Ripperger because he leads a holy life and offers Mass reverently.  
I never noticed fr. Hewko's throat clearing.
PTM is all about control, of any kind, of everyone he can.
As for Fr. Pfeiffer being a bishop, that is for him to prove it was done correctly the second time, because it sure wasn't right the first time.  
.
Fr. Ripperger is also a trained exorcist.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: PAT317 on August 14, 2020, 09:49:35 PM
I get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?

Isn't it strange that someone would jump to diagnose possession based on verbal tics he has supposedly had since youth?
I reviewed the thread, and I didn't see any posts that indicated "people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger."  I asked for a clarification of said opinion, someone else asked for proof, several of us mentioned how we thought it was some sort of "nervous tic", and then it was hypothesized that it could be Tourettes. Even Venantius said, "according to Fr. Ripperger" and "I am certain of obsession and possibly possession."  i.e. He isn't necessarily certain it's possession, and doesn't necessarily get his opinion regarding possible possession solely from Fr. Ripperger.  


Just because people ask or comment on something doesn't mean they've concluded that the hypothesis is certainly correct.  I find it interesting, but make no definite conclusions myself.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 14, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
I get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?

Isn't it strange that someone would jump to diagnose possession based on verbal tics he has supposedly had since youth?
That’s a good point.  

Could we call Father Ripperger Catholic Resistance?  

Does he ever rhetorically slam Francis?

Who can we really trust nowadays?

Father Ripperger lectures on demons, generational spirits and the occult surpasses even Fr. Malachi Martin.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 14, 2020, 11:08:54 PM
I reviewed the thread, and I didn't see any posts that indicated "people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger."
...

Just because people ask or comment on something doesn't mean they've concluded that the hypothesis is certainly correct.  I find it interesting, but make no definite conclusions myself.  
What I don't see is people disagreeing with the hypothesis. Silence is a form of consent, giving the impression that most people agree with the hypothesis.

Fr. Pfeiffer has several issues. His sloppy liturgy doesn't reflect well on him and suggests poor discipline. He looks very sleep-deprived to me, which could either cause or be caused by the overweight. His agitation and the way he stumbles through words are like people I know hopped up on caffeine. He probably has a poor diet, likely eating fast food when traveling.

But jumping to "possible" possession based on some long-standing tic strikes me as nutty.

He was a priest by 2002. If he had these tics in the seminary, he's had them since 25 years ago - when he was a young man.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Croixalist on August 14, 2020, 11:27:26 PM
If I were to diagnose demonic possession, it would be more based on his willful behavior along with proximity to a man who actually has given his life over to Satan. Let's not get too carried away. As it is, his circumstances have certainly been demonically inspired. That should be enough to stay away. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 15, 2020, 11:30:27 AM
 Silence is a form of consent
This is very true.
With deafening silence from +Williamson, +Zendejas, +Thomas Aquinas and +Faure regarding the "consecration" if Fr. Pfeiffer, are we to extrapolate that they approve?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 15, 2020, 11:31:03 AM
If I were to diagnose demonic possession, it would be more based on his willful behavior along with proximity to a man who actually has given his life over to Satan. Let's not get too carried away. As it is, his circumstances have certainly been demonically inspired. That should be enough to stay away.
Absolutely agree.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 15, 2020, 01:12:24 PM

Quote
With deafening silence from +Williamson, +Zendejas, +Thomas Aquinas and +Faure regarding the "consecration" if Fr. Pfeiffer, are we to extrapolate that they approve?
Ridiculous!!  Silence as a sin of approval only applies to superiors or those who are of the same group, community or organization.  All the “resistance” bishops have nothing to do with Fr P, aren’t affiliated with him, and don’t support him, so they have NO obligation to comment on anything that goes on in Pfeifferville.  
.
The Resistance isn’t a news organization that must comment on any and all events in Trad land.  The new-sspx has taken that route, with mixed results and PR nightmares.  Such activities distract from the true purpose of these clerics - the Faith.
.
Everything unusual and bad about Pfeifferville has been spelled out in this site.  Nothing can be gained from hearing +Williamson or someone else “confirm” what we already know.  Waste of time. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 15, 2020, 01:54:36 PM
What I don't see is people disagreeing with the hypothesis. Silence is a form of consent, giving the impression that most people agree with the hypothesis.

Fr. Pfeiffer has several issues. His sloppy liturgy doesn't reflect well on him and suggests poor discipline. He looks very sleep-deprived to me, which could either cause or be caused by the overweight. His agitation and the way he stumbles through words are like people I know hopped up on caffeine. He probably has a poor diet, likely eating fast food when traveling.

But jumping to "possible" possession based on some long-standing tic strikes me as nutty.

He was a priest by 2002. If he had these tics in the seminary, he's had them since 25 years ago - when he was a young man.
Stanely,

Very early in Fr. Pfeiffer’s priesthood, he became closely associated with his sidekick “Pablo”.  

They we’re together in Phoenix, Colorado and now Kentucky.

Even if Pablo were a devout Catholic, this close affiliation between a priest and a layman is abnormal.

Prior to that, Pablo ran a fake exorcist scam for years in Phoenix.  It is well documented.

Thirdly, much testimony of Pablo’s occult activities has been documented on this forum.

If you go to Cathinfo’s SSPX Resistance” topic:?  “Bishup Pfeiffer and his Santeria warlock”,

You’ll see a post where Father Amorph cites that demonic possession includes subjugation & dependence.

This is the abnormal condition for Fr. Pfeiffer’s priesthood.  

Since 2012, Pfeiffer/Pablo have been running a trad chapel franchise network both in the States and in Asia.  

Now that Fr. Pfeiffer claims to be a Bishop, they will attempt to ordain priests and expand their $business.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 15, 2020, 03:00:19 PM
Very early in Fr. Pfeiffer’s priesthood, he became closely associated with his sidekick “Pablo”.  
...
That may all be true and reasons to avoid him. 

What I'm saying is that suspecting someone of possession due to vocal tics - especially long-term ones - strikes me as nutty.

I really have no dog in this fight. I'm eastern rite. Unless something changes dramatically, the only foreseeable way I could encounter Fr. Pfeiffer is to run into him at an airport layover.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 15, 2020, 03:12:17 PM
This is very true.
With deafening silence from +Williamson, +Zendejas, +Thomas Aquinas and +Faure regarding the "consecration" if Fr. Pfeiffer, are we to extrapolate that they approve?
I said "silence is a form of consent" in the context of this thread where someone stated a hypothesis and I didn't see any objections from the participants after a couple days.

That couldn't apply universally as if any individual needs to make a public statement on everything that happens in the world.

Alternately, one could argue that Fr Chazal said something and the others had nothing further to add. Do any besides +W even make public statements?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 15, 2020, 03:44:09 PM
I said "silence is a form of consent" in the context of this thread where someone stated a hypothesis and I didn't see any objections from the participants after a couple days.

That couldn't apply universally as if any individual needs to make a public statement on everything that happens in the world.

Alternately, one could argue that Fr Chazal said something and the others had nothing further to add. Do any besides +W even make public statements?

The “grunting” during his Masses is just one of many symptoms.

That the ”Bishup of Boston” won’t look you in the eye... is another symptom.

That he can’t or won’t remove the warlock and his witch-babe from his parents property... another symptom.

Etc... etc.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 15, 2020, 05:51:44 PM
The “grunting” during his Masses is just one of many symptoms.

That the ”Bishup of Boston” won’t look you in the eye... is another symptom.

That he can’t or won’t remove the warlock and his witch-babe from his parents property... another symptom.

Etc... etc.
:laugh1:

In all seriousness, you are exactly right.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 18, 2020, 05:01:29 PM
So, has anyone yet seen the video of his conditional consecration?

At this point it either --

1) doesn't exist

or

2) shows that it was botched also the second time around
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 18, 2020, 05:19:31 PM
So, has anyone yet seen the video of his conditional consecration?

At this point it either --

1) doesn't exist

or

2) shows that it was botched also the second time around
You got it.
At this point, "bishop" Pfeiffer is to be considered invalid until proven otherwise.
The quotes should remain around his new title until then.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 18, 2020, 05:27:08 PM
So, has anyone yet seen the video of his conditional consecration?

At this point it either --

1) doesn't exist

or

2) shows that it was botched also the second time around
I haven't seen it, but one of his "seminarians" told me it exists and that they will not release it.
.
There is only one consideration now:
It was botched the second time around, same as the first.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Prayerful on August 18, 2020, 05:46:32 PM
I am no Latinist, but even for me the Latin  of the consecration seemed poorly enunciated and pronounced. If the words are misheard and unclear, not understood by the speaker or hearers, there seems an issue of validity.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 18, 2020, 05:49:15 PM
I haven't seen it, but one of his "seminarians" told me it exists and that they will not release it.
.
There is only one consideration now:
It was botched the second time around, same as the first.

If you believe this "seminarian".  We also had reports from other seminarians that the problem was noticed immєdιαtely by the MC and the conditional consecration done right afterwards.  Turns out it wasn't done until the next day, probably after the internet uproar about the first attempt.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 18, 2020, 05:52:39 PM
I am no Latinist, but even for me the Latin  of the consecration seemed poorly enunciated and pronounced. If the words are misheard and unclear, not understood by the speaker or hearers, there seems an issue of validity.

Poor enunciations CAN still be valid, mostly with sloppy word endings, but when the root of the word gets changed into a different one, the meaning changes and the form is invalid.  At very best, the original attempt was postively doubtful.

