Author Topic: Fr. Altamira allied with Sedevacantist bishop (Read 4077 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 02, 2017, 10:23:41 AM »

Quote

News from Colombia:

Fr. Altamira has made an alliance with Bp. Morello of Argentina, a sedevacantist and ex-SSPX priest consecrated by another sedevacantist and ex-SSPX bishop Robert Neville from the United States.

There is a letter from Archbishop Lefebvre (circa 1989) against Bp. Morello sent to the SSPX Bp. Alfonso de Galarreta. It has been translated into English. Bp. Morello is a great traitor.

Fr. Altamira has publicly announced an upcoming visit of Bp. Morello to Bogota, Colombia.

My source (from Colombia) is absolutely reliable.

Bishop Morello has been soundly chastised in the past by Archbishop Lefebvre, in a letter from 1989:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Between-Modernism-and-Jansenism

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2017, 11:38:32 AM »

:scratchchin:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2017, 12:03:42 PM »

There is a huge potential for advocates of the sede vacante position to gain a lot of momentum in the coming years. There are a few factors that seem to indicate this:

(1) more and more lay folk (surprisingly on a universal level) considering Bergoglio an apostate, anti-Catholic hell bent on destroying everything Catholic that remains of the Novus Ordo/conciliar church,

(2) the long, drawn out process of a sell-out by the authorities of the SSPX and how this becomes more apparent with each passing day,

(3) an accelerated, profound crisis in the Church, the likes of which the world has never seen,

(4) the lack of growth of resistance chapels in the U.S. where Tradition has "flourished" for so long,

and

(5) an apparent organizing of Thuc-line bishops to pick up where the Society is failing.

I grew up between the SSPX chapel in Tennessee and the Christ the King Abbey of Fr. Leonard, OSB. At this point, given the choice, I don't see the sede chapels as a threat to Catholic truth or sedevacantists as some sort of "self-absorbed promethean neopelagians".

Being impartial, that's all.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2017, 01:03:52 PM »

Quote

I grew up between the SSPX chapel in Tennessee and the Christ the King Abbey of Fr. Leonard, OSB.

On a side note, my family used to visit Fr Leonard's chapel once a year as we passed through Alabama for vacation. What a beautiful place! So sad to see they 'made a deal' with rome.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:02:40 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Quote
I grew up between the SSPX chapel in Tennessee and the Christ the King Abbey of Fr. Leonard, OSB.

On a side note, my family used to visit Fr Leonard's chapel once a year as we passed through Alabama for vacation. What a beautiful place! So sad to see they 'made a deal' with rome.

I was happy to recently have learned that the faithful regrouped near Huntsville and there is a mission there. After recently having attended at the old SSPX chapel where I learned to serve Mass and seeing the 'economy of silence' at play, I know where I'll be attending Mass next time I'm in the area.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:23:41 PM »

Mithrandylan,

I might be "slightly biased" in favor of Bishop Williamson, but you are not exactly an imperfect third party observer, as you pretend to be. Hey, at least SOMEONE is honest.

As as matter of fact, in about a dozen places in your post you betray your STRONG FEELINGS and OPINIONS about Bishop Williamson, Bishop Morello, and the matter in question. You are several times more biased than me, only in the opposite direction.

1. You are a sedevacantist. And your speech throughout your post gives away your STRONG opinions in the matter. You aren't just impartially relating facts, in love with the truth, or any of that. You're working for your team, PERIOD. And that team is Team Sedevacantism.
2. You frequent/visit various forums including those dedicated to Fr. Pfeiffer/Sedevacantism/hatred of Bishop Williamson.
3. Related to #2, you got your "report" from one of those fora. You weren't a witness to anything you allege, and you weren't even CLOSE TO THE EVENTS as in "I knew someone who was involved." You are a young man who was probably riding a tricycle (or maybe you already mastered the "big boy" two-wheel bicycle) when Uruttigoity and the "Society of St. John" was working their drama at the SSPX seminary in the late 1990's.
4. You are inclined to trust your sedevacantist bishop(s)/priest(s), while I'm inclined to trust Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, Bishop Thomas Aquinas, and the priests with them, on this issue.
5. The crisis in the SSPX is basically a "reset switch" for a large part of the true fight for Tradition. Tradition has, almost overnight, become much much smaller.
6. It's a fact that there is a WAR going on right now in Tradition, in particular on the burning wreck of a ship that used to be the SSPX. The Sedevacantists want to make sure they have a stronger hand this "go round" in the world of Tradition. Also, you have rogue priests (like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer) who doesn't scruple to slander those who refuse to work under him -- including Bishop Williamson. Fr. Pfeiffer in particular has widespread propaganda to this end.
7. Therefore I have made it a matter of policy to not allow Fr. Pfeiffer's propaganda (or that of the sedevacantists, who I disagree with) on my forum.
8. Last but not least, don't kid yourself that you posted an impartial report. The report in question basically demonizes Bp. Williamson while canonizing Bp. Morello. That is why I call it propaganda. It skews things in one direction -- the direction of the agenda of the one who wrote it. You're obviously ok with that agenda, but I'm not.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2017, 04:16:08 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Mithrandylan,

