Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on February 15, 2020, 10:47:45 AM
-
Fr. Paul Norton sent me this open letter, to post on CathInfo in a non-anonymous subforum, so everyone who participates at least has to put his pseudonym to it.
It is a response to this thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/fr-paul-a-norton/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/fr-paul-a-norton/)
It is meritorious, upright, and spiritually healthy for the Catholic Faithful to ask for details about the the pedigree (ordination, consecration), training, and even the background ("work history") of ANY priest or bishop. Especially since we're living in a Crisis in the Church, when the official Church doesn't have detailed records about most Trad priests. The priesthood was instituted by Christ for the spiritual benefit of the Faithful; a priest is a public man. The priestly part of a priest HAS no privacy. That is to say, everything regarding him AS A PRIEST: his training, ordination details, where he has worked as a priest, etc. He has no right to the LEAST BIT of privacy about ANY of those things. He should happily provide his "resume" to any askers.
Just so we're on the same page about that. Now, for his open letter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi:
and he asked his disciples, saying:
Whom do men say that the Son of man is?”
Matthew 16:13
“Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have
always taught in the ѕуηαgσgυє, and in the temple, whither
all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing.”
John 18:20
During the years of my religious life (more than a decade) I have
been witness to great acts of goodness of both religious and lay
people that were for me examples of the elevated spiritual life of
which is capable the human nature when it submits itself to the
Grace of the True Faith. Self-sacrifice, perseverance, courage and
true charity (N.B. from the Latin “Charitas” 1 ) it is present in
the Trad world at every corner and in an admirable degree beside
all the confusion and darkness which surrounds us.
Now, precisely because of that darkness, and because I believe
that, as a priest and as a Catholic, I should be ready to put light
when “allegations” seem to provoke anguish among good people of
God that I have the mission to help, I consider opportune to give
in this letter (and only for this time) some details of my life
that perhaps will be of spiritual benefice for the known friends
and the “brave” “anonymous” posters (who evidently like very much
the word “allege”). I said “only for this time” because,
paraphrasing St. Thomas, I can say: “To one who has good will, no
explanation is necessary. To one without good will, no explanation
is possible”.
Anyway, don’t take me wrong, I believe it is important to answer
even “allegations” if the response can help people, so I started
this letter quoting two phrases of the Sacred Scriptures where I
think Christ gives us, in a way, a lesson that we can apply also
in situations like this one: the first one mentions that precisely
when He entered Caesarea Philippi (the city dedicated to Caesar),
He asked His disciples the following question: “Whom do men say
that the Son of man is?”. This not because he needed the
confirmation of the disciples or because He worried about numbers
1
Cf. SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The object of charity (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q.25)
Page 1 of 7(like many groups worry today) but for other reasons, which will
be too long to explain here but one: Because He was conscientious
of the importance of His mission in the salvation of people’s
souls. As we can notice He didn’t say: “I don’t care what they
say” but showed mercy with them confirming His Divine Nature and
that He was the only way to salvation.
The second phrase was addressed to the pharisees. This phrase
should be a guideline not only for a priest but for any Catholic
worthy of the name. The ironic thing here is that an “anonymous”
person is almost demanding information about me to be made public.
That person could have called Fr. Perez, or simply checked the web
site of Our Lady Help of Christians 2 , where all my sermons are
posted.
Yes, “I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in
(...) in the temple, (...) and in secret I have spoken nothing.” My
cellphone number is both in the Bulletin and on the Website but
until now I have not received any call of any “anonymous”
inquisitor.
Which brings me to the next point: I really should not encourage
in people the idea that they have the right to ask questions at
any time (because, like all priests, I have an incalculable amount
of things to do every day, principally in my spiritual life
(Mass/Breviary/Devotions) but also in the pastoral level (i.e.,
helping the faithful I COMMITED MYSELF TO ASSIST) but I consider
that I’m capable of synthesizing here many answers to the questions
asked about my person. So, here are some of them:
1. A short time ago I had to leave America for several reasons,
being the most relevant one that the time of my I94 didn’t
allow me to stay more but also because I have important
projects related to my congregation that need to be taken
care outside of the US. I mention this initially because it
seems to me VERY COINCIDENTAL that, precisely when I leave
the country, someone decides to make me “famous” in CathInfo.
