Fr. Zendejas DOES have public statements of doctrine. Behold:
https://latinmasstexas.wordpress.com/fr-gerardo-zendejas-sermons/

Moderator Edit:
Here is an endorsement of Fr. Zendejas by Bishop Williamson, a very prominent bishop of the Resistance:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/4QRA6Z7m7k8[/youtube]

I just have one question: is Fr. Pfeiffer with this bishop, or against him? He can't claim that someone +W endorses is "not kosher", "not Catholic", or that his Masses are to be red-lighted (avoided).

But as of July 9, 2015, that is precisely what Fr. Pfeiffer is doing. He claims that Fr. Zendejas' Masses are to be avoided because "his doctrine isn't clear" etc. and he advises his "followers" to stay home rather than attend Fr. Zendejas' Masses.

So Fr. Pfeiffer should be soundly condemning +W at this point, in no uncertain terms, if Fr. Zendejas truly has issues with his doctrine. Come on, Fr. Pfeiffer.




My first criticism of Fr. Pfeiffer: his ongoing retention of "Pablo" as his media spokesman. Why, you ask? The title of this sermon which merits MUCH criticism:
"First Paul & Bugnini now Zendajas & Williamson All Souls Day 2014"
A ridiculous title. +Williamson wasn't mentioned even once in the sermon. Pablo has a grudge against +W and anyone not "una cuм" Fr. Pfeiffer, and it's quite disgusting.

Here is a transcript of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon. Early on, I decided to abbreviate Fr. Pfeiffer "Fr. P" and Fr. Zendejas "Fr. Z".


1. Fr Zendejas "failed" to get back to him about getting "help" from him. It's a crime now if you don't seek help from another fellow priest?
Remember that Fr. Zendejas was never under Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer. In fact, Fr. Zendejas was used to being a prior. He's a leader, not a follower.

2. Fr. Pfeiffer says that priests have been "fighting" since Old Testament times.

3. Fr. Z, to Fr. P: "I'm going to say Mass every Sunday. I'm going to take over the parish. Maybe you can go on to other places. If you want to return, if you want to come and visit, you're welcome to come and visit." (Recall: Fr. Z knows that Fr. P can't possibly take care of 25 chapels adequately, given his current number of helpers, which is basically Fr. Hewko)

4. Fr. Pfeiffer, to Fr. Zendejas: "Father, I'm the pastor of this parish. I'm the pastor of these parishes. Father, I built these parishes. I don't ask permission to come back to my parishes."
(Said no missionary priest EVER! Fr. P is basically a "missionary", setting up parishes from scratch, which is great. But you can't mix up the concept of missionary priest and parish priest. Normally, a parish priest only has ONE parish. Because a preist can only PROPERLY TAKE CARE OF just one parish!)

5. So far, I think to myself, "Is Boston, KY the new Rome? Is Fr. Pfeiffer the Pope now? Every priest who doesn't go through Boston, KY by default is somehow a "wildcat", "rogue", or "vagus"? Give me a break.

6. He is still strongly red-lighting the SSPX. He says that "many of our people still go to SSPX Masses." and in the next breath he says that some also go to FSSP, Indult, and even the Novus Ordo! I have a hard time believing people would go to a Resistance Mass one week, and Novus Ordo the other. Even the FSSP is quite a bit different from the SSPX, even today. The SSPX started out completely traditional and frankly it hasn't changed much YET on a parish level.

7. Fr. P told Fr. Z "you have a different opinion" on the Red-light/Yellow-light issue. Fr. Z didn't respond. Neither would I have responded! What's the use of yelling and arguing about it? Fr. Z is intelligent and surely knows Fr. P's strong views on the matter.

8. Fr. compares Fr. Z to someone who comes in an takes the keys and says, "I'm taking your house". I doubt Fr. Z is improperly acquiring any real estate. As far as I know, the Pfeifferian Resistance doesn't own any buildings (either with or without a mortgage) outside Boston, KY. Am I wrong about this? PLEASE correct me if I am!