Right now we have only +?Pfeiffer's word for it that the second one was good, but the same +?Pfeiffer continues to claim that the FIRST one was good.  But several well-educated priests (+Sanborn and Chazal) have concluded that it was not.  And of course, +Sanborn has no issues with the validity of the +Thuc line.  So +?Pfeiffer ironically has discredit himself from being taken seriously with regard to the second attempt by his claims regarding the first.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 18, 2020, 05:54:35 PM
I haven't seen it, but one of his "seminarians" told me it exists and that they will not release it.
.
There is only one consideration now:
It was botched the second time around, same as the first.

I can only think one other reason, extreme pride.  He's continuing to cling to his assertion that the first one was valid and that there was no need for a conditional afterwards.  He INSISTS that everyone merely take his word for it and if you don't, then tough.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 18, 2020, 07:36:38 PM
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

Quote
Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination [from Abp Thuc] in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 18, 2020, 07:52:02 PM
Just a thought... but maybe the Holy Ghost was at work here?

When a Catholic priest willfully allows himself to become dependent and subservient to an occult entity, such as a warlock... 

.. could the Holy Ghost refuse His special outpouring of grace for the episcopal consecration?

Bishop Webster is likely validly consecrated, but he was unable to transmit the Apostolic line to a priest that had let an occult entity occupy his soul.

Similar to when a person sacrilegiously receives the Holy Eucharist with a mortal sin on their soul... Our Lord cannot be with them.

Only in Fr. Pfeiffer’s attempt to receive the episcopal consecration, it was blocked through other means, providentially.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 18, 2020, 08:06:42 PM
Just a thought... but maybe the Holy Ghost was at work here?

When a Catholic priest willfully allows himself to become dependent and subservient to an occult entity, such as a warlock...

.. could the Holy Ghost refuse His special outpouring of grace for the episcopal consecration?

Bishop Webster is likely validly consecrated, but he was unable to transmit the Apostolic line to a priest that had let an occult entity occupy his soul.

Similar to when a person sacrilegiously receives the Holy Eucharist with a mortal sin on their soul... Our Lord cannot be with them.

Only in Fr. Pfeiffer’s attempt to receive the episcopal consecration, it was blocked through other means, providentially.
.
Makes sense. If the Holy Ghost is a Donatist, that is. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on August 19, 2020, 12:18:34 AM
Just a thought... but maybe the Holy Ghost was at work here?

When a Catholic priest willfully allows himself to become dependent and subservient to an occult entity, such as a warlock...

.. could the Holy Ghost refuse His special outpouring of grace for the episcopal consecration?

Bishop Webster is likely validly consecrated, but he was unable to transmit the Apostolic line to a priest that had let an occult entity occupy his soul.

Similar to when a person sacrilegiously receives the Holy Eucharist with a mortal sin on their soul... Our Lord cannot be with them.

Only in Fr. Pfeiffer’s attempt to receive the episcopal consecration, it was blocked through other means, providentially.
My thought for what it’s worth is that IF the consecration was valid, but the priest unable to receive it due to his spiritual condition, then he needs to make a good confession before the Holy Ghost gives the grace.  Example, one who is confirmed while in mortal sin IS still confirmed, but he gets no grace from it until he makes a good confession of the sin on his soul at the time, and also of receiving a sacrament in a state of mortal sin.  He does NOT need to be reconfirmed because that is impossible.  Confession removes the blockade.  
Again, that’s assuming the consecration is valid.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Yeti on August 19, 2020, 12:34:02 AM
Just a thought... but maybe the Holy Ghost was at work here?

When a Catholic priest willfully allows himself to become dependent and subservient to an occult entity, such as a warlock...

.. could the Holy Ghost refuse His special outpouring of grace for the episcopal consecration?

Bishop Webster is likely validly consecrated, but he was unable to transmit the Apostolic line to a priest that had let an occult entity occupy his soul.

Similar to when a person sacrilegiously receives the Holy Eucharist with a mortal sin on their soul... Our Lord cannot be with them.

Only in Fr. Pfeiffer’s attempt to receive the episcopal consecration, it was blocked through other means, providentially.
The sacraments don't work this way at all. If they did, we would not be able to have any certitude about whether we received them, or whether the minister giving them to us was validly ordained/consecrated. If you have a valid minister who has the intention to do what the Church does, and he uses the right matter and form, the sacrament works, assuming the recipient meets the requirements to receive the sacrament (e.g. has a potentially fatal health condition in the case of Extreme Unction) and has the intention to receive the sacrament. Being dependent on a warlock does not prevent a person from receiving a sacrament validly.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 19, 2020, 12:40:51 PM

Good points!

My question was, if Bp. Webster flubbed the episcopal consecration, could it have been done by a matter of Divine providence?

But let’s go with your points, that the Consecration would be transmitted as long as there was proper matter, form and intent.  

The last point being that the episcopal consecrator has to have the intent to do what the Church does.

But what about the one receiving the consecration?  I’m pretty sure he has to have the same intent.

As in Baptism, the recipient has to believe and want to be Baptized as the Church does.   If the priest determines this is not the case, he is not to Baptize.

In conclusion, did Fr. Pfeiffer have the intent to do what the Church does?

You would have to ask: 

How could he, when his loyalty is split between the Catholic Church and a warlock?

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 19, 2020, 01:59:10 PM
My question was, if Bp. Webster flubbed the episcopal consecration, could it have been done by a matter of Divine providence?
Yes, that seems possible. That's what I thought you were suggesting to begin with.


In conclusion, did Fr. Pfeiffer have the intent to do what the Church does?
You would have to ask:
How could he, when his loyalty is split between the Catholic Church and a warlock?
Someone getting ordained with the sacrilegious intent to offer black masses would, I think, be ordained.

So whatever you are thinking about divided loyalty, I don't think it would prevent the sacrament.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: confederate catholic on August 19, 2020, 04:51:27 PM
Look let's be honest, the whole thing smells. We find out he's a bishop by someone posting a newsletter?

The whole point of sacraments is you do them publicly. Sacraments like marriage and ordination especially to the bishopric is supposed to take place in public because there's a flock that needs them.

The whole idea that you post a video showing a total screwup doesn't pass any type of public scrutiny if you 'secretly' have a reconstruction.

And just to cover the point that sometimes a priest or bishop may be conditionally ordained, it may be done that way precisely because everyone saw a public ceremony in which he was raised to the order and since everything took place in the open there is no reason to think someone is hiding something.


Run Forrest run
As fast as you can go
If you weren't convinced that it was rotten there before now, you have no excuse any longer
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 19, 2020, 04:59:43 PM
Good points!

My question was, if Bp. Webster flubbed the episcopal consecration, could it have been done by a matter of Divine providence?

But let’s go with your points, that the Consecration would be transmitted as long as there was proper matter, form and intent.  

The last point being that the episcopal consecrator has to have the intent to do what the Church does.

But what about the one receiving the consecration?  I’m pretty sure he has to have the same intent.

As in Baptism, the recipient has to believe and want to be Baptized as the Church does.   If the priest determines this is not the case, he is not to Baptize.

In conclusion, did Fr. Pfeiffer have the intent to do what the Church does?

You would have to ask:

How could he, when his loyalty is split between the Catholic Church and a warlock?
I think you are wrong here.
Matter, form, and intent refer to the cleric performing the ceremony.
If a person being baptized doesn't want baptism and the cleric performs it anyway, properly, the person receives the sacrament.
.
Until Fr. Pfeiffer proves he IS a bishop, he isn't. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 19, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
I think you are wrong here.
Matter, form, and intent refer to the cleric performing the ceremony.
This much is true.
However, the recipient does also need to be receptive. Receptivity is a low bar, but it can be absent. A penitent confessing without even imperfect contrition, for example, does not receive absolution.
Quote
If a person being baptized doesn't want baptism and the cleric performs it anyway, properly, the person receives the sacrament.
Let's say an adult has never expressed any interest in being baptized, and is now in a coma. At best, you could baptize conditionally, on the condition that the person had some unexpressed interest in converting.

Now, a priest who wants to be a bishop even for wrong reasons is still receptive to the sacrament, so receiptivity shouldn't be an issue in this case.

What is an issue is that the minister (Bp Webster) appears to have garbled the form enough for the form to be doubtful.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Struthio on August 19, 2020, 08:17:04 PM
If a person being baptized doesn't want baptism and the cleric performs it anyway, properly, the person receives the sacrament.

See the decree on justification of the Council of Trent: for adults, the vote (desire) to be baptized is a necessary condition to be justified (i.e. to be baptized).
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 19, 2020, 08:29:18 PM
See the decree on justification of the Council of Trent: the vote (desire) to be baptized is a necessary condition to be justified (i.e. to be baptized).

Nevertheless the Sacrament is validly confected ... so the recipient has the character but does not enter a state of justification.  If he later changed and went to Confession, he would then enter a state of justification without the need to be rebaptized.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Struthio on August 19, 2020, 08:33:09 PM
Nevertheless the Sacrament is validly confected ... so the recipient has the character but does not enter a state of justification.  If he later changed and went to Confession, he would then enter a state of justification without the need to be rebaptized.

It isn't received, at all. No mark received either. The desire is a necessary condition, like Our Lord said.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 20, 2020, 05:42:00 AM
It isn't received, at all. No mark received either. The desire is a necessary condition, like Our Lord said.

“If he believes and is Baptized” said Our  Lord.

I knew of a child catechumen who didn’t take it seriously.  He was being encouraged by his relatives to be Baptized.  

The Baptism schedule was arranged, family members were present. The priest came out and met the child at the Baptismal font and asked if he wanted to be Baptized?

The child said “No”.  