Some people say that in the Kingdom of Heaven there are no
coincidences, and I add: “neither, possibly, for the workers
of the other kingdom”.
2. My name is Paul A. Norton S.Ss.R. (Societas Sanctissimi
Redemptoris), I was born in South America as Paulo Alvarez
but my name was changed because I was adopted by an American
couple (and, by the way, I am extremely grateful to God
2
http://www.ourladyhelpofchristians.us/
Page 2 of 7because he has given me holy parents who are the best examples
of traditional Catholics I have known in my life). Due to the
particular situation of the law of the country where I was
born, although the adoption was recognized by the American
Government, I didn’t become American for which I still needed
to pass through the normal immigration process like everyone
else. The situation is certainly uncomfortable but I believe
that every government should protect the security of its
borders and establish a process of selection that can
guarantee, as far as possible, the security of the citizens,
so I complied.
3. Talking about complying: Any process led by the UCSIS requires
applicants to pass through a series of very meticulous
investigations that analyze the whole life of the potential
immigrant. Besides that, Fr. Perez requires any priest that
he selects to work with him to agree to a background check
that also encompasses the life of the priest from different
perspectives so yes, Fr. Perez is “doing his homework” but
not only on the interpersonal level but also in the doctrinal,
intellectual and liturgical level because he personally
evaluated me with another priest in a period of time that
took weeks until he was ready to officially introduce me as
a priest of Our Lady Help of Christians. But my work in
California has not been limited to Our Lady Help of
Christians. I have also regularly assisted the people of St.
Patrick’s Mission in Northridge, the people of Our Lady of
Sorrows in Thornton and another group of people who operate
a website, providing to them sacramental aid, writing
articles and translating docuмents. I had to end my help to
this last group because they don’t hold Archbishop Lefebvre
with the same esteem I do.
4. I formally entered religious life in the Congregation of the
Most Holy Redeemer in 2007 (after one year being a candidate)
and I have never attended or had affiliation with any other
Novus Ordo seminary nor have I ever met that Fr. Urrutigoity
who was mentioned in one of the posts. After I finished the
years of philosophy required for the Catholic University, I
was expelled from the Congregation by the Provincial Superior
in 2011 with a letter that stated this:
I declare that the young man [my name] has entered the
process of formation of the Congregation of the Most
Holy Redeemer in 2007 and has remained in it until July
8, 2011.
Page 3 of 7At the beginning of this year the Formation Secretariat
has decided to accompany him more closely to better
clarify his call to the Redemptorist religious life.
He shows a remarkable interest in solemn liturgical
celebrations, which although we highly value, is not
part of our style, which is usually more popular.
He has demonstrated in these years excellent academic
ability and developed a spirit of service and a serious
commitment to the apostolate.
The young man [my name] has demonstrated a sincere
vocational search attitude. I ask God through the
intercession of our Blessed Mother, to continue
accompanying this young man to find the right place to
serve God and the Church.
Provincial Superior
5. Any person in his right mind and with common sense will
understand that there is no one single argument in the
previous letter that could be considered as a lawful reason
to expel a seminarian and, because there is not such a reason,
I still consider myself as a Redemptorist and I keep renewing
my vows every February 2 nd . I know there are many priests out
there saying: “I was expelled unlawfully so I will keep
considering myself such and such...” but I don’t say that: What
I said is that the Provincial Superior had the legal authority
to separate me from the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer
but never from the Redemptorist Spirituality taught by St.
Alphonsus. In any case, I am proud to have been expelled from
that Novus Horror group that today calls itself Congregation
of the Most Holy Redeemer and of having always refused to
become another cookie-cutter priest.
