btw I've been warned by someone I met only once a couple of years ago after I left his church to be careful, that I'm dealing with a hornet's nest.  This person was not smiling & wouldn't explain.  

I find this part funny. I myself wouldn't go quite that far. I mean, what on earth is he going to do? Denounce us from his pulpit? Ummm, ok. It's his pulpit.

Am I worried about Our Lady Help of Christians (their parish) NKVD operatives performing a rendition of me into a dark room with a solitary, bare, dangling lightbulb to 'catechize' me with some jumper cables and a rubber hose? C'mon.

He's just a blowhard. He might bloviate me to death, but I withstood his oral Santa Ana winds during his 'homilies' enough before, that I'm not terribly worried.

He is rage-prone, and a control freak, so I wouldn't doubt he'd fulminate and fantasize about having such resources to dispatch, but he doesn't. He probably has a few flying monkeys (wizard of Oz reference) that fancy themselves Trad Black Ops that would practically beg him to assign them to some sort of surveillance, but if I see vans parked too long outside my house I'd be more inclined to offer some cocoa (with the big traditional marshmallows, not the miniature post-conciliar ones) than lose a wink of sleep

I'm sure the person that spoke ominously (and vaguely) was either enjoying the air of tradecraft that goes with ominous, vague warnings, or just referring to the few odd ducks over there that obsess over conspiracy theories (all novel and recent inventions you'd think a traditionalist would be averse to) and think there's actually spies in the pews some weeks. Such people could be (and are!) loose cannons, and can do odd things to wouldbe critics possibly, but again, a terrified loner in a fringe community is nothing to worry about.

I'm not making fun of conspirology, don't get me wrong, I think it is blatant that masonic operatives attacked and continue to attack the Faith and the liturgy. But I do disagree with those who, though well intentioned, slide down the slippery slope of thinking that one, or two, or even three cօռspιʀαcιҽs necessitates belief in nearly every other conspiracy-- 'the paranoid worldview,' which is a form of despair and a trap set by the Enemy...but I digress..
One of my gravest suspicions of "Msgr" Perez is that he foments all this other extra-Catholic paranoia *from the pulpit* (ostensibly speaking with authority!)

Thorn, for some reason, I cant find the reference to the Remnant article where Fr Perez attacks +Fama and sedevecantism (even though +Fama isn't a sede, though is sede friendly).

To find the Fr. Perez article on Google, type in "Most Holy Family Monastery" and "Father Patrick Perez" together and a link should come out describing the "apostasy" of Fr. Perez and Dr. Thomas Droleskey.

Another article is by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy... type in "Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy" together with "Father Fama" an article written by Dr. Rama should come out where he criticizes Fr. Perez and the Remnant Newspaper's calumnious article against a traditional bishop.

Father Perez can disparage a traditional priest for receiving episcopal ordination and say that such an action was not justifiable yet he is not mindful that he himself is a suspended priest under the Conciliar Church.

I read a letter sent by Institute of Christ the King to a diocesan priest for the Diocese of Orange which stated that Fr. Perez was suspended from exercising his ministry.  Although he was suspended for unjust reasons nevertheless Canon Law forbids him from acting as a priest.

I remembered Padre Pio being censured by the Vatican from hearing confessions and offering public Masses.  And Padre Pio never bypassed the sentence by exercising his ministry as an independent priest!  So clearly, Fr. Perez's ministry violates John Paul II's Canon Law, but one may wonder if his suspension was removed since he was appointed monsignor.

In regards to Fr. Perez's past... he was ordained in 1993 by Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler, the retired Vatican archivist and former member of Vatican II's Consilium, the ecclesiastical body that created the New Mass and the New Sacraments.

Cardinal Stickler was a traditional Catholic, he supported the SSPX and recognized the New Sacraments to be defective.  In fact, when he confirmed my friend in the pre-1971 Rite, Cardinal Stickler blessed the chrism oil using the traditional Roman rite and not the New Rite discreetly implying his disdain for the Paul VI's reforms.

Though Cardinal Stickler had the True Faith, the pious prelate was consecrated in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration by Pope John Paul II.  As a result, many traditional Catholics with strict views on validity, don't recognize Fr. Perez as a real priest.

Dr. Thomas Droleskey, once a loyal supporter of Fr. Perez, became a sedevacantist recently and no longer regards the latter a true priest.

I'm beginning to agree more & more with those with a 'strict view on validity'.   I also disagree with the poster here (Can't remember who) who writes about  'sentimental fiftyism'. .

I agree with you Thorn, because without validity we have no true union with Our Lord if the sacraments are invalid.  Imagine going to confession to an invalidly ordained Novus Ordo priest in order to get absolved from yours sins.  Then once you leave the confessional booth, you still keep your favorite sins with you! (I meant the last sentence as a joke and with no bad intention)

Sadly, many of Fr. Perez's parishioners fall under the same category as Novus Ordo Catholics and Indult Catholics because they do not believe in validity.  My friends noticed this peculiar behavior from one of Our Lady Help Christians' young men, who deck themselves in dated attire and spoke archaic language, e.g. calling blacks "negroes" or calling Northerners "Yanks".  Some of these individuals openly disparage racial intermarriage and multiculturalism yet watch Japanese anime or drive foreign cars!  And yes, I personally witnessed that myself.

