|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2020 14:16:30 GMT
Well, dear friends, it seems that Fr. Pfeiffer has been "consecrated" by the dubious "Bishop" Neal Webster.
It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite. But of even more concern is the fact that "Bishop" Webster is a Thuc line priest and bishop, placing great doubt on the validity of both his ordination and consecration, and consequently on the "consecration" of "Bishop" Pfeiffer. Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said about the Thuc line of clergy, taken from the Angelus, 1982:
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hildegard on Jul 30, 2020 17:34:43 GMT
July 29th, 2020 - Video - "A new Bishop! His Excellency Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer!!!!!"
The Consecrating Bishop is "dubious" Bishop Neal Webster.
|
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 30, 2020 19:29:42 GMT
STATEMENT OF FR. DAVID HEWKO, JULY 30, 2020 CONCERNING KENTUCKY CONSECRATION OF FR. JOSEPH PFEIFFER
“Then Jesus saith to them: All you shall be scandalized in Me this night. For it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.’” (St. Matthew 26:31) This is a brief Statement denouncing the consecration of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer by “Bishop” Neal Webster. This is a scandal for Holy Mother Church, the true Catholic Resistance and for the vocations at OLMC in Boston, Kentucky. Let it be known that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would absolutely condemn this action and express, once again, the doubtfulness of the Thuc line of bishops, let alone any connection with Palmar de Troya in Spain, who have elected their own pope decades ago. Let it be known that the priestly line of “Bishop” Webster is from: Bishop Thuc, to Clemente ("Pope" Gregory XVII!), Terrason, Hennenberry, to Webster. The episcopal lineage is from: Bishop Thuc to Des Lauries to McKenna to Slupski to Webster. “Bishop” Neal Webster is also a public supporter of the Feeneyite position on the denial of the Baptism of Blood and Desire (“Votum”), which contradicts the constant Magisterium of the Church. Once again, let us beg Our Lady of the Holy Rosary to crush the Church’s enemies. Let us hold the clear position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre always faithful to Mother Church, her Traditional Magisterium, the Traditional Sacraments and the categorical refusal of doubtful sacraments and dangers to the Faith! Once again, we see the sad casualties of a Pope and hierarchy failing in their duty! Indeed, when the shepherd is struck the sheep scatter! In Christ the King, Fr. David Hewko |
|
|
|
Post by Chivalry on Jul 31, 2020 1:39:07 GMT
Through the mysterious grace of God, I found Tradition about 3 years ago. Until then, I had no clue there was a fight for Holy Tradition going on the Faith since the second Vatican council. All I somehow knew was that all my life something in the Church seemed off. Long story short, in my feverish search for answers, I eventually found the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko at the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel YouTube channel -- 469fitter. It made me squirm and wring my hands with anxiety to consider that I had to leave my novus ordo, but i did. These holy priests moved me to Truth. Fr. Pfeiffer was pivotal in my conversion. I listened to him (along with Fr. Hewko) and let him form my newfound Faith. His sermons greatly taught me how a Catholic is to believe. Now, with this in mind, I don't know what Fr. Pfeiffer is doing. He is going against the very things that I consider he was teaching me through his recorded sermons, which i watched everso "religiously" (no pun intended). Please, let us pray fervently for Fr. Pfeiffer. I know his intentions are innocent, but his reason somehow got in the wrong place. And, pray for Fr. Hewko to remain a pillar of the Faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2020 11:35:05 GMT
Through the mysterious grace of God, I found Tradition about 3 years ago. Until then, I had no clue there was a fight for Holy Tradition going on the Faith since the second Vatican council. All I somehow knew was that all my life something in the Church seemed off. Long story short, in my feverish search for answers, I eventually found the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko at the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel YouTube channel -- 469fitter. It made me squirm and wring my hands with anxiety to consider that I had to leave my novus ordo, but i did. These holy priests moved me to Truth. Fr. Pfeiffer was pivotal in my conversion. I listened to him (along with Fr. Hewko) and let him form my newfound Faith. His sermons greatly taught me how a Catholic is to believe. Now, with this in mind, I don't know what Fr. Pfeiffer is doing. He is going against the very things that I consider he was teaching me through his recorded sermons, which i watched everso "religiously" (no pun intended). Please, let us pray fervently for Fr. Pfeiffer. I know his intentions are innocent, but his reason somehow got in the wrong place. And, pray for Fr. Hewko to remain a pillar of the Faith. [Emphasis mine.] I think what you have written here (and I have bolded) is exactly the sentiments of many in the Resistance: 'He is going against the very things he was teaching/preaching.'
