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.

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

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.

. 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".  

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.

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.

Quote

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

Quote

"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?

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.