I remembered growing up in the SSPX and CMRI, we never dressed in dated attire or used archaic language.  We never disparaged racial intermarriage or multiculturalism because it was never an issue for us.  We had Lebanese married to Mexicans.  Whites married to Filipinos or whites married to Koreans.  We had French Canadians married to Anglo-Saxons. The diversity of our parish made us happy because we could relate to another by discussing the True Faith.

In regards to dated attire: our SSPX pastor exhorted us to wear our Sunday's best for Sunday Mass.  He said on weekdays, men can wear blue jeans or shorts while women were always expected to wear a skirt or dress for the sake of Marian modesty.

When I moved to the CMRI (after becoming a sedevacantist), our priests exhorted us to be patriotic to our country.  The SSPX never discussed much about American culture because many of them were European-minded Catholics.  Our CMRI priests, especially Bishop Mark Pivarunas, wanted to instill in the minds of their parishioners to be good American Catholics.  The color of one's skin never became an issue, too.  They wanted us to live the True Faith and be a good example to non-believers outside our chapel

The real issue with the SSPX and CMRI was validity and that was discussed more than nationalism.  I remembered growing up in the SSPX, my Sunday school friend's mom told me, "Father said if we go to confession in the Novus Ordo, they have to be ordained in 1963 or before that".  In the CMRI, our priests would always tell me, "If you can't make it to Mass here, find a valid priest who offers the traditional Mass.  Make sure they were ordained properly!"

In fact, if one of our new parishioners received the New Rite of Confirmation, we  strongly exhorted them to get receive conditional confirmation in order to veritably receive the graces of the Holy Spirit.

At Fr. Perez's chapel, there is a disregard for being safe with the True Sacraments and this affixation on this so-called, "sentimental fiftyism".  I was criticized by some of his parishioners for telling them the New Rite of Confirmation is invalid. My sedevacantist friend who recently left OLHC once said, "If the sacraments there are truly invalid then may be that explains why a number of their parishioners disregard validity and affix themselves to dated attire, archaic jargon, and elevating white nationalism above the matters of faith"

If you look on the FB page under friends & see how these girls dress with their cleavage & all, I agree that they sure don't fit the image of a Catholic.  Their talk leaves something to be desired as well.  They sound like government school heathens.

Actually I think most of them now are NO who found a home & never changed their ways or 'converted'.  Why would they when they have comedians in the pulpit cracking jokes about sacred things and a bulletin that's non-stop jokes & light-hearted banter?

Thorn,

How did you know that they behave such a way in their Facebook profiles?  I have a gut feeling I know who you are... I prolly think you are a friend of my friend but I don't intend to divulge your possible name lest I compromise your privacy.

Yes, you are right about many of Fr. Perez's parishioners because a multitude of them are truly dissatisfied Novus Ordo Catholics who attend the Traditional Mass and do not subscribe to the beliefs and teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre or the sedevacantists in regards to the sacraments.

I know one parishioner there that recognizes the canonization of St. Gianna Molla.  I even know one parishioner there that still attends the New Mass in Yorba Linda while attending the traditional Mass at OLHC.  

In regards to Facebook, some of his parishioners are white supremacists.  One posted a stupid article on my friend's Facebook profile saying how Nigerians blacks should be governed by whites!  

I'm going to try very hard to be respectful here as I need to address a priest's recent open letter to Bishop Fellay.  It's going to be hard but I'm going to try.  St. Catherine of Siena & St Joan of Arc watch over me.

 Unfortunately this is not the first time that Fr. Paul Sretenovic has put his foot in his mouth.  Hopefully he'll do some soul-searching & it will be his last.

Tradition in Action just posted an open letter written by Fr. Sretenovic on their website which they've titled, "Why do You Condemn Us When You are in a Similar Situation?".  Coincidentally, it's also mentioned, but not posted in its entirety, on Traditio!  Umm!

First, some background so you can get a better picture of this letter:
Fr. Sretenovic is a very young, inexperienced priest who was born around the time that Vatican II came into being & was ordained in the NO.  He's well meaning & sincere but lacking in training as you can well imagine.  He came to Fr. Perez's church the first week of January, 2005 after reading some books & things on tradition & attending a traditional Conference where he met Fr. Perez.  On January 30, 2005 he said his first public traditional Latin Mass!!  This was too soon and it wasn't his finest moment.  Fr. Perez wasn't even there to monitor or help.  He (Fr. Sretenovic) wasn't at this church for very long before he said - from the pulpit!- that he was having serious doubts about his validity.  This never should have been mentioned like that.  Bishop Pivarunas was going to conditionally ordain him in Oct, 2006 at Mt St. Michael in WA, but I'm quite sure that that never happened.  Fr. Perez has spoken out against sedevacantism many times.

There are many irregularities & unsettling things that go on at this church, but as there is no bishop to appeal to and Fr. Perez WILL do things HIS way with no one to rein him in or counsel him, many people have simply walked.  Fr. Perez USES the SPPX for Confirmations,  yet he has stated - from the pulpit!- to keep away from the SPPX, as dealing with them is like dealing with snakes!!!!  That they're (the congregation) are right where they should be - in an independent chapel.

Now comes Fr. Sretenovic, still wet behind the ears, lacking traditional training, and having a mentor who fancies himself quite the comedian; having the temerity, the audacity, to address a long-standing SPPX Bishop with an open letter?!  Like Bishop Fellay would even have time or the inclination to read the thing anyway.  It is hard to read, by the way.   This is a case of treading where angels fear to tread or a full blown case of hubris, or both.