Author Topic: Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko Requiem (Read 2823 times)

Matto · « **on:** January 26, 2017, 07:58:47 PM »

A real Requiem Mass from Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko. I love the Requiem Mass.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/YdRNNGGRuYI[/youtube]

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2017, 09:05:25 PM »

I love my mother. She would have loved to see this Mass in person, but I suppose that would defeat the purpose ...

“It is a curious thing, the death of a loved one. We all know that our time in this world is limited, and that eventually all of us will end up underneath some sheet, never to wake up. And yet it is always a surprise when it happens to someone we know. It is like walking up the stairs to your bedroom in the dark, and thinking there is one more stair than there is. Your foot falls down, through the air, and there is a sickly moment of dark surprise as you try and readjust the way you thought of things.” - Lemony Snicket

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2017, 12:16:01 PM »

I just finished watching. It was beautiful, but I have a question. Who is the black priest (or is he a deacon?) with Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko ? I have never seen him before.

Montfort · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2017, 04:33:09 PM »

I'm pretty sure he's one of their seminarians. Maybe Martin can confirm that. He was in the position of sub deacon. However, not being ordained to the sub diaconate he was what's called a "straw sub deacon." When a situation occurs when there's not enough clergy to fill those rolls, any cleric can fill in for that position. I think the sub diaconate is the highest position you can do that with. I'm pretty sure that is the case here but maybe perhaps one with more knowledge on the liturgy can confirm or dismiss what I've said.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2017, 05:25:50 PM »

Quote from: Montfort

I'm pretty sure he's one of their seminarians. Maybe Martin can confirm that. He was in the position of sub deacon. However, not being ordained to the sub diaconate he was what's called a "straw sub deacon." When a situation occurs when there's not enough clergy to fill those rolls, any cleric can fill in for that position. I think the sub diaconate is the highest position you can do that with. I'm pretty sure that is the case here but maybe perhaps one with more knowledge on the liturgy can confirm or dismiss what I've said.

You're right about the "straw subdeacon".

However, the black seminarian isn't even a cleric -- who would have conferred the tonsure (which is how clerics are made)?

Speaking of seminary jargon, we had another slang term at the Winona seminary -- a "coat hanger". That was a First Year seminarian. Why call them coat hangers? Because A) they got to wear the cassock full time, but B) they didn't have any "right" to wear the cassock -- just like a coat hanger. On Feb 2nd of their 2nd year, when they became clerics, THEN they gained the right to wear clerical attire (including the cassock).

As far as I know, every "seminarian" at the Boston "seminary" is a glorified coat hanger. They can dress up like priests like people dress up as Saints for halloween. But they have no more "right" to wear the cassock than I do, because they haven't been tonsured.

God bless the Boston fathers for saying a funeral Mass for the dear Faithful departed (maybe God will grant them the grace of conversion for their good deed!), but let's not forget what a disaster the Boston, KY "seminary" is. Fr. Pfeiffer -- and yes, even the beloved Fr. Hewko -- are waging WW3 against Bishop Williamson and the other 2 Resistance bishops. They call them "fake Resistance" and slander them unceasingly. They also attack countless confreres in the Resistance, and the only TRUE reason they do so is because the priests in question won't submit to the authority (papacy?) of Fr. Pfeiffer.

That is why, despite the handful of good deeds they do, I must end by dismissing Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko and their operation. They are agents of division and sectarianism. For the past couple years, the good they do has been surpassed by the evils they do.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2017, 09:59:53 PM »

Quote from: Montfort (Jan 27, 2017, 5:33 pm)

When a situation occurs when there's not enough clergy to fill those rolls, any cleric can fill in for that position. I think the sub diaconate is the highest position you can do that with. I'm pretty sure that is the case here [....].

Context suggests that what you intended to write was that the subdiaconate is the lowest position you can do that with. Without possessing at least the order of subdeacon, a person is not allowed to touch the chalice or paten

--or so I infer from the article I cite
.  Otherwise, the early-teen traditional altar boy, functioning as acolyte, would be allowed to fill such roles, wouldn't he?

Quote from: Matthew (Jan 27, 2017, 6:25 pm)
[...] who would have conferred the tonsure (which is how clerics are made)?

