I am surprised that Fr. Pfeiffer would resort to Webster's services, since he (Pfeiffer) is militantly anti-Feeneyite (though for perspective, there is nothing that Pfeiffer is against that he isn't militantly against), and the only reason people know Webster's name is that he's the only traditional bishop on record who denies baptism of desire.

Well, I'm not surprised.  I suspect that Father Pfeiffer would have accepted consecration from Pope Michael if it came down to it.  He was just desperate to be consecrated a bishop.

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 found this Fr. Pfeiffer Mass video from the 8th Sunday after Pentecost (ie., 4 days ago), and if you go to the sermon at the 20 minute mark, you can see he is wearing no ring (or any other episcopal vestments).

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

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.

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

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

I think it would be.  Reason that they bishops are damned is because they then assume responsibility for the souls of those under his care.  But the Traditional Catholic bishops have no such authority (due to lack of jurisdiction).  Mostly they're just acting as Sacrament-machines.  There might be some issues if he were to ordain some unfitting men to the priesthood.

Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, though the orders were more regular. In Pfeiffer's mind, if he is genuine and not a scoundrel grifter, the faith was reduced to a small number and they needed a bishop. Even the Pope, Michael, was willing to reach out to the schismatics for valid orders when in need of consecration.

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

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

Are you a Pope Michael follower, Matto?

Although this is amusing, Perhaps we should not condemn Bishop Pfeiffer for this action unless we are willing to condemn Bishop Zendejas because he was consecrated in a similar need, though the orders were more regular. In Pfeiffer's mind, if he is genuine and not a scoundrel grifter, the faith was reduced to a small number and they needed a bishop. Even the Pope, Michael, was willing to reach out to the schismatics for valid orders when in need of consecration.

Whoa there...

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

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

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

The process is reversed:

In the former cases, it is the Church calling men to the episcopacy, while in the latter, it is a priest trying to find and convince a bishop(?) to consecrate him.

Bishop Pfeiffer Consecration Video:




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


The original has been taken down by Pablo (or made Private, which amounts to the same thing):