Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who? (Read 139202 times)

PAT317 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2016, 08:16:04 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

The linked article seems to indicate that this man was ordained by a New Rite bishop since he was part of a group established--at later suppressed--by a Conciliar bishop, thus his orders are, at best, doubtful. Why would any traditional Catholic priest have anything to do with him whether or not he knew anything about his other problems?

A few years ago Fr. Pfeiffer said in a sermon that probably most Novus Ordo Masses are valid. Which implies he doesn't have much if any doubt about validity of New Rite priests. This is a difference I've noticed between him & Fr. Zendejas, because Fr. Z has made comments regarding the doubtfulness, and how/why the SSPX used to conditionally ordain.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2016, 08:22:29 AM »

Quote from: PAT317

Quote from: TKGS
The linked article seems to indicate that this man was ordained by a New Rite bishop since he was part of a group established--at later suppressed--by a Conciliar bishop, thus his orders are, at best, doubtful. Why would any traditional Catholic priest have anything to do with him whether or not he knew anything about his other problems?

A few years ago Fr. Pfeiffer said in a sermon that probably most Novus Ordo Masses are valid. Which implies he doesn't have much if any doubt about validity of New Rite priests. This is a difference I've noticed between him & Fr. Zendejas, because Fr. Z has made comments regarding the doubtfulness, and how/why the SSPX used to conditionally ordain.

Can you say hypocrisy?

Fr. Pfeiffer's only claim to attack +Williamson was the latter's balanced (non-Sedevacantist) view of the Novus Ordo Mass. (Nota Bene: +Williamson never said anything like "you can attend the Novus Ordo Mass." He was talking to one specific woman who basically begged permission in so many words.)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2016, 09:52:50 AM »

Quote

Fr. Tetherow is a newpriest ordained in the new Rite of ordination, which is at least doubtful. He has not been conditionally ordained.

He was ordained at the same time as some Fraternity of St. Peter priests by + Fabian Bruskewitz to start his own Franciscan order "according to the primitive rule" (according to him).

wallflower · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2016, 09:57:50 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

When the Conciliar Church thinks a priest needs to be laicized, that really says something about him!

Not to take away from your point because I agree that we shouldn't be dealing with him, but I do wonder if the laicizations today are a bit candy-coated like the annulments. Not that I have any better solution, I really don't know what ought to be done with pedophile priests. But did laicization happen before now? I can't help wondering if a holier and more faithful Papacy would come up with a better solution that kept people safe but didn't minimize/disregard the eternal character of the priesthood.

Guardian Angel · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2016, 11:12:59 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Fr. Pfeiffer's only claim to attack +Williamson was the latter's balanced (non-Sedevacantist) view of the Novus Ordo Mass. (Nota Bene: +Williamson never said anything like "you can attend the Novus Ordo Mass." He was talking to one specific woman who basically begged permission in so many words.)

And according to you, does her begging justify His Excellency allowing her?