Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Skunkwurxsspx on July 03, 2013, 10:46:44 PM
-
Dear Friends,
In one of his recent talks in the U.K., Fr. Hewko recommended a book entitled, "Restoring the Bastions: The Church Militant at War," authored by a certain Fr. Dominic Mary of the Pillar, OP. Amazon.com, through which this book can be purchased, lists a Fr. Marshall M. Roberts as its author. I've tried to cross-reference the two names in the hopes of learning more about the author, but with little success. Can anyone here shed light on the said individual(s)? Thank you!
-
Fr Marshall Roberts and Fr Dominic Mary of the Pillar are the same person.
Fr Roberts was ordained a priest in the sspx in the mid 1990s.
He left the sspx with Fr Urritigoity to join the now defunct Society of St John.
So far as I know, he was never implicated in any of the immoral scandals that caused the downfall of that group.
Recently he has taken to wearing the Dominican habit, though i am not sure he has any Dominican formation or affiliation with any Dominican group.
-
Fr Marshall Roberts and Fr Dominic Mary of the Pillar are the same person.
Fr Roberts was ordained a priest in the sspx in the mid 1990s.
He left the sspx with Fr Urritigoity to join the now defunct Society of St John.
So far as I know, he was never implicated in any of the immoral scandals that caused the downfall of that group.
Recently he has taken to wearing the Dominican habit, though i am not sure he has any Dominican formation or affiliation with any Dominican group.
Upon further review, there are some quite disturbing moral allegations made against Fr Roberts available in the public domain/internet.
I have no desire to detract against Fr Roberts, as should be obvious from my initial response.
But neither can I omit to rectify my statement that he was not caught up in the scandals of the ssj, now that i know the contrary.
All men can repent.
-
Father Dominic is the Chaplin of the Chapel I attend in Jacksonville Florida. He was ordained By + Williamson in 1996 and was a Society priest for a year. He then left and served as a Priest in the Scranton area. in 2005 he came to Jacksonville and became the Chaplin for my Parish. He is a close friend of Father Joseph Pfeiffer ( Father Pfeiffer served as his assistant priest at his ordination), and is in close contact with the Resistance. His name was Father Marshall Roberts up until 2013 when he decided to become a Dominican ( currently he is in his First year postulancy) and he took the name Dominc Mary of the Pillar. this is the link to his Chapel' s website were you can listen to some of his sermons:/St Michael Catholic Church (http://www.stmichaelcatholic.org/)
I just read the post discussing the slanderous things that were said against Father Dominic. Currently I have to go out so I will not be able to respond until later. I can assure you, though that they are false vague unsubstantiated slanderous rantings of a Doctor Bond who was affiliated with the SSJ and had a conflict with Father.
-
Father Dominic is the Chaplin of the Chapel I attend in Jacksonville Florida. He was ordained By + Williamson in 1996 and was a Society priest for a year. He then left and served as a Priest in the Scranton area. in 2005 he came to Jacksonville and became the Chaplin for my Parish. He is a close friend of Father Joseph Pfeiffer ( Father Pfeiffer served as his assistant priest at his ordination), and is in close contact with the Resistance. His name was Father Marshall Roberts up until 2013 when he decided to become a Dominican ( currently he is in his First year postulancy) and he took the name Dominc Mary of the Pillar. this is the link to his Chapel' s website were you can listen to some of his sermons:/St Michael Catholic Church (http://www.stmichaelcatholic.org/)
I just read the post discussing the slanderous things that were said against Father Dominic. Currently I have to go out so I will not be able to respond until later. I can assure you, though that they are false vague unsubstantiated slanderous rantings of a Doctor Bond who was affiliated with the SSJ and had a conflict with Father.
I hope you are right.
What I read online pertained to the reasons for Fr Roberts' dismissal front the Institute of Christ the King's seminary by then-rector (and now independent priest) Fr Patrick Perez (ie., long before the ssj existed).
If this accusation is unsubstantiated and inaccurate, it is a most grave slander and mortal defamation indeed.
-
All men may repent but no ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ may be ordained as a priest.
-
. I can assure you, though that they are false vague unsubstantiated slanderous rantings of a Doctor Bond who was affiliated with the SSJ and had a conflict with Father.
Here comes the lavender mafia. Dr. Bond was not "ranting".
-
If this accusation is unsubstantiated and inaccurate, it is a most grave slander and mortal defamation indeed.
Dig deeper, Sean. I know that you are seeking only after truth, and it is available.
The lavender mafia has crept into Tradition while everybody was so busy in- fighting.
-
Catholics need to be very careful with whom they associate, and with whom they place their children for the sacraments. As Bella Dodd testified many years ago, it was a specific purpose and goal of the Communist Party USA for her to recruit , personally, over 1,000 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to infiltrate the priesthood. The Illuminati found that these persons, undesirous of female companionship, would be willing to withstand the long, arduous years of seminary training. The possibilities of male companionship was simply a great bonus!
She testified that she was quite successful-- and these seminarians became priests, monks, rectors, Monseigneur, bishops and cardinals.And this was done all over the world. The history of the Catholic Church during the 1960's and 1970's demonstrate that precious few "Catholic" (sic) clergy (either priest or prelate) were celibate, and true to their vows, and a great number of them were ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Many of the "boys" in seminary were sent by their rectors to "Catholic" and secular universities, where their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity was "encouraged", "brought out" or "discovered".
Read the book "Good Bye, Good Men." Prepare your stomach first! Diocese after diocese all over the world have gone through tremendous financial drainings paying the economic consequences of seminarians, priests, and prelates abusing other males. Just in Bridgeport, Connecticut diocese again, two more major financial settlements of clerical impure activity: One involving Fairfield (Jesuit) University and its "representatives" who were sent to "train" and house poor African boys, and another involving the (Monseigneur) secretary to the Bishop (now Archbishop of Washington, DC), who brought his "boy-friends" into the chancery, and into the Cathedral, for XXX games and drug parties (He was also, for a long time, secretary to "Cardinal" Egan of New York).
There were quite a few former SSPX priests who wound up affiliated with the Society of St John, and they became affiliated with "Bishop" Timlin, and, several years later, Scranton Diocese is paying a major sex-abuse lawsuit for these "men." Some of these men worked themselves down to South America, to start over. Some of them became affiliated with other boys schools in the US. These schools have now, also, suffered the consequences of imprudently allowing these men to minister around young children.
The devil is wild. You know full well that Our Lady said the leaders at the top will lose their faith; you know that Pope Leo witnessed the battle wherein the devil claimed he would be victorious in 100 years; you know full well that the Alta Vendita made it their prime objective to destroy the Catholic Church, and destroying the Catholic Mass was a necessary prerequisite.You know to destroy the Catholic Church, you need to destroy the priesthood of Jesus Christ. You know full well that Ratzinger made it official policy to just move the perverts around, and not have them punished ( this allowed the to magnify their perversions by many times-- all over the world). And you know that the Communists specifically recruited ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to become priests!
Why be surprised that Tradition is under attacked? Of course we will be attacked! Even perverts will flock to tradition-- because they know they can ply their trade un-hampered! Right now, the true Sacrifice of the Mass is not being offered ANYWHERE else but in Traditional Chapels! Only in Traditional Chapels and Churches can the devil get the glee of destroying souls dedicated to Jesus Christ, of actually attacking Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
So, pray for your priests. Support them. But be wary.
-
I rarely post nowadays, but I remember Matthew stating that these kind of things shouldn't be talked about, at least on this forum, concerning Fr. Roberts, or some such thing!
-
For those who may be unfamiliar with the Society of St John scandal, and the events and persons preceding it:
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/urrutig.htm <--- very informative, balanced article
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120624/NEWS/206240335
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_21_Guydish_TwoMore.htm
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2008/005_2008/VM-2008-05-03/VM-2008-05-03-A-00-Williamson_Urrutigoity-n1-ENG.htm
The last link is to an article that I don't wholly endorse, as it's written in a very sensational way and defames H.E. Williamson. Nevertheless, it probably has the most information and organizes it well (the sensational and overused red bolding ala MHFM notwithstanding) and is worth reading for those who can read past the sensationalism and see the bare bones of a serious threat and problem.
Urrigoity not only started out in the SSPX, but was kept IN the society (even made a professor) while these allegations were going on.
Hugeman made a great post.
-
What I read online pertained to the reasons for Fr Roberts' dismissal front the Institute of Christ the King's seminary by then-rector (and now independent priest) Fr Patrick Perez (ie., long before the ssj existed).