I might be "slightly biased" in favor of Bishop Williamson, but you are not exactly an imperfect third party observer, as you pretend to be. Hey, at least SOMEONE is honest.

As as matter of fact, in about a dozen places in your post you betray your STRONG FEELINGS and OPINIONS about Bishop Williamson, Bishop Morello, and the matter in question. You are several times more biased than me, only in the opposite direction.

1. You are a sedevacantist. And your speech throughout your post gives away your STRONG opinions in the matter. You aren't just impartially relating facts, in love with the truth, or any of that. You're working for your team, PERIOD. And that team is Team Sedevacantism.

My opinions about keeping scuм like Urrigoity out of traditional Catholic seminaries and away from the faithful are far stronger than my opinions about sedevacantism, and if you go through my posting history you'll see that I've expressed disdain for how the Fr. U situation was before joinging "Team Sedevacantism" (LOL).

Quote

2. You frequent/visit various forums including those dedicated to Fr. Pfeiffer/Sedevacantism/hatred of Bishop Williamson.

Wait what?

Quote

3. Related to #2, you got your "report" from one of those fora. You weren't a witness to anything you allege, and you weren't even CLOSE TO THE EVENTS as in "I knew someone who was involved." You are a young man who was probably riding a tricycle (or maybe you already mastered the "big boy" two-wheel bicycle) when Uruttigoity and the "Society of St. John" was working their drama at the SSPX seminary in the late 1990's.

Haha. But I didn't. And I was ("close to the events"), at least relative to many others, since I lived and attended mass near the area and since my family was fairly involved and since our family friends were likewise involved and were the types of people who "knew things". I knew about Urrigoity before I knew about the Internet. At least before I used it. Certainly before I was even aware of such a place as Cathinfo, Fisheaters, or any of the other fora. I wouldn't even recommend someone "go to the forums" for this type of info since it has a propensity to find itself deleted :D

Randy Engel has a complete account, as do some others. Those are reliable sources.

Quote

4. You are inclined to trust your sedevacantist bishop(s)/priest(s), while I'm inclined to trust Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, Bishop Thomas Aquinas, and the priests with them, on this issue.

On what issue? The Urrigoity issue?

Quote

5. The crisis in the SSPX is basically a "reset switch" for a large part of the true fight for Tradition. Tradition has, almost overnight, become much much smaller.
6. It's a fact that there is a WAR going on right now in Tradition, in particular on the burning wreck of a ship that used to be the SSPX. The Sedevacantists want to make sure they have a stronger hand this "go round" in the world of Tradition. Also, you have rogue priests (like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer) who doesn't scruple to slander those who refuse to work under him -- including Bishop Williamson. Fr. Pfeiffer in particular has widespread propaganda to this end.

Yeah, fine, but I haven't slandered anyone.

Quote

7. Therefore I have made it a matter of policy to not allow Fr. Pfeiffer's propaganda (or that of the sedevacantists, who I disagree with) on my forum.
8. Last but not least, don't kid yourself that you posted an impartial report. The report in question basically demonizes Bp. Williamson while canonizing Bp. Morello. That is why I call it propaganda. It skews things in one direction -- the direction of the agenda of the one who wrote it. You're obviously ok with that agenda, but I'm not.

Please. No one need take my word for things, the events are well docuмented (again, look up Randy Engel). I took offense to you intimating Morello as some bastard of the Society whom the Archbishop had reprimanded, digging up a thirty year old letter as proof. There's so much more to the story and Morello's expulsion from the SSPX is simply not reducible to "he was a proud, vain sede and he had to go." Not at all.