Fr. Pfeiffer for years taught against the errors of Feeneyism (see his article in the March 1998 Angelus here) and the countless sermons and conferences given condemning this same error. Now Fr. Pfeiffer accepts a dubious 'consecration' from a strong Feeneyite? (See "Bishop" Neal Webster's efforts to defend Feeneyism noted here and here, for example.)
We have all heard Fr. Pfeiffer repeatedly and emphatically condemn sedevacantism, giving out booklets against it, dedicated multiple conferences to preach against it, multiple sermons, yet he compromises on this too to accept a dubious 'consecration' from a supposedly sedevacantist 'bishop?' (See "Bishop" Webster listed here as a dubious though-sedevacantist clergyman.)
But perhaps the much bigger problem is the doubtfulness of this supposed 'consecration.' The effects of this are a much greater scandal. Poor Fr. Pfeiffer, he used to be much better than this. I remember in the early days of the Resistance, he never would have stooped to such levels, there were standards. Now it appears there are none!
But we could see that things were rapidly deteriorating with 'Moran-gate.' It should really come as no surprise that if Moran was an acceptable 'bishop' to Fr. Pfeiffer, then "Bishop" Webster must be a fine pick too.
The words from Archbishop Lefebvre in 1982 about Thuc line clergy give us a quick and clear insight in how we are to understand the priestly and episcopal lineage of "Bishop" Webster - it is doubtful!
But, even outside of Resistance circles, there are many over the years who have questioned the validity of "Bishop" Neal Webster, outside of our current interest in this situation of the supposed 'consecration' of "Bishop" Pfeiffer. A few examples that pop up with a quick internet search:
[Recall that "Bishop" Slupski is the consecrating bishop for "Bishop" Webster.] - ...from 2015: "The Ordinations and Consecrations of Bishop Slupski must all be called into question. In the Sacristy, in the Chapel of the Bishop, in 2012, were found Holy Oils from the 1970's and 1980's. When informed of the issue of validity regarding the use of such rancid oil, ignorance was pleaded, and charge of the destruction of the oils was given to the delegate. After the so called "Consecration" of "Bishop" Neal Webster, Neal Webster then provided Bishop Slupski all of his Holy Oils. This is a problem due to the following reasons. Neal Webster was not conditionally ordained by Bishop Slupski in any manner, and this is a fact. Neal Webster was ordained in the lineage of the group from Palmar de Troya Spain. This group claimed to be appointed Pope by the Blessed Virgin herself, led by an infirm blind man, and who have been the cause of the scandal of many, many people. Neal Webster, if not properly ordained, is not capapable of providing valid Holy Oils to Bishop Slupski. All of Bishop Slupski's Holy Oils, used after the consecration of Neal Webster, were given to Bishop Slupski by "Bishop" Neal Webster, and kept in the Ambry, at Bishop Slupski's Cathedra, in Rock Falls, Illinois. Due to these unfortunate circumstances, none of Bishop Slupski's ordainds, and Episcopi, may be considered valid in the eyes of the Faithful. No Faithful may recieve the Sacraments from any of his Priests, or Bishops, or the progeny thereof. Bishop Slupski's confection of the Most Holy Eucharist, and his Deliverance of the Sacrament of Penance may be still considered valid. None of the Faithful in reception of the Sacraments from the Priests and Bishops descending from Slupski's lienage are held in any guilt or any sin whatsoever, regarding their reception of the Sacraments from these progency Priets and Bishops, and these laity may continue to seek other validly ordained Priests, and validly Consecrated Bishops in good conscience, perhaps from the Society of St. Pius X. Source
Another commentary that speaks to "Bishop" Websters doubtful ordinations and his Feeneyism is from a Reddit thread from a month ago ( in the Sedevacantist section) entitled, Bishop Neal Webster? "Does anyone know much about his orders? My only issue with them is that Bishop Raymond Maurice Terrasson, who consecrated the man who ordained him, was first ordained by Jean Laborie and I'm not sure if he was conditionally ordained by Clemente y Dominguez (the first palmarian antipope). I know he was consecrated by Bishop Francis Slupski but my issue is his ordination. I know he is a "feeneyite" but I am just asking about his orders. I have talked to him on the phone a bit. He told me that Terrasson was conditionally ordained by Clemente. Don't talk about feeneyism in this thread please I am just asking about his orders."
