Author Topic: Fr Pfeiffer spouting Heresy? (Read 3634 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 17, 2016, 12:19:34 PM »

Sean Johnson has a whole thread going about Fr. Pfeiffer's possibly heretical stance on the New Mass:

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

See especially the following minute marks:

23:45

32:21

42:17

Sean Johnson continues...

The brunt of his sermon was an attempt to demonstrate Bishop Williamson has erred theologically by asserting that one can find spiritual nourishment (e.g., sanctifying grace) in the Novus Ordo.

Fr. Pfeiffer contends the opposite: Grace is not communicated or transmitted by the Novus Ordo, and therefore there can be no spiritual benefit (A statement he never precisely makes, but constantly implies, by making continued reference to the works of St. Thomas, St. Augustine, Fr. Capello, S.J., and Pope Leo XIII).

However:

1) All the passages Fr Pfeiffer cites to back his position that no grace flows from the Novus Ordo pertain to heretical and schismatic priests (i.e., Not to Catholic priests);

2) Furthermore, though Fr. Pfeiffer tries to cover this glaring incongruity by referring to the Novus Ordo as a schismatic rite (in an attempt to tighten up the analogy), he misses the point that his authorities are not denying that grace is produced in the valid sacrament confected, but that they are saying the sanctifying grace is not transmitted because the recipients (e.g., schismatic or heretical priests) are not in the state of grace;

3) Finally, his implicit, and darn near explicit position (yes, I am giving him a maddening benefit of the doubt here) that no grace comes from the Novus Ordo- is absolutely anathematized by the Council of Trent (Session VII, Canons 6-8):

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

This is what happens when you first form a conclusion, then try and sustain it by filling in the theology after the fact.

Can anyone explain to me how this position is not heretical (i.e., How it avoids the anathema of Trent)?

“"The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those who are capable and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex opere operato), independently of the worth or merits of minister or recipient...The grace which is here spoken of as given by the Sacraments is sanctifying grace."19

"Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol. III: Sacraments)" by Fr. H. Davis, S.J. (Sheed & ward, 1943, p. 3)

Note: This explains why sanctifying grace is not transmitted through the sacraments to schismatics and heretics (i.e., objectively, they are in a state of mortal sin), but is transmitted infallibly every time to a Catholic in the state of grace at a valid Novus Ordo.

Fr. Pfeiffer refutes himself here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/_F45aSq3q34[/youtube]

At 1:05:17 : "Many innocent souls go to the new mass every day, and they will go straight to Heaven when they die."

If you look at the wider context, you will notice that Fr Pfeiffer is talking here about people who in ignorance keep attending the new mass. While he does not explicitly say where exactly the grace is coming from, he certainly believes that going to the new mass has something to do with it.

And for the Fr Pfeiffer apologists out there : remember that "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." ? If those many innocent souls who go to new mass every day go straight to Heaven when they die, where would they be getting that sanctifying grace from ? Do you think Fr PFeiffer would say the same thing about protestants, or hindus, or muslims ? I don't think so.

This is Fr Pfeiffer's argument in the above mentioned sermon :

1. Even though a Mass by a schismatic priests is valid, grace does not flow from it. This is the teaching of the Church, as shown by quotes from St. Thomas, Capello (theologian) and Pope Leo XIII.

2. The Novus Ordo Mass is a schismatic Mass, offered by schismatic priests.

3. Therefore, no graces can flow from the Novus Ordo Mass.?

The problem I see with this reasoning :

St. Thomas, Capello and Pope Leo XIII were talking about formal schismatics, those who had been separated from the Church, with this separation being judged, recognised and declared by the Church, not as judged by private opinion ! When we talk about the Conciliar Church, we have two options :

1. We rely on private judgement and treat the Conciliarists as heretics and/or schismatics who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. But then we must at least be consistent and reject the Pope as a true Pope, and regard the Church in Rome as a false Church (Ecclesiavacantism). Fr Pfeiffer does not do that. As far as I know he is not a sedevacantist nor an ecclesiavacantist.

2. We cannot rely on private judgement, and therefore have to consider these Conciliarists as members of the Church. If they are members, they are not schismatic, and Fr Pfeiffer's whole argument crumbles.

Note : You could try arguing that the conciliarists are true members, but that the NOM as a rite is schismatic. But then you have to prove that such a thing is at all possible : true members using a schismatic rite. Plus you will still have to deal with the question of private judgement : who has judged and decared the NOM as formally schismatic ??

Fr Pfeiffer is simply trying to take whatever suits out of two opposing opinions in order to support his own hybrid opinion. It adds an element of dishonesty to the confusion of this crisis.

