Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on September 20, 2023, 01:53:39 PM
-
Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=283592004424463&set=a.130332296417102
(https://i.imgur.com/Cfvuqki.jpg)
-
Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=283592004424463&set=a.130332296417102
(https://i.imgur.com/Cfvuqki.jpg)
I remember that Old Catholics had mostly valid sacraments. Why are they in red? Why is Laborie orange?
I'v never heard of the people from Dominguez to Hennebery btw.
-
Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=283592004424463&set=a.130332296417102
(https://i.imgur.com/Cfvuqki.jpg)
Despite all the lines, the picture can be simplified (and we discussed it here) to the one weak link of Terrasson's priesthood. He was "ordained" originally by Laborie, who at the time had been "ordained/consecrated" through some Old Catholic lines. Now, Terrasson claims, and someone here presented a docuмent to the effect, that Dominguez conditionally ordained him before consecrating him. So if that can be established, the problem with any ordinations / consecrations performed by Dominguez was that it's unknown whether the guy was proficient enough in Latin to have validly ordained and consecrated. Perhaps because he was a Spanish speaker he had a better shot. But that's the big question mark. Terrasson's consecration, however, would likely have been valid, because in addition to Dominguez, a bishop +Puga, a pre-Vatican II priest who was consecrated validly by +Thuc, acted as a co-conserator.
So it all boils down to whether it can be established that ...
1) Dominguez conditionally ordained Terrasson after the doubtful Laborie orders.
2) Whether Dominguez could be presumed to have validly performed said conditional ordination.
Normally, a properly trained bishop is presumed to have validly ordained/consecrated, but I'm sure that I wouldn't stake my eternal salvation on Dominguez, an insurance salesman with unknown training in Latin, having validly (conditionally) ordained Terrasson.
So IF Dominguez performed a conditional ordination of Terrasson before consecrating him a bishop (as seems likely due to a docuмent I've seen) and IF he got the conditional ordination right, it's likely that +Webster is a valid priest and bishop. But "likely" isn't good enough in the practical order.
-
Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:
That to me is probably as big a supposition as whether Dominguez got the conditional ordination of Terrasson right. Fr. Pfeiffer was out the next day insisting that the first attempt was valid. So then why the second attempt? If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then he shouldn't have attempted the second. If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then his judgment regarding validity is incredibly suspect, and we have only his word for the validity of the second attempt.
-
That to me is probably as big a supposition as whether Dominguez got the conditional ordination of Terrasson right. Fr. Pfeiffer was out the next day insisting that the first attempt was valid. So then why the second attempt? If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then he shouldn't have attempted the second. If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then his judgment regarding validity is incredibly suspect, and we have only his word for the validity of the second attempt.
This 👆🏻
-
So there's a missing dotted line between Dominguez Bishop to Terrasson priest (conditional) that isn't depicted.
-
That to me is probably as big a supposition as whether Dominguez got the conditional ordination of Terrasson right. Fr. Pfeiffer was out the next day insisting that the first attempt was valid. So then why the second attempt? If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then he shouldn't have attempted the second. If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then his judgment regarding validity is incredibly suspect, and we have only his word for the validity of the second attempt.
.
Not to mention that if he really wanted to silence the critics and he was really sure the second one would be fine, why didn't he record it so people wouldn't have any doubt? Maybe he could say he doesn't care about people having doubt, but obviously he does since he repeated the essential form.
-
.
Not to mention that if he really wanted to silence the critics and he was really sure the second one would be fine, why didn't he record it so people wouldn't have any doubt? Maybe he could say he doesn't care about people having doubt, but obviously he does since he repeated the essential form.
I'll tell you one thing:
It seems to me common sense, or a basic principle, that "The corrected version must be at least as public as the error".
You can't have a slander in the New York Post, and correct it by publishing in a small low-circulation newspaper in a small town.
You can't have an error on CNN and correct it by posting a correction on some blog with 100 viewers.
