Author Topic: A district Superior who cared about SOULS (Read 2115 times)

sspxbvm · « **on:** February 10, 2013, 12:29:05 PM »

A District Superior who really cared about SOULS. Not like the current one who's greatest deisre seems to be to manipulate souls. God help him!
For ASH WEDNESDAY:

drivocek · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2013, 02:37:41 PM »

Yes, I liked Fr. Peter Scott. His writings were informative and inspirational. I loved his attacks upon and his challenges to Novus Ordo bishops.

Pablo · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2013, 02:47:55 PM »

A Lion of the Faith.

Thanks for posting it.

I placed it on my sites as well.

*

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:07:57 PM »

If only he were Superior of the US District!

stgobnait · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:10:16 PM »

or ireland..... :furtive:

For Greater Glory · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:42:28 PM »

Fr. Scott holds a special place in my heart. In 1996 I was at the indult Mass. To make a long story short, I talked to Father on the phone, and he explained that you cannot put truth alongside error. That's how I came to the SSPX.

stgobnait · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:45:34 PM »

most sspx priests would have given you that advice in 1996..... now they have lunch together......

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2013, 11:42:07 AM »

In a recent conference from Quito, as I recall, Fr. Pfeiffer explained what it was
that happened regarding Fr. Peter Scott.

Fr. Scott was very pro-Fellay. He was quite enthusiastic about his election to SG
in 1994, and was an outspoken supporter of all +Fellay's actions.

But one day, Fr. Scott was removed from his post, by Menzingen. Why do you
suppose that was done?

Well, Fr. Scott was not a "boot licker." He was capable of standing on his own two
feet. He was not a "yes-man." He was not a cult follower. Therefore, in regards
to certain procedural matters when +Fellay came out with decisions on how to
handle particular problems regarding conflict between some SSPX priests, Fr.
Scott spoke up, and gave his disapproval to the BAD COUNSEL of Menzingen.
And having been shown up for giving bad counsel, Menzingen backed down.

But then Menzingen got even. Menzingen removed Fr. Scott.

You could say, that Menzingen is like a woman: she doesn't get mad;

she gets even.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2013, 02:38:42 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

In a recent conference from Quito, as I recall, Fr. Pfeiffer explained what it was
that happened regarding Fr. Peter Scott.

Fr. Scott was very pro-Fellay. He was quite enthusiastic about his election to SG
in 1994, and was an outspoken supporter of all +Fellay's actions.

But one day, Fr. Scott was removed from his post, by Menzingen. Why do you
suppose that was done?

Well, Fr. Scott was not a "boot licker." He was capable of standing on his own two
feet. He was not a "yes-man." He was not a cult follower. Therefore, in regards
to certain procedural matters when +Fellay came out with decisions on how to
handle particular problems regarding conflict between some SSPX priests, Fr.
Scott spoke up, and gave his disapproval to the BAD COUNSEL of Menzingen.
And having been shown up for giving bad counsel, Menzingen backed down.

But then Menzingen got even. Menzingen removed Fr. Scott.

You could say, that Menzingen is like a woman: she doesn't get mad;

she gets even.

I don't know if all that talk about Father Scott is true. Father Scott told me himself he didn't want a 3rd term as District Superior. Let's take it from the horse's mouth if we wish to ask him...somebody could write Fr. Scott and ask.

stgobnait · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2013, 02:41:18 PM »

Im beginning to trust no one.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2013, 07:34:50 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

Im beginning to trust no one.

It's true. Trust no one. Most of it is hearsay or just lies.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2013, 09:05:43 PM »

Quote from: sspxbvm

I don't know if all that talk about Father Scott is true. Father Scott told me himself he didn't want a 3rd term as District Superior. Let's take it from the horse's mouth if we wish to ask him...somebody could write Fr. Scott and ask.

So do you mean to say that only those who want to be DS get appointed?
Or are you so sure that Menzingen was aware that he didn't want a 3rd term?
Did Fr. Scott say that he informed them to that effect, or did they ask him?
Or if someone does not want a 3rd term then they will surely appoint someone else?
You know, Pope St. Pius X did not want to be pope. Did that stop him?

Quote from: sspxbvm

Quote from: stgobnait
Im beginning to trust no one.

It's true. Trust no one. Most of it is hearsay or just lies.

So now you're content with calling a priest a liar because you don't agree with
him? And that's being "true?" Is there at least some chance that another SSPX
priest knows Fr. Scott a little better than you do?

If stgobnait should "trust no one" then why should he trust you?

And since you already know him, how about you writing Fr. Scott a letter and
asking him, before you come on a public forum accusing others of lying? Is that
too much to ask? Or are you having something too much like fun? So you're
proposing that in this case it is an exception, because all the other cases follow the
pattern, and you are ready to hurl epithets in this case only? Why don't you hurl
some in the other cases too? What, you want a list?

Is it all "lies" about Fr. Cardozo or Fr. Chazal or Fr. Pfeiffer? How about Bishop
Williamson and de Mallerais? More lies? Or all the conspicuously conforming
capitulants all of whom capitualted? More lies? Is that your reality?

sspxbvm · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2013, 09:12:39 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: sspxbvm

I don't know if all that talk about Father Scott is true. Father Scott told me himself he didn't want a 3rd term as District Superior. Let's take it from the horse's mouth if we wish to ask him...somebody could write Fr. Scott and ask.

So do you mean to say that only those who want to be DS get appointed?
Or are you so sure that Menzingen was aware that he didn't want a 3rd term?
Did Fr. Scott say that he informed them to that effect, or did they ask him?
Or if someone does not want a 3rd term then they will surely appoint someone else?
You know, Pope St. Pius X did not want to be pope. Did that stop him?

Quote from: sspxbvm
Quote from: stgobnait
Im beginning to trust no one.

It's true. Trust no one. Most of it is hearsay or just lies.

So now you're content with calling a priest a liar because you don't agree with
him? And that's being "true?" Is there at least some chance that another SSPX
priest knows Fr. Scott a little better than you do?

If stgobnait should "trust no one" then why should he trust you?

And since you already know him, how about you writing Fr. Scott a letter and
asking him, before you come on a public forum accusing others of lying? Is that
too much to ask? Or are you having something too much like fun? So you're
proposing that in this case it is an exception, because all the other cases follow the
pattern, and you are ready to hurl epithets in this case only? Why don't you hurl
some in the other cases too? What, you want a list?

Is it all "lies" about Fr. Cardozo or Fr. Chazal or Fr. Pfeiffer? How about Bishop
Williamson and de Mallerais? More lies? Or all the conspicuously conforming
capitulants all of whom capitualted? More lies? Is that your reality?

No. No. No. hearsay and lies on public forums. Mostly.[/i][/u] And yes, there is some exaggeration coming from some of these priests. You tend to ignore parts of posts and answer them as if the ignored parts really don't exist at all.

Happy Lent!

Miseremini · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:36:42 PM »

[/b]Here is a link for a current list of Father Scott's sermons

http://www.sspx.ca/olmc/

Just scroll down to "Sunday Sermons"