This false claim was put against Father Roberts when he was at the ICKSP Seminary. Just two weeks prior to the acquisition, Father Roberts had publicly denounced the Seminary Canon Law professor as a Modernist. He attributes this as the reason as for his being asked to leave the Seminary. One key point to this whole unfortunate incident was that he was never expelled from the Seminary. He was given the option of leaving the Seminary while they investigated or he could be transfered to an African Mission. He choose to leave and when he asked if he should still wear the cassock ( I don't think he was in Major Orders) they answered in the affirmative. The reason he left the Society was because at the time, he disagreed on the Society granting annulments. He then became a Priest of the Society of Saint John. After 8 or so years Father left the SSJ ( prior to the Scandals in the order)because they were becoming liturgically liberal ( they were using the 1965 Missal). He then became a Diocesan Priest for another year or two were he taught at a Catholic school. He lost his position at the school because of the fact that he dared to say " That there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church". He began to serve an independent Traditional Chapel near Scranton, and for that he had his Faculties taken away by the Bishop. The Bishop of Scranton then told him that he would let Father stay in a parish in the Diocese if he could say the New Mass. Father refused, and the Bishop gave him permission to leave the Diocese and find a Traditional Chapel elsewhere. He then went to a few different Dioceses, including in his native Kentucky, searching for a place where he could be incardinated. Everywhere he went, Doctor Bond followed, spreading the most blatant lies. One example was that he said Father hugged a women in the confessional. Now Father ONLY says confession in a Traditional Confessional ( or out in a field if he were on pilgrimage with hundreds of people around). One thing you must keep in mind is that out of all of these acquisitions on the Internet, not one person ever actually accused him of anything. It is all Doctor Bond spreading rumor. Also the websites that this is located on is Renew America, which as it says in it's about page, it is dedicated to spreading "the cause of preserving our nation upon its founding ideals, specifically those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, as well as those derived from biblical principles."
Personally, I would take everything that website says with a grain of salt just because of that one comment. He then found St Michaels in Jacksonville Florida and became their Chaplin. The first thing he did was go and see the local Bishop and try to get the Chapel regularized. The bishop said he would recognize the Chapel if Father would agree to say the new Mass at other Churches when the need arose. He has officially been Independent ever sense. Believe me, I was EXTREMELY troubled by these acquisitions when I discovered then a few weeks after I discovered this Chapel about a year ago. I stopped attending Father Dominic's Mass for a year because of it. One day though I began looking on the Renew America and discovered what that website was all about. I discussed it with some very close friends who attend the Chapel as well as Father Dominic and their explanation made absolute sense. Apparently a parishioner in the Chapel has a huge collection of docuмents disproving all of Dr Bond's allegations. To conclude, I would just like to say that this is not the first time this type of discussion has arose and people have to do research if they want to know what really happened. I challenge anyone interested to find an article that convincingly proves Father's guilt originating from another website other than Renew America or Doctor Bond.
-
What I read online pertained to the reasons for Fr Roberts' dismissal front the Institute of Christ the King's seminary by then-rector (and now independent priest) Fr Patrick Perez (ie., long before the ssj existed).
This false claim was put against Father Roberts when he was at the ICKSP Seminary. Just two weeks prior to the acquisition, Father Roberts had publicly denounced the Seminary Canon Law professor as a Modernist. He attributes this as the reason as for his being asked to leave the Seminary. One key point to this whole unfortunate incident was that he was never expelled from the Seminary. He was given the option of leaving the Seminary while they investigated or he could be transfered to an African Mission. He choose to leave and when he asked if he should still wear the cassock ( I don't think he was in Major Orders) they answered in the affirmative. The reason he left the Society was because at the time, he disagreed on the Society granting annulments. He then became a Priest of the Society of Saint John. After 8 or so years Father left the SSJ ( prior to the Scandals in the order)because they were becoming liturgically liberal ( they were using the 1965 Missal). He then became a Diocesan Priest for another year or two were he taught at a Catholic school. He lost his position at the school because of the fact that he dared to say " That there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church". He began to serve an independent Traditional Chapel near Scranton, and for that he had his Faculties taken away by the Bishop. The Bishop of Scranton then told him that he would let Father stay in a parish in the Diocese if he could say the New Mass. Father refused, and the Bishop gave him permission to leave the Diocese and find a Traditional Chapel elsewhere. He then went to a few different Dioceses, including in his native Kentucky, searching for a place where he could be incardinated. Everywhere he went, Doctor Bond followed, spreading the most blatant lies. One example was that he said Father hugged a women in the confessional. Now Father ONLY says confession in a Traditional Confessional ( or out in a field if he were on pilgrimage with hundreds of people around). One thing you must keep in mind is that out of all of these acquisitions on the Internet, not one person ever actually accused him of anything. It is all Doctor Bond spreading rumor. Also the websites that this is located on is Renew America, which as it says in it's about page, it is dedicated to spreading "the cause of preserving our nation upon its founding ideals, specifically those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, as well as those derived from biblical principles."
Personally, I would take everything that website says with a grain of salt just because of that one comment. He then found St Michaels in Jacksonville Florida and became their Chaplin. The first thing he did was go and see the local Bishop and try to get the Chapel regularized. The bishop said he would recognize the Chapel if Father would agree to say the new Mass at other Churches when the need arose. He has officially been Independent ever sense. Believe me, I was EXTREMELY troubled by these acquisitions when I discovered then a few weeks after I discovered this Chapel about a year ago. I stopped attending Father Dominic's Mass for a year because of it. One day though I began looking on the Renew America and discovered what that website was all about. I discussed it with some very close friends who attend the Chapel as well as Father Dominic and their explanation made absolute sense. Apparently a parishioner in the Chapel has a huge collection of docuмents disproving all of Dr Bond's allegations. To conclude, I would just like to say that this is not the first time this type of discussion has arose and people have to do research if they want to know what really happened. I challenge anyone interested to find an article that convincingly proves Father's guilt originating from another website other than Renew America or Doctor Bond.
Coastal GA Trad said:
"After 8 or so years Father left the SSJ ( prior to the Scandals in the order)because they were becoming liturgically liberal ( they were using the 1965 Missal)."
Question:
What year does Fr Robert claim to have left the SSJ?
-
I know nothing of Fr Roberts, so I am not making any claims about him. I do know about Urriogoity, the chief (or at least, most visible) malefactor in the SSJ fiasco. GA Coastal Trad, it's rather immaterial when Fr Roberts left SSJ inasmuch as the group was tinged from the beginning. That's not an accusation of personal guilt to him on my part, I'm simply saying that SSJ was run by a sɛҳuąƖ abuser from the very beginning. As early as 1998 SSJ was found giving Communion wine to young boys. And Urriogoity's track record speaks for itself.
Hopefully Fr Roberts just has a habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
Question:
What year does Fr Robert claim to have left the SSJ?
The answer might be here:
7 March 2007
Feast of Saint Thomas Aquinas
Dear Friends in Christ,
This year marks the tenth anniversary of my departure from the Society of Saint Pius X, and I cannot allow this milestone to go by without writing to those whom I left behind, both priests and laity, nearly a decade ago. The primary reason for this letter, however, is not simply to acknowledge a milestone. It is to publicly retract the letter that I wrote justifying my departure from the Society which had trained me and through whom I received the grace of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the letter, I mentioned several reasons which moved me to leave the Society of St. Pius X. They were the following:
1. The canonical commission which the Society set up in order to deal with cases normally reserved to bishops or the Holy See. Thus I felt that Rome’s privileges were under attack.
2. Two docuмents purporting to be from Rome which claimed that all of the priests and deacons of the Society were considered schismatic.
3. A study written by Fr. Bisig on the Episcopal consecrations of 1988 which seemed to prove that the act was a schismatic one.
These three reasons pushed me to the conclusion that the Society of St. Pius X had a new vision of the Catholic Church which was not truly traditional. I would like now to respond to those three reasons with the advantage of ten years of experience and further study. I will answer them briefly in the same order as they are presented above.
1. The first reason is closely tied to the question of necessity. Either the Church is in a state of crisis or it is not. There is little doubt at all that the traditional jurisprudence of the Church has been adversely affected by the post-Conciliar reforms. Canon law itself is influenced by the errors of the Council, and certainly recourse to the authorities of the Church can often put one in the hands of those who do not recognize any crisis or who hold false, novel views on doctrine or discipline. Thus comes the need for supplied jurisdiction; otherwise the faithful are left without any recourse to clergy who are formed according to the traditional mind of the Church. This is contrary to the intentions of the Church herself which posit the salvation of souls as the primary end of Church law. If priests can be granted supplied jurisdiction, even according to the present law of the Church, why cannot this apply to bishops as well? There is no reason why it should not. Only those things which pertain by divine right to the Pope’s power would be outside the supplied jurisdiction of a bishop, it would seem. In any case, there is no doubt that both diocesan and even Roman authorities are heavily influenced by the novel ideas of the Council, and therefore the principle of supplied jurisdiction must be applied in our time of crisis. There is no claim by the canonical commission of the Society that it is working through ordinary jurisdiction. Now I must admit that I am not totally comfortable with the granting of things such as annulments by the commission, but I can see the logical case why there in fact may be supplied jurisdiction to grant them.