You can't have a highly-publicized, widely circulated video of Fr. Pfeiffer's "consecration", and then correct it with a private ceremony, without any video recorded whatsoever.
It's a question of STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE or PROOF
Until the "correction" matches the "error", in this regard, you have to consider the whole thing suspect. We can't just take his word for it.
Until then, it's OUR OWN EYES vs. Fr. Pfeiffer's words. Sorry, Father, but it's no contest. Our Own Eyes must always win out, as being more certain.
-
I'll tell you one thing:
It seems to me common sense, or a basic principle, that "The corrected version must be at least as public as the error".
You can't have a slander in the New York Post, and correct it by publishing in a small low-circulation newspaper in a small town.
You can't have an error on CNN and correct it by posting a correction on some blog with 100 viewers.
You can't have a highly-publicized, widely circulated video of Fr. Pfeiffer's "consecration", and then correct it with a private ceremony, without any video recorded whatsoever.
It's a question of STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE or PROOF
Until the "correction" matches the "error", in this regard, you have to consider the whole thing suspect. We can't just take his word for it.
Until then, it's OUR OWN EYES vs. Fr. Pfeiffer's words. Sorry, Father, but it's no contest. Our Own Eyes must always win out, as being more certain.
Pfeiffer: Common sense? :P nah, trust me bro we did it right the second time.
-
+Laborie was conditionally ordained to the priesthood by Abp. Thuc on Feb 16, 1977, and then conditionally consecrated also by Abp. Thuc on Feb 17, 1977.
Before that date, any ordinations by Bp. Laborie must be considered suspect. Supposedly, +Gomez did conditionally ordain +Terrasson to the priesthood on March 17th, 1976, and then consecrated +Terrasson the next day on March 18th.
There are concerns with +Slupski's consecrations, as was witnessed in a video that was posted not long ago that apparently shows +Slupski garbling the essential form in a consecration.
Without seeing an actual video of +Websters consecration by +Slupski, I personally hold that consecration suspect. It wouldn't matter if +Pfeiffer was conditionally consecrated by +Webster one or a thousand times if +Webster isn't a bishop after all.
-
The Holy Sacrifice of Mass is incredibly important. It's a matter of our very eternal salvation, as are the Sacraments.
That having been said, it's NOT WORTH going off the path of prudence and sanity into these doubtful priests/bishops.
Better to have a valid Mass once every other month, than daily "mass" simulated by a non-priest!
I'll stick to the rock-solid episcopal lineage of Archbishop Lefebvre, thank you very much.
-
It's a blessing in disguise that Fr Pfeiffer didn't get the 2nd consecration recorded or correct. Because even if he did, there are plenty of red flags (i.e. Pablo, poor seminary training) to avoid him and his seminarians/"future priests". This whole consecration fiasco is just icing on the cake for all those of good will/common sense to avoid his whole operation.
-
The Holy Sacrifice of Mass is incredibly important. It's a matter of our very eternal salvation, as are the Sacraments.
That having been said, it's NOT WORTH going off the path of prudence and sanity into these doubtful priests/bishops.
Better to have a valid Mass once every other month, than daily "mass" simulated by a non-priest!
I'll stick to the rock-solid episcopal lineage of Archbishop Lefebvre, thank you very much.
A thousand upvotes for that one Matthew!
-
Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=283592004424463&set=a.130332296417102
(https://i.imgur.com/Cfvuqki.jpg)
This was Greg Taylor's infographic from one of his Recusants, page 22 here: https://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Recusant-53.pdf
-
It’s too bad Fr. Pfeiffer didn’t just remain a priest of the resistance. He could have run OLMC and perhaps spent two of twelve months traveling the world to those who truly have no Mass or Sacraments. Ask another priest to provide Mass or send his people elsewhere.
Forget the seminary idea. If a young man approached him, he could have done as Fr. Chazal, taken him as an apprentice of sorts, and then either sent him to a real seminary or had a real bishop ordain him individually. Had he dispensed with Pablo and been less headstrong, I do believe he’d have found a bishop for Holy Oils, Confirmations and the like.