I don't think Fr Pfeiffer's error can be seen as a heresy, but it certainly is a rather sloppy theology, mixed in with the usual dramatics to make it appeal to his followers.

On precisely this subject, I received feedback from another Resistance priest regarding my Catechetical Refutation (who is taking a surprising and unexpected shift towards Pfeifferism) which states, in part:

"The answer to the question 'if it nourishes your faith' is that the NO Mass cannot and does not nourish anyone’s faith."

Obviously, this response is implicitly and materially heretical, insofar as it directly contradicts the Council of Trent (Session 7, Canons 6-8).

Implicitly, because it implies sanctifying grace (the spiritual nourishment par excellance) is not conferred by the new Mass.

Materially, because he may not realize his position is not compatible with Trent (even though his response is to my article where I pointed this out quite clearly at #7?).

As another Resistance priest who received his response writes:

"Why can the grace not flow from the new Mass? Affirming this is heretical."

Raphaela · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2016, 04:13:26 PM »

Quote from: Sean Johnson

"The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those who are capable and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex opere operato), independently of the worth or merits of minister or recipient...The grace which is here spoken of as given by the Sacraments is sanctifying grace."

"Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol. III: Sacraments)" by Fr. H. Davis, S.J. (Sheed & Ward, 1943, p. 3)

Note: This explains why sanctifying grace is not transmitted through the sacraments to schismatics and heretics (i.e., objectively, they are in a state of mortal sin), but is transmitted infallibly every time to a Catholic in the state of grace at a valid Novus Ordo.

"A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy."

(Fr. Francois Laisney, The Angelus, September 1998)

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

_______________________________________________________

I don't wish to defend Fr. Pfeiffer at the moment in any way, but I think Sean Johnson's argument goes wrong here. In the quote from Fr. Laisney, which is true Church teaching as far as I know, the person baptised in a heretical or schismatic 'church' or sect, receives the character but not the grace of baptism. This includes babies, in which case they have no mortal sin to 'block' baptismal and sanctifying grace. So the graces are blocked by the baptism being performed by/in a heretical/schismatic minister/church. If these babies convert to the Catholic Church later, their baptism will 'revive' or be 'revivified' and start transmitting grace to them.

This is the argument first developed by St. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists, who believed that baptisms given by heretics were invalid and they therefore baptised people again if they converted. St Augustine developed the idea of heretical and schismatic sacraments being 'empty' (my word, not his), i.e. valid but not conferring sacramental/sanctifying grace. And this is the teaching of the Church, which is axiomatic, as sanctifying grace cannot be received through (by means of) heretical and schismatic sects and their sacraments, even though they have the valid sacraments of the Church. They are called schismatic exactly because they are cut off from the Church, so grace cannot be transmitted from the Church to them.

If a Catholic child below the age of reason and thus incapable of any sin, including that of communicatio in sacris, receives Holy Communion in a schismatic church, even he does not receive sanctifying grace from the sacrament, as it is valid but 'empty'. (God, of course, can give grace directly to those of good will who are in invincible ignorance.)

If a schismatic priest is asked by a dying Catholic to give him absolution, it is valid and confers sanctifying grace because on that occasion the Church gives the priest faculties – ecclesia supplet. Although the schismatic priest is not a member of the Church, he is still a subject of the Church and under her jurisdiction.

The anathemas of the Council of Trent are absolute statements directed at those who object to the use of the sacraments in the Church (e.g. Luther) and don’t cover the illicit use of the sacraments by other bodies.

Fr. Pfeiffer’s argument only works if the Conciliar Church is schismatic, which is quite another question. But as they don’t reject the primacy of the pope this is not the case. If Fr Pfeiffer persists, he will have to say the pope is schismatic too, and he will be on the way to sedevacantism.

This is my argument, anyway. But Heaven preserve us from female theologians, so all objections gratefully received!

Croixalist · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2016, 06:48:42 PM »

Very interesting to see Pfeiffer essentially repeat what he's trying to criticize Bishop Williamson for. And he manages to contradict himself in the process... a true tour de force!

The New Mass is a very strange creation and it's very easy to misgauge both its potential threat to the Faith and the grace of God to work in spite of its sacrilegious nature.

My take on it is that if the spirit of VII is demonic, then the true implementation of said council would render all Masses completely invalid if there was nothing to impede it. For example: they'd all look like clown or carnival Masses. More and more N.O. Masses begin to resemble these aberrations as time goes by because that is precisely the progressive nature or "spirit" of Vatican II.

