Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 88

Author Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer  (Read 104013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2020, 03:33:55 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 02:35:56 PM
Based one what I heard, I seriously doubt that this consecration was valid.  Someone correct me if they think they can make out anything resembling the actual form.

He misses ministerii and replaces it with mysterii,

misses summam (supreme, a key word) and replaces it with sanum (saving or healthy)

Considering the whole Boston operation, and "Bishop Pfeiffer" in particular, is going to be a disaster for the Church and Tradition going forward, it would be fitting (icing on the cake) if God allowed the consecration itself to be invalid.

It would be appropriate somehow, considering the demonic presence in Boston for the past several years.


I would also like to inject my opinion here: that any Trad Catholics contemplating "where should I attend Mass?" and they have two choices, the SSPX and a Fr. Pfeiffer chapel -- DEFINITELY go with the SSPX. If you can't stay home for some good reason, your faith will be FAR MORE SECURE at the SSPX, even as it exists today, than with Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer.

Leaving the SSPX to go with Fr. Pfeiffer is a classic example of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. And I'm not complimenting the SSPX either -- they are completely losing it. But it's a testament to *how bad* Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer's operation is.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #61 on: July 30, 2020, 03:57:12 PM »
In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII declared:

"The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

'Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.'
['Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.']  
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm

If any of these words are missing, the consecration is invalid.

If therefore it is true that the consecrator botched "ministerii tui summam" (instead saying "mysterii tui sanum," which is nonsensical) as reported by Ladialaus, then...

Note that I have not listened to the essential form in this consecration yet, so I am just commenting on what is the case if Ladislaus's hearing is correct.

But as stated previously, for me the doubtful validity of the consecrating bishop was already a critical impediment.

Now there is a concern regarding the recitation of the essential form as well.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #62 on: July 30, 2020, 04:00:11 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 02:30:46 PM
He struggles with the entire preface beginning at about 54:45 minutes in.

54:50 - 54:54, he seems to say "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" (Receive the Holy Ghost) while laying on his hands.  But he fumbles even this and appears to say "Spiritum Sanctum" twice.

Then he really strumbles through the preface.

Finally ... at about 59:10/11 he starts in on the essential words of the form.

Here are the words of the essential form --
First of all, he rolls into the "comple" from the previous sentence without a pause, making it sound like it goes with the previous thought.

so then it goes like this ... "comple in Sacerdote tuo Sacerdotibus tuis [he says both the singular and alternate plural forms ... you're supposed to pick one depending on whether you're consecrating one or more than one] misteri misterii tui [he botches ministerii confusing it with mysterii, confused by the word so he says it a second time, neither correctly ... I didn't hear any "n"] e tui [repeats the tui] sanum [botches "summam"] et ornamentis totius gori-fi-cationis [dashes being slight pauses] instructum

I'm going to have to listen another dozen times to completely get what follows, it's some garbled mess where he has to take a very long pause and someone has to fill him in.  I'll come back soon to try finishing this off.

after the instructum, he says something garbled resembling "ecce structis" ... so structis.  Then there's a very long pause (about 5 seconds) which confirms that he lost his place, and the MC helps him get started back up with the coe...coe...coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

So putting it altogether, here's what he said:
Comple in Sacerdote tuo sacerdotibus tuis misteri misterii tui e tui sanum et ornamentis totius glori-fi-cationis instructum ecce structis [5 second pause] coe-coe-coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

compared with the actual form.
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.


Logged

Offline Venantius0518

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2020, 04:00:55 PM »
Quote from: Matthew on July 30, 2020, 11:08:50 AM
Getting consecrated during a Crisis in the Church is not cause for criticism. SEEKING the episcopacy, against all advice, against the wisdom of your elders and superiors, adhering to demonic men like Pablo, promoting pedophile and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests, promoting fraudulent con-men like Ambrose, destroying vocations by seeking out pious young men (who might have vocations!) and keeping them in a slipshod, inadequate, discipline-free, curriculum-free seminary for years on end -- those are things to criticize.
For once I agree with you.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Bishop Pfeiffer
« Reply #64 on: July 30, 2020, 04:04:18 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 30, 2020, 04:00:11 PM
after the instructum, he says something garbled resembling "ecce structis" ... so structis.  Then there's a very long pause (about 5 seconds) which confirms that he lost his place, and the MC helps him get started back up with the coe...coe...coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

So putting it altogether, here's what he said:
Comple in Sacerdote tuo sacerdotibus tuis misteri misterii tui e tui sanum et ornamentis totius glori-fi-cationis instructum ecce structis [5 second pause] coe-coe-coelestis ungumenti rorari sanctifica.

compared with the actual form.
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.
Yeah, that would seem to be a problem.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 88
« previous next »