Based one what I heard, I seriously doubt that this consecration was valid.  Someone correct me if they think they can make out anything resembling the actual form.

He misses ministerii and replaces it with mysterii,

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

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

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


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

Leaving the SSPX to go with Fr. Pfeiffer is a classic example of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. And I'm not complimenting the SSPX either -- they are completely losing it. But it's a testament to *how bad* Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer's operation is.

He struggles with the entire preface beginning at about 54:45 minutes in.

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

Then he really strumbles through the preface.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that would seem to be a problem.

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 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.

So far I listened to the first half of the video and watched much of it. As one who is unlearned, from listening to the way they spoke, it seemed like the ministers involved in the ceremony did not know enough Latin to really understand what they were saying.

Wait until a bunch of "seminarians" are ordained by Bishop Joseph "da mihi shpudibus" Pfeiffer. Just remember "nemo dat quod non habet" -- no one gives what he doesn't have. That means the priests formed at his "seminary" will lack:
- discipline
- organization
- formal training
- humility
- common sense
- Catholic sense

The Trad world already suffers from a faction with poorly-trained priests and bishops who have no business being bishops.

This just made everything much worse.

Nothing wrong with more bishops.

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.