2. The two docuмents which supposedly came from Rome have proven not to be definitive on the question. In fact, the numerous claims by Cardinals, including Castrillon-Hoyos which affirm the contrary show that these docuмents are of no real value. If the Cardinal in charge of Ecclesia Dei can claim repeatedly that the Society is not in schism, then what must one think other than that the Society is not in schism? He of all people must know the mind of the Holy Father on this question.
3. The study by Father Bisig, while seeming at the time to be a strong argument against the consecrations, in fact, has proven less weighty than it first appeared. In all cases from the past which he brings forward as proof that consecrations done against the pope’s will are schismatic, there has always been the claim of these new bishops to some form of ordinary jurisdiction. There are no exceptions. Therefore, one must ask: does the schism arise from the reception of the Order of the episcopacy or rather the claim of jurisdiction? He makes no distinction. In fact, he tries to argue that the episcopacy has a jurisdiction by its very nature, since the bishop’s role is that of ruler. But this is not true. There are many titular bishops who have no real jurisdiction at all. In fact, if they went to the location of their titular See they would not be permitted to exercise jurisdiction there, as these places now fall under the jurisdiction of different Ordinaries. The Archbishop was always careful never to claim that the four bishops had ordinary jurisdiction, but were auxiliaries of the Society itself. Therefore the argument of Fr. Bisig is far from conclusive.
So, as you see, I left the Society of St. Pius X for reasons which have not proven definitive in the end. I joined at that time the Society of St. John, and was incardinated in the diocese of Scranton. The Society of St. Pius X had made it clear that the foundation of this new group was one which was problematic; they warned that there was something wrong in the manner in which the founders planned this new Society without any reference to their superiors in the Society. But all the warnings fall short of the reality. The Society did not remain firmly attached to Tradition, but began to rely on personal charism alone: a fatal error which led ultimately to its suppression.
I left the Society of St. John before its ultimate collapse in Scranton, a collapse which I think was inevitable. The new bishop had no use for a priest who would not say the New Rite of Mass, and I found myself having to leave the diocese in order to find work elsewhere. Yet even then I did not comprehend completely the illogic of my position. That would only come over a period of many months. For nearly a year, I have been a priest for an independent chapel in Florida. Since my arrival here, I have had time to being to re-read the works of Archbishop Lefebvre and the pontifical docuмents of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which offer such clear teaching concerning the Faith and the errors of liberalism. One forgets just how strong and how clear those wonderful encyclicals are. They allow one to see just how deep the crisis is, and to recover a sense of “shock” at the magnitude of both the doctrinal and liturgical errors which have inundated the Church at large. It became clear that a political solution to the problem was doomed to failure. It is not possible for true unity to exist without first a unity of truth. It is what the Society of St. Pius X has been saying all along.
So I am writing to you to retract both the content of my former letter, and its tone. It is a humbling thing to have to do, but justice requires it. It was wrong for me to leave the Society without having had recourse to those priests whom I would have considered prudent so as to ask their advice in my difficulty; I was wrong to accuse the Society of being a self-enclosed system; (if anything, I see that the modernist presuppositions of so many of the hierarchy, the product of a truly enclosed system, are hurling the Church to its ruin); I was wrong not to heed the warning of the Society that the Society of St. John was a dead end; I was wrong not to see that the authorities in the Church were still obsessed with maintaining the modern errors and that political solutions were incapable of solving the crisis. I admit that we are indeed in a state of necessity, and that it is therefore impossible to act as if the authorities have the true good of the Church objectively in mind. I do not deny that our present situation is not without its dangers, but neither can I deny that there is a lack of a supernatural spirit, a lack or weakness of Faith, which is wreaking havoc all around us in the official structures of the Church.
Ten years have passed since I left the Society of Saint Pius X. I can only pray that those of you who read this will be comforted in the knowledge that you have kept up the good fight, that you have remained faithful to the vision of Archbishop Lefebvre which is in all essentials the vision of the Roman Church, our Mother and Teacher. I pray that my errors in the past may be a warning that though we should love the Pope as Vicar of Christ, we should wait until the right hour to make any agreements, and not act before there is an agreement on the basics.
I ask your prayers that I might live out my priesthood in fidelity to the spirit of our Lord, and after the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, without whom I would not be a priest today.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Marshall M. Roberts
Found here (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10417&view=findpost&p=22022835).
-
He wrote that ten years passed since he left the Society. The letter was written in 2007, which means he left the SSPX in 1997.
-
He wrote that ten years passed since he left the Society. The letter was written in 2007, which means he left the SSPX in 1997.
The letter did not mention when he left SSJ, but said that he had been at his current (2007) parish for a year. He left ICKSP in 1998, which means sometime between then and 2006 (the year he came to the Florida chapel) he was at SSJ.
GA Coastal Trad, I'm not sure who said he left SSJ before the scandals, since as already mentioned, the scandals existed pretty much from the beginning. And the timeline lines up in such a way that he would have been a member of SSJ during the worst of it. Not an indictment, just want to make sure the facts are known. It doesn't make any sense to say that he left before the scandals.
-
It should not be too difficult to contact Fr Patrick Perez and ask him directly.
Last I heard, he was in Garden Grove, CA.
-
"After 8 or so years Father left the SSJ ( prior to the Scandals in the order)because they were becoming liturgically liberal ( they were using the 1965 Missal)."
Question:
What year does Fr Robert claim to have left the SSJ?
SSJ were horrifically"scandalous" from the beginning. The money troubles came later, shortly before they were finally shut down.
There were only 18 of them. No possible way that the behavior could have gone un-noticed.
-
"After 8 or so years Father left the SSJ ( prior to the Scandals in the order)because they were becoming liturgically liberal ( they were using the 1965 Missal)."
Question:
What year does Fr Robert claim to have left the SSJ?
SSJ were horrifically"scandalous" from the beginning. The money troubles came later, shortly before they were finally shut down.
There were only 18 of them. No possible way that the behavior could have gone un-noticed.
Elizabeth-
While I am inclined to agree with you (ie., I was a postulant in the SSJ for 5 weeks in the summer of 1998, and left as soon as I heard weird talk about future plans for communal showers and sleeping arrangements), the man is a priest, and entitled to the norms of justice.
Since the matter has been called into question, the Catholic position is to reserve judgment, and grant the most favorable benefit of the doubt, until such time as prima facie proof one way or the other emerges.
Hence my recommendation that someone contact Fr Perez in CA, as it would seem he could render a definitive affirmation/refutation in the matter.
-
Communal showers and sleeping arrangements? That's what you put in under an emergency situation, like at a shelter or in a MASH unit. Not just weird; plain old nasty!
-
There were quite a few former SSPX priests who wound up affiliated with the Society of St John, and they became affiliated with "Bishop" Timlin, and, several years later, Scranton Diocese is paying a major sex-abuse lawsuit for these "men." Some of these men worked themselves down to South America, to start over. Some of them became affiliated with other boys schools in the US. These schools have now, also, suffered the consequences of imprudently allowing these men to minister around young children.
The devil is wild. You know full well that Our Lady said the leaders at the top will lose their faith; you know that Pope Leo witnessed the battle wherein the devil claimed he would be victorious in 100 years; you know full well that the Alta Vendita made it their prime objective to destroy the Catholic Church, and destroying the Catholic Mass was a necessary prerequisite.You know to destroy the Catholic Church, you need to destroy the priesthood of Jesus Christ. You know full well that Ratzinger made it official policy to just move the perverts around, and not have them punished ( this allowed the to magnify their perversions by many times-- all over the world). And you know that the Communists specifically recruited ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to become priests!
Why be surprised that Tradition is under attacked? Of course we will be attacked! Even perverts will flock to tradition-- because they know they can ply their trade un-hampered! Right now, the true Sacrifice of the Mass is not being offered ANYWHERE else but in Traditional Chapels! Only in Traditional Chapels and Churches can the devil get the glee of destroying souls dedicated to Jesus Christ, of actually attacking Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
So, pray for your priests. Support them. But be wary.
Great post, hugeman.
-
I challenge anyone interested to find an article that convincingly proves Father's guilt originating from another website other than Renew America or Doctor Bond.
Randy Engel.
-
Communal showers and sleeping arrangements? That's what you put in under an emergency situation, like at a shelter or in a MASH unit. Not just weird; plain old nasty!
It was worse than that, tragically.