The immediate comment after this question was, "His lineage is a mess. Who ordained the bishop who ordained him? It doesn't matter if Bp. Dominguez conditionally ordained him, since he is untrained and has possibly little theological knowledge and all his rites are translated by his cult to Spanish. How then do we become certain that he confers Holy Orders validly? His ordinations are doubtful in the first place."
This whole situation, like 'Moran-gate,' is unnecessary if one truly trusts in Divine Providence - the scandal is unnecessary, the confusion is unnecessary. Sadly, this 'consecration' is yet one more proof of the abandonment of Archbishop Lefebvre by OLMC. How can they claim him as their founder, as a continuation of the traditional SSPX, with stunts like this? They cannot. No doubt, OLMC will have anticipated the scandal and the doubtfulness of the supposed 'consecration' of "Bishop" Pfeiffer and proffer some kind of defense, as they tried many times to do with Moran. But nothing they may offer in defense of this event will outweigh the words of Archbishop Lefebvre on Thuc-line consecrations, that 'the so-called "consecrations" (by Bishop Thuc) are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco ...'
Let us pray for all involved, particularly those who will continue to remain personally loyal to Fr. Pfeiffer, despite the scandal of this dubious 'consecration.' So many of these are good souls, trying to do the right thing but perhaps do not know their faith enough to remove themselves from this situation, who absolutely trust Fr. Pfeiffer. But as we have been saying for years about those who blindly follow Bp. Williamson in his errors, we must not follow persons but the Faith!
Our Lady, help of Christians, pray for us!
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Jul 31, 2020 12:01:07 GMT
So, does this mean “His Excellency” is now permissive on Seddvacantist and Feeneyite errrors? Like +Williamson?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Jul 31, 2020 14:01:04 GMT
So, does this mean “His Excellency” is now permissive on Seddvacantist and Feeneyite errrors? Like +Williamson? This would make it an official act from now 'Bishop' Pfieffer that he has turned Kentucky into a feenyite/sedevacantist organisation besides all the other errors that crept in from Moran and acceptance of novus ordo. Dont forget the 'ordination' mass was performed by a heretic doubtful bishop who dragged these poor souls into the sin of 'Communicatio in Sacris cum acatholicus', all with direction and permission of 'Bishop' Pfieffer, making the scandal very grave. A multiplication of prayers, penances and much forbearance are needed for Kentucky especially for those poor seminarians and innocent souls caught up in this debacle. This is a wake up call for the true Resistance and a test to remain in line with the Faithful Archbishop Lefebvre. St Ignatius of Loyola pray for us! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2020 16:44:45 GMT
I’ve been told that this “Bishop” Webster administered Confirmation at OLMC in the last week or so to members of the OLMC laity.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Jul 31, 2020 23:29:19 GMT
Things are moving rapidly at OLMC. Apparently Fr. Pfeiffer is giving tonsure tonight.
Wonder why the rush? Maybe he doesn’t want the seminarians to change their minds about receiving Orders from him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 1, 2020 4:19:58 GMT
In this video, Fr. Pfeiffer talks about how “Bishop” Webster came to do his consecration and that he was aware that “Bishop” Webster is a Sedevancantist and a Feeneyite. He says that he told him that he wasn’t in agreement with him in his beliefs of Sedevacantism and the Feeneyite belief of baptism, but “Bishop” Webster agreed to consecrate him anyway knowing the difference of belief. It starts at 3:10:00. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2020 11:28:38 GMT
Leaving aside the very doubtful lineage of "Bishop" Webster as a Thuc line priest and bishop, there is a lot of commentary both within and without of Resistance circles that the Fr. Pfeiffer consecration appears to be invalid because of a mutilation of the form of the Sacrament by "Bishop" Webster.
In the video released by OLMC of the ceremony it appears that "Bishop" Webster mutilated the form and accidentally substituted the word 'ministry' for 'mystery?
While the fake Resistance is certainly repeating this, it is also being noted on a well-known Sedevacantist website, Novus Ordo Watch and apparently (though it's hearsay), Bp. Sanborn has stated that the 'consecration' was invalid because of this mutilation as well.