That was the end of the service.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on August 20, 2020, 07:14:44 AM
Fr. Pfeiffer certainly intended to become a bishop. I think that there is no doubt about that.
We will learn at the General Judgment whether he is a bishop or not.
For now we cannot be sure therefore we must avoid his ordinands and not receive Confirmation from him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 07:27:00 AM
Confirmation is a bit tricky since it can be validly administered by a simple priest.  I could see that God would supply jurisdiction.  But I would certainly not go to confession to a Pfeiffer-ordained priest until he were to release a satisfactory conditional confirmation video.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on August 20, 2020, 07:53:07 AM
You are correct. If Fr. Pfeiffer gave Confirmation it would be valid.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on August 20, 2020, 07:58:04 AM
Jurisdiction is not required for Confirmation.
A priest, in the Roman rite, can only minister confirmation in danger of death.
In many Eastern rites confirmation is given validly and legally by the priest with baptism.
A Roman rite priest needs to be delegated by the Pope to give Confirmation legally when there is no danger of death.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 20, 2020, 08:09:41 AM
Quote
But I would certainly not go to confession to a Pfeiffer-ordained priest until he were to release a satisfactory conditional confirmation video.

Even if Fr P is a bishop, I still would avoid his priests because of the lack of seminary/theological training.  He certainly doesn't train them, because he's never there....flying all over the country to offer masses.  Fr Voigt told us that classes are haphazard and unstructured.  What the heck are they learning and who is teaching them?  It's a BIG concern.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 09:10:23 AM
Confirmation is a bit tricky since it can be validly administered by a simple priest.  I could see that God would supply jurisdiction.  But I would certainly not go to confession to a Pfeiffer-ordained priest until he were to release a satisfactory conditional confirmation video.
.
A quick but imporatnt correction: the conditions under which simple priests can validly confirm is extremely narrow, and are certainly not met by Fr. Pfeiffer.  Kolar is correct that priests of the western rite may only validly confirm with special permission from the pope precisely because the power to confirm is a power of order (not of jurisdiction) that only the pope can activate.
.
http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=152.0 <--- link to the research which makes this clear. I researched this topic five years or so ago when Bishop Williamson was planning to 'delegate' Fr. Chazal to do confirmations in Austraulia, and sent my research to Fr. Chazal who agreed that there is no way he could have validly performed any confirmations.
.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 09:19:11 AM
.
A quick but imporatnt correction: the conditions under which simple priests can validly confirm is extremely narrow, and are certainly not met by Fr. Pfeiffer.  Kolar is correct that priests of the western rite may only validly confirm with special permission from the pope precisely because the power to confirm is a power of order (not of jurisdiction) that only the pope can activate.
.
http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=152.0 <--- link to the research which makes this clear. I researched this topic five years or so ago when Bishop Williamson was planning to 'delegate' Fr. Chazal to do confirmations in Austraulia, and sent my research to Fr. Chazal who agreed that there is no way he could have validly performed any confirmations.
.

Right, but it's not that the priest doesn't have the power of Orders necessary to confirm.  One could argue in this Crisis situation that God would supply the necessary permission.  I believe there were some independent Traditional priests before the SSPX bishops were around who administered Confirmation based on the notion of supplied jurisdiction.

I think you have it backwards in terms of power of Orders.  If priests lacked the power of Orders to confect the Sacrament, no amount of permission from the Pope could "activate" something that does not exist.  It's like with Confession.  Priest have the power of Orders to hear Confessions but absent jursidiction, they are ORDINARILY unable to validly absolve someone from their sins.  Of course the Church supplies in many different scenarios, and I believe that those same scenarios would apply to Confirmation as well.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 09:21:30 AM
Right, but it's not that the priest doesn't have the power of Orders necessary to confirm.  One could argue in this Crisis situation that God would supply the necessary permission.  I believe there were some independent Traditional priests before the SSPX bishops were around who administered Confirmation based on the notion of supplied jurisdiction.

I think you have it backwards in terms of power of Orders.  If priests lacked the power of Orders to confect the Sacrament, no amount of permission from the Pope could "activate" something that does not exist.  It's like with Confession.  Priest have the power of Orders to hear Confessions but absent jursidiction, they are ORDINARILY unable to validly absolve someone from their sins.  Of course the Church supplies in many different scenarios, and I believe that those same scenarios would apply to Confirmation as well.
.
Take it up with Prummer, Pohle, Smith, Conway, Woywod, Frasinetti, McGill, Connell, Tanquerey, Ott, and Fr. Chazal.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 11:29:21 AM
.
Take it up with Prummer, Pohle, Smith, Conway, Woywod, Frasinetti, McGill, Connell, Tanquerey, Ott, and Fr. Chazal.  

No, you've got things completely reversed.  I can quote these theologians from your link to that effect if you desire, but I suggest that you reread them.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 11:31:57 AM
Ladislaus, you are clearly unfamiliar with the material on the topic.  Look at the link I posted, and then come back with an argument once you have some familiarity with the theology of the question.
.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 11:33:40 AM
Ladislaus, you are clearly unfamiliar with the material on the topic.  Look at the link I posted, and then come back with an argument once you have some familiarity with the theology of the question.
.

You apparently are not capable of comprehending your own link.  Don't waste my time by forcing me to quote from your own link.

I'll just pick one, Smith who quotes Billot (see the bolded part):

Quote
We must be content to state briefly an answer, given by Billot, which appears to meet the difficulty in a satisfactory way.  According to this theologian the character of the priesthood includes the power to confirm; but by divine ordinance the valid exercise of that power is made conditional upon a commission received from the Head of the Church.  Thus the fact that the Church acknowledges as valid the confirmation administered by priests in the East does not make them ordinary ministers of the sacrament; it implies only a tacit commission formerly granted to them by the Holy See.

So the power is in the character of the priesthood but cannot be EXERCISED without the appropriate authorization ... similar to Confession.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 11:37:09 AM
Right, but it's not that the priest doesn't have the power of Orders necessary to confirm. 
.
Highly controversial, as will be rendered clear after just thirty seconds of looking at the sources posted.

Quote
One could argue in this Crisis situation that God would supply the necessary permission. 
.
Argue it then, don't just claim it.
.

Quote
I believe there were some independent Traditional priests before the SSPX bishops were around who administered Confirmation based on the notion of supplied jurisdiction.
.
Not an argument, since even if true they 1) may have done so validly under the indult of Spiritus Sanctus Murena and/or 2) they may have done so invalidly.
.

Quote
I think you have it backwards in terms of power of Orders.  If priests lacked the power of Orders to confect the Sacrament, no amount of permission from the Pope could "activate" something that does not exist.  It's like with Confession.  Priest have the power of Orders to hear Confessions but absent jursidiction, they are ORDINARILY unable to validly absolve someone from their sins.  Of course the Church supplies in many different scenarios, and I believe that those same scenarios would apply to Confirmation as well.
.
Literally every theologian I have ever found on this topic says it is a matter of order, not jurisdiction.  Read what I sent you, I'm not making this up: http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=152.0
.
As I said, I conducted this research when Bishop Williamson tried to delegate priests to confirm in Austraulia.  I sent my findings to Fr. Chazal who agreed (that priests in his situation cannot confirm validly) and said that he found the same thing when he went to the theology manuals too
.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 11:38:55 AM
and here's Pohle:

Quote
Some theologians have assumed that the papal delegation is not a mere extrinsic permission but implies an intrinsic perfectioning of the character of ordination by which the delegated priest receives the episcopal character.  Others hold with Suarez that the papal authorization merely gives to the delegated priest a higher extrinsic dignity which, together with his sacredotal character, suffices to enable him to administer the Sacrament validly.  Both hypotheses are unsatisfactory.  A simpler and more effective solution is that devised by Gregory of Valentia.  It was the will of Christ, he says, that both bishops and priests should be empowered to administer Confirmation, the former as ordinary ministers of the sacrament by virtue of the episcopal consecration the latter as its extraordinary ministers by virtue of the priesthood, leaving it to the pope to determine the manner of exercising this latent power.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 11:39:51 AM
Highly controversial, as will be rendered clear after just thirty seconds of looking at the sources posted.

No, it's not.  I've read the citations and none of them back your erroneous position.

Please stop wasting my time.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 11:40:57 AM
Literally every theologian I have ever found on this topic says it is a matter of order, not jurisdiction. 

What are you babbling about?  I literally just cited two of the first three sources on that link and they say the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 11:43:29 AM
It is simply not possible for the Pope to grant a power to someone who does not have it by power of Orders.  Never could a pope grant permission for a Deacon to offer Mass, or for a layman to absolve someone from their sins.  As these theological sources from your own link amply demonstrate, the power must be there in the priestly character, albeit in a latent manner.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 11:47:10 AM
What are you babbling about?  I literally just cited two of the first three sources on that link and they say the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
.
Have a little sense, Ladislaus.  I am the one who did this research, published it, and organized it in the order you are reading it.  That's background information, keep reading and then come up with an argument.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 12:20:19 PM
It is simply not possible for the Pope to grant a power to someone who does not have it by power of Orders.  Never could a pope grant permission for a Deacon to offer Mass, or for a layman to absolve someone from their sins.  As these theological sources from your own link amply demonstrate, the power must be there in the priestly character, albeit in a latent manner.
.
Yeah, exactly-- literally what I've been saying from the beginning.  And given that priests who confirm outside of papal approval 'have no power' to do so (as Prummer puts it) or confect 'null' confirmations (as another of the sources puts it) or 'confirm invalidly' as even more sources put it, it is obviously the case that the pope's approval is not affecting a jurisdictional change in the priest but a change of order.  
.
If you wish to take issue with my use of the word 'activate,' then so be it, but the latent power (to confirm) is simply inaccessible to priests unless the pope approves them to confirm.  'Activate' is the only word that I can come up with that describes that change's occurence.  If you have a better word, propose it.  
.
I strikes me as unjust for you to (in this order) 1) ignore my research and just boldly claim I've got it wrong, 2) give the research a superficial view and then use it to claim it obviously debunks my argument 3) upon further review, use it to agree with what I've been saying (in part) while still using it to impugn my view.  
.
I really wish you were a more competent conversant, because you have a mind for these things but a disposition that leads you to look for fights instead of understanding.  
.
ETA: for the inquisitive, (I was curious myself), this research was first published almost eight years ago on Bellarmine Forums: http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1668&start=0
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Carissima on August 20, 2020, 12:32:51 PM
The recent comments here raise a question for me.

