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.This.
There has been no verificationIt does appear that the photo may have been photoshopped. But I don't know how this can be verified.
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.
It certainly doesn't look photoshopped.
..
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.
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
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.
It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite.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.
.
C) double-down on the insanity, turn up the crazy to 11, do something drastic.
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.
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..
.I don't believe Webster is a sedevacantist.
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.
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.“
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, 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 ...
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 docuмents 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.
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.
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.
Getting consecrated during a Crisis in the Church is not cause for criticism. SEEKING the episcopacy ...
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.
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:
Sean beat me to it, he wrote the post above mine as I was writing this below:This.
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!"
Are you a Pope Michael follower, Matto?
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.
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.
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?
I didn't watch. Could you tell me roughly at what minute mark it occurs?
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.
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)
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.
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 fraudulent 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.
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.Yeah, that would seem to be a problem.
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.
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.
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.
So putting it altogether, here's what he said:These are very different. Where might he have gotten the additional words?
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.
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.
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:
The Trad world already suffers from a faction with poorly-trained priests and bishops who have no business being bishops.Nothing wrong with more bishops.
This just made everything much worse.
Ad multos annos Episcope Pfeiffere!Fr. Pfeiffer told me, on more than one occasion, he did not believe the Thuc line to be either valid or legitimate.
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.
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.
Nothing wrong with more bishops.
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.
And put Bp. W at the top of that list, since he stood aloof from responsibility for the "Resistance" from the start.
Was he reading the latin prayer? Maybe his pronunciation is just bad?
These are very different. Where might he have gotten the additional words?
I talked with "Bp" Webster on the phone a few years ago.He certainly looked feeble at the processional. Didn't it appear to you that he was needing to be supported as he walked?
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.
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.
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.
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 circuмstance 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.
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)
"SaintJude",Definitely this!
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 circuмvent 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.
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:The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.
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 circuмstance 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.Agreed.
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.
The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.There is no doubt:
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.
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.
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.Me too.
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.
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,
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."so as to change their essential meaning"
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.
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.
I’ve been asked to come on here to correct a few errors currently circulating regarding the consecration of Bp. Pfeiffer.Who asked you and why is your opinion important? What are your credentials?
1. To say that Bp. Pfeiffer went looking for himself to be consecrated is calumny.
Because he knows what he has done is not only hypocritical but also wrong. It goes against everything he has ever said and taught.
He does not look happy.
There is no doubt:In Fr. Pfeiffers mind there was doubt.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna)
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.What matters more is what Fr. Pfeiffer thinks of the Thuc 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.
This is what came to my mind. Get out your Douay Rheims. Read 1 Kings 13.
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 h0Ɩ0cαųst. [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."
"so as to change their essential meaning"
Even if the bishop spoke the words inaccurately, it seems this would have to be proven.
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?
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.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.
This could be remedied quite easily, since Bishop Webster would merely have to do it again conditionally.
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:
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/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html
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.
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..."
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:
What? If both are in need of conditional consecration don't they need a valid bishop to consecrate one of them first? :facepalm:
Bishop Sanborn and Fr Desposito have viewed the consecration video and they both agree that it was invalid.:popcorn:
See https://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1289246165439885312
Bishop Sanborn and Fr Desposito have viewed the consecration video and they both agree that it was invalid.
See https://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1289246165439885312
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Would Bp. Webster's mangling of the essential words in this instance be sufficient for positive doubt about other ordinations he's performed?
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
.
If you are going to withhold intention, why go through the charade of pretending to consecrate???
To receive the dollars?::)
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.
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.By the same logic, I guess we must question all of his baptisms too. :facepalm:
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:
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.The priest is only a witness to the sacrament of marriage. He does not confect the sacrament.
To withhold intention is an evil act.
There are some people who are comfortable dealing with a guy known to have faked consecrations, and there are some people who aren’t.Where’s the proof Sean? You keep avoiding this.
I’m in the latter camp.
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.
Hearsay is not proof. Show the proof or retract.No need; his supporters consent to the claim that he withheld intention at Palmar.
Sean you’re better than that. That is completely disingenuous.
I completely misjudged your character. Mea culpa.Apology accepted.
Sede-craziness.
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.
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.Seriously Sean, swallow your pride and admit you are wrong. I know you can, you’ve done it in the past.
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.Desperate attempts to salvage the sede enterprise, devoid of argument, are frivolous.