The article titled, Exploiting Traditionalist Orders The Society of St. John
by Randy Engel at http://www.newengelpublishing.com
describes the abominations at St. Gregory's Academy, an enormous and beautiful campus which had to shut down because of the SSJ predators.
-
I challenge anyone interested to find an article that convincingly proves Father's guilt originating from another website other than Renew America or Doctor Bond.
Randy Engel.
See above. Exploiting Traditionalist Orders
The Society of St. John
by Randy Engel, author of The Rite of Sodomy.
-
Apparently a parishioner in the Chapel has a huge collection of docuмents disproving all of Dr Bond's allegations.
Can I ask why Fr Dominic doesn't make use of the docuмents to correct the allegations?
There were further allegations against Fr Dominic dating from his time with the SSJ and it makes no sense that he would let such damaging allegations against him stand unchallenged, if there's proof that they're false.
-
Apparently a parishioner in the Chapel has a huge collection of docuмents disproving all of Dr Bond's allegations.
Can I ask why Fr Dominic doesn't make use of the docuмents to correct the allegations?
There were further allegations against Fr Dominic dating from his time with the SSJ and it makes no sense that he would let such damaging allegations against him stand unchallenged, if there's proof that they're false.
That's a good question. Though, in truth, once the allegation of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct exists against a person (ESPECIALLY a man) there's not much he can do. As he may realize this, I'm not sure his lack of addressing it is indicative of anything. Once the allegation is out there, MOST people will believe what they choose to believe, and will not be swayed one way or the other. Just look at the case of +Schuckhardt. There are still websites (or at least one) devoted to his defense.
-
Dear people,
The questions being asked are serious ones. The matters involved
are grave. Indeed, the physical and spiritual safety of our children may be
at risk. But we also know that a woman or man is entitled to their
good reputation. How would I be able to prove to 10,000 people I don't
know that I'm not a serial murderer? Or that I'm not an unfaithful adulterer?
You see, it would be impossible-- once those charges were spread. As impossible
as trying to gather all the down feathers from a pillow once the pillow were ripped open,
and the feathers scattered from the second floor balcony.
This internet is a great medium, and has been used successfully to
keep the faithful properly informed of the snakes amongst us.But we have to make
sure that , as the information touches someone's reputation, it passes the smell test:
1) Is it true (not gossip, rumour,or speculation)? 2) Is it necessary to be said ( has the problem been resolved, have the hurt parties been made whole, has the behavior been corrected, etc) ?
3) will I absolutely improve the situation by my discourse (is there a high risk it will happen again, etc)?
So, let's take the advise given by other posters and contact the principals
involved.
-
Dear people,
The questions being asked are serious ones. The matters involved
are grave. Indeed, the physical and spiritual safety of our children may be
at risk. But we also know that a woman or man is entitled to their
good reputation. How would I be able to prove to 10,000 people I don't
know that I'm not a serial murderer? Or that I'm not an unfaithful adulterer?
You see, it would be impossible-- once those charges were spread. As impossible
as trying to gather all the down feathers from a pillow once the pillow were ripped open,
and the feathers scattered from the second floor balcony.
This internet is a great medium, and has been used successfully to
keep the faithful properly informed of the snakes amongst us.But we have to make
sure that , as the information touches someone's reputation, it passes the smell test:
1) Is it true (not gossip, rumour,or speculation)? 2) Is it necessary to be said ( has the problem been resolved, have the hurt parties been made whole, has the behavior been corrected, etc) ?
3) will I absolutely improve the situation by my discourse (is there a high risk it will happen again, etc)?
So, let's take the advise given by other posters and contact the principals
involved.
I have basically said everything I know on this. The research I did convinced and convinces me that the allegations are false. If someone can prove otherwise, than please do so. This is a very serious issue, and if true he should be given the just punishment. If it is false however, than there is no reason why people shouldn't attend his Mass. I think it would be a good idea to contact the men who are involved and try to straiten it out. One other person I think it might be a good idea to contact would be Father Pfeiffer ( I don't know Father Pfeiffer, so if he does not like to be contacted, then it probably wouldn't be a good idea). He has known Father Dominic since he first became a Priest and he is definitely well respected.
-
:applause:
Dear people,
The questions being asked are serious ones. The matters involved
are grave. Indeed, the physical and spiritual safety of our children may be
at risk. But we also know that a woman or man is entitled to their
good reputation. How would I be able to prove to 10,000 people I don't
know that I'm not a serial murderer? Or that I'm not an unfaithful adulterer?
You see, it would be impossible-- once those charges were spread. As impossible
as trying to gather all the down feathers from a pillow once the pillow were ripped open,
and the feathers scattered from the second floor balcony.
This internet is a great medium, and has been used successfully to
keep the faithful properly informed of the snakes amongst us.But we have to make
sure that , as the information touches someone's reputation, it passes the smell test:
1) Is it true (not gossip, rumour,or speculation)? 2) Is it necessary to be said ( has the problem been resolved, have the hurt parties been made whole, has the behavior been corrected, etc) ?
3) will I absolutely improve the situation by my discourse (is there a high risk it will happen again, etc)?
So, let's take the advise given by other posters and contact the principals
involved.
-
I cannot watch this go on any longer without saying something. We went through this at Christmas and here we are again.
I realize most of you do not know Fr. Roberts. I understand your suspicion these days of any priest, especially one who has been accused of something horrendous. But I'd like to give you MY impression of Fr. Roberts.
I met this good priest last Fall. I was impressed from the first moment I met him at his chapel. I knew practically nothing of the allegations against him and after meeting him such suspicions never even crossed my mind.
Now mind you, in my working years I worked alongside openly gαy men because they happened to work for the companies I worked for. In a large city that is the case. So I have been well-acquainted with the characteristics of a gαy man.
In my years in the Church I have met priests whom I suspect were gαy because I saw the same characteristics in them.
I SEE NONE OF THIS IN FR. ROBERTS.
If there ever was a heterosɛҳuąƖ man who went by the book, it is he. There is NO funny business about him in any way whatsoever. I attend his Mass weekly and only regret that I cannot attend daily. His sermons are out-of-the-ballpark good--especially the one he gave for the Sunday near the Feast of the Sacred Heart about how little devotion there is to Jesus's Heart and how little loved He is. I haven't heard these kinds of sermons since I was a kid before Vatican II. He quotes Scripture. He quotes Canon Law. He refers to Tradition when asked why this or that or what to do in such-and-such a circuмstance. He is a walking encyclopedia of Church history, lives of the Saints, you name it.
I've been searching for 51 years for a priest to answer some personal (apply only to me) questions I've had and Fr. Roberts is the ONLY priest who has been able to answer them. Again, he quotes Jesus's words and explains how they apply in the situations I asked him about. No priest has ever been able to do this for me. AND HE MAKES PERFECT SENSE. The ability to guide a soul (and I understand I am not the only one) with such precision is totally incompatible with someone in the state of mortal sin. If you don't believe me, look in your theology books. It's there. I've gotten one crazy answer with no foundations for it from priest after priest until I met Fr. Roberts.
Not only do I know him from Mass and Confession, but socially as well. He is a delight to be around. I've spoken to him privately and in a group setting. He has a very well-rounded personality and his conversation is fascinating because of his intelligence and knowledge.
Father wears the full Dominican habit all the time. I do not know his standing in the Dominican Order. He has a Dominican Third Order group in Jacksonville, FL and is starting up a Discalced Carmelite Third Order group there as well.
I will tell you one thing: It is worth moving to Jacksonville, FL to have the God-given grace to have this priest for your Mass. I've seen 51 years of priests and this one is OUTSTANDING. He encourages us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, that the servant cannot be greater than the Master, that we should pray to become holy, that our attention should be focused on God dwelling within us (if we are in the state of grace and if not, to get to confession ASAP) and our eyes should be on Heaven and not on the things of this earth. He has told me many times to "accept suffering" as that proves love of God and to depend on Divine Providence to work out my difficulties in life. HE CAUSES ME TO REMEMBER WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC IS ALL ABOUT, which I thought I knew until I met this hard-hitter priest (in the sense of nothing is trivial if it offends God). And he will spend as long a time as needed with you in confession to set your soul at ease and he lets you ask as many questions as you want.
Now you can say this is emotional and not based in facts about the allegations, but let me say this: You can read the top theologian's books on what a priest should be and this priest is IT. I know. I've read the books and have been searching for such a priest all my life.
As for his possible "reformation" -- I can't possibly see what there could have been to "reform." (Pardon me if I am using the wrong term but if I try to go back to see what was posted I'll lose this page for sure.) We recently celebrated his 17th year of ordination. He recounted to us his history with the Society and the St. John's group, etc. As I recall, he said he didn't like what was going on at St. John's and left. I wish I had paid more attention but my mind was centered on how utterly deplorable it is these days that a good priest like Fr. Roberts should have to endure so many difficulties just to be a good Catholic priest.