My husband was baptized and confirmed, as an adult, before we were married 15 years ago. The priest who performed it was known for being a very good and holy priest who brought the Latin Mass to the local NO diocese and people would travel from far away, some more than an hour,  to attend his Masses. 
We didn't question at the time whether or not he had the authority to Confirm because he said he had the permission under the circumstances. Meaning, perhaps, the 'Crisis in the Church'? Honestly, I wish I could remember what that part meant to make sense of his intentions.  

So would my husband's Confirmation be valid? Licit? 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2020, 12:37:59 PM
So would my husband's Confirmation be valid? Licit?
.
If you're asking me, I would say probably not (to both questions).  Setting aside the theological nuances, 'at the end of the day' one thing is abundantly certain: priests confirm invalidly except and unless they fall under the indult of Pius XII which only allows parish priests to confirm actively dying parishioners.  Of course, depending on your view of the crisis-- maybe you think that Novus Ordo priests are all validly ordained and that all of the laws put in place by the conciliar popes are valid and legitimate, in which case you would have no reason to doubt that the confirmation was valid and licit (because N.O. priests have permission from N.O. popes to confirm).  But if you are approaching the question with skepticism over the validity of N.O. orders, laws, etc., then probably best to seek a conditional or absolute confirmation from a traditional bishop.

ETA: my wife was in this exact same situation (confirmed by a TLM indult priest), and we sought a conditional confirmation.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Carissima on August 20, 2020, 12:51:15 PM
.
If you're asking me
Yes, and thank you. I am weighing all information submitted.
I myself was conditionally Confirmed by a Traditional Bishop because of my concerns of the modernist Bishop that confirmed me when I was a teen. 
My husband has not received any of the Sacraments for many years now, which grieves me. So a conditional Confirmation is not a possibility at this time. As a matter of fact if I went to him with any information that placed doubt on the Sacraments he's already received, he may lose his faith altogether. The confusion is real.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 12:51:58 PM
ETA: my wife was in this exact same situation (confirmed by a TLM indult priest), and we sought a conditional confirmation.

I would think that an Indult priest would only do it if he had the proper authorization.  You know, there are some bishops out there who freely give authority to priests and pastors.  I know of one priest in the Cleveland diocese, who, I kid you not, was given the authority to issue annulments.  He was just a pastor of a suburban church with no special training that would make him qualified.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 20, 2020, 06:38:52 PM
Quote
My husband was baptized and confirmed, as an adult, before we were married 15 years ago.
I thought Roman rite priests could confirm converts at the time of conversion.

The Roman code of canon law, 883.2 :

Quote
883. The following (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/5H.HTM) possess (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/7T.HTM) the faculty (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/85.HTM) of administering (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/VZ.HTM) confirmation (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/8Y.HTM) by the law (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/P.HTM) itself:

2/ as regards (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/UE.HTM) the person (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/Y.HTM) in question (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/CX.HTM), the presbyter (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/FF.HTM) who by virtue (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/AQ.HTM) of office (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2H.HTM) or mandate (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/BG.HTM) of the diocesan (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/14.HTM) bishop (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/T.HTM) baptizes one who is no longer (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OC.HTM) an infant (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/R7.HTM) or admits (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/WT.HTM) one already baptized (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/6F.HTM) into the full (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/G7.HTM) communion (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/8I.HTM) of the Catholic (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/48.HTM) Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/S.HTM);
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
I thought Roman rite priests could confirm converts at the time of conversion.

The Roman code of canon law, 883.2 :

Is this the New Code?  Nevertheless, it specifies that the priest has to be baptizing with the official mandate of the diocesan bishop, which most Traditional priests lack.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 20, 2020, 09:23:27 PM
Is this the New Code?  Nevertheless, it specifies that the priest has to be baptizing with the official mandate of the diocesan bishop, which most Traditional priests lack.
Yes 1983 code, and it says by virtue of office or ....  Roman trad priests seem to consider themselves equivalent to pastors via supplied jurisdiction, or have some superior they treat as analogous to a bishop.
This topic is a little odd to me; priests can confirm in the Eastern rite.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on August 20, 2020, 09:35:48 PM
Is this the New Code?  Nevertheless, it specifies that the priest has to be baptizing with the official mandate of the diocesan bishop, which most Traditional priests lack.
“Consolidate & Control the goy herds”
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2020, 07:27:44 AM
Yes 1983 code, and it says by virtue of office or ....  Roman trad priests seem to consider themselves equivalent to pastors via supplied jurisdiction, or have some superior they treat as analogous to a bishop.
This topic is a little odd to me; priests can confirm in the Eastern rite.

Yes, and also in the Roman ... with the appropriate permission, e.g. the permission for Cardinal priests, and also for all priests in danger of death.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on August 21, 2020, 08:28:08 AM
Presumably Fr. Pfeiffer has valid holy oils now. After Easter 2021 he will probably use oils consecrated by himself. These will be doubtful. Now, he probably gives validly the sacrament of Extreme Unction. After Easter it will be doubtful, also for the priests associated with him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on August 21, 2020, 08:36:13 AM
Yes, and also in the Roman ... with the appropriate permission, e.g. the permission for Cardinal priests, and also for all priests in danger of death.
Oh yes, the Cardinal priests... all two* of them. 

It's much less restricted in the eastern rites.

(*I can only think of two: Vanhoye and Simoni)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2020, 11:21:57 AM
Oh yes, the Cardinal priests... all two* of them.

It's much less restricted in the eastern rites.

(*I can only think of two: Vanhoye and Simoni)

Well, it's not about the quantity ... just reinforcing the notion in principle that priests can validly confirm with the proper authorization.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 21, 2020, 02:55:50 PM
Presumably Fr. Pfeiffer has valid holy oils now. After Easter 2021 he will probably use oils consecrated by himself. These will be doubtful. Now, he probably gives validly the sacrament of Extreme Unction. After Easter it will be doubtful, also for the priests associated with him.
Now?  So what was he using before?  
How do you know these now are valid?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 21, 2020, 02:57:31 PM
Presumably Fr. Pfeiffer has valid holy oils now. After Easter 2021 he will probably use oils consecrated by himself. These will be doubtful. Now, he probably gives validly the sacrament of Extreme Unction. After Easter it will be doubtful, also for the priests associated with him.
Now?  What was he using before?
How do you know the ones he has now are valid?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 23, 2020, 08:40:16 AM

https://amp.freep.com/amp/3422325001

Proper formation, validity, words, licitness, humility, and proper Catholic teachings are important.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on August 26, 2020, 07:38:35 AM
I don't know what oils he has now. I just presume that they are from a valid bishop. I don't think Ambrose did a chrismal Mass for him.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 26, 2020, 09:04:42 AM
I don't know what oils he has now. I just presume that they are from a valid bishop. I don't think Ambrose did a chrismal Mass for him.

Presumably Fr. Pfeiffer has valid holy oils now. After Easter 2021 he will probably use oils consecrated by himself. These will be doubtful. Now, he probably gives validly the sacrament of Extreme Unction. After Easter it will be doubtful, also for the priests associated with him.

Your first statement, above, says " Fr. Pfeiffer has holy oils now" and your second statement, atop, say you "don't know what holy oils he has now".
.
How can you be sure the ones he has now are valid if you don't know what he has now?
.
It is unlikely he has had valid holy oils for some time unless, again, he violated canon law which demands that old oils be disposed of and new ones received yearly.  Ergo, his, Fr. Hewko's, and the priests with him have given illicit and possibly invalid sacraments.
.
Why do you "presume [the ones he has now] are from a valid bishop" when he has no bishop superior and no good relationship with ANY 100% unquestionably valid bishop?
.
William aka Ambrose Moran is not valid.
.
We must assume Fr. Pfeiffer is not a valid bishop until he proves he is.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2020, 09:30:20 AM
Presumably Fr. Pfeiffer has valid holy oils now. After Easter 2021 he will probably use oils consecrated by himself. These will be doubtful. Now, he probably gives validly the sacrament of Extreme Unction. After Easter it will be doubtful, also for the priests associated with him.

I'm not sure that the matter for Extreme Unction REQUIRES properly-blessed holy oils for VALIDITY.  I think that you CAN just use oil ... especially in an emergency, which most Extreme Unction cases are.  But someone correct me if I'm wrong.  So, for instance, for Baptisms, they TYPICALLY use blessed Easter water, but any water suffices for validity.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stubborn on August 26, 2020, 10:04:53 AM
In one of his talks from 20 years ago, Fr. Hesse said olive oil is a necessity for validity, no olive oil, no validity - period. This was his response to Pope Paul VI's decreeing that any oil will suffice.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2020, 10:19:29 AM
In one of his talks from 20 years ago, Fr. Hesse said olive oil is a necessity for validity, no olive oil, no validity - period. This was his response to Pope Paul VI's decreeing that any oil will suffice.

Right, the NO started using palm oil for a while.  We know that olive oil is necessary, but does it has to be validly blessed in a chrism Mass to be validly used for the Sacraments.  I don't believe so.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on August 29, 2020, 07:54:41 AM
For solemn Baptism, which is baptism done by a priest following the rite in the Roman ritual, baptismal water is required. Baptismal water can be made by a priest at any time, normally it would be made at the Easter vigil, but it requires oils blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday to make it. For private baptism any water will do. Babies are being privately baptised today because in places there is not a priest to do the baptism.
For extreme unction the oil of the sick is required. it is blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday along with the sacred chrism and the oil of the catechumens.