Thuc admitted he faked the Palmarian consecrations; it was discussed earlier in the thread. If you can disprove it, I would not be disappointed.
Sede-craziness.
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
Come on, Sean. You're degenerating this into ad hominems. There's no need for this.
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.
...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.
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)
Pfeiffer certainly hasn’t wasted any time getting down to business!Pure insanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNz-Rr3YKlA)
...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 these episcopal orders derive.
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?
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.
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 immediately 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.
Now he is a "bishop" from the line of this "pope"?
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.
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.
Now he is a "bishop" from the line of this "pope"?I can't believe I am going to say this, but you are right on target, Croixalist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Address | 98.29.48.65 |
| Country | United States of America (https://www.geolocation.com/assets/img/flags/us.png) |
| Region | Ohio |
| City | Springboro |
| ZIP or Postal Code | 45066 |
| Latitude | 39.55228 |
| Longitude | -84.23327 |
| ISP | Charter Communications Inc |
| Domain Name | spectrum.com [WHOIS] (https://www.ip2whois.com/domain/spectrum.com) [Check Mail Server] (https://www.mailboxvalidator.com/domain/spectrum.com) |
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?
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.
From the mailbag:
From: Archbishop Ambrose <ambrosemet@gmail.com>
Subject: "Bishop " Joseph PfeifferWe 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[/pre]
IP Address 98.29.48.65 Country United States of America (https://www.geolocation.com/assets/img/flags/us.png) Region Ohio City Springboro ZIP or Postal Code 45066 Latitude 39.55228 Longitude -84.23327 ISP Charter Communications Inc Domain Name spectrum.com [WHOIS] (https://www.ip2whois.com/domain/spectrum.com) [Check Mail Server] (https://www.mailboxvalidator.com/domain/spectrum.com)
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.
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..
He's a fake Arch-bishop, and perhaps thinks that gives him some power over fake just-bishops.:laugh1:
OK, so I just now had a chance to listen to his sermon.Here, here.
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 immediately 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.
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.
I can't believe I am agreeing with you, again.
The conditional consecration was videotaped.
OLMC needs to release it to end the question of the validity of the consecration.
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:
The conditional consecration was videotaped.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.
OLMC needs to release it to end the question of the validity of the consecration.
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?
Then, what is this I hear about Webster's ordination being in question?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.
Does the consecration supersede the ordination?
“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.
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)).
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.
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.
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.Case closed.
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 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?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.
Case torn up and burned.
Case opened. (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11228b.htm)
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.There is one!
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 Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Desmond_Rebellion) 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]
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.
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.
This is all completely false.Already debunked by Ladislaus, and everyone else who heard the botched form.
[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.
OK, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's unlikely.Either of you could be right.
Is it not more likely Jude is a Pfeiffer follower, or Pfeiffer himself?
OK, I suppose that's possible, but I think it's unlikely.No. But that's definitely what he wanted you to think.
Is it not more likely Jude is a Pfeiffer follower, or Pfeiffer himself?
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.Aren't they all a bit like pablo now?
It's probably Pablo. No one could shill like that for Pfeiffer without demonic inspiration.
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.
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.
(http://α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єω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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)
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.
.Exactly. OLMC is their own worst enemy. One scandal after another. How many souls will lose their Faith due to the actions of Boston?
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.
Well, let's just say this: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.
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.Good point.
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.
I sure wish the 4 bishops would speak up regarding this mess.This is imperative surely!
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.
Can. 1044 §1. The following are irregular for the exercise of orders received:I called Pfeiffer on the phone and he seems to have had a double standard with Webster where he regarded him as Catholic
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 CatholicOf course he did.
Of course he did.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.
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.I suspect it is more from PTM than just encouragement
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.
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.(https://api.curtisbrown.co.uk/media/35173/show/square)
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 Nukes. 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.
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.You must have never seen the low mass of Fr. Asher. 20 min. I kid you not.
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.
I have been told that:Very interesting.
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?
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.
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....
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 mediate 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.Sure, but a 20 min mass CANNOT be said reverently, nor can the laity participate at all.
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.
You must have never seen the low mass of Fr. Asher. 20 min. I kid you not.
.
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.
So a balance must be found between length and reverence. If I'm a priest, I can't just go off and decide to mediate 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.