Who, indeed!?  The subdiaconate (a.k.a. subdeaconship) is the lowest of the major orders. It not only requires possession of the preceding minor orders, but also, as already alluded to, requires a bishop to confer this order. It's also the order for which the vow of celibacy is required, and recitation of the Divine Office must begin.

-------
Note *: William Fanning 1912: "Subdeacon".  The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14320a.htm>.

Note #: Never mind the allegedly "extraõrdinary" lay "minister" innovations of the Novus Ordo.

ilpadrino · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2017, 07:54:25 AM »

Regarding the Nigerian seminarian, you are incorrect. He was a seminarian in Holy Cross and was tonsured there.

While I affirm that the CLERIC (not just seminarian) has a RIGHT to wear the cassock always, don't forget that this was the practice of the SSPX under Archbishop Lefebvre. For them, the cassock is a quasi-habit, so it gets it's own occasion.

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Montfort
I'm pretty sure he's one of their seminarians. Maybe Martin can confirm that. He was in the position of sub deacon. However, not being ordained to the sub diaconate he was what's called a "straw sub deacon." When a situation occurs when there's not enough clergy to fill those rolls, any cleric can fill in for that position. I think the sub diaconate is the highest position you can do that with. I'm pretty sure that is the case here but maybe perhaps one with more knowledge on the liturgy can confirm or dismiss what I've said.

You're right about the "straw subdeacon".

However, the black seminarian isn't even a cleric -- who would have conferred the tonsure (which is how clerics are made)?

Speaking of seminary jargon, we had another slang term at the Winona seminary -- a "coat hanger". That was a First Year seminarian. Why call them coat hangers? Because A) they got to wear the cassock full time, but B) they didn't have any "right" to wear the cassock -- just like a coat hanger. On Feb 2nd of their 2nd year, when they became clerics, THEN they gained the right to wear clerical attire (including the cassock).

As far as I know, every "seminarian" at the Boston "seminary" is a glorified coat hanger. They can dress up like priests like people dress up as Saints for halloween. But they have no more "right" to wear the cassock than I do, because they haven't been tonsured.

God bless the Boston fathers for saying a funeral Mass for the dear Faithful departed (maybe God will grant them the grace of conversion for their good deed!), but let's not forget what a disaster the Boston, KY "seminary" is. Fr. Pfeiffer -- and yes, even the beloved Fr. Hewko -- are waging WW3 against Bishop Williamson and the other 2 Resistance bishops. They call them "fake Resistance" and slander them unceasingly. They also attack countless confreres in the Resistance, and the only TRUE reason they do so is because the priests in question won't submit to the authority (papacy?) of Fr. Pfeiffer.

That is why, despite the handful of good deeds they do, I must end by dismissing Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko and their operation. They are agents of division and sectarianism. For the past couple years, the good they do has been surpassed by the evils they do.

ilpadrino · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2017, 07:57:34 AM »

[/quote]Context suggests that what you intended to write was that the subdiaconate is the lowest position you can do that with. Without possessing at least the order of subdeacon, a person is not allowed to touch the chalice or paten

--or so I infer from the article I cite
.  Otherwise, the early-teen traditional altar boy, functioning as acolyte, would be allowed to fill such roles, wouldn't he?

Actually, it's once you're tonsured as a cleric that one can touch a chalice and paten that has been consecrated. The difference in that regard is that the straw subdeacon cannot purify the chalice after the priest consumed the ablutions in a Solemn Mass.

Quote from: Matthew (Jan 27, 2017, 6:25 pm)
[...] who would have conferred the tonsure (which is how clerics are made)?

Who, indeed!?  The subdiaconate (a.k.a. subdeaconship) is the lowest of the major orders. It not only requires possession of the preceding minor orders, but also, as already alluded to, requires a bishop to confer this order. It's also the order for which the vow of celibacy is required, and recitation of the Divine Office must begin.

Correct, you need a bishop to give subdiaconate. But if you're tonsured by a bishop and are thus a cleric, you can function as a subdeacon, with a few exceptions proper to that situation.

-------
Note *: William Fanning 1912: "Subdeacon".  The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14320a.htm>.

Note #: Never mind the allegedly "extraõrdinary" lay "minister" innovations of the Novus Ordo.[/quote]

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2017, 03:09:53 PM »

Quote from: ilpadrino

Regarding the Nigerian seminarian, you are incorrect. He was a seminarian in Holy Cross and was tonsured there.