6. Now, if according to someone the seminary where I went is
"obscure" because that one can't find my country on the map,
that's a problem with the ignorance of geography of such a
person. But well, I have seen many examples of people who
think the world ends in the streets of Los Angeles. I, myself,
can communicate in 8 languages and I have traveled the world
enough to be able to appreciate the goodness of many different
cultures which have enriched my life with different views of
human nature, so I can't even imagine how sad it would be to
never be able to leave the prison of a defeatist life of such
a one who refuses to look outside of Los Angeles because he
Page 4 of 7thinks he will never have a real opportunity or possibility
to understand the reality in a broad way. With this I'm not
saying than a monk in a tiny little island of Greece cannot
understand reality better than a sailor who lived traveling
the world, but the idea of refusing to know other cultures
due to the ignorant presupposition of thinking that “I don't
need to know more because I already have everything” is a sad
condemnation I don't wish on anyone. The worst misery is in
the spirit and in the mind.
7. Yes, I went to Argentina to continue my studies to receive
the Holy Orders from the SSPX and was sent by the District
Superior to be stationed first in the north of Argentina and
then to the seminary of La Reja. The total time I lived with
the SSPX in Argentina was months, not days nor years as some
are “alleging” I said.
8. And exactly about that: There is a very well-known fallacy
called “the straw man fallacy” in which a person creates a
caricature of another person and then attacks that caricature
with the intention to harm him. Well, in my years of religious
life (and perhaps more in the ones of traditional Catholic
religious life) I have noticed that this fallacy is pretty
common in the Trad world, together with the “ad hominen” one
and
the
one
of
“guilt
by
association”.
There
are
particularities that we must take into account when referring
to each one of them (for example when certain associations
represent in itself true guilt) but certainly these are some
of the weapons which people who choose to live on the dark
side (of which I spoke before) prefer to use. I care very
little about them but I care a lot for the people of good
will who can be affected by the malicious attitude of those
who first “allege” something and then establish that
“allegation” as “true” if the person (in this case, the
priest) doesn’t defend himself. I remember a Mexican that
used to do this, do you?
9. That brings me to another point in question: Yes, following
my time in La Reja I was referred by my spiritual director to
a monastery, after which I was again sent, this time to the
“seminary” in Boston, KY. I had strong disagreements with Fr.
Pfeiffer since the beginning, but a prudent man never takes
decisions without pondering the situations with prayer and
time, so I waited until the end of 2015 when I communicated
to Fr. Pfeiffer via telephone that I decided to return to
South America, and I did.
Page 5 of 710. My parents and some friends kept insisting for a long time
that I must continue looking for the way to answer the call
God gave me (a vocation tested through the years and confirmed
by several priests, including the ones that sent me to
Argentina and then to the USA). If it was for me, I would have
chosen to stay in the monastery and kept living “the happiest
times of my life” as I called them. But well, I obeyed one
more time and flew to America.
11. The fact is that, due to the insistence of many people I
accepted the offering they made of looking for a traditional
catholic bishop to whom I could present my history, but I knew
it could be difficult, not only because I was not willing to
compromise my doctrinal position but also because of the many
uncertainties linked to the situation of necessity in which
we find ourselves. After receiving many options from different
parts of the world, I decided to send my docuмents to Bp.
Joseph Macek who reviewed them over some months and responded
by suggesting a visit so we could meet. That time was important
for him to know me as for me to know him. From the beginning
I let him know my doctrinal position (which is the same of
Archbishop Lefevre alongside with a profound esteem for him)
and especially that I was not (and still am not) sedevacantist.
He arrived to the conclusion that it would be an act of justice
to ordain me without requesting me to work with him, so he did
it in 2016 in Melbourne, FL. Around two hundred people attended
the ceremony.
12. About my priesthood, I don’t need to say that I believe that
I am a priest, not only after analyzing the docuмents of Bp.
Macek (which are not only his episcopal line but also the
decree of excommunication signed by Cardinal Bertone in 2001
in which he said that he hoped that Bp. Macek will eventually
repent and seek absolution for the grave act of being
consecrated a bishop without papal mandate) but also because
I believe that God cannot abandon us in these times of the
catacombs. Today, every group tries to find ways to prove that
the others are “invalid” or “doubtful” with the most far-
fetched suppositions and this is, many times, motivated by
intentions “non sanctas” but, far from me to promote some kind
of sacramental skepticism, on the contrary, studying the
history of the Church, and particularly the many ways in which
the sacraments were conferred, we can recognize that in some
important matters, the Church -guided by God- has always
preferred that the essential form of the sacraments be as
simple as possible. So, at the end, everything comes to Faith.