I believe that by the grace of God, He has spared the absolute worst case scenario in order to extend a lifeline out to those souls who aren't bent towards the Church's destruction through their own indifference. Grace builds upon grace, and I also believe that eventually these well-intentioned souls will catch on to the fact that even in the mildest N.O. Masses are not designed to proper glorify the True Presence and will find themselves a TLM to support. I'd think that would be the story for most (if not all) of us trads who weren't homeschooled by traditional parents from the very beginning.

Still, once someone realizes that no matter how devoutly a person tries to receive the Holy Eucharist, one look around them will confirm the reality that this is an exception rather than the rule. The N.O. directly leads to the sacrilege of indifference even if the form, matter, and intent are present. In my case I forced myself to follow my conclusions as I formed them up to the point where I could no longer justify rubbing elbows and shaking hands with the sheer outrage of this highly casual approach.

I'm not a theologian, I'm not an authority on these matters, and I'm open to correction on various issues, but this Crisis has made liars out of a lot of people who thought they had the solution and only succeed in adding another layer to the problem.

Croixalist · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2016, 07:28:25 PM »

Quote from: Raphaela

Quote from: Sean Johnson
"The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those who are capable and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex opere operato), independently of the worth or merits of minister or recipient...The grace which is here spoken of as given by the Sacraments is sanctifying grace."

"Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol. III: Sacraments)" by Fr. H. Davis, S.J. (Sheed & Ward, 1943, p. 3)

Note: This explains why sanctifying grace is not transmitted through the sacraments to schismatics and heretics (i.e., objectively, they are in a state of mortal sin), but is transmitted infallibly every time to a Catholic in the state of grace at a valid Novus Ordo.

"A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy."

(Fr. Francois Laisney, The Angelus, September 1998)

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

I don't think Baptism in schismatic sects can really be used to describe what is going on with the Holy Eucharist in the NO. It's not like we could receive "communion" as Episcopalians, then convert to Catholicism and suddenly receive sanctifying grace from all those wafers previously consumed. On the other hand, the fact that valid priests are found in the new rite frustrates any attempts to make this a clear-cut issue. At least it seems Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't under the impression that the new rite ordinations where invalid across the board. I could be wrong though. I'm not exactly an expert on the good Archbishop.

The tragic fact remains that even with all things being valid, the N.O. still manages to be sacrilegious for the most part.

OHCA · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2016, 07:32:50 PM »

Matthew,

I am not a Fr. Pfeiffer fan. But your argument against him in this thread implies that you believe all of the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid. Is that what you believe? If so, is that not a departure from what you have previously espoused?

Matto · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2016, 07:52:37 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Matthew,

I am not a Fr. Pfeiffer fan. But your argument against him in this thread implies that you believe all of the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid. Is that what you believe? If so, is that not a departure from what you have previously espoused?

I am not learned enough to know if the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid or not, but I know from my experience in the Novus Ordo that it looks and seems to an uneducated layman like the Novus Ordo is not valid and that no grace flows from it. So I try to avoid the Novus Ordo and if I went to a Novus Ordo I would never go to communion.

PG · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2016, 09:34:36 PM »

At minute 27 fr. pfieffer says that the old mass celebrated non una cuм the conciliar church is not pleasing to God. He lumps in the non una cuм sedes with the schismatics and all others that apparently as he is saying are sacrilegious. But, he works with that hispanic sspx priest in the tan cassock. And, he doesn't put the popes name in the canon. So, doesn't that mean that fr. pfieffer is there admitting himself to be communicatio in sacris? I mean, what is fr. pfieffer even saying in this ramble rant? I don't think he knows.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:46:25 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Matthew,

I am not a Fr. Pfeiffer fan. But your argument against him in this thread implies that you believe all of the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid. Is that what you believe? If so, is that not a departure from what you have previously espoused?

1. Virtually all the words in this thread are not mine, but Sean Johnson's.

2. +Williamson speaks for me on the N.O.M. I am not a theologian, while he is a trad Bishop and seminary rector for decades.

3. Practically speaking, I have nothing to do with the N.O., and I would that ALL would follow me in this matter. Furthermore, I have no N.O. baggage personally.

4. In conclusion, I seek the absolute, precise truth of the matter. I have no psychological need to exaggerate the evil of the N.O.

OHCA · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2016, 04:43:05 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: OHCA
Matthew,

I am not a Fr. Pfeiffer fan. But your argument against him in this thread implies that you believe all of the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid. Is that what you believe? If so, is that not a departure from what you have previously espoused?

1. Virtually all the words in this thread are not mine, but Sean Johnson's.

2. +Williamson speaks for me on the N.O.M. I am not a theologian, while he is a trad Bishop and seminary rector for decades.

3. Practically speaking, I have nothing to do with the N.O., and I would that ALL would follow me in this matter. Furthermore, I have no N.O. baggage personally.

4. In conclusion, I seek the absolute, precise truth of the matter. I have no psychological need to exaggerate the evil of the N.O.

As much as I dislike Fr. Pfeiffer's antics, and as much as I believe that Fr. Pfeiffer has fallen into schism, just because something strikes a blow at him is not going to automatically be music to my ears. I am not the least bit impressed with Mr. Johnson's critique--I view it as a waste of time, space, and "ink" by a wannabe theologian.

If the Council of Trent Canons 6 - 8 are applicable to the Novus Ordo the same as they were applicable to what the Council of Trent was precisely addressing at the time, then all R&Rers and Sedes are heretics. Then there is nothing to "resist"--cease disobedience and cease badmouthing the precious Sacraments; then the sede premise that the Pontiff has fallen into heresy is intrinsically heretical itself. Then traditionalists should be quivering from their years of disobedience--SSPX isn't moving fast enough toward reunification.

Mr. Johnson spewed a bunch of worthless garbage in a cheap swipe at Fr. Pfeiffer. Any conciliarist could have quoted the same pieces against all of tradition. I don't take issue with what Bishop Williamson said either. But if Mr. Johnson is gleaning this content from Bishop Williamson's statement to the lady about the NO, then he missed the point. This is perhaps more of an example as to why Bishop Williamson should have dealt with that lady's situation privately so his statements would not have been taken out of context--as memory serves there were entire threads here doing so.

As far as NO baggage, perhaps I have some--I was there for 40 years. But I never could get my mind around why not the Mass of All Time and why the departure from previous teaching. Thus I am where I am now--and it was a long dark perilous road getting here. I believe what +Williamson said to that lady was true for me in most of that time. Had I left the NO before finding true Catholicism, then I would probably be a lost protestant or atheist today. And that baggage makes Fr. Wathen's "The Great Sacrilege" eerily resonate with me--it's as though the man looked at it at the beginning and knew with great precision and detail what it would flow from it 20-30-40 years down the road.

As far as the NO "mass" being evil, it is evil to the extent that it is sacrilege, and anyone who knows better shall not attend. But, as a good Catholic, I recognize that there are varying degrees of evil and do not exaggerate it. I will say though that those degrees of evil even vary from "mass" to "mass."

The most solid attack I see against Fr. Pfeiffer is that he is schismatic for red-lighting valid priests, Masses, and Sacraments, and for his un-renounced (no--he hasn't properly renounced) association with the schismatic fraud. Also, perhaps heretical for dogmatically teaching some things such geocentrism that have not been dogmatically determined by the Church. I'm not attacking whether the underlying teaching is right or wrong--I simply believe that it is heresy to dogmatically teach something that has not been dogmatically decided by the Church. For example, I believe the ones doing this on both sides of the BOD matter are being heretical.

Raphaela · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2016, 06:21:36 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

I don't think Baptism in schismatic sects can really be used to describe what is going on with the Holy Eucharist in the NO. It's not like we could receive "communion" as Episcopalians, then convert to Catholicism and suddenly receive sanctifying grace from all those wafers previously consumed.

It's not an exact parallel because baptism changes the soul by leaving the character, which Holy Communion doesn't. But it shows it's possible to receive a valid sacrament but not receive sanctifying grave from it. Former Holy Communions leave no character behind, so couldn't revivify, whether they were valid or not.

Quote

On the other hand, the fact that valid priests are found in the new rite frustrates any attempts to make this a clear-cut issue. At least it seems Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't under the impression that the new rite ordinations where invalid across the board. I could be wrong though. I'm not exactly an expert on the good Archbishop.

The Archbishop said the New Rite was valid if said in Latin with the intention to do what the Church does, and could be valid in the vernacular with this intention, as long as the rite was followed exactly. I remember priests were expelled or refused ordination (there was a case in 1979) if they claimed that all New Rite Masses were invalid.

Quote

The tragic fact remains that even with all things being valid, the N.O. still manages to be sacrilegious for the most part.