The oil has a "best before" date in that the priest is supposed to use the current years oil. But it does not have a "use by" date, so oils from a previous year do not "go off" and are still holy oils, and can still be used. Baptismal water doesn't "go off" either so it can still be used for solemn baptism even if made with out of date oils.

It really doesn't matter what oils Fr. Pfeiffer has now. The point is that a priest can validly give confirmation but not legally. If Fr. Pfeiffer gives confirmation now it will be valid depending on if he has valid sacred chrism or not. I would suspect that he does have valid sacred chrism but I do not know this. But next year after Easter he will certainly consecrate his own oils. They will be very doubtful and his confirmations will be doubtful. His Extreme Unctions will also be doubtful. Baptisms will still be valid. Absolution from him will be valid, but from those he "ordains" ??
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2020, 01:45:52 PM
Yes, I know, you’re supposed to use properly blessed oil, but that doesn’t answer the validity question.  In public Baptisms the priest is SUPPOSED to use Easter water but the Baptism would still be valid if he didn’t.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 29, 2020, 04:02:14 PM
For solemn Baptism, which is baptism done by a priest following the rite in the Roman ritual, baptismal water is required. Baptismal water can be made by a priest at any time, normally it would be made at the Easter vigil, but it requires oils blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday to make it. For private baptism any water will do. Babies are being privately baptised today because in places there is not a priest to do the baptism.
For extreme unction the oil of the sick is required. it is blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday along with the sacred chrism and the oil of the catechumens.

The oil has a "best before" date in that the priest is supposed to use the current years oil. But it does not have a "use by" date, so oils from a previous year do not "go off" and are still holy oils, and can still be used. Baptismal water doesn't "go off" either so it can still be used for solemn baptism even if made with out of date oils.

It really doesn't matter what oils Fr. Pfeiffer has now. The point is that a priest can validly give confirmation but not legally. If Fr. Pfeiffer gives confirmation now it will be valid depending on if he has valid sacred chrism or not. I would suspect that he does have valid sacred chrism but I do not know this. But next year after Easter he will certainly consecrate his own oils. They will be very doubtful and his confirmations will be doubtful. His Extreme Unctions will also be doubtful. Baptisms will still be valid. Absolution from him will be valid, but from those he "ordains" ??
Canon law states that holy oils/chrism must be disposed of after one year and new ones obtained.  So, illicit (illegal) if old are used.
.
It does matter what he has now.  If they are not valid then the sacraments he does or has done with them are questionable.
.
Whatever ones he "makes" himself, will definitely be questionable.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: AJNC on September 29, 2020, 10:54:47 AM
Bishop Pfeiffer's orders have been challenged in some quarters on the basis that they are of the Thuc Line. Hopefully this article by the late Fr Cekada has not already been posted somewhere in the previous 25 pages!:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2001/09/11/bp-mendez-sspv-and-hypocrisy/
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on September 29, 2020, 03:14:38 PM
Time for fasting and praying for all. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: confederate catholic on September 30, 2020, 12:54:10 PM
NO 'allows' palm oil, most dioceses use olive. Only know because I found out the SSPX keeps a list of which bishop uses which when I needed to find out if someones anointing was valid
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on September 30, 2020, 06:43:27 PM
You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?

Just as an aside.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on October 01, 2020, 12:34:25 PM
You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?

Just as an aside.
Serious doubt? Because the bishop flubbed the words of the form?  Thomas Aquinas says otherwise.  
Tertia pars question 60 art 7
Reply to Objection 3. If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words—does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say "patrias et filias." For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: AJNC on October 01, 2020, 09:15:50 PM
You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?

Just as an aside.
There is serious doubt about Bishop Pfeiffer's consecration mainly among his detractors. I know both Chazal and Pfeiffer very well from their time in my country, and we detested one another. But I believe Joey is a validly consecrated bishop, and no pontifications by people like Novus Ordo Watch and Fr Jenkins are going to change my mind. 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on October 02, 2020, 05:38:02 AM




ANJC, you may take that position, but there is no grace coming from Father Joey.

On the contrary, any priest/bishop who is beholden to a warlock is with the anti-christ.

Therefore, WE trads should avoid the Pfeiffer apostolate like a Jєωιѕн plague.

:incense:
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: AJNC on October 02, 2020, 08:57:52 AM



ANJC, you may take that position, but there is no grace coming from Father Joey.

On the contrary, any priest/bishop who is beholden to a warlock is with the anti-christ.

Therefore, WE trads should avoid the Pfeiffer apostolate like a Jєωιѕн plague.

:incense:
Incredulous
Now that you have brought in a valid warlock, and you should know having experienced Pfeifferville, I have to defer to your viewpoint. A decade ago in Pfeifferistan things did not smell right to me. Yes, the occult and Christianity cannot mix. Our Lord has said so Himself.
Kindest regards
N
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Mr G on October 02, 2020, 09:07:24 AM
Serious doubt? Because the bishop flubbed the words of the form?  Thomas Aquinas says otherwise.  
It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:

I'm not one who holds the Thuc line to be doubtful, but Bishop Webster's line has some issues due to one Jean Laborie.

Bishop Webster was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Slupski (I don't believe there are any doubts about his line).

But he had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Timothy Henneberry.

Henneberry, in turn, had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Carmona (no issue for me) and was consecrated a bishop by a Bishop Terrasson.

Terrasson had been consecrated by Clemente Dominguez Gomez (of Palmar fame).  Apart from the fact that Gomez had no training and could easily have botched the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, this was likely valid ...

except, and here's the problem

Terrasson had been ordained a priest by in 1974 by Jean Laborie.

But in 1977 Bishop Thuc CONDITIONALLY consecrated Laborie.  There's no record of who ordained Laborie, but his pre-1977 consecrationS (plural) went as follows ...

[Laborie] had already been consecrated a bishop on 10/02/1966 at xxxxx by Jean Pierre Danyel, a bishop of the Sainte Église Celtique. Later he was consecrated sub conditione a bishop on 08/20/1968 at xxxxx by Louis Jean Stanislaus Canivet, a bishop known as "Patriarch Aloysius Basilius III" of the Patriarchate Orthodoxe de l'Europe Latine.

So his status in 1974 when he ordained Terrasson to the priesthood was one of clear positive doubt.  So much so, that in 1977, Bishop Thuc consecrated Laborie conditionally.

NOW ... there's an allegation that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained at some point before his consecration by Clemente.  But I've seen no proof for this whatsover.  It is not even so much as listed on the Boyle site.

So unless there's documentation/proof that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained before his consecration, the whole line is in doubt.

Consequently, we have to hold there to be positive doubt regarding the validity of Bishop Pfeiffer.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on October 02, 2020, 03:39:38 PM
The so-called “episcopacy” of Fr. Pfeiffer is, for me, the cherry on top of the poisonous dessert.  I wrote the whole operation off in 2015 after a scary encounter with the resident warlock.  Let’s just say I caught him “red-hoofed” in three instances of devilish behavior.  When I presented the obvious proof to Fr. Pfeiffer, I was dismissed as a tinfoil hat wearer and a Judas.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on October 06, 2020, 01:37:03 PM
It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:

I'm not one who holds the Thuc line to be doubtful, but Bishop Webster's line has some issues due to one Jean Laborie.

Bishop Webster was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Slupski (I don't believe there are any doubts about his line).

But he had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Timothy Henneberry.

Henneberry, in turn, had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Carmona (no issue for me) and was consecrated a bishop by a Bishop Terrasson.

Terrasson had been consecrated by Clemente Dominguez Gomez (of Palmar fame).  Apart from the fact that Gomez had no training and could easily have botched the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, this was likely valid ...

except, and here's the problem

Terrasson had been ordained a priest by in 1974 by Jean Laborie.

But in 1977 Bishop Thuc CONDITIONALLY consecrated Laborie.  There's no record of who ordained Laborie, but his pre-1977 consecrationS (plural) went as follows ...

[Laborie] had already been consecrated a bishop on 10/02/1966 at xxxxx by Jean Pierre Danyel, a bishop of the Sainte Église Celtique. Later he was consecrated sub conditione a bishop on 08/20/1968 at xxxxx by Louis Jean Stanislaus Canivet, a bishop known as "Patriarch Aloysius Basilius III" of the Patriarchate Orthodoxe de l'Europe Latine.

So his status in 1974 when he ordained Terrasson to the priesthood was one of clear positive doubt.  So much so, that in 1977, Bishop Thuc consecrated Laborie conditionally.

NOW ... there's an allegation that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained at some point before his consecration by Clemente.  But I've seen no proof for this whatsover.  It is not even so much as listed on the Boyle site.

So unless there's documentation/proof that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained before his consecration, the whole line is in doubt.

Consequently, we have to hold there to be positive doubt regarding the validity of Bishop Pfeiffer.
But the flubbing of the words, the form, made it doubly doubtful.  Even the NO recognizes this:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/signs-times/vatican-causes-chaos-invalidating-baptism-formula
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on October 06, 2020, 02:09:55 PM
The so-called “episcopacy” of Fr. Pfeiffer is, for me, the cherry on top of the poisonous dessert.  I wrote the whole operation off in 2015 after a scary encounter with the resident warlock.  Let’s just say I caught him “red-hoofed” in three instances of devilish behavior.  When I presented the obvious proof to Fr. Pfeiffer, I was dismissed as a tinfoil hat wearer and a Judas.  


This.

