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. 

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.  

What I don't see is people disagreeing with the hypothesis. Silence is a form of consent, giving the impression that most people agree with the hypothesis.

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

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

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

Stanely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that Fr. Pfeiffer claims to be a Bishop, they will attempt to ordain priests and expand their $business.

This is very true.
With deafening silence from +Williamson, +Zendejas, +Thomas Aquinas and +Faure regarding the "consecration" if Fr. Pfeiffer, are we to extrapolate that they approve?

I said "silence is a form of consent" in the context of this thread where someone stated a hypothesis and I didn't see any objections from the participants after a couple days.

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

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

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

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

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

Etc... etc.

In all seriousness, you are exactly right.

So, has anyone yet seen the video of his conditional consecration?

At this point it either --

1) doesn't exist

or

2) shows that it was botched also the second time around

You got it.
At this point, "bishop" Pfeiffer is to be considered invalid until proven otherwise.
The quotes should remain around his new title until then.

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 am no Latinist, but even for me the Latin  of the consecration seemed poorly enunciated and pronounced. If the words are misheard and unclear, not understood by the speaker or hearers, there seems an issue of validity.

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

Right now we have only +?Pfeiffer's word for it that the second one was good, but the same +?Pfeiffer continues to claim that the FIRST one was good.  But several well-educated priests (+Sanborn and Chazal) have concluded that it was not.  And of course, +Sanborn has no issues with the validity of the +Thuc line.  So +?Pfeiffer ironically has discredit himself from being taken seriously with regard to the second attempt by his claims regarding the first.