I am suspicious of ALL priests as I've had some things happen to me in dealing with some that are too shocking to write here so I don't automatically place ANY priest on a pedestal just because he's a priest. I learned to not do that the hard way. I've watched Fr. Roberts for months just waiting for something shocking or unpleasant to happen and the more I get to know him, the more I admire him.
Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return. Should that happen, I hope and pray Fr. Roberts will be my priest when I'm on my deathbed. I want HIM to prepare me to be judged by God. I mean this sincerely. I don't know what higher recommendation I can give a priest.
-
I cannot watch this go on any longer without saying something. We went through this at Christmas and here we are again.
I realize most of you do not know Fr. Roberts. I understand your suspicion these days of any priest, especially one who has been accused of something horrendous. But I'd like to give you MY impression of Fr. Roberts.
I met this good priest last Fall. I was impressed from the first moment I met him at his chapel. I knew practically nothing of the allegations against him and after meeting him such suspicions never even crossed my mind.
Now mind you, in my working years I worked alongside openly gαy men because they happened to work for the companies I worked for. In a large city that is the case. So I have been well-acquainted with the characteristics of a gαy man.
In my years in the Church I have met priests whom I suspect were gαy because I saw the same characteristics in them.
I SEE NONE OF THIS IN FR. ROBERTS.
If there ever was a heterosɛҳuąƖ man who went by the book, it is he. There is NO funny business about him in any way whatsoever. I attend his Mass weekly and only regret that I cannot attend daily. His sermons are out-of-the-ballpark good--especially the one he gave for the Sunday near the Feast of the Sacred Heart about how little devotion there is to Jesus's Heart and how little loved He is. I haven't heard these kinds of sermons since I was a kid before Vatican II. He quotes Scripture. He quotes Canon Law. He refers to Tradition when asked why this or that or what to do in such-and-such a circuмstance. He is a walking encyclopedia of Church history, lives of the Saints, you name it.
I've been searching for 51 years for a priest to answer some personal (apply only to me) questions I've had and Fr. Roberts is the ONLY priest who has been able to answer them. Again, he quotes Jesus's words and explains how they apply in the situations I asked him about. No priest has ever been able to do this for me. AND HE MAKES PERFECT SENSE. The ability to guide a soul (and I understand I am not the only one) with such precision is totally incompatible with someone in the state of mortal sin. If you don't believe me, look in your theology books. It's there. I've gotten one crazy answer with no foundations for it from priest after priest until I met Fr. Roberts.
Not only do I know him from Mass and Confession, but socially as well. He is a delight to be around. I've spoken to him privately and in a group setting. He has a very well-rounded personality and his conversation is fascinating because of his intelligence and knowledge.
Father wears the full Dominican habit all the time. I do not know his standing in the Dominican Order. He has a Dominican Third Order group in Jacksonville, FL and is starting up a Discalced Carmelite Third Order group there as well.
I will tell you one thing: It is worth moving to Jacksonville, FL to have the God-given grace to have this priest for your Mass. I've seen 51 years of priests and this one is OUTSTANDING. He encourages us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, that the servant cannot be greater than the Master, that we should pray to become holy, that our attention should be focused on God dwelling within us (if we are in the state of grace and if not, to get to confession ASAP) and our eyes should be on Heaven and not on the things of this earth. He has told me many times to "accept suffering" as that proves love of God and to depend on Divine Providence to work out my difficulties in life. HE CAUSES ME TO REMEMBER WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC IS ALL ABOUT, which I thought I knew until I met this hard-hitter priest (in the sense of nothing is trivial if it offends God). And he will spend as long a time as needed with you in confession to set your soul at ease and he lets you ask as many questions as you want.
Now you can say this is emotional and not based in facts about the allegations, but let me say this: You can read the top theologian's books on what a priest should be and this priest is IT. I know. I've read the books and have been searching for such a priest all my life.
As for his possible "reformation" -- I can't possibly see what there could have been to "reform." (Pardon me if I am using the wrong term but if I try to go back to see what was posted I'll lose this page for sure.) We recently celebrated his 17th year of ordination. He recounted to us his history with the Society and the St. John's group, etc. As I recall, he said he didn't like what was going on at St. John's and left. I wish I had paid more attention but my mind was centered on how utterly deplorable it is these days that a good priest like Fr. Roberts should have to endure so many difficulties just to be a good Catholic priest.
I am suspicious of ALL priests as I've had some things happen to me in dealing with some that are too shocking to write here so I don't automatically place ANY priest on a pedestal just because he's a priest. I learned to not do that the hard way. I've watched Fr. Roberts for months just waiting for something shocking or unpleasant to happen and the more I get to know him, the more I admire him.
Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return. Should that happen, I hope and pray Fr. Roberts will be my priest when I'm on my deathbed. I want HIM to prepare me to be judged by God. I mean this sincerely. I don't know what higher recommendation I can give a priest.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
Thank you very much for that excellent post. You explained the situation in a way I could never have described it. I will pray for your recovery. See you this Sunday at Saint Michaels nipr.
-
It is nice to hear something good about a priest for once. I hope he truly is a good priest as you say he is. :applause:
-
It should not be too difficult to contact Fr Patrick Perez and ask him directly.
Last I heard, he was in Garden Grove, CA.
So, if you want to know, why don't you contact him, instead of
weakly suggesting that someone else does it? Because if
someone else does it, they'll say:
"Hello, Fr. Perez, SeanJohnson from CathInfo said I should
contact you about something." What do you suppose he is
likely to say? How about this:
"Why doesn't 'SeanJohnson from CathInfo' ask me himself?"
...
So, let's take the advise [advice] given by other posters [sic] and contact the principals involved.
After reading this whole thread, there is only one mention of
anyone contacting anyone else, and it's in context of it being not
difficult "to contact Fr. Perez and ask him directly."
And now here, a later post (misspelling advice) recommends
"advise [sic] given by other posters [sic] and contact the
principals involved."
Well, the subject is criminal activity, that is, pederasty, and the
principals of any crime are those who are convicted of the crime,
or at least those who are accused of the crime. If the latter, they
are properly referred to as "the alleged principals," but usually it's
"the alleged perpetrators," to avoid any implication of guilt before
it is proven in due process. Therefore, contacting the "principals"
would be contacting Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity (not Urritigoity or
Urrigoity) himself, or any of the other alleged perpetrators,
whoever they might be, but no names are given here in this thread.
Fr. Perez is not implicated in any of these accusations. Therefore,
to associate him with being one of "the principals" by weak and
unclear association LIKE THIS, ABOVE! -further spreads calumny,
as if enough is not already being spread. And it's all due to the
improper use of one word.
-
What I read online pertained to the reasons for Fr Roberts' dismissal front the Institute of Christ the King's seminary by then-rector (and now independent priest) Fr Patrick Perez (ie., long before the ssj existed).
This false claim was put against Father Roberts when he was at the ICKSP Seminary. Just two weeks prior to the acquisition, Father Roberts had publicly denounced the Seminary Canon Law professor as a Modernist. He attributes this as the reason as for his being asked to leave the Seminary. One key point to this whole unfortunate incident was that he was never expelled from the Seminary. He was given the option of leaving the Seminary while they investigated or he could be transfered to an African Mission. He choose to leave and when he asked if he should still wear the cassock ( I don't think he was in Major Orders) they answered in the affirmative. The reason he left the Society was because at the time, he disagreed on the Society granting annulments. He then became a Priest of the Society of Saint John. After 8 or so years Father left the SSJ ( prior to the Scandals in the order)because they were becoming liturgically liberal ( they were using the 1965 Missal). He then became a Diocesan Priest for another year or two were he taught at a Catholic school. He lost his position at the school because of the fact that he dared to say " That there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church". He began to serve an independent Traditional Chapel near Scranton, and for that he had his Faculties taken away by the Bishop. The Bishop of Scranton then told him that he would let Father stay in a parish in the Diocese if he could say the New Mass. Father refused, and the Bishop gave him permission to leave the Diocese and find a Traditional Chapel elsewhere. He then went to a few different Dioceses, including in his native Kentucky, searching for a place where he could be incardinated. Everywhere he went, Doctor Bond followed, spreading the most blatant lies. One example was that he said Father hugged a women in the confessional. Now Father ONLY says confession in a Traditional Confessional ( or out in a field if he were on pilgrimage with hundreds of people around). One thing you must keep in mind is that out of all of these acquisitions on the Internet, not one person ever actually accused him of anything. It is all Doctor Bond spreading rumor. Also the websites that this is located on is Renew America, which as it says in it's about page, it is dedicated to spreading "the cause of preserving our nation upon its founding ideals, specifically those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, as well as those derived from biblical principles."