But we also shouldn't dismiss the analysis of several professionals that Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted consecration was problematic and flawed.

His consecration should be considered doubtful at this time.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: AJNC on October 17, 2020, 05:44:27 AM
The so-called “episcopacy” of Fr. Pfeiffer is, for me, the cherry on top of the poisonous dessert.  I wrote the whole operation off in 2015 after a scary encounter with the resident warlock.  Let’s just say I caught him “red-hoofed” in three instances of devilish behavior.  When I presented the obvious proof to Fr. Pfeiffer, I was dismissed as a tinfoil hat wearer and a Judas.  
Dark times indeed for the lay person. Hope you are well and happy now!
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 17, 2020, 07:48:30 AM
No, the consecration that appeared on video was clearly doubtful.  Bishop Sanborn, who obviously has no issue with Thuc-line validity, simply called it straight out invalid.  Bishop Webster corrupted the root of one of the three CORE words in the essential form.  St. Thomas says that an altered root would render it invalid.  Now, there’s the rumor of a subsequent conditional consecration, but no proof of this has been offered.  +?Pfeiffer’s credibility has been shot, so I for one can’t simply take his word for it that it was done and was done correctly. Also, some people doubt the validity of the Thuc line in general.  I do not, but some lines are dubious and cause concern, like the Terrasson line.  Now someone produced an ordination certificate for this but its provenance is not entirely clear.  I do not generally doubt the Thuc line, but I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest unless I had no other option in danger of death.  But then I’m sure I’d be refused over Feeneyism ... even though it was OK to RECEIVE consecration from a Feeneyite.  Then you add all the other nonsense at Boston, including the diabolical activity surrounding Pablo ... and that puts Boston squarely in red-light territory.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on October 17, 2020, 11:50:38 AM
No, the consecration that appeared on video was clearly doubtful.  Bishop Sanborn, who obviously has no issue with Thuc-line validity, simply called it straight out invalid.  Bishop Webster corrupted the root of one of the three CORE words in the essential form.  St. Thomas says that an altered root would render it invalid.  Now, there’s the rumor of a subsequent conditional consecration, but no proof of this has been offered.  +?Pfeiffer’s credibility has been shot, so I for one can’t simply take his word for it that it was done and was done correctly. Also, some people doubt the validity of the Thuc line in general.  I do not, but some lines are dubious and cause concern, like the Terrasson line.  Now someone produced an ordination certificate for this but its provenance is not entirely clear.  I do not generally doubt the Thuc line, but I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest unless I had no other option in danger of death.  But then I’m sure I’d be refused over Feeneyism ... even though it was OK to RECEIVE consecration from a Feeneyite.  Then you add all the other nonsense at Boston, including the diabolical activity surrounding Pablo ... and that puts Boston squarely in red-light territory.

This is the best answer. Saved me having to type all this out...lol
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: RevolveBooks on October 17, 2020, 12:37:36 PM
If Pfeiffer is a true bishop then must he cease to wear the white cassock and shave his whiskers because he is no longer a missionary priest of Asia but a bishop of Kentucky? And certainly needs to stop saying that +Fellay is his superior.

Photographic evidence shows he still sports both.  Just wondering.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on October 17, 2020, 06:44:04 PM
Quote
.....but I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest unless I had no other option in danger of death.  


I do not understand this.  If one 'ordained' by Fr. Pfeiffer he is not a priest how can he administer the Sacraments?  Fr. Pfeiffer himself is a different matter because he is a priest, but nobody that he ordains(?)  I must be missing something.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Seraphina on October 17, 2020, 08:42:35 PM

I do not understand this.  If one 'ordained' by Fr. Pfeiffer he is not a priest how can he administer the Sacraments?  Fr. Pfeiffer himself is a different matter because he is a priest, but nobody that he ordains(?)  I must be missing something.
U R.  A priest cannot ordain another priest.  Only a bishop can ordain a priest.  When one is consecrated a bishop, the grace is given to bestow the priesthood upon a qualified man.  A bishop may also consecrate another bishop, although in normal times, it must be with the approval of the Pope. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly excommunicated in 1988 by Paul VI along with Bps. Williamson, Fellay, de Mallerais, and Gallaretta.  By way of association, the entire SSPX membership and later, the faithful, were erroneously said to be in schism.  
Fr. Pfeiffer IS a priest, having been ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre.  There is no doubt that Fr. Joe can carry out all normal priestly duties including give Sacraments to the faithful.  The problem is that if he not really a bishop, (by virtue of incorrect form and highly dubious succession of the “bishop” who consecrated him), then any man whom “Bp.” Pfeiffer presumes to ordain is NOT a priest.  If a man who  is not a priest says Mass, goes through the prayers to “consecrate” the host, nothing happens in the supernatural realm.  The sacred species are not sacred.  They remain bread and wine, wholly and entirely.  The holiest layman can wear a cassock, say mass, hear confessions, preside at weddings, funerals, give communion, give extreme unction but no actual supernatural grace is granted.  A man cannot give what he does not have.  
If both “priest” and layman are invincibly ignorant of the matter, Our Lord can and will allow for the human weakness.  But if one can reasonably know there is doubt, or, worse, does know there is doubt and partakes anyway, how can one expect anything other than God's disfavor?   
Add to the positive doubt the fact that the priest calling himself a bishop has for his best friend and head administrator, a man who scorns traditional Catholics, doesn’t go to mass or the sacraments, is of poor moral character, and openly dabbles in witchcraft and occult practices...Is he or any of his ordinands people to whom the faithful should turn for spiritual guidance and sustenance?
Imagine you needed lifesaving, but risky brain surgery.  You learn of a medical center that claims to have the sure treatment plan for a cure.  It claims all other medical centers are deficient in various ways, untrained doctors, callous nurses, administrators only looking to make money.  But there’s a catch!  While the head of this wonderful healing hospital passed his medical exams, his past is riddled with accounts of questionable treatments, unprofessional conduct, and shady associations.  His former patients are in poor health.  Some have died.  The residents under his charge are poorly formed, given to laxity and levity.  You cannot get straightforward information as to the doctors’ training and cannot determine if they’ve even been to medical school.  The CFO is known for unethical use of money and above all, secrecy in finances and medical results.  Do you consent to be treated in this place?
My advice, stay FAR AWAY from OLMC.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on October 17, 2020, 09:30:02 PM
Quote
Fr. Pfeiffer IS a priest, having been ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre.  There is no doubt that Fr. Joe can carry out all normal priestly duties including give Sacraments to the faithful.  The problem is that if he not really a bishop, (by virtue of incorrect form and highly dubious succession of the “bishop” who consecrated him), then any man whom “Bp.” Pfeiffer presumes to ordain is NOT a priest.
Emphasis above is mine.

This is why I asked the qestion.   How can Ladislaus say that he would receive the sacraments from a 'priest' ordained by 'Bp.' Pfeiffer?  Does not make sense especially when Ladislaus has gone to so much trouble  to show that Fr. Pfeiffer is no Bishop??????
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 18, 2020, 05:04:53 AM
Emphasis above is mine.

This is why I asked the qestion.   How can Ladislaus say that he would receive the sacraments from a 'priest' ordained by 'Bp.' Pfeiffer?  Does not make sense especially when Ladislaus has gone to so much trouble  to show that Fr. Pfeiffer is no Bishop??????

I would not consider them certainly invalid but doubtful.  While I would agree with +Sanborn that the first attempt was invalid, it is possible that Bishop Webster got it close enough to be valid on the second try.  I also do not believe that Terrasson was certainly invalid as there is some evidence of a conditional ordination.
So +?Pfeiffer priests, IMO, are in the doubtful category.  In danger of death, if you have no certainly-valid option, one may avail oneself of doubtful Sacraments.  Other than that scenario, doubtful priests are to be treated as invalid.  I hope this clears it up.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on October 18, 2020, 05:09:15 AM
It clears up what you mean Ladislaus. :)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SimpleMan on October 18, 2020, 05:51:38 AM
U R.  A priest cannot ordain another priest.  Only a bishop can ordain a priest. 
But this, from Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Note that Ott says a papal mandate would be necessary for validity.  Clearly that isn't the case here.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on October 18, 2020, 06:40:51 AM

Yet another sign an usurper is in the Seat.

Although it was a highly political gesture, Bp. Fellay persuaded Pope Benedict XVI to defrock Fr. Vanderputin.

If Francis and the neoSSPX were real Bishup Pfeiffer would be defrocked and an interdict would be placed on Pfeifferville.

But to the contrary, it seems the Pfeiffer/Pablo apostolate meets the political convenience of both Francis and the neoSSPX.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: AJNC on October 19, 2020, 06:27:17 AM
If Pfeiffer is a true bishop then must he cease to wear the white cassock and shave his whiskers because he is no longer a missionary priest of Asia but a bishop of Kentucky? And certainly needs to stop saying that +Fellay is his superior.

Photographic evidence shows he still sports both.  Just wondering.
There have not been missionary priests in places like India, the Philippines, East, West and South Africa for decades. All these places are now major exporters of priests to the West and have been so since the 1970s.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kirsten on October 20, 2020, 09:58:30 AM
In danger of death, if you have no certainly-valid option, one may avail oneself of doubtful Sacraments.  Other than that scenario, doubtful priests are to be treated as invalid.  I hope this clears it up.
Do you have a source for this? Would that not mean you could approach an ‘Old Catholic’ priest (in danger of death)?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 20, 2020, 03:16:16 PM
Do you have a source for this? Would that not mean you could approach an ‘Old Catholic’ priest (in danger of death)?