I assume you are talking about Holy Cross Seminary in Australia (http://www.holycrossseminary.com/)?

I haven't got a clear understanding of the significance of Tonsure. I know it is the ceremony that signifies entrance into the clerical state. I also know it is not a sacrament.

Quote

A sacred rite instituted by the Church by which a baptized and confirmed Christian is received into the clerical order by the shearing of his hair and the investment with the surplice. The person thus tonsured becomes a partaker of the common privileges and obligations of the clerical state and is prepared for the reception of orders. The tonsure itself is not an ordination properly so called, nor a true order. It is rather a simple ascription of a person to the Divine service in such things as are common to all clerics. Historically the tonsure was not in use in the primitive Church during the age of persecution. Even later, St. Jerome (in Ezech., xliv) disapproves of clerics shaving their heads. Indeed, among the Greeks and Romans such a custom was a badge of slavery. On this very account, the shaving of the head was adopted by the monks. Towards the end of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth, century, the custom passed over to the secular clergy.

As a sacred rite, the tonsure was originally joined to the first ordination received, as in the Greek Church it still is to the order of lector. In the Latin Church it began as a separate ceremony about the end of the seventh century, when parents offered their young sons to the service of God. Tonsure is to be given by a candidate's ordinary, though mitred abbots can bestow it on their own subjects. No special age for its reception is prescribed, but the recipient must have learnt the rudiments of the Faith and be able to read and write. The ceremony may be performed at any time or place. As to the monastic tonsure, some writers have distinguished three kinds: (1) the Roman, or that of St. Peter, when all the head is shaved except a circle, of hair; (2) the Eastern, or St. Paul's, when the entire head is denuded of hair; (3) the Celtic, or St. John's, when only a crescent of hair is shaved from the front of the head. In Britain, the Saxon opponents of the Celtic tonsure called it the tonsure of Simon Magus. According to canon law, all clerics are bound to wear the tonsure under certain penalties. But on this subject, Taunton (loc. cit. inf.) says: "In English-speaking countries, from a custom arising in the days of persecution and having a prescription of over three centuries, the shaving of the head, the priestly crown, seems, with the tacit consent of the Holy See, to have passed out of use. No provincial or national council has ordered it, even when treating of clerical dress; and the Holy See has not inserted the law when correcting the decrees of those councils."

cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14779a.htm

This site has the traditional ceremony in English: http://www.calefactory.org/ord-tonsure.htm

So why is it necessary for an ordinary to do it? The SSPX doesn't have any ordinaries so they made do with bishops. If it is permissible to perform Tonsure without the permission of the ordinary (but with a bishop) by claiming necessity/supplied jurisdiction, why is it not permissible to do it without a bishop?

Also, at the risk of opening up a can of worms, do you accept the Novus Ordo suppression of Tonsure? Do you accept that the Novus Ordo diaconate is now the ceremony which admits men into the clerical state as per Paul VI's motu proprio Ministeria quaedam of 15 August 1972? If not, then do you agree that the Novus Ordo doesn't have any valid clerics? If one can enter the clerical state without undergoing Tonsure, wouldn't it be possible to enter the clerical state without the permission of an ordinary and without a bishop performing the rite?

Of all the controversies concerning the traditional Catholic Faith, this one is one of the most confusing for me.

ilpadrino · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2017, 07:54:53 PM »

Moral and Dogmatic theologians agree that only a bishop can confer major orders, but once upon a time when there was a possibility of higher ranking clergy to designate lower ones to perform certain functions, it was considered by these same theologians that a priest could confer tonsure and minor orders, but this required proper and explicit designation. A priest couldn't take it upon himself to do it, regardless of his good intentions. The idea in such a scenario (and really any sacramental occurrence, in the objective realm) was that a priest was the extension of his bishop in a location/scenario.

As regards the Tonsure, it is not itself an order, but is the dispositive cause for the reception of orders. Again, once upon a time it was the norm that an Ordinary or a Bishop with jurisdiction conferred the tonsure, because tonsure was what introduced the young man into the Ecclesiastical forum, and concerned jurisdiction of a bishop of a diocese. Nevertheless, a bishop also has the plentitude of the priesthood and can thus confer the lower orders and the episcopacy itself. Residential and auxiliary bishops did this and confirmations before Vatican II, certainly. Orders and jurisdiction are two separate realities.