Here is an excerpt from the Novus Ordo Watch article entitled, No Bishop Pfeiffer: Feeneyite Fails at Attempt to Consecrate Bishop for SSPX-Resistance. This commentary is interesting because "Bishop" Webster is Sedevacantist and yet this is Sedevacantist website noting that "Bishop" Webster's episcopal lineage is doubtful, as are most in the Resistance. [Red font emphasis mine. All other emphasis in the original.] So it seems that doubt abounds in at two important levels of this 'consecration.'
The validity of the consecrator is himself doubtful, coming from Thuc lines as both priest and bishop. [See the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in the OP.]
And now under closer scrutiny, there is doubt about the fumbling and mutilation of the form?
* * *
The Catholic Church teaches that
Recall these words from Fr. David Hewko
From Fr. Scott Gardener in the article, Validity is not Enough [SSPX]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2020 11:36:48 GMT
In this video, Fr. Pfeiffer talks about how “Bishop” Webster came to do his consecration and that he was aware that “Bishop” Webster is a Sedevancantist and a Feeneyite. He says that he told him that he wasn’t in agreement with him in his beliefs of Sedevacantism and the Feeneyite belief of baptism, but “Bishop” Webster agreed to consecrate him anyway knowing the difference of belief.
It is troubling that Fr. Pfeiffer consented to work with a doubtful bishop who does not profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety ("Bishop" Webster is a Feenneyite and a Sedevacantist)!
Fr. Pfeiffer allowed this "Bishop" Webster to give confirmation to OLMC faithful, at OLMC I'm told. At least when Fr. Pfeiffer allowed Moran to give confirmations, it wasn't done at OLMC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Aug 1, 2020 12:05:54 GMT
From the 3:14:20 mark of the tonsure video "Bishop" Pfieffer apparently says that the essential form of the consecration was repeated afterwards to correct confusion. Still this does not dimininish the doubtfullness of his "episcopate".
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Aug 1, 2020 18:06:53 GMT
From the 3:14:20 mark of the tonsure video "Bishop" Pfieffer apparently says that the essential form of the consecration was repeated afterwards to correct confusion. Still this does not dimininish the doubtfullness of his "episcopate". Agreed. Besides, we only have Fr. Pfeiffer’s word - no video - that the conditional reconsecration allegedly took place. This is like Moran 2.0 start to finish. |
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Aug 4, 2020 15:50:00 GMT
As far as I am concerned, the questionable validity, while a serious concern, is not the number one concern. The fact that "Bishop" (who knows!) Neil Webster is a Feeneyite and preaches baptism of water only is the worst aspect. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are the teaching of the Church. Neal Webster is a man who publicly denies the teaching of the Church, who publicly teaches against the teaching of the Church. Father Pfeiffer saying that he disagrees with him on that one point just does not cut it. Any one of us might just as easily go to the Russian Orthodox for Holy Communion and if we say afterwards that we told them that we disagreed with them, we would still be guilty of Communicatio in Sacris.
Holy Orders are, in and of themselves, a good thing. But they are not the most important thing, they are not more important than the Faith. From now on, whenever Fr. Pfeiffer talks about the Faith, our Holy Faith, standing for the Faith, spreading the Faith, etc., I will hear only the voice of hypocrisy and deceit. Does that same "Faith" include Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, by any chance? Our Holy Catholic Faith is so precious that we can never do anything to diminish it, or even risk diminishing it, in ourselves or in others. It is so precious that we cannot compromise it, we cannot compromise on a level of doctrine, we cannot even risk giving the *appearance* to compromise on a level of doctrine. "Without Faith it is impossible to please God" - not without sacraments, without priesthood, without bishops, without Holy Orders... The Faith is what gets us to heaven. At baptism, when asked what they seek from the Church, the godparents reply not "baptism," not "the sacraments" but "Faith."
There was once a time when Fr. Pfeiffer himself understood this. Why is it that for the past seven or eight years, Fr. Pfeiffer's faithful were told by him not go to the sedevacantists to get their children confirmed, they couldn't go to the Feeneyite Fr. Gavin Bitzer in Louisville for the sacraments (for example)... but it is now somehow alright for him to go to a sedevacantist Feeneyite for episcopal consecration? Holy Orders is arguably a more important sacrament and therefore one even more strictly controlled and with even stronger punishments attached to its misuse and abuse. Which is worse - a layman receiving Holy Communion at a Feeneyite chapel or having his child confirmed by a sedevacantist bishop, or a priest receiving episcopal consecration from one?
Tragic.
If any man thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.
|
|