9. Next thought: What happened to the attitude of St. John the Baptist? "He must increase, and I must decrease." Not saying that Fr. Z is way above Fr. P, but it's true that Fr. P's role is to set up these chapels -- he took that role upon himself. He can't get possessive about them now; after all he can't properly take care of so many. What Fr. Z is doing is the logical next step, and had to happen eventually! Ok, so Fr. P took the initiative and set up all these chapels *nationwide*. So now he gets to "own" all the serious Traditional Catholics in the United States indefinitely, or until he chooses to relinquish them? That's not exactly fair. Who elected him Pope?

10. Fr. P said that if the faithful ask Fr. P/Fr. Hewko to leave, then they will leave.

11. Fr. P criticizes Fr. Z for pushing a "different view" which is to persevere by having stable, frequent Mass. Fr. P said "they" have more Masses, better choir, "more incense". He says that if the fight is about weekly Mass, then go to [the SSPX parish].

12. Fr. P goes on for quite a few minutes with an analogy of an older Vietnamese lady who didn't have Mass for years, but she kept the Faith "because she slept with her Rosary". Basically the "Japanese kept the Faith for 200 years without priests or the Mass" argument.

13. Fr. P talks about the "temptation of security" which is now "hitting our parish".

14. I just realized Fr. P's "weakness" -- besides being stubborn, he also brings up arguments that are neither here nor there. For example, in the Red-light/Yellow-light argument -- what does mentioning "the other 7 billion people who need conversion" bring to the argument? Are the red-lighters necessarily more apostolic than yellow-lighters? No! So he says a lot of things that sound good, but really don't have a bearing on the argument. He appeals to peoples' emotions. Which is why many Pfeiffer Pfanatics (those who are objectively guilty of "cult of personality" with Fr. Pfeiffer) tend to be emotional and are VERY difficult to deal with in a rational context (say, on a message board).

15. Fr. P praises the Blessed Virgin Mary, "who never learned a Catechism". So he's downplaying the necessity of Catechism for the average Catholic today? Huh?

16. Fr. P: "When one sheep is lost, the army of God is smaller. And we don't want the army of God to become smaller. Therefore we go after the lost sheep." Are we to assume that Fr. Pfeiffer believes Fr. Zendejas and any other group not "in communion" with Boston, KY to be Schismatic and non-Catholic? Is he running a cult now? Kyrie Eleison!

17. Fr. P does a very poor job of justifying his turf war. It's not about "the Faith". Fr. Z is just as solid of a Catholic priest. Arguing how the Resistance (continuation of +ABL's mission) is a good thing is neither here nor there. Fr. Zendejas can be just as faithful OUTSIDE the aegis of Boston, KY! Again, is Boston the new Rome? Is the Pfeiffer Ranch the new Vatican?

18. Fr. P: "Let them mock and say there is a division in the Resistance. Let them mock. Let them spread their gossip upon the Internet whichever way they wish." Ooooh boy. That was LOW. What can I say about that? You've learned well from Fr. Rostand. No, Father, how about I just post the transcript of your sermon and let the words speak for themselves! People can see this is a petty turf war, and that's what this is.

19. It's true that Fr. Z hasn't said a whole lot publicly about his stance on Modernism, recent SSPX errors, etc. He needs to be more transparent to help end this latest strife. I just assume he's a good Traditional priest (which implies opposition to Modernism, any bad theology, etc.), based on knowing him personally. But maybe that's not enough?

20. Fr. P: "Perhaps I am making a mistake." BINGO, Father!

21. Fr. P says, "I will speak publicly and openly. I will not work in the dark." implying, of course, that Fr. Z is doing just that. Fr. P firmly attemps to grab the moral high ground.

22. Fr. P: "But I believe that the lady that God sent to me this week was sent from Heaven. And I think that she knows more about the supernatural life because she slept with the Rosary." See what I mean about appeal to emotion? This kind of emotional drivel appeals to some people, but those of a more rational sort are nauseated. So we should stop going to Mass because it's not connected with Fr. Pfeiffer, stop going to our perfectly orthodox SSPX Mass center, and put a Rosary under our pillow and we'll be OK? That if we do this, we'll know "more about the spiritual life" than those idiots who have a "different vision" and insist on trifles like "going to weekly Mass"? Come on, Father!