Page 6 of 7No priest over this earth can show a “pedigree” that can be
trackable to the Apostles with the standards of today, so I
will keep doing what I have to do, fighting to save my soul
and those of as many as I can and preserving the Redemptorist
spirituality as it was before the modernist reign of terror
in which we are now. They are my enemies, not the ones that
struggle to remain catholic.
God bless you.
Fr. Paul A. Norton S.Ss.R.
Page 7 of 7
-
#1) ... this letter is extremely defensive. After several paragraphs of defensiveness, he reluctantly agreed to discuss his background.
#2) ... very little detail
From all this verbiage, I have gathered --
2007-2011, some formation time at a Novus Ordo Redemptorist house (as a seminarian presumably?, but it's not certain) ... after which he was expelled for unspecified reasons. Letter from his superior IMPLIES that part of the reason was due to his attachment to solemn liturgy (Tridentine Mass?). In any case, I don't know if the entire time was spent as a seminarian. He mentions ONE YEAR of philosophy at Catholic University. I went to Catholic U in DC and their philosophy/theology programs are total garbage. Was his Catholic U any better, being a Novus Ordo institution? I learned more in one month at STAS than I did after a half dozen classes in philosophy/theology at Loyola Chicago and CUA. Despite having been expelled, he considers himself a Redemptorist. Was he even professed or somehow officially a member of the Redemptorists in the first place? Sounds like he's a "Redemptorist of Desire," so to speak.
after some unspecified amount of time, he spent a few months at SSPX LaReja. He was AGAIN sent away for some unspecified reason to a "monastery" by a spiritual director. He was again "sent" away from this monastery. As to how this sending away ended up in phone calls with Father Pfeiffer, we can only imagine. SSPX La Reja -> (SSPX?) monastery -> Fr. Pfeiffer. Why was he kicked out? Was he too "Resistance"-oriented? Or was it for other reasons?
How did several priests "confirm" his vocation by ... sending him away?
He does not elaborate on the extent of his connections with Father Pfeiffer, nor explain how long he was there and what he studied there. He just says that he had disagreements with him from the beginning and went back to South America, evidently back to some unspecified "monastery" for an unknown period of time, doing who knows what. He had the happiest times of his life there, but was again sent to the U.S. for some unknown reason ... because many people insisted that he go find a bishop in the U.S. to get ordained by? Weren't there any Thuc bishops in South America?
He eventually found a taker in Bishop(?) Macek, who ordained him in 2016. He's convinced that Macek is valid because he was allegedly excommunicated by Rome and because he feels that God would not abandon the flock. Really? These are the reasons to consider him valid? He says he examined the papers of Macek. So we'll just take his word for it?
This letter only makes everything MORE suspicious.
We want some bullet points only ... like
2007-2011 NO Redemptorist House (with one year of philosphy) ... expelled
20xx La Reja for a couple months ... sent away
20xx some unspecified monstery .. sent away
20xx - 20xx studied x,y,z with Father Pfeiffer
2016 ordained by Macek
and we also need ...
Macek was ordained by X and consecrated by Y ... so we can look up the lineage.
Based on all this, I would avoid him with a 100-ft. pole.
-
In short, if ANY Traditional Catholic laymen aren't concerned with
A) the TRADITIONAL TRAINING/knowledge of their priest
and/or
B) the VALIDITY of their priest
and even
C) the spiritual/psychological/emotional HEALTH of their priest
then why not just go back to the Novus Ordo?
-
In short, if ANY Traditional Catholic laymen aren't concerned with
A) the TRADITIONAL TRAINING/knowledge of their priest
and/or
B) the VALIDITY of their priest
and even
C) the spiritual/psychological/emotional HEALTH of their priest
then why not just go back to the Novus Ordo?
This letter doesn't clear any of this up.
Validity concerns unaddressed, training more suspect than before.