Fr/Bp. Pfeiffer does what he wants and always has an excuse for his actions.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.
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.
And recall that +ABL made poignant mention that Novus ordo priests had lost their way and didn’t know their spiritual function anymore?You are right.
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.
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.
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.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.
Maybe they have more in common. Maybe Fr. McFarland's parents are NO still, as are Fr. Asher's.Also, please send us the reference in which Fr. Ripperger mentions about grunting being one of the signs of possession.
.
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.I second that request.
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..
I won't listen to his sermons anymore. I am certain of obsession and possibly possession.
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.
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.
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.
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 media as a common symptom of TS.
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?
His mother said it started in seminary but has gotten progressively worse the last decade or so.Thanks. That is interesting.
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.
I get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?Fr. Ripperger is a trained exorcist, and I don't think anyone has said fr. Pfeiffer has had this problem since his youth...
Isn't it strange that someone would jump to diagnose possession based on verbal tics he has supposedly had since youth?
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.I never noticed fr. Hewko's throat clearing.
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 get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?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.
Isn't it strange that someone would jump to diagnose possession based on verbal tics he has supposedly had since youth?
I get the impression people believe the opinion attributed to Fr. Ripperger. Why?That’s a good point.
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."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.
...
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.
Silence is a form of consentThis is very true.
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 circuмstances have certainly been demonically inspired. That should be enough to stay away.Absolutely agree.
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.
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.Stanely,
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.
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.
...
This is very true.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.
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?
The “grunting” during his Masses is just one of many symptoms.:laugh1:
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.
So, has anyone yet seen the video of his conditional consecration?You got it.
At this point it either --
1) doesn't exist
or
2) shows that it was botched also the second time around
So, has anyone yet seen the video of his conditional consecration?I haven't seen it, but one of his "seminarians" told me it exists and that they will not release it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just a thought... but maybe the Holy Ghost was at work here?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.
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.
Just a thought... but maybe the Holy Ghost was at work here?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.
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 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?Someone getting ordained with the sacrilegious intent to offer black masses would, I think, be ordained.
You would have to ask:
How could he, when his loyalty is split between the Catholic Church and a warlock?
Good points!I think you are wrong here.
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.This much is true.
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.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.
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: 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.
It isn't received, at all. No mark received either. The desire is a necessary condition, like Our Lord said.
But I would certainly not go to confession to a Pfeiffer-ordained priest until he were to release a satisfactory conditional confirmation video.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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.
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..
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.
Highly controversial, as will be rendered clear after just thirty seconds of looking at the sources posted.
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..
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..
So would my husband's Confirmation be valid? Licit?.
.Yes, and thank you. I am weighing all information submitted.
If you're asking me
ETA: my wife was in this exact same situation (confirmed by a TLM indult priest), and we sought a conditional confirmation.
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.
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);
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.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.
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”
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.Oh yes, the Cardinal priests... all two* of them.
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)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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" ??
You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?Serious doubt? Because the bishop flubbed the words of the form? Thomas Aquinas says otherwise.
Just as an aside.
You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?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.
Just as an aside.
Incredulous
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:
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:
It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:But the flubbing of the words, the form, made it doubly doubtful. Even the NO recognizes this:
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 docuмentation/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.
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.
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!
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.
.....but I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest unless I had no other option in danger of death.
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.
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.
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.
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??????
U R. A priest cannot ordain another priest. Only a bishop can ordain a priest.But this, from Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
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.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.
Photographic evidence shows he still sports both. Just wondering.
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)?
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:Thank you for the link. I’m assuming the relevant part is this:
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm)
Here are the principles:
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm)
That's not the question she's asking.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 circuмstances, 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 circuмstances, 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.
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.
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 circuмstances, but I do hold that there's positive doubt due to the concrete, specific, and credible arguments made against it.
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.
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.
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).
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 immediately 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.
It easily extends to the conditional. Father Pfeiffer went on and on about how the first one was valid, which immediately 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.
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.No, it’s a negative doubt, but there’s an attempt here to puff it up and turn it into something it is not.
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.
It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:Bishop Webster was conditionally ordained by Bishop Slupski the day before his consecration, fyi.
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 docuмentation/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.
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 circuмstances, but I do hold that there's positive doubt due to the concrete, specific, and credible arguments made against it.
What other title would be appropriate?His Beatitude, the Metropolitan Catholicos of Bourbon Country, maybe?