23. Father compares those in the CT chapel (which Fr. Z recently took over) to those in an Indian restaurant eating to satiety while an old woman outside literally starves to death. He thinks they're being selfish, thinking only of their own needs and not the needs of everyone in the area. He even goes so far as to say they will turn away from God when they are put to the test. I don't see how a priest coming in (who wasn't helping the Resistance before) to offer weekly/daily Mass for a group can be a bad thing! Maybe Fr. P should seek assistance from someone with more administrative and organizational skills? Because whatever gifts God gave Fr. P (which are indeed many!) administration and organization were not among them. Just stating a fact.



I leave you with the observation of Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara about Germans: "Germans, when they get into philosophy, they have a tendency to detach their minds from reality."

It's true that Fr. Z hasn't said a whole lot publicly about his stance on Modernism, recent SSPX errors, etc. He needs to be more transparent to help end this latest strife. I just assume he's a good Traditional priest (which implies opposition to Modernism, any bad theology, etc.), based on knowing him personally. But maybe that's not enough?

Anyone who has attended Fr. Voigt's masses knows that he basically never brings up the SSPX's new direction in any substantial way, nor does he have a habit of preaching against modernism.  Peripheral and passing obligatory remarks about those things is the best you can expect *once in a while*.  

ETA: In other words, I'm not sure why this should be a "problem" with Fr. Ze (if true) when it's the M.O. of Fr. Voigt to leave these topics well alone.

Neither am I saying it's a good or a bad thing, it depends on what other strengths the priest has.  Just pointing out that the Pfeifferian Resistance has shown no problem in using the services of a priest who leaves these issues well alone, so not sure why that would suddenly be a problem now.

I just now checked out the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel website to see what I may find.  I found an article titled "Sheep Stealing."  It goes over much the same in bullet points outlined in the OP--which, frankly, I thought had to be exaggerated until I saw it for myself from the source.  This is disgusting!!

Having Pablo in any sort of significant role, especially out front as a spokesman, is indicative of piss-poor judgment.

Well, unfortunately it sounds like the "inthissignyoushallconquer" circulatory that went around, even if not the direct work of Fr. P or Pablo, well encapsulates their thoughts on the matter.

It's sick.

If the faithful in the NE do not have need of Fr. Zendejas to say Mass weekly I know of a group of faithful that would gladly support him.

By coincidence my first Ignatian Retreat in Ridgefield, CT in September 2005 I had both Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer as two of the priests preaching that retreat. Real life is stranger than fiction...

It was a powerful and moving sermon.  Why was not Fr. Z more forthcoming regarding his plans to take over Fr. Pfeiffer's parish?  This all could have been avoided if there had been an honest approach by Fr. Z.

You think that long sermons which touch on current events or personal conflicts are appropriate for mass? You don't think it would have, instead, been more profitable and consistent with pre-Vatican 2 training to give a seven minute sermon regarding the Gospel of the mass or how about a sermon dedicated to exhorting people to pray for the Holy Souls?

This is so disedifying and it obscures the great feast of the day with worldly cares.

in these times, faithful need to be appraised of situations as they arise. there is not always time to hold confrences, or cups of tea, and question time, so fr speaks as he can, and the faithful are clear in the hearing,  as fr says 'this is a battle'

Unless it is something earth shattering why does it have to be announced and explained instead of a proper sermon?  We are here, not at the Novus Ordo, we've made our decision.  How is internal poliltics going to save our souls especially when we can't temporally do anything about it?  We're not here for news.  

and if its the Priest who doesnt have that hour, because he has to say Mass somewhereelse?

because this needed to be cleared up, simple as that. also, there was teaching in those words too,  'be vigilant the devil goes round like a roaring lion' and will use any, and everyone one of us, 'pray the rosary'.

So is Fr. Zendejas the devil as a roaring lion?

Evidence, please.

There is also a moral to the good Samaritan, who realized that someone, not of "his flock" was wounded on the roadside.  Who is to say Fr. Ze was not the good Samaritan, realizing there were faithful in need of his help?

Until you Pfeiferites can produce evidence against Fr. Ze as a thief and usurper, your "pleas" fall on deaf ears and my esteem of you is at the bottom of the bottle.