Morello's story re: the SSPX is INSEPARABLE from the Urrigoity scandal. So I don't think he's someone that people should really be brought up by SSPX folk who aren't ready to at least face a little music about that mess, one where the only figures beyond reproach were Morello himself, Fellay, and the Archbishop (to whom I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt). de Gallerata and Williamson made horrible decisions, even if they were made in good will. Their character judgment was seriously lacking, and continued to lack for a decade while a predator was teaching in the seminary. Unless you want to apologize for that and argue that they actually made objectively GOOD decisions, then this is something that you should be ready to let lie, because there's no winning fight to be had.

Benzel · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2017, 04:25:35 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Mithrandylan,

I might be "slightly biased" in favor of Bishop Williamson, but you are not exactly an imperfect third party observer, as you pretend to be. Hey, at least SOMEONE is honest.

As as matter of fact, in about a dozen places in your post you betray your STRONG FEELINGS and OPINIONS about Bishop Williamson, Bishop Morello, and the matter in question. You are several times more biased than me, only in the opposite direction.

1. You are a sedevacantist. And your speech throughout your post gives away your STRONG opinions in the matter. You aren't just impartially relating facts, in love with the truth, or any of that. You're working for your team, PERIOD. And that team is Team Sedevacantism.
2. You frequent/visit various forums including those dedicated to Fr. Pfeiffer/Sedevacantism/hatred of Bishop Williamson.
3. Related to #2, you got your "report" from one of those fora. You weren't a witness to anything you allege, and you weren't even CLOSE TO THE EVENTS as in "I knew someone who was involved." You are a young man who was probably riding a tricycle (or maybe you already mastered the "big boy" two-wheel bicycle) when Uruttigoity and the "Society of St. John" was working their drama at the SSPX seminary in the late 1990's.
4. You are inclined to trust your sedevacantist bishop(s)/priest(s), while I'm inclined to trust Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, Bishop Thomas Aquinas, and the priests with them, on this issue.
5. The crisis in the SSPX is basically a "reset switch" for a large part of the true fight for Tradition. Tradition has, almost overnight, become much much smaller.
6. It's a fact that there is a WAR going on right now in Tradition, in particular on the burning wreck of a ship that used to be the SSPX. The Sedevacantists want to make sure they have a stronger hand this "go round" in the world of Tradition. Also, you have rogue priests (like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer) who doesn't scruple to slander those who refuse to work under him -- including Bishop Williamson. Fr. Pfeiffer in particular has widespread propaganda to this end.
7. Therefore I have made it a matter of policy to not allow Fr. Pfeiffer's propaganda (or that of the sedevacantists, who I disagree with) on my forum.
8. Last but not least, don't kid yourself that you posted an impartial report. The report in question basically demonizes Bp. Williamson while canonizing Bp. Morello. That is why I call it propaganda. It skews things in one direction -- the direction of the agenda of the one who wrote it. You're obviously ok with that agenda, but I'm not.

:applause:

Mithrandylan is right and Archbishop Lefebvre is wrong?

Quote of Archbishop Lefebvre (letter to Bp. de Galarreta, July 1989): "On the occasion of a new division, provoked by Fr. Morello in South America, which puts our dear Society to the test, it seems to me timely to analyze how the devil works to weaken or nullify our work."

insidebaseball · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2017, 05:19:01 PM »

Never go soft on pedes and homos. My father was interviewed for the seminary in the 50's and the first question asked was "if he liked girls". And you better give a convincing yes.

AJNC · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2017, 07:19:15 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

There is a huge potential for advocates of the sede vacante position to gain a lot of momentum in the coming years. There are a few factors that seem to indicate this:

(1) more and more lay folk (surprisingly on a universal level) considering Bergoglio an apostate, anti-Catholic hell bent on destroying everything Catholic that remains of the Novus Ordo/conciliar church,

(2) the long, drawn out process of a sell-out by the authorities of the SSPX and how this becomes more apparent with each passing day,

(3) an accelerated, profound crisis in the Church, the likes of which the world has never seen,

(4) the lack of growth of resistance chapels in the U.S. where Tradition has "flourished" for so long,

and

(5) an apparent organizing of Thuc-line bishops to pick up where the Society is failing.

I grew up between the SSPX chapel in Tennessee and the Christ the King Abbey of Fr. Leonard, OSB. At this point, given the choice, I don't see the sede chapels as a threat to Catholic truth or sedevacantists as some sort of "self-absorbed promethean neopelagians".

Being impartial, that's all.

May this post of your's be prophetic, Centroamerica! There is a British saying that goes thus: The milkman runs off with your wife and you go and kick your cat! To me, this seems to be the situation the Resistance finds itself concerning the Sell-out!