Now, it looks like Fr. Hewko is headed on the same path, although he vehemently denies he will ever have himself consecrated a bishop. (I wonder though, if a valid bishop made the offer, if he’d consent?)
I agree with Matthew that I wouldn’t stake my salvation on anyone he “ordains,” but I could go to his Mass because I’ve no doubt he’s a priest. Given his present situation and the entire scene at OLMC, I won’t attend his Mass unless it’s an emergency or something similar.
His mother is in very poor health, bedridden, in the hospital. She’s been there for nearly a month. His father is home, but also unwell, suffering from heart disease and mental decline. When they pass, I will attend the funerals if I’m able, “Bp.” Pfeiffer or not! Regardless of one’s opinion of either Fr. Tim or Joe, the senior Pfeiffers kept the traditional Faith alive in Kentucky’s “Holy Land,” for which they deserve honor and respect. I’m sure they’d appreciate everyone’s prayers. (My info. comes from a very reliable source in KY.)
I’ve been asked, “What about Pablo?” My answer, “What about him?” I ignore and avoid him as much as possible. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s never seen.
“What if one of the “Bp.’s priests” says the mass?” I’ve considered that possibility. In which case I sit unobtrusively in back and not participate, like I’d do at the Protestant funeral of a friend. I’ll pray the Rosary instead. I can do that openly and it’s nobody’s business why or if I don’t go to Confession or Communion.
-
It's a blessing in disguise that Fr Pfeiffer didn't get the 2nd consecration recorded or correct. Because even if he did, there are plenty of red flags (i.e. Pablo, poor seminary training) to avoid him and his seminarians/"future priests". This whole consecration fiasco is just icing on the cake for all those of good will/common sense to avoid his whole operation.
It's easy for us to want to put the Pfeiffer Santeria cult out of our minds, to turn our backs on it an walk away.
The problem is... the Pfeiffer cult keeps growing.
Per capita of seminarian and new priests, Pfieffer is far more productive than the SSPX Resistance.
Pfieffer is ordaining and his missionary priests are out cultivating new territories.
For example, Pfeiffer TLM activity is growing in Central and Southern California.
Go on their website and count the number of TLM chapel affiliates.
They are in the growth mode, whereas the "Resistance" never really got out of the gate.
(https://njmonthly.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2014/07/NJMReluctantHorse/738007293.jpg)
-
It's easy for us to want to put the Pfeiffer Santeria cult out of our minds, to turn our backs on it an walk away.
The problem is... the Pfeiffer cult keeps growing.
Per capita of seminarian and new priests, Pfieffer is far more productive than the faux SSPX Resistance.
Pfieffer is ordaining and his missionary priests are out cultivating new territories.
For example, Pfeiffer TLM activity is growing in Central and Southern California.
Go on their website and count the number of TLM chapel affiliates.
They are in the growth mode, whereas the "Resistance" never really got out of the gate.
Really! Does anyone have a list of these highly doubtful priests? I’d hate to have mistakenly
attended mass or worse, made an invalid confession or communion!
-
Really! Does anyone have a list of these highly doubtful priests? I’d hate to have mistakenly
attended mass or worse, made an invalid confession or communion!
Doubtful priests, not highly doubtful. I do not seek the ministrations of Pfeiffer-ordained priests. I do not agree with their positions. However, their Orders are doubtful, not highly doubtful as would be a recently-ordained priest of the Palmarian or Brazilian Apostolic Churches.
-
Doubtful priests, not highly doubtful. I do not seek the ministrations of Pfeiffer-ordained priests. I do not agree with their positions. However, their Orders are doubtful, not highly doubtful as would be a recently-ordained priest of the Palmarian or Brazilian Apostolic Churches.
Well, let’s agree to disagree on that one! Palmarian? Those folks are plain crazy!
