Author Topic: A Letter to Bp. Faure (Read 18054 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2015, 05:02:10 PM »

Quote from: richard

The Recusant crowd are very pro Fr.Pfeiffer,in fact they told Bp.Williamson that his services were no longer required to say Mass.They prefer to wait for Fr.Pfeiffer to say Mass.

It is indisputed fact that Greg Taylor (owner of the Recusant, also "Gregorius" (or was it "Gregorio Sarto"?), one of the 3 that ran Ignis Ardens):

A) firmly and fervently supports Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo
B) firmly and fervently rejects Bishop Williamson
C) Said that the infamous Pablo "is one of the finest Catholic gentlemen I have ever had the honor to know. I wish there were more like him." or something to that effect. He may have said it more than once, including in an e-mail he sent to me. I'd have to dig up the e-mail.

Keep in mind that the facts go against his appraisal of Pablo somewhat. For example, Pablo has openly admitted to doing "lay exorcism" and his public speech has betrayed an unhealthy (and un-Catholic) fascination with the devil.

Oh, and Pablo hasn't been to Mass in years. Yes, even though he often lives in Boston, KY, right on Fr. Pfeiffer's ranch where Mass is said all the time. What's the story with him? I don't know.

richard · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2015, 05:04:51 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

What I can't understand is how Fr. P might think for a single second that he can promote his neo-sspx seminary model, while at the same time trashing the bishop with regularity. Fr. P. needs at least one bishop to help forward his own agenda. I would suggest that this priest, who openly declares his no-confidence in His Excellency, and continually points to the latter's refusal to lead, or to lead properly, has created an insurmountable problem for himself and for his followers. Maybe he'd like to think that he's the tail wagging the dog. But folks, it doesn't work that way.
Fr. P can't pretend that the bishop(s) are, perhaps, not really cognizant of his dismissive attitudes. He can't fly down with Fr. Hewko to Brazil for the Consecration of a new, and act as if everything were hunky-dory. What does this priest think he's doing?
As for Frs. P and H being at that consecration, I understand from pretty good authority, that they were not formally invited to attend. They more or less crashed the party. If someone can correct my understanding on this issue, please feel free. I've been wrong before, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

It is my understanding that they did indeed "crash the party".

Don · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2015, 05:23:13 PM »

Quote

The Recusant crowd are very pro Fr.Pheiffer,in fact they told Bp.Williamson that his services were no longer required to say Mass.They prefer to wait for Fr.Pheiffer to say Mass.

Four peoples a crowd for the recusant holy hour? All the other folks in London get mass every week.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #13 on:** August 26, 2015, 06:22:44 PM »

Quote from: +richard

Quote from: hollingsworth
What I can't understand is how Fr. P might think for a single second that he can promote his neo-sspx seminary model, while at the same time trashing the bishop with regularity. Fr. P. needs at least one bishop to help forward his own agenda. I would suggest that this priest, who openly declares his no-confidence in His Excellency, and continually points to the latter's refusal to lead, or to lead properly, has created an insurmountable problem for himself and for his followers. Maybe he'd like to think that he's the tail wagging the dog. But folks, it doesn't work that way.
Fr. P can't pretend that the bishop(s) are, perhaps, not really cognizant of his dismissive attitudes. He can't fly down with Fr. Hewko to Brazil for the Consecration of a new, and act as if everything were hunky-dory. What does this priest think he's doing?
As for Frs. P and H being at that consecration, I understand from pretty good authority, that they were not formally invited to attend. They more or less crashed the party. If someone can correct my understanding on this issue, please feel free. I've been wrong before, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

It is my understanding that they did indeed "crash the party".

+richard would certainly be a "pretty good authority" :wink:

richard · « **Reply #14 on:** August 26, 2015, 06:51:37 PM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: +richard
Quote from: hollingsworth
What I can't understand is how Fr. P might think for a single second that he can promote his neo-sspx seminary model, while at the same time trashing the bishop with regularity. Fr. P. needs at least one bishop to help forward his own agenda. I would suggest that this priest, who openly declares his no-confidence in His Excellency, and continually points to the latter's refusal to lead, or to lead properly, has created an insurmountable problem for himself and for his followers. Maybe he'd like to think that he's the tail wagging the dog. But folks, it doesn't work that way.
Fr. P can't pretend that the bishop(s) are, perhaps, not really cognizant of his dismissive attitudes. He can't fly down with Fr. Hewko to Brazil for the Consecration of a new, and act as if everything were hunky-dory. What does this priest think he's doing?
As for Frs. P and H being at that consecration, I understand from pretty good authority, that they were not formally invited to attend. They more or less crashed the party. If someone can correct my understanding on this issue, please feel free. I've been wrong before, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

It is my understanding that they did indeed "crash the party".

+richard would certainly be a "pretty good authority" :wink:

The best. :wink: