Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer  (Read 30864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tradman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1247
  • Reputation: +786/-271
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #390 on: October 01, 2020, 12:34:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?

    Just as an aside.
    Serious doubt? Because the bishop flubbed the words of the form?  Thomas Aquinas says otherwise.  
    Tertia pars question 60 art 7
    Reply to Objection 3. If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words—does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say "patrias et filias." For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same.


    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1002
    • Reputation: +567/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #391 on: October 01, 2020, 09:15:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You all DO remember there is serious doubt regarding "Bp." Pfeiffer's consecration, right?

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


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #392 on: October 02, 2020, 05:38:02 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0




  • 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:
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1002
    • Reputation: +567/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #393 on: October 02, 2020, 08:57:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0



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

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

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

    :incense:
    Incredulous
    Now that you have brought in a valid warlock, and you should know having experienced Pfeifferville, I have to defer to your viewpoint. A decade ago in Pfeifferistan things did not smell right to me. Yes, the occult and Christianity cannot mix. Our Lord has said so Himself.
    Kindest regards
    N

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2133
    • Reputation: +1330/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #394 on: October 02, 2020, 09:07:24 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Serious doubt? Because the bishop flubbed the words of the form?  Thomas Aquinas says otherwise.  
    It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

    except, and here's the problem

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

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

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

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

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

    So unless there's 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.


    Online Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2941
    • Reputation: +2054/-184
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #395 on: October 02, 2020, 03:39:38 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  

    Offline Venantius0518

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 277
    • Reputation: +62/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #396 on: October 06, 2020, 01:37:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It was more than just the words that caused the doubt, here is what Ladislaus reported on page 3 of this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

    except, and here's the problem

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

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

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

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

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

    So unless there's 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.
    But the flubbing of the words, the form, made it doubly doubtful.  Even the NO recognizes this:
    https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/signs-times/vatican-causes-chaos-invalidating-baptism-formula

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31196
    • Reputation: +27113/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #397 on: October 06, 2020, 02:09:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The so-called “episcopacy” of Fr. Pfeiffer is, for me, the cherry on top of the poisonous dessert.  I wrote the whole operation off in 2015 after a scary encounter with the resident warlock.  Let’s just say I caught him “red-hoofed” in three instances of devilish behavior.  When I presented the obvious proof to Fr. Pfeiffer, I was dismissed as a tinfoil hat wearer and a Judas.  


    This.

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

    His consecration should be considered doubtful at this time.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1002
    • Reputation: +567/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #398 on: October 17, 2020, 05:44:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41899
    • Reputation: +23942/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #399 on: October 17, 2020, 07:48:30 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31196
    • Reputation: +27113/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #400 on: October 17, 2020, 11:50:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, the consecration that appeared on video was clearly doubtful.  Bishop Sanborn, who obviously has no issue with Thuc-line validity, simply called it straight out invalid.  Bishop Webster corrupted the root of one of the three CORE words in the essential form.  St. Thomas says that an altered root would render it invalid.  Now, there’s the rumor of a subsequent conditional consecration, but no proof of this has been offered.  +?Pfeiffer’s credibility has been shot, so I for one can’t simply take his word for it that it was done and was done correctly. Also, some people doubt the validity of the Thuc line in general.  I do not, but some lines are dubious and cause concern, like the Terrasson line.  Now someone produced an ordination certificate for this but its provenance is not entirely clear.  I do not generally doubt the Thuc line, but I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest unless I had no other option in danger of death.  But then I’m sure I’d be refused over Feeneyism ... even though it was OK to RECEIVE consecration from a Feeneyite.  Then you add all the other nonsense at Boston, including the diabolical activity surrounding Pablo ... and that puts Boston squarely in red-light territory.

    This is the best answer. Saved me having to type all this out...lol
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline RevolveBooks

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +70/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #401 on: October 17, 2020, 12:37:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • If Pfeiffer is a true bishop then must he cease to wear the white cassock and shave his whiskers because he is no longer a missionary priest of Asia but a bishop of Kentucky? And certainly needs to stop saying that +Fellay is his superior.

    Photographic evidence shows he still sports both.  Just wondering.

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #402 on: October 17, 2020, 06:44:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    .....but I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest unless I had no other option in danger of death.  


    I do not understand this.  If one 'ordained' by Fr. Pfeiffer he is not a priest how can he administer the Sacraments?  Fr. Pfeiffer himself is a different matter because he is a priest, but nobody that he ordains(?)  I must be missing something.
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Online Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2941
    • Reputation: +2054/-184
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #403 on: October 17, 2020, 08:42:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

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

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
    « Reply #404 on: October 17, 2020, 09:30:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Fr. Pfeiffer IS a priest, having been ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre.  There is no doubt that Fr. Joe can carry out all normal priestly duties including give Sacraments to the faithful.  The problem is that if he not really a bishop, (by virtue of incorrect form and highly dubious succession of the “bishop” who consecrated him), then any man whom “Bp.” Pfeiffer presumes to ordain is NOT a priest.
    Emphasis above is mine.

    This is why I asked the qestion.   How can Ladislaus say that he would receive the sacraments from a 'priest' ordained by 'Bp.' Pfeiffer?  Does not make sense especially when Ladislaus has gone to so much trouble  to show that Fr. Pfeiffer is no Bishop??????
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."