-
It's easy for us to want to put the Pfeiffer Santeria cult out of our minds, to turn our backs on it an walk away.
The problem is... the Pfeiffer cult keeps growing.
Per capita of seminarian and new priests, Pfieffer is far more productive than the faux SSPX Resistance.
Pfieffer is ordaining and his missionary priests are out cultivating new territories.
For example, Pfeiffer TLM activity is growing in Central and Southern California.
Go on their website and count the number of TLM chapel affiliates.
They are in the growth mode, whereas the "Resistance" never really got out of the gate.
(https://njmonthly.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2014/07/NJMReluctantHorse/738007293.jpg)
Pfeiffer has networks in Nigeria and the Philippines too. I cannot fathom the number of simulated Masses (by men "ordained" by Fr. Pfeiffer) and men masquerading as priests duping so many poor souls.
-
Doubtful priests, not highly doubtful.
Makes no difference per canon law. But practically speaking, yes, they are highly doubtful. Not only are their orders in doubt but also their seminary training (this assumes they had any).
-
Pfeiffer has networks in Nigeria and the Philippines too. I cannot fathom the number of simulated Masses (by men "ordained" by Fr. Pfeiffer) and men masquerading as priests duping so many poor souls.
The cult is growing like a cancer :facepalm:
-
Makes no difference per canon law. But practically speaking, yes, they are highly doubtful. Not only are their orders in doubt but also their seminary training (this assumes they had any).
Seminary training is not a factor for determining the validity of Orders. Were it a factor or a necessary element for Orders, there would be no valid ordinations in the Latin Church prior to the late 16th century, no valid ordinations in the Easter Catholic Churches until 17th century, and no valid Eastern schismatic ordinations...well...ever.
:facepalm:
-
"Seminary training" is a general term related to basic, priestly formation. Their priestly formation (since +Pfeiffer is hardly ever there) is highly questionable. That's why I used the term "practical". You could take a guy off the street, ordain him validly 5 min later, but does that make him a "priest" in the practical sense? No.
-
Grace builds on nature. God doesn't infuse knowledge into an ignorant man's head just because a bishop ordained him a Priest.
No, you just end up with a very ignorant priest -- one who will make ALL KINDS of mistakes, in the theological, dogmatic, and practical orders, and will scandalize the faithful in various ways. Incidentally, that is exactly what happened in the years leading up to the Protestant Revolt, and which led the Catholic Church to declare in the Council of Trent that henceforth, priests will only be ordained after a formation in a Seminary.
You can't rewind the clock. The Church busted out that remedy for a reason. If you go back to the way things were before Trent, then you go back to times before this remedy.
Apparently we've come full circle, back to the "wild west" days pre-Protestant Revolt. Will history repeat itself, with horribly ignorant, poorly-formed priests doing all kinds of damage to Holy Mother Church, living in concubinage, ignorant of basic theology, literally selling indulgences to the Faithful, etc.?
-
"Seminary training" is a general term related to basic, priestly formation. Their priestly formation (since +Pfeiffer is hardly ever there) is highly questionable. That's why I used the term "practical". You could take a guy off the street, ordain him validly 5 min later, but does that make him a "priest" in the practical sense? No.
The proper formation of Fr. Pfeiffer's priest is of course questionable, but I would be more concerned about their spiritual formation under the influence of Cuban Voodoo (Santeria). It would be 100% certain, Pablo has worked curses on all of them and they are suffering from at the very least, demonic oppression.
Fr. Pfieffer is clearly a slave to the Santeria warlock. And their team mission is to wreck established traditional chapels and mislead Catholics seeking traditional Sacraments... as many as they can.
-
Really! Does anyone have a list of these highly doubtful priests? I’d hate to have mistakenly
attended mass or worse, made an invalid confession or communion!
Bishop? Pfeiffer "ordinations" from June 2024:
"Father" Peter Blaszak
"Father" Samuel Midgley
"Father" Adam Chenal