Personally, I would take everything that website says with a grain of salt just because of that one comment. He then found St Michaels in Jacksonville Florida and became their Chaplin. The first thing he did was go and see the local Bishop and try to get the Chapel regularized. The bishop said he would recognize the Chapel if Father would agree to say the new Mass at other Churches when the need arose. He has officially been Independent ever sense. Believe me, I was EXTREMELY troubled by these acquisitions when I discovered then a few weeks after I discovered this Chapel about a year ago. I stopped attending Father Dominic's Mass for a year because of it. One day though I began looking on the Renew America and discovered what that website was all about. I discussed it with some very close friends who attend the Chapel as well as Father Dominic and their explanation made absolute sense. Apparently a parishioner in the Chapel has a huge collection of docuмents disproving all of Dr Bond's allegations. To conclude, I would just like to say that this is not the first time this type of discussion has arose and people have to do research if they want to know what really happened. I challenge anyone interested to find an article that convincingly proves Father's guilt originating from another website other than Renew America or Doctor Bond.
It's interesting that you say Fr. Roberts "...lost his position at the school
because of the fact that he dared to say" that "there is no Salvation
outside of the Catholic Church."
It's interesting because Fr. Perez is also wont to say, "There is no salvation
outside the Church," and he too had left his order, ICK, and I would not be
surprised if it had something to do with his abiding penchant to pronounce
Church dogma. We live in an age when anyone who dares to teach what
the Church has always taught is rubbed out or marginalized or castigated or
expelled or sent to the south pole to evangelize the penguins.
-
It's interesting that you say Fr. Roberts "...lost his position at the school
because of the fact that he dared to say" that "there is no Salvation
outside of the Catholic Church."
Because in wacky Novus Ordo land everything is allowed . . . everything except the truth.
-
I cannot watch this go on any longer without saying something. We went through this at Christmas and here we are again.
I realize most of you do not know Fr. Roberts. I understand your suspicion these days of any priest, especially one who has been accused of something horrendous. But I'd like to give you MY impression of Fr. Roberts.
I met this good priest last Fall. I was impressed from the first moment I met him at his chapel. I knew practically nothing of the allegations against him and after meeting him such suspicions never even crossed my mind.
Now mind you, in my working years I worked alongside openly gαy men because they happened to work for the companies I worked for. In a large city that is the case. So I have been well-acquainted with the characteristics of a gαy man.
In my years in the Church I have met priests whom I suspect were gαy because I saw the same characteristics in them.
I SEE NONE OF THIS IN FR. ROBERTS.
If there ever was a heterosɛҳuąƖ man who went by the book, it is he. There is NO funny business about him in any way whatsoever. I attend his Mass weekly and only regret that I cannot attend daily. His sermons are out-of-the-ballpark good--especially the one he gave for the Sunday near the Feast of the Sacred Heart about how little devotion there is to Jesus's Heart and how little loved He is. I haven't heard these kinds of sermons since I was a kid before Vatican II. He quotes Scripture. He quotes Canon Law. He refers to Tradition when asked why this or that or what to do in such-and-such a circuмstance. He is a walking encyclopedia of Church history, lives of the Saints, you name it.
I've been searching for 51 years for a priest to answer some personal (apply only to me) questions I've had and Fr. Roberts is the ONLY priest who has been able to answer them. Again, he quotes Jesus's words and explains how they apply in the situations I asked him about. No priest has ever been able to do this for me. AND HE MAKES PERFECT SENSE. The ability to guide a soul (and I understand I am not the only one) with such precision is totally incompatible with someone in the state of mortal sin. If you don't believe me, look in your theology books. It's there. I've gotten one crazy answer with no foundations for it from priest after priest until I met Fr. Roberts.
Not only do I know him from Mass and Confession, but socially as well. He is a delight to be around. I've spoken to him privately and in a group setting. He has a very well-rounded personality and his conversation is fascinating because of his intelligence and knowledge.
Father wears the full Dominican habit all the time. I do not know his standing in the Dominican Order. He has a Dominican Third Order group in Jacksonville, FL and is starting up a Discalced Carmelite Third Order group there as well.
I will tell you one thing: It is worth moving to Jacksonville, FL to have the God-given grace to have this priest for your Mass. I've seen 51 years of priests and this one is OUTSTANDING. He encourages us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, that the servant cannot be greater than the Master, that we should pray to become holy, that our attention should be focused on God dwelling within us (if we are in the state of grace and if not, to get to confession ASAP) and our eyes should be on Heaven and not on the things of this earth. He has told me many times to "accept suffering" as that proves love of God and to depend on Divine Providence to work out my difficulties in life. HE CAUSES ME TO REMEMBER WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC IS ALL ABOUT, which I thought I knew until I met this hard-hitter priest (in the sense of nothing is trivial if it offends God). And he will spend as long a time as needed with you in confession to set your soul at ease and he lets you ask as many questions as you want.
Now you can say this is emotional and not based in facts about the allegations, but let me say this: You can read the top theologian's books on what a priest should be and this priest is IT. I know. I've read the books and have been searching for such a priest all my life.
As for his possible "reformation" -- I can't possibly see what there could have been to "reform." (Pardon me if I am using the wrong term but if I try to go back to see what was posted I'll lose this page for sure.) We recently celebrated his 17th year of ordination. He recounted to us his history with the Society and the St. John's group, etc. As I recall, he said he didn't like what was going on at St. John's and left. I wish I had paid more attention but my mind was centered on how utterly deplorable it is these days that a good priest like Fr. Roberts should have to endure so many difficulties just to be a good Catholic priest.
I am suspicious of ALL priests as I've had some things happen to me in dealing with some that are too shocking to write here so I don't automatically place ANY priest on a pedestal just because he's a priest. I learned to not do that the hard way. I've watched Fr. Roberts for months just waiting for something shocking or unpleasant to happen and the more I get to know him, the more I admire him.
Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return. Should that happen, I hope and pray Fr. Roberts will be my priest when I'm on my deathbed. I want HIM to prepare me to be judged by God. I mean this sincerely. I don't know what higher recommendation I can give a priest.
I have known Fr.Roberts for more than 4 years I see him at least twice a week at Mass I serve Mass for him every Saturday,and I have never seen or heard anything that would make me think that he was in any way deviant.Fr.'s theology is bed rock solid, his Faith is what one would expect and hope for in a Traditional priest;as far as his sermons, listen to them yourselves on the chapel website,but unless you can come out into the clear light of day and not hide behind an avatar and prove what you accuse, kindly shut up.
-
It should not be too difficult to contact Fr Patrick Perez and ask him directly.
Last I heard, he was in Garden Grove, CA.
So, if you want to know, why don't you contact him, instead of
weakly suggesting that someone else does it? Because if
someone else does it, they'll say:
"Hello, Fr. Perez, SeanJohnson from CathInfo said I should
contact you about something." What do you suppose he is
likely to say? How about this:
"Why doesn't 'SeanJohnson from CathInfo' ask me himself?"
...
So, let's take the advise [advice] given by other posters [sic] and contact the principals involved.
After reading this whole thread, there is only one mention of
anyone contacting anyone else, and it's in context of it being not
difficult "to contact Fr. Perez and ask him directly."
And now here, a later post (misspelling advice) recommends
"advise [sic] given by other posters [sic] and contact the
principals involved."
Well, the subject is criminal activity, that is, pederasty, and the
principals of any crime are those who are convicted of the crime,
or at least those who are accused of the crime. If the latter, they
are properly referred to as "the alleged principals," but usually it's
"the alleged perpetrators," to avoid any implication of guilt before
it is proven in due process. Therefore, contacting the "principals"
would be contacting Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity (not Urritigoity or
Urrigoity) himself, or any of the other alleged perpetrators,
whoever they might be, but no names are given here in this thread.
Fr. Perez is not implicated in any of these accusations. Therefore,
to associate him with being one of "the principals" by weak and
unclear association LIKE THIS, ABOVE! -further spreads calumny,
as if enough is not already being spread. And it's all due to the
improper use of one word.
Because it is not I who am curious; if someone else with a desire to know wishes to reach out to the one person who can answer the allegation definitively, it is Fr Perez they must contact.
And what the hell are you talking about by implying someone has implicated Fr Perez???
Are you drinking tonight, or do you just lack reading comprehension?
-
It is Fr Perez who, as then Vice-Rector, is alleged to have dismissed Fr Roberts from the Institute of Christ the King seminary on the basis of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ overtures made to a fellow seminarian.
Therefore, he is the only one (other than Fr Roberts or the alleged seminarian) who can attest to the veracity or falsity of the accusation.