Does ANYONE have the pedigree of this "Bishop" Macek? I can't find it on the internet. If he's descended from the Costa line, forget it. If he has +Thuc lineage, it all depends on which line and how many degrees removed. I consider the first few generations to be undoubtedly valid. In fact, +Thuc's consecration of the first set of Palmarians was certainly valid.
-
If he's descended from the Costa line, forget it.
I'm curious what the issue is with Costa?
Anyway, searches indicate Macek is Thuc-line through the SVM.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090213132922/http://svmpriests.us/Clerics.htm
-
I'm curious what the issue is with Costa?
Anyway, searches indicate Macek is Thuc-line through the SVM.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090213132922/http://svmpriests.us/Clerics.htm
Reports are that he's been ordained/consecrated a number of times, and there's some Costa links. Costa is a notoriously unreliable line that's been out there so long that lots of frauds have appeared (people that just claim they were ordained/consecrated).
-
Reports vary. One has Macek having been a Novus Ordo priest and then conditionally ordained and then consecrated by Bishop Taylor. Another report has him consecrated by a Bishop Adamson. Taylor then is reported to have been consecrated by a highly dubious "Bishop" Garrison.
Even if it was Adamson, it's a very far-removed +Thuc line, to the point that it could be dubious.
Thuc->Datessen->Olivarez->Lopez-Gaston->Urbina->Adamson->Macek
With that many hops, the doubt grows exponentially. Olivarez is the one that has some Costa lineage.
Adamson, although a bishop of the Thuc line, was ordained a priest by an Autocephalous Orthodox bishop ... also dubious (the same type of group that Moran comes from).
I would stay far away.
-
Reports vary. One has Macek having been a Novus Ordo priest and then conditionally ordained and then consecrated by Bishop Taylor. Another report has him consecrated by a Bishop Adamson.
The SVM link says these. Adamson also conditionally consecrated Taylor the same time he conditionally consecrated Macek, and that was after Taylor consecrated Macek.
Either these people had positive doubts about Taylor's orders, or they didn't have the best training in sacramental theology.
-
The SVM link says these. Adamson also conditionally consecrated Taylor the same time he conditionally consecrated Macek, and that was after Taylor consecrated Macek.
Either these people had positive doubts about Taylor's orders, or they didn't have the best training in sacramental theology.
Some of these guys are serial conditional ordinands, getting conditionally ordained 3 or 4 times. Where it really gets foggy is when someone is conditionally consecrated but then was not conditionally ordained, even though he had been ordained by the same guy.
-
In short, if ANY Traditional Catholic laymen aren't concerned with
A) the TRADITIONAL TRAINING/knowledge of their priest
and/or
B) the VALIDITY of their priest
and even
C) the spiritual/psychological/emotional HEALTH of their priest
then why not just go back to the Novus Ordo?
When I was in the convent, I met a lot of nuns who had been in other orders, but who were asked to leave simply because "they were too rigid" and "were holier than the Pope."
This so-called "rigidity" was simply an excuse to exclude these religious simply because they were striving to be saints, and yes, these nuns were not imitating the recent popes precisely because of their heretical statements.
I knew many nuns and priests who believed that they had a religious vocation, but who could not find any group in the Novus Ordo who would accept them. Some of these devout religious tried to form new religious orders with other religious who had been dismissed, while others lived with their parents who were aged and cared for them all the while wearing the religious habit and following the rules and constitutions to the best of their ability.
Also some of these nuns left their convents, apparently with the blessing of their superiors to form a more rigid community where the nuns lived in solitude, in huts, like hermits, but who came together for prayers and meals only.
I allowed several of these religious sisters to live with me until they could find suitable housing.
Pray for these religious priests, brothers, and nuns. They are living heroic saintly lives.
If Father Perez accepted Father Norton, then I believe that he was thoroughly investigated and is a valid priest.
-
When I was in the convent, I met a lot of nuns who had been in other orders, but who were asked to leave simply because "they were too rigid" and "were holier than the Pope."
Maybe, but "Fr." Norton was dismissed not only from the Novus Ordo Redemptorist house but also from La Reja and some other unspecified (Traditional?) monastery and also didn't last with Fr. Pfeiffer. It sounds like there might be something else going on here.