They are always very displeasing to God and an occasion of sin against the Faith as they obscure or hide the Mass's sacrificial nature - therefore sacrilegious. The SSPX taught it was a mortal sin to attend if you understood this, but a venial sin or nothing at all, depending on a person's understanding of the situation.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2016, 07:17:49 AM »

It's not so much spouting heresy as drooling it all over his bib.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:20:08 PM »

There's plenty of things to criticize Fr P over, but the fact that Mr Johnson is using the Council of Trent to defend the novus ordo is absolutely hilarious! The novus ordo 'mass' as as contrary to Trent's Catholic theology as Vatican 2 is contrary to the 'Syllabus of Errors'!

ihsv · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2016, 02:52:49 PM »

Quote from: Sean Johnson

snip ... On precisely this subject, I received feedback from another Resistance priest regarding my Catechetical Refutation (who is taking a surprising and unexpected shift towards Pfeifferism) which states, in part:

"The answer to the question 'if it nourishes your faith' is that the NO Mass cannot and does not nourish anyone’s faith."

Obviously, this response is implicitly and materially heretical, insofar as it directly contradicts the Council of Trent (Session 7, Canons 6-8).

Implicitly, because it implies sanctifying grace (the spiritual nourishment par excellance) is not conferred by the new Mass.

Materially, because he may not realize his position is not compatible with Trent (even though his response is to my article where I pointed this out quite clearly at #7?).

As another Resistance priest who received his response writes:

"Why can the grace not flow from the new Mass? Affirming this is heretical."

Shhhh.... should we tell Sean Johnson that the Mass, Novus Ordo or otherwise, isn't a sacrament? And therefore, quoting Trent's canons on the sacraments giving grace is irrelevant?

Carry on.

JPaul · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2016, 03:28:58 PM »

It is quite clear that Mr. Johnson predicates his objection upon the presumption that the Novus Ordo consecration is always or generally speaking valid.

The fact being that there is no certainty as to which Novus Ordo mass might be valid. In other words, no one really knows, and as such, it represents an often doubtful sacrament.

How does one know if they are receiving such grace? By how they feel?
Just as the conciliarists do, they are appealing to the Traditional Magisterium to validate a wholly non-Traditional novelty, which violates that same Magisterium.

As well he is speaking of sanctifying grace here. Does anyone else see where this is heading, and what are the implications?

If all of this were all true, then there is no reason for an SSPX, or a resistance so called or independent Traditional Mass centers. If this Novus Ordo is the real thing, then all of the "schismatic" Traditionalists had better repent and reconcile with the New Church.

In small bites the Novus Ordo is being rehabilitated within the Traditional remnant.
There is no doubt about that, unless we are all deaf and all blind.

ihsv · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2016, 04:01:26 PM »

Quote from: Sean Johnson

1) All the passages Fr Pfeiffer cites to back his position that no grace flows from the Novus Ordo pertain to heretical and schismatic priests (i.e., Not to Catholic priests);

2) Furthermore, though Fr. Pfeiffer tries to cover this glaring incongruity by referring to the Novus Ordo as a schismatic rite (in an attempt to tighten up the analogy), he misses the point that his authorities are not denying that grace is produced in the valid sacrament confected, but that they are saying the sanctifying grace is not transmitted because the recipients (e.g., schismatic or heretical priests) are not in the state of grace;

3) Finally, his implicit, and darn near explicit position (yes, I am giving him a maddening benefit of the doubt here) that no grace comes from the Novus Ordo- is absolutely anathematized by the Council of Trent (Session VII, Canons 6-8):

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

This is what happens when you first form a conclusion, then try and sustain it by filling in the theology after the fact.

Can anyone explain to me how this position is not heretical (i.e., How it avoids the anathema of Trent)?

First, I didn't watch the videos. I just read the text, so if I missed something from the videos, it's simply because I'm not interested in listening to what Fr. Pfeiffer has to say.

I would point out, however, that those canons quoted by Johnson deal with the sacraments, not the Mass. The Mass is not a sacrament, it's a sacrifice. This is such a basic distinction. To establish the foundation of the argument that the Novus Ordo gives grace upon these particular canons is a mistake I would expect from a first-year seminarian.

The most he could say was that "if you received communion at the Novus Ordo, you would receive grace based on those canons". That line of approach opens a whoppin' big can of worms (e.g., validity, worthiness of the recipient, etc.,), though, and I'm not interested in going into that right now. Be that as it may, he cannot make the argument that the Novus Ordo itself gives grace as per these canons.

I'm not sure who this Sean Johnson is, but I'm not impressed.

As an up-and-coming armchair theologian once said:

Quote from: Sean Johnson

I don't think [Sean Johnson's] error can be seen as a heresy, but it certainly is a rather sloppy theology, mixed in with the usual dramatics to make it appeal to his followers.

And

Quote from: Sean Johnson

This is what happens when you first form a conclusion, then try and sustain it by filling in the theology after the fact.