As I have said before, if this account is false, the slander is a most grave offense by those who made it, and put it in the public domain.
But Fr Perez is the only one who can say whether this actually happened.
Hence my observation that interested parties can reach out to him.
-
Hey Neil-
My response may have been overly harsh, as you likely did simply misread.
No offense intended.
Sean
-
Someone has obviously misunderstood the entire post. There is absolutely
no implication that anybody committed any wrong doing. The very
clear meaning of my words were to hold one's tongue when speaking of such matters;
And if you need clarification of what went on at such and such s place, the respectful thing to
do would be to speak to the principals involved in the whole drama-- don't listen to
hearsay, rumor, and gossip.
And I don't think this is the correct forum to carry on this kind of discussion.
-
Someone has obviously misunderstood the entire post. There is absolutely
no implication that anybody committed any wrong doing. The very
clear meaning of my words were to hold one's tongue when speaking of such matters;
And if you need clarification of what went on at such and such s place, the respectful thing to
do would be to speak to the principals involved in the whole drama-- don't listen to
hearsay, rumor, and gossip.
And I don't think this is the correct forum to carry on this kind of discussion.
Agreed on all counts.
I will not post further on this thread.
-
Someone has obviously misunderstood the entire post. There is absolutely
no implication that anybody committed any wrong doing. The very
clear meaning of my words were to hold one's tongue when speaking of such matters;
And if you need clarification of what went on at such and such s place, the respectful thing to
do would be to speak to the principals involved in the whole drama-- don't listen to
hearsay, rumor, and gossip.
And I don't think this is the correct forum to carry on this kind of discussion.
Whether someone misunderstood or not, hasn't been shown. I was
commenting on the implications that emerge from your post that
you probably would not have intended, but come from your improper
use of the words you used. You have to be very careful when using
some words in some situations.
Hopefully, the reaction of yours and of SeanJohnson's above, can
serve to clarify that you are not making any such indirect accusations
where you did not intend them.
-
5 open and important questions which Fr. Marshall Roberts should not be afraid to answer
1. So, by what right does Father use the initials O.P. if only a postulant? Postulancy does not admit one into the Order, strictly speaking in most Orders, First Profession of Temporary Vows admits one into the Order and allows the religious to use the Order's initials, but for the Dominicans, the Novitiate does.
2. Which Dominican received Fr. Roberts into the First Order of Preachers (Dominican Friars)?
3. Since when do postulants take a religious name and wear the habit? In the Dominicans this only happens upon Vestition (receiving the habit and becoming a novice).
4. Since when do Dominican friars take a devotional title, e.g. of the Pillar (presumably meaning Our Lady of the Pillar, Spain)? This was traditionally only the custom of the Dominican Nuns and not even the modern Friars do this, after the changes of Vatican II took place.
5. Why doesn't Father refer to himself, then, as Fr. Dominic (Mary) Roberts -meaning his last name. Is he perhaps afraid of people performing a Google search and finding his name? - as
Pre Vatican II Dominican Friars used their last names: Henri-Dominique Lacordaire, O.P., Jean-Joseph Lataste, O.P., Charles Hyacinth McKenna, O.P., Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Hyacinthe-Marie Cormier, O.P., Vincent McNabb, O.P.
As far as modern-day traditional Dominicans of Avrillé go who follow the strict pre-Vatican II customs they too use their last names, e.g. Fr. Albert Kallio, O.P., Fr. Raymond Verlay, O.P., Fr. Pierre de Kergolay, O.P., Fr. Terence Boyle, O.P.
Father Dominic is the Chaplin of the Chapel I attend in Jacksonville Florida. He was ordained By + Williamson in 1996 and was a Society priest for a year. He then left and served as a Priest in the Scranton area. in 2005 he came to Jacksonville and became the Chaplin for my Parish. He is a close friend of Father Joseph Pfeiffer ( Father Pfeiffer served as his assistant priest at his ordination), and is in close contact with the Resistance. His name was Father Marshall Roberts up until 2013 when he decided to become a Dominican ( currently he is in his First year postulancy) and he took the name Dominc Mary of the Pillar. this is the link to his Chapel' s website were you can listen to some of his sermons:/St Michael Catholic Church (http://www.stmichaelcatholic.org/)
I just read the post discussing the slanderous things that were said against Father Dominic. Currently I have to go out so I will not be able to respond until later. I can assure you, though that they are false vague unsubstantiated slanderous rantings of a Doctor Bond who was affiliated with the SSJ and had a conflict with Father.
-
Points 1 & 3): Fr. Roberts has been a Third Order Dominican for some years. This may be why he is allowed to wear the habit during his postulancy. It may also be why he may put the O.P. after his name. Having been a Tertiary would speed up his entry into the first order.
Point 2): He is not affiliated with Avrille. I am not sure who he is under, but it may be Bishop Robert McKenna who is a Dominican. The Dominicans of Avrille are not the only traditional Dominicans on the planet.
Point 4) Generally the religious name is given to the person at the time of their clothing (reception of the habit). Since Father has already been clothed upon entering the novitiate in the Third Order, he probably received his religious name at that time. As a Tertiary, it is not usual for one to use one's religious name except with other religious or in matters concerning the order.
Point 5) If you are really familiar with traditional Dominicans, you would know that the friars usually do not append their last name to their religious name. Case in point, if you will go to the Angelus Press web site here (http://www.cvent.com/events/2013-conference-for-catholic-tradition/staff-12fb795e90184c65a1c7b24f220f396e.aspx) for the list of speakers at this fall's upcoming conference, you will see that Fr. Albert is listed as "Fr. Albert, O.P." and not with his last name.
(By the way, Fr. Albert is no longer affiliated with the Dominicans of Avrille, despite what Angelus Press says.)
BTW, I am a Dominican Tertiary.
-
Ancien regime, do you know Fr. Albert's current status? Is he still in Browerville, MN, ministering to the Sisters of the SSPX? Do you know why he is no longer affiliated with the Dominicans of Avrille?
I ask these questions because I have known him since 1999 and have always had the highest regard for him.
What a terrible time we are all passing through ... Kyrie Eleison.
-
Ancien regime, do you know Fr. Albert's current status? Is he still in Browerville, MN, ministering to the Sisters of the SSPX? Do you know why he is no longer affiliated with the Dominicans of Avrille?
I ask these questions because I have known him since 1999 and have always had the highest regard for him.
What a terrible time we are all passing through ... Kyrie Eleison.
Fr Albert is no longer with the Dominicans??? :surprised:
-
Ancien regime, do you know Fr. Albert's current status? Is he still in Browerville, MN, ministering to the Sisters of the SSPX? Do you know why he is no longer affiliated with the Dominicans of Avrille?
I ask these questions because I have known him since 1999 and have always had the highest regard for him.
What a terrible time we are all passing through ... Kyrie Eleison.
Fr Albert is no longer with the Dominicans??? :surprised:
He is still a Dominican (wearing the full habit etc..). A friend gave me some of the reasons for why Fr. Albert is no longer attached to Avrille but I am afraid I don't remember much of it. I do know know that Fr. Albert also spent some time in Silver City as well.
-
.
"Ah, yes! -- the old Silver-City-hotbed-of-unexpected-capitulation trick!"
(http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP00001826/get-smart-don-adams-1.jpg)
-
...
Agreed on all counts.
I will not post further on this thread.
Less than a day later........
Ancien regime, do you know ... passing through ... Kyrie Eleison.
Fr Albert is no longer with the Dominicans??? ...
Wait a minute -- didn't you just say you would not post
further on this thread??? :scratchchin:
-
All I know is that Fr. Albert formally left the convent after he returned to France last fall. I do not know why, but I understand it was his decision. When I heard that he had been replaced as the friar in charge of the English-speaking Tertiaries, I asked about him and was told that he had indeed left, that he no longer represents the Couvent de la Haye aux Bonshommes in any way and that they no longer have any authority over him, and that this situation is public knowledge.
A few weeks ago, a person told me that he said to that person that he thought the Dominicans of Avrille were too strict. Evidently he has also tried to dissuade at least one person from joining the Third Order.
So, while he is still a Dominican (as far as I know), he is not affiliated with a particular convent. I guess he's just out there on his own. Evidently he is still hanging out with the Society here in the U.S., but I personally do not know where or in what capacity.
I was very sad to hear that he had left the convent, but it really sounds like he has gone over to the Neo-SSPX way of looking at things now.
-
Ancien Regime and Obscurus, thank you for responding to my questions about Fr. Albert. When a priest of his caliber gives up the good fight and joins the modernist wing, it is extremely tragic for the poor scattering sheep. Kyrie Eleison ...
