Author Topic: Bishop Kelly and Father Jenkins (Read 8888 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** December 09, 2009, 06:21:05 PM »

Anybody hear of a falling out between Father Jenkins and Bishop Kelly.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2009, 06:28:23 PM »

Yes. :)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2009, 06:33:00 PM »

Why? For what reason? Father Jenkins has left us hanging for the past week over baptizing our infant daughter. He has recieved my messages according to the secretary but will not return the call. Do these people WANT to go to Hell or what?

These must be the end times. The whole world has gone mad.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2009, 07:11:48 PM »

They probably know you have been on this blog and consider it risky to get involved with you. They have been watching this blog for awhile.

Fr. Jenkins is most certainly not the only priest capable of performing a valid Baptism for your baby!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2009, 07:14:16 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Anybody hear of a falling out between Father Jenkins and Bishop Kelly.

Yes. Fr. Jenkins made a video recording about it in Bishop Mendez Hall some weeks after the Sisters left. I think it was early July of 2006.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2009, 08:04:08 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

They probably know you have been on this blog and consider it risky to get involved with you. They have been watching this blog for awhile.

Fr. Jenkins is most certainly not the only priest capable of performing a valid Baptism for your baby!

Just out of curiosity, why do you consider this a blog?

Is any site operated by an individual a blog?

I always thought a blog was a specific kind of website: where an individual talks about some aspect of his life to the Internet at large.

But a key element of a blog is: ONE INDIVIDUAL (or one family) is behind all the posts. Not a group of unrelated people.

If this forum had 2,000 visitors and only 3 posters, and most of the posts were mine, I could see calling it a "de-facto blog" (a blog in deed if not in name)

But is CathInfo really about my personality, my life, my family? Not at all. Only a very small fraction of CathInfo's content comes from me.

If you're looking for a generic term -- I'd suggest forum, message board, community, or chat room (not as accurate).

Matthew

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2009, 08:43:03 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Anybody hear of a falling out between Father Jenkins and Bishop Kelly.

Yes. Fr. Jenkins made a video recording about it in Bishop Mendez Hall some weeks after the Sisters left. I think it was early July of 2006.

Can you give me the specifics?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2009, 04:52:57 AM »

Hi Matthew, of course you are right - this isn't a blog! I used to think these forums were called blogs, and I revert to that word. I can understand it being annoying, because the term 'chat room' really hits me the wrong way. Sorry!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2009, 09:43:43 AM »

Mother Mary Bosco sent a memo to all of the parents April 28 2007 (hope I have the year right) stating the Sisiters would not be returning to Immaculate Conception Academy the following school year.

There was no explanation of Why. Rumors, gossip, private meetings amongst the parish Movers-and-Shakers, silence, suspicion, lies, misunderstandings, ruined friendships, detractions and all kinds of demoralisation followed.

About three months later, after the nuns were moved out of the convent Fr. Jenkins announced he would be giving a talk.
He said he was videorecording the talk because people were misrepresenting his words. ( How ironic, considering he could have simply told the truth from the beginning and not cultivated the factions, secrecy and calumnies.)

I brought a notebook, and on it is written the word Paranoia.
That's my only note.

Fr. Jenkins said that Bp. Kelly had continued "to make mountains out of molehills". There had been an issue with students that had not been resolved in a manner satisfactory to the Sisters. (Based on personal experience with those who took over for the Sisters, I absolutely can't believe they stuck it out at ICA for as long as they did.)

Fr. Jenkins mocked Bp. Kelly, using a gutteral tone of voice, "It's aaalll your fault". He mentioned a faction in the parish called the Northern Alliance. I was left with the impression of a madman roaming around in an old mansion in Long Island. He complained that Bp. Kelly would not speak to him. He said he was notified that the nuns were leaving on Good Friday. He said he is not a "cult leader".

A woman who has worked for the Immaculate Conception priests for many years told me she had supplied Fr. Jenkins the material for his talk. She told me she was Fr. Jenkins' confidant in this whole matter, having been a realtor and with them from back in the days in Connecticut. This is the same teacher who slapped a student in the face at Mass last year, among other things. (every parish has a few ladies who desire to be indispensible to the priest)

I believe the video talk was a ploy, because Bp. Santay has not seen it. We can not recall Fr. Jenkins admitting to any wrongdoing. We were given the impression that Bp. Kelly was paranoid and ill, bent on mistreating Fr. Jenkins.