Here are the principles:

https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm)
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on October 20, 2020, 05:19:27 PM
Why doesn't the local priest or bishop issue a statement about Pfeiffer?
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kirsten on October 21, 2020, 07:05:36 AM
Here are the principles:

https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm)
Thank you for the link. I’m assuming the relevant part is this:

“St. Alphonsus writes that even: ...the excommunicated vitandus, if he can validly administer the sacraments, is bound to administer them in danger of death on account of divine and natural precept to which the human precept of the Church would not be able to oppose itself.”

However, this does not question the validity of the priest. A priest may be lacking the faculty of confession or the power to confirm, but the Church will supply both where there is a danger of death.

Similarly, a suspended priest’s censure (which extends to Orthodox priests since their powers of order are valid) does not prevent him from ministering the sacraments in such circumstances. I’m not seeing anything that suggests one can approach a doubtfully ordained priest.

Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 07:47:40 AM
Here are the principles:

https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm)

That's not the question she's asking.

No, I do not have a source at hand for this, but have read it over the years in various theological manuals, that one may receive doubtful Sacraments in danger of death ... if that's all you can get.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on October 21, 2020, 08:36:16 AM
That's not the question she's asking.

No, I do not have a source at hand for this, but have read it over the years in various theological manuals, that one may receive doubtful Sacraments in danger of death ... if that's all you can get.
I understand Ladislaus that a source may not be readily at hand but if a doubt is genuinely established - which is what has been ably demonstrated in this discussion - then that means, for me at least, that I do not believe I would be receiving the Sacraments from a priest 'ordained' by 'Bishop' Pfeiffer even if I am dying.  In short, I would see it as a kind of sacrilege.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 08:54:15 AM
I understand Ladislaus that a source may not be readily at hand but if a doubt is genuinely established - which is what has been ably demonstrated in this discussion - then that means, for me at least, that I do not believe I would be receiving the Sacraments from a priest 'ordained' by 'Bishop' Pfeiffer even if I am dying.  In short, I would see it as a kind of sacrilege.

By definition, doubt means that you MAY (OR MAY NOT) be receiving the Sacraments.  If you are convinced that they are positively invalid, then you personally would not consider them doubtful.  I hold them to be doubtful rather than certainly invalid ... based on the possibility that there was a legitimate conditional consecration afterward.

If you consider them to be certainly invalid, then there would obviously be no point in receiving them even in danger of death.

Let's say that I currently feel that there's a 50-50 chance that +?Pfeiffer priests are valid.  If I'm on the point of death and have no other option, it's OK to roll the dice on this and hope that they are in fact valid.  Under ordinary circumstances, however, that kind of dice-rolling is forbidden.  Let's say I was in a state or mortal sin, was dying, grabbed a +?Pfeiffer priest, and made a confession.  Now let's say I recover miraculously.  Since I considered it doubtful, I would have to go to Confession again, explaining the circumstances, before I could go to Holy Communion again.  Now, if I'm in danger of death, and make this Confession, then I could receive Communion from the same Pfeiffer priest because, if the Communion is valid, then so was the Confession, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on October 21, 2020, 08:57:14 AM
By definition, doubt means that you MAY (OR MAY NOT) be receiving the Sacraments.  If you are convinced that they are positively invalid, then you personally would not consider them doubtful.  I hold them to be doubtful rather than certainly invalid ... based on the possibility that there was a legitimate conditional consecration afterward.

If you consider them to be certainly invalid, then there would obviously be no point in receiving them even in danger of death.
I think that if you find yourself with only a "bishop" Pfeiffer priest available at your death, then your salvation is already in serious doubt -- it would suggest that God has begun punishing you and signaling that you weren't a very good guy.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 09:00:00 AM
I think that if you find yourself with only a "bishop" Pfeiffer priest available at your death, then your salvation is already in serious doubt -- it would suggest that God has begun punishing you and signaling that you weren't a very good guy.

:laugh1:

Or, conversely, let's say I've made my First Fridays, one of the promises being to receive the last Sacraments, in that case,  I would be comforted at death believing with moral certainty that the priest was valid after all.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Tourmalet on October 21, 2020, 09:13:25 AM
 
Quote
I think that if you find yourself with only a "bishop" Pfeiffer priest available at your death, then your salvation is already in serious doubt -- it would suggest that God has begun punishing you and signaling that you weren't a very good guy.

Same applies when a person ostensibly seeks baptism into the Catholic Church, but he dies before he receives the necessary baptism of water and Spirit. "Desire" alone doesn't constitute a baptism. God knows the hearts of all men, and if a person sincerely seeks baptism into the Church, God will send him a valid priest for baptism even if he lives in the most obscure location and difficult environment.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on October 21, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
By definition, doubt means that you MAY (OR MAY NOT) be receiving the Sacraments.  If you are convinced that they are positively invalid, then you personally would not consider them doubtful.  I hold them to be doubtful rather than certainly invalid ... based on the possibility that there was a legitimate conditional consecration afterward.

If you consider them to be certainly invalid, then there would obviously be no point in receiving them even in danger of death.

Let's say that I currently feel that there's a 50-50 chance that +?Pfeiffer priests are valid.  If I'm on the point of death and have no other option, it's OK to roll the dice on this and hope that they are in fact valid.  Under ordinary circumstances, however, that kind of dice-rolling is forbidden.  Let's say I was in a state or mortal sin, was dying, grabbed a +?Pfeiffer priest, and made a confession.  Now let's say I recover miraculously.  Since I considered it doubtful, I would have to go to Confession again, explaining the circumstances, before I could go to Holy Communion again.  Now, if I'm in danger of death, and make this Confession, then I could receive Communion from the same Pfeiffer priest because, if the Communion is valid, then so was the Confession, and vice versa.


I follow that.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on October 21, 2020, 09:22:22 AM

Same applies when a person ostensibly seeks baptism into the Catholic Church, but he dies before he receives the necessary baptism of water and Spirit. "Desire" alone doesn't constitute a baptism. God knows the hearts of all men, and if a person sincerely seeks baptism into the Church, God will send him a valid priest for baptism even if he lives in the most obscure location and difficult environment.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  God is not going to abandon a person aiming only to keep the true faith.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kirsten on October 21, 2020, 10:15:13 AM
I still have three issues:

1. The “I read it somewhere” line is devoid of any context or setting. Was it read accurately or fully understood? Was it just a theological opinion (even a minority one) or explicitly declared by the Church?

2. What is the logical conclusion of this? The Last Rites from an Anglican vicar? Yes, Leo XIII declared their orders invalid, but that was before they sort ordinations from the ‘Old Catholics’.

3. “I hold them to be doubtful rather than certainly invalid ... based on the possibility that there was a legitimate conditional consecration afterward.” This is nothing more than a negative doubt (which is to be despised (https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained)).
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 10:21:52 AM
I still have three issues:

1. The “I read it somewhere” line is devoid of any context or setting. Was it read accurately or fully understood? Was it just a theological opinion (even a minority one) or explicitly declared by the Church?

2. What is the logical conclusion of this? The Last Rites from an Anglican vicar? Yes, Leo XIII declared their orders invalid, but that was before they sort ordinations from the ‘Old Catholics’.

3. “I hold them to be doubtful rather than certainly invalid ... based on the possibility that there was a legitimate conditional consecration afterward.” This is nothing more than a negative doubt (which is to be despised (https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained)).

I'll try to find sources.  They have been cited here before.

No, this is not negative doubt.  It's POSTIIVE doubt, since there are concrete reasons for the doubt, i.e. the botched consecration attempt ... captured on video.  Negative doubt resolves in the practical order to moral certainty with regard to the Sacraments, whereas positive doubt does not and is distinct from certainty.  You make a gratuitous assertion regarding the nature of the doubt, implying that if one is not certain that they are invalid, then that's the same as negative doubt.  It is not.  Similarly, I am not certain that the NOM is invalid under all circumstances, but I do hold that there's positive doubt due to the concrete, specific, and credible arguments made against it.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kirsten on October 21, 2020, 10:57:17 AM
I'll try to find sources.  They have been cited here before.

No, this is not negative doubt.  It's POSTIIVE doubt, since there are concrete reasons for the doubt, i.e. the botched consecration attempt ... captured on video.  Negative doubt resolves in the practical order to moral certainty with regard to the Sacraments, whereas positive doubt does not and is distinct from certainty.  You make a gratuitous assertion regarding the nature of the doubt, implying that if one is not certain that they are invalid, then that's the same as negative doubt.  It is not.  Similarly, I am not certain that the NOM is invalid under all circumstances, but I do hold that there's positive doubt due to the concrete, specific, and credible arguments made against it.

Yes it is negative doubt. You may have positive doubt regarding the ‘botched’ consecration, but you want to extend this to the conditional consecration too. Following this line one could extend this “positive doubt” to any subsequent consecrations by Bishop Webster (or, indeed, antecedent ones).


Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on October 21, 2020, 11:19:19 AM

Same applies when a person ostensibly seeks baptism into the Catholic Church, but he dies before he receives the necessary baptism of water and Spirit. "Desire" alone doesn't constitute a baptism. God knows the hearts of all men, and if a person sincerely seeks baptism into the Church, God will send him a valid priest for baptism even if he lives in the most obscure location and difficult environment.

Yep!  Even if he was a poor, lonely jew drowning in the ocean.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Incredulous on October 21, 2020, 11:24:28 AM
I think that if you find yourself with only a "bishop" Pfeiffer priest available at your death, then your salvation is already in serious doubt -- it would suggest that God has begun punishing you and signaling that you weren't a very good guy.

Divine Providence includes justice.


There’s an old story about Voltaire, who spent most of his life attacking the Catholic Church.

As he was dying he requested a priest, but his disciples wouldn’t allow it.  