May Our Lady of Good Success strengthen and guide the good Fr. Albert back to Avrille, from where he could successfully finish the course and keep the Holy Faith.
Prayers for Fr. Albert!
-
Ancien Regime and Obscurus, thank you for responding to my questions about Fr. Albert. When a priest of his caliber gives up the good fight and joins the modernist wing, it is extremely tragic for the poor scattering sheep. Kyrie Eleison ...
May Our Lady of Good Success strengthen and guide the good Fr. Albert back to Avrille, from where he could successfully finish the course and keep the Holy Faith.
Prayers for Fr. Albert!
Since when has Avrille become a stronghold of the Resistance?
Last I heard, they had given Bishop Fellay sufficient proof of their loyalty to him, and received their coveted ordinations as a result.
The world has not heard a peep from them since!
Perhaps Fr. Albert has left because Avrille are a bunch of accordistas?
-
Yeah, that's why Father's now working with the SSPX in the U.S.? Knock knock, anybody home?
Ancien Regime and Obscurus, thank you for responding to my questions about Fr. Albert. When a priest of his caliber gives up the good fight and joins the modernist wing, it is extremely tragic for the poor scattering sheep. Kyrie Eleison ...
May Our Lady of Good Success strengthen and guide the good Fr. Albert back to Avrille, from where he could successfully finish the course and keep the Holy Faith.
Prayers for Fr. Albert!
Since when has Avrille become a stronghold of the Resistance?
Last I heard, they had given Bishop Fellay sufficient proof of their loyalty to him, and received their coveted ordinations as a result.
The world has not heard a peep from them since!
Perhaps Fr. Albert has left because Avrille are a bunch of accordistas?
-
Well, SJ, I do apologize if I mistakenly believed that Avrille was still holding the line. However, Ancien Regime stated that Fr. Albert allegedly believes that the Avrille Dominicans are too strict and as a consequence, has discouraged one person from becoming a Third Order Dominican. In addition, the Angelus Press has listed him as a speaker at one of their upcoming events. What is known about his current status does not lead one to believe he is among the Resistance Priests.
-
I know that Randy Engel has touched up on the scandals at SSJ, and I think Fr. Roberts as well. I am a fan of her and her work. I don't recall the precise details regarding Fr. Roberts.
What I can say, however, is that Fr. Urrigoity is a sick pervert, and Fr. Roberts' involvement with him does make me suspicious of him. I hope he's innocent of the rumors against him like he claims he is, but I do think there is reason to be suspicious.
-
There were quite a few former SSPX priests who wound up affiliated with the Society of St John, and they became affiliated with "Bishop" Timlin, and, several years later, Scranton Diocese is paying a major sex-abuse lawsuit for these "men." Some of these men worked themselves down to South America, to start over. Some of them became affiliated with other boys schools in the US. These schools have now, also, suffered the consequences of imprudently allowing these men to minister around young children.
The devil is wild. You know full well that Our Lady said the leaders at the top will lose their faith; you know that Pope Leo witnessed the battle wherein the devil claimed he would be victorious in 100 years; you know full well that the Alta Vendita made it their prime objective to destroy the Catholic Church, and destroying the Catholic Mass was a necessary prerequisite.You know to destroy the Catholic Church, you need to destroy the priesthood of Jesus Christ. You know full well that Ratzinger made it official policy to just move the perverts around, and not have them punished ( this allowed the to magnify their perversions by many times-- all over the world). And you know that the Communists specifically recruited ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to become priests!
Why be surprised that Tradition is under attacked? Of course we will be attacked! Even perverts will flock to tradition-- because they know they can ply their trade un-hampered! Right now, the true Sacrifice of the Mass is not being offered ANYWHERE else but in Traditional Chapels! Only in Traditional Chapels and Churches can the devil get the glee of destroying souls dedicated to Jesus Christ, of actually attacking Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
So, pray for your priests. Support them. But be wary.
Great post, hugeman.
. Agree
-
I know that Randy Engel has touched up on the scandals at SSJ, and I think Fr. Roberts as well. I am a fan of her and her work. I don't recall the precise details regarding Fr. Roberts.
What I can say, however, is that Fr. Urrigoity is a sick pervert, and Fr. Roberts' involvement with him does make me suspicious of him. I hope he's innocent of the rumors against him like he claims he is, but I do think there is reason to be suspicious.
I have known Fr.Roberts for close to five years and I don't see any reason to be suspicious.
-
1. So, by what right does Father use the initials O.P. if only a postulant? Postulancy does not admit one into the Order, strictly speaking in most Orders, First Profession of Temporary Vows admits one into the Order and allows the religious to use the Order's initials, but for the Dominicans, the Novitiate does.
2. Which Dominican received Fr. Roberts into the First Order of Preachers (Dominican Friars)?
3. Since when do postulants take a religious name and wear the habit? In the Dominicans this only happens upon Vestition (receiving the habit and becoming a novice).
1. and 3. Do Dominican friars have a postulancy at all? I'm asking because I have a booklet from 1944 about the Carmelite friars, and they mention that only the lay-brothers and nuns have a postulancy (of six months). The friars spend just a few days in the community, getting used to the life, then go straight into a pre-clothing retreat, before receiving the habit and taking a religious name.
I recently read the obituary of a English Dominican friar and he too seems to have entered directly into the novitiate without a postulancy.
2. As the only traditional Dominicans in the world are at Avrille in France and are linked to the SSPX, and Fr. Roberts is in the Resistance, he would have to go ahead on his own - which is perfectly possible in an emergency.
-
the only traditional Dominicans in the world are at Avrille in France and are linked to the SSPX, ........
I seem to recall that at the 2012 Ordinations, +Fellay refused ordination to the candidates from Avrille (in quite a brouhaha, I might add), because of their stance against him, but I thought their candidates this year were ordained with no commotion. Does this mean that their head capitulated to the NeoSSPX and +Fellay?
-
4. Since when do Dominican friars take a devotional title, e.g. of the Pillar (presumably meaning Our Lady of the Pillar, Spain)?
Fr. Roberts hasn't taken a devotional name, it just looks like it. He's taken two religious names, Dominic + Mary of the Pillar (+ Roberts). It's clearer in Spanish: Domenico + Maria Pilar (+ Roberts). It's Our Lady who's "of the Pillar", not him!
-
.
I have noticed the CMRI priests wear a habit or cassock that is very
much like the Dominicans' but they do not use "O.P." after their
name but rather CMRI.
Does anyone here know more about this?
-
I've just seen from Father's website that he's using pre-1955 liturgy. Hurray! Worth moving to Florida for. And he sounds an excellent priest.
http://www.stmichaelcatholic.org/#!weekly_schedule/c1xu8
-
...
Agreed on all counts.
I will not post further on this thread.
Less than a day later........
Ancien regime, do you know ... passing through ... Kyrie Eleison.
Fr Albert is no longer with the Dominicans??? ...
Wait a minute -- didn't you just say you would not post
further on this thread??? :scratchchin:
Never say never!!
-
All I know is that Fr. Albert formally left the convent after he returned to France last fall. I do not know why, but I understand it was his decision. When I heard that he had been replaced as the friar in charge of the English-speaking Tertiaries, I asked about him and was told that he had indeed left, that he no longer represents the Couvent de la Haye aux Bonshommes in any way and that they no longer have any authority over him, and that this situation is public knowledge.
A few weeks ago, a person told me that he said to that person that he thought the Dominicans of Avrille were too strict. Evidently he has also tried to dissuade at least one person from joining the Third Order.
So, while he is still a Dominican (as far as I know), he is not affiliated with a particular convent. I guess he's just out there on his own. Evidently he is still hanging out with the Society here in the U.S., but I personally do not know where or in what capacity.
I was very sad to hear that he had left the convent, but it really sounds like he has gone over to the Neo-SSPX way of looking at things now.
Not surprising, in a way, since he was a friend of +Fellay, but really a shame just the same, if that is the case, since he originally came from the Novus Ordo. Perhaps if he saw the Light once before, he will again.........we must pray for him.
-
Well, SJ, I do apologize if I mistakenly believed that Avrille was still holding the line. However, Ancien Regime stated that Fr. Albert allegedly believes that the Avrille Dominicans are too strict and as a consequence, has discouraged one person from becoming a Third Order Dominican. In addition, the Angelus Press has listed him as a speaker at one of their upcoming events. What is known about his current status does not lead one to believe he is among the Resistance Priests.
Sounds like he has thrown his hat in with +Fellay. What a shame! He originally came from the Novus Ordo, having seen the Light once, and now he is headed back in via the back door.
-
Communal showers and sleeping arrangements? That's what you put in under an emergency situation, like at a shelter or in a MASH unit. Not just weird; plain old nasty!
:really-mad2:
Yes. Evil and nasty