Fr. Jenkins claims he was disciplined for debating about Terri Sciavo. ( Due to particlar incidents I have witnessed/experienced I can not vouch for his honesty in any matter.)

That's about all I can remember, except for leaving feeling outraged that Fr. Jenkins had been so persecuted, but now I believe I was very ignorant and stupid.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** December 10, 2009, 02:30:43 PM »

Thank you for this Elizabeth.

Two recent converts, one very recent, are being persecuted for daring to have a Catholic website that is not only SSPV. I just finish talking to one of them for about 1 1/2.

Thanks be to God, that neither is scandalized into losing the faith or allowing the cult leaders to undermine the crediblity of SV.

Not all of us are dumb blind sheep, you Communistic Cult Leaders. Not even the new converts.

I gave them the adress and number to Saint Athanasius in Vienna. I am convinced these conversts love truth more than prestige and look forward to seeing them at Saint Athanasius soon. We will not let them get away with this if we can help it.

I made sure that they understood that just because they are cult leaders does not mean that their Sacraments are invalid. They are quite valid and they can benefit from them. But I made them understand that their is another Parish just about equally close to them where they can have a Catholic ACTING Priest administer the Sacraments to them and where they would not be supporting a cult.

Lord, save us from this madness. The sheep should not have to be constantly teaching their shepherds.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2009, 11:24:52 AM »

Hi LoT, on the McKenzie thread, Catherine says that Fr. J asked Fr. Ramolla to come stay at Immaculate Conception, and that Fr. Ramolla told her himself that the two priests have been playing phone tag.

So how would that work, would Fr. Ramolla have to be conditionallly re-ordained - and by whom, it wouldn't be Bps. Kelly or Santay?

Lord save us from this madness, indeed.

Catherine · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2009, 11:50:34 AM »

LOL Elizabeth, Fr. Ramolla is of course from the Thuc line, & Fr. J & Fr. G are not talking to him about combining forces ... they are talking to him to let Fr. R know their position, not leave it to what he's been told at SGG, because we have all found out exactly how honest they have been there.

Fr. Ramolla is a good, holy man. He is also very busy right now & hasn't been able to touch base with them.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2009, 12:06:48 PM »

Quote from: Catherine

LOL Elizabeth, Fr. Ramolla is of course from the Thuc line, & Fr. J & Fr. G are not talking to him about combining forces ... they are talking to him to let Fr. R know their position, not leave it to what he's been told at SGG, because we have all found out exactly how honest they have been there.

Fr. Ramolla is a good, holy man. He is also very busy right now & hasn't been able to touch base with them.

I'm confused, twice you say they are talking to Fr Ramolla, and then you say Fr. Ramolla hasn't been able to touch base with Frs. G and J. Does this mean they are talking to you about what they will be discussing with Fr. Ramolla?

Catherine · « **Reply #13 on:** December 12, 2009, 04:59:07 PM »

Father Ramolla told me that Father Jenkins "wanted" to talk to him.

I heard from someone who is going to Mass now with Fr. Ramolla that he knew Fr. Jenkins & Fr. Greenwell wanted to talk to Fr. Ramolla as well.

When I spoke with Fr. Greenwell myself I asked him if they had talked to Fr. Ramolla, & he told me that they had been playing "phone tag", but had not had the opportunity to meet & talk. Fr. Ramolla is saying Mass now at the Wingate Hotel in West Chester, Ohio, but would like to find a church somewhere. I also asked Fr. Greenwell, because Bishop Dolan ordained Fr. Ramolla if they believed he was a valid priest, & he said, "No".

Fr. Jenkins & Fr. Greenwell do "want" to talk to Fr. Ramolla though.

Rome · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2009, 08:07:23 PM »

I wonder if they want to meet with him in their rectory and record the meeting ? They like to record meetings of parishoners they consider marginal. Marginal SSPV parishoners are non-family members of Father J and Father G and non founding members who have not been "there"since the beginning or close to the beginning of the movement

Also - what about the parishoners that Father J smears and slanders? Do they count also ? He will of course deny that he slanders the repuatations of SSPV parhisoners.