They moved him to the countryside where he died a horrorful death, without the Sacraments.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 12:56:45 PM
Yes it is negative doubt. You may have positive doubt regarding the ‘botched’ consecration, but you want to extend this to the conditional consecration too. Following this line one could extend this “positive doubt” to any subsequent consecrations by Bishop Webster (or, indeed, antecedent ones).

It easily extends to the conditional.  Father Pfeiffer went on and on about how the first one was valid, which immєdιαtely makes his judgment on the issue questionable.  So if all we have to go on is his personal assertion that the second one was valid, he no longer has credibility.  We actually have no proof that the second one even took place as alleged.  Father Pfeiffer has lost credibility as a witness due to his behavior over the years, including his persistence that this Ambrose character was a valid bishop despite all the evidence to the contrary that was put to him.  He's shown that he simply wants to believe everything is valid because he wanted to become a bishop.  That is plenty concrete.  It's not in the realm of "what if [any given unknown] priest at the altar botched the words of consecration."  All it takes to render doubt positive is a rational credible POSITIVE reason (something you can point to) rather than a "what if?".  This is well beyond the realm of what if.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 12:59:37 PM
Yes it is negative doubt. You may have positive doubt regarding the ‘botched’ consecration, but you want to extend this to the conditional consecration too. Following this line one could extend this “positive doubt” to any subsequent consecrations by Bishop Webster (or, indeed, antecedent ones).

Oh, and BTW, yes, I think there's reason to doubt any Sacraments confected by Bishop Webster based on how badly confused he was by the Latin.  This wasn't just a one-off slip of the tongue here, like a priest who normally gets it right might slur his words on one occasion, but it clearly manifests confusion and lack of understanding of the Latin.  That does in fact render the Sacraments confected by Bishop Webster positively doubtful.  What we saw concretely on the video demonstrates confusion and lack of comprehension, and there's no reason to believe that it was a one off (like he was just tired that day).
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on October 21, 2020, 01:10:15 PM
It easily extends to the conditional.  Father Pfeiffer went on and on about how the first one was valid, which immєdιαtely makes his judgment on the issue questionable.  So if all we have to go on is his personal assertion that the second one was valid, he no longer has credibility.  We actually have no proof that the second one even took place as alleged.  Father Pfeiffer has lost credibility as a witness due to his behavior over the years, including his persistence that this Ambrose character was a valid bishop despite all the evidence to the contrary that was put to him.  He's shown that he simply wants to believe everything is valid because he wanted to become a bishop.  That is plenty concrete.  It's not in the realm of "what if [any given unknown] priest at the altar botched the words of consecration."  All it takes to render doubt positive is a rational credible POSITIVE reason (something you can point to) rather than a "what if?".  This is well beyond the realm of what if.
When has anyone needed "proof" a consecration took place? The fact that the priesthood is intact through Thuc, and that Aquinas addresses the fumbling of the words Bishop Webster butchered,  the burden of proof remains on those who express doubt about the consecration who have nothing except their doubt about Pfeiffer's person, which as far as I can see, is insufficient to negate the orders. Canon law even favors Pfeiffer's mind as to whether or not there was necessity to consecrate another bishop.  
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kirsten on October 21, 2020, 01:28:11 PM
It easily extends to the conditional.  Father Pfeiffer went on and on about how the first one was valid, which immєdιαtely makes his judgment on the issue questionable.  So if all we have to go on is his personal assertion that the second one was valid, he no longer has credibility.  We actually have no proof that the second one even took place as alleged.  Father Pfeiffer has lost credibility as a witness due to his behavior over the years, including his persistence that this Ambrose character was a valid bishop despite all the evidence to the contrary that was put to him.  He's shown that he simply wants to believe everything is valid because he wanted to become a bishop.  That is plenty concrete.  It's not in the realm of "what if [any given unknown] priest at the altar botched the words of consecration."  All it takes to render doubt positive is a rational credible POSITIVE reason (something you can point to) rather than a "what if?".  This is well beyond the realm of what if.

This is nothing more than an ad hominem

At the end of the day your doubt boils down to this: “he messed up the first consecration so he may well have messed up the second” - that’s a negative doubt.
 
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Stanley N on October 21, 2020, 03:07:51 PM
This is nothing more than an ad hominem.

At the end of the day your doubt boils down to this: “he messed up the first consecration so he may well have messed up the second” - that’s a negative doubt.


No, I agree with Lad that's a positive doubt- a doubt based on a reason. Doubting a sacrament because "something might have been done wrong but I have no particular reason to believe anything specific was done wrong" is a negative doubt. Here, there are specific reasons to doubt, including the minister's facility with Latin as demonstrated that day or the day before.

Now, a positive doubt is not necessarily a valid doubt just because it is based on some reasons. Contrary reasons or evidence are also considered. For example, omission of words ("mystery of faith") may be a reason for a positive doubt about the NO consecration, but it's not necessarily a valid reason for positive doubt when its role in the form is considered.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Kirsten on October 21, 2020, 04:15:08 PM
No, I agree with Lad that's a positive doubt- a doubt based on a reason. Doubting a sacrament because "something might have been done wrong but I have no particular reason to believe anything specific was done wrong" is a negative doubt. Here, there are specific reasons to doubt, including the minister's facility with Latin as demonstrated that day or the day before.

Now, a positive doubt is not necessarily a valid doubt just because it is based on some reasons. Contrary reasons or evidence are also considered. For example, omission of words ("mystery of faith") may be a reason for a positive doubt about the NO consecration, but it's not necessarily a valid reason for positive doubt when its role in the form is considered.
No, it’s a negative doubt, but there’s an attempt here to puff it up and turn it into something it is not.

Ladislaus said: “there are concrete reasons for the doubt, i.e. the botched consecration attempt ... captured on video.
But this concerns the first attempt, to use this as an argument to doubt the second attempt is a negative doubt.

Ladislaus said: “Pfeiffer’s credibility has been shot, so I for one can’t simply take his word for it that it was done and was done correctly.” To essentially call Bishop Pfeiffer a liar and then use this to doubt the second attempt is a negative doubt.

Ladislaus said: “it is possible that Bishop Webster got it close enough to be valid on the second try.
How could he even get “close” when it is also claimed:
This wasn't just a one-off slip of the tongue here, like a priest who normally gets it right might slur his words on one occasion, but it clearly manifests confusion and lack of understanding of the Latin.
So, now, because of the challenge, the goal posts get moved. This is a negative doubt.

Ladislaus said: “We actually have no proof that the second one even took place as alleged.
Why, because it can’t be viewed on YouTube? What about Bishop Williamson’s consecration of Bishop Aquinas? But there are witnesses in both cases, it’s just that the Kentucky ones cannot be trusted. This is a negative doubt.

And let’s not forget the rationale that second time around everyone would have been listening attentively to ensure the formula was pronounced correctly (the argument that the Kentucky seminarians are lackadaisical and can’t be trusted is also a negative doubt).
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: IllyricumSacrum on October 21, 2020, 09:35:14 PM
It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:

I'm not one who holds the Thuc line to be doubtful, but Bishop Webster's line has some issues due to one Jean Laborie.

Bishop Webster was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Slupski (I don't believe there are any doubts about his line).

But he had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Timothy Henneberry.

Henneberry, in turn, had been ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Carmona (no issue for me) and was consecrated a bishop by a Bishop Terrasson.

Terrasson had been consecrated by Clemente Dominguez Gomez (of Palmar fame).  Apart from the fact that Gomez had no training and could easily have botched the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, this was likely valid ...

except, and here's the problem

Terrasson had been ordained a priest by in 1974 by Jean Laborie.

But in 1977 Bishop Thuc CONDITIONALLY consecrated Laborie.  There's no record of who ordained Laborie, but his pre-1977 consecrationS (plural) went as follows ...

[Laborie] had already been consecrated a bishop on 10/02/1966 at xxxxx by Jean Pierre Danyel, a bishop of the Sainte Église Celtique. Later he was consecrated sub conditione a bishop on 08/20/1968 at xxxxx by Louis Jean Stanislaus Canivet, a bishop known as "Patriarch Aloysius Basilius III" of the Patriarchate Orthodoxe de l'Europe Latine.

So his status in 1974 when he ordained Terrasson to the priesthood was one of clear positive doubt.  So much so, that in 1977, Bishop Thuc consecrated Laborie conditionally.

NOW ... there's an allegation that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained at some point before his consecration by Clemente.  But I've seen no proof for this whatsover.  It is not even so much as listed on the Boyle site.

So unless there's documentation/proof that Terrasson had been conditionally ordained before his consecration, the whole line is in doubt.

Consequently, we have to hold there to be positive doubt regarding the validity of Bishop Pfeiffer.
Bishop Webster was conditionally ordained by Bishop Slupski the day before his consecration, fyi.
Title: Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on October 21, 2020, 11:09:37 PM

Quote
I'll try to find sources.  They have been cited here before.

No, this is not negative doubt.  It's POSTIIVE doubt, since there are concrete reasons for the doubt, i.e. the botched consecration attempt ... captured on video.  Negative doubt resolves in the practical order to moral certainty with regard to the Sacraments, whereas positive doubt does not and is distinct from certainty.  You make a gratuitous assertion regarding the nature of the doubt, implying that if one is not certain that they are invalid, then that's the same as negative doubt.  It is not.  Similarly, I am not certain that the NOM is invalid under all circumstances, but I do hold that there's positive doubt due to the concrete, specific, and credible arguments made against it.

Good points, Lad.

We have ourselves a Pfeifferite apologist here (Kirsten) so everyone beware -- take "her" posts with a huge grain of salt, or more like a salt lick.

And for that matter, don't get any plaques, statues, or other physical objects made that speak about the CathInfo member "Kirsten". I have a feeling this member will be short-lived on the forum.