Author Topic: Delusions of Desperation from Boston KY? (Read 4451 times)

Matthew · « **on:** December 26, 2015, 05:06:28 PM »

Someone (officially or un-officially, who knows) tried to claim St. Dominic's Chapel for the "SSPX-MC" in Google.

I noticed it today -- instead of "St. Dominic's Chapel" it said "SSPX-MC" and I said "What the..."

Turns out there are 2 "businesses" at my house now. It's become a regular strip mall! You'd think Google wouldn't allow 2 businesses at the same location in a residential neighborhood!

But the new one, "SSPX-MC" overrides the one I set up as a verified business. It shows up first for some reason.
Now fortunately I can claim this latest "rogue entry" since they will send a postcard with a special code to my house and all that. Then I can change the name. But what happens if this moron creates a third entry?

Is Boston, KY that desperate that they're trying to "claim ownership" of a piece of PRIVATE PROPERTY that is owned by me, and/or a group that *I* organized at a grass roots level, and built up from nothing? The property is mine; the e-mail list of parishioners/well-wishers and other contact information I collected personally; I created the website and all other publicity for the chapel. No offense, but Fr. Pfeiffer didn't do anything to build up this place except say Mass here twice in 2013. Even during those 2 visits, he didn't bring in a single parishioner. 100% of the attendees came thanks to my own grassroots "pounding the pavement" work at our local SSPX chapel. Just stating facts here.

This is also a chapel where Fr. Pfeiffer (or Fr. Hewko) hasn't said Mass since September 2013. Fr. Voigt said Mass here from Oct 2014 to May 2015, but he's not with SSPX-MC anymore. He's an independent Resistance priest now.

For those who don't know it already, SSPX-MC is Boston, KY -- it would be hard to broaden the definition beyond that small, particular group. Only Fr. Pfeiffer's group (of 2 priests) has ever used the name or designation "SSPX-MC".

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** December 26, 2015, 05:16:47 PM »

I notice they haven't updated their "chapel list" since February 2015. Probably because the # of places served would have to shrink dramatically, after all the places that "cut off" Fr. Pfeiffer after Ambrosegate and Pablogate.

(You'll have to go there manually; I have CathInfo programmed to censor this particular Pablo-controlled media organ)
In This S|gn/chapel-coordinator-list

As a wise priest recently said: older people (those whose life is mostly in the past) focus on the past and live in the past. Young people think about the future a lot.

Since the SSPX-MC is basically "all washed up", it makes sense they would, as an organization, like to pretend they are in the past, when things were better.

OHCA · « **Reply #2 on:** December 26, 2015, 05:18:08 PM »

I can't wait to hear the fluffy spin ManuelChavez puts on this.

OHCA · « **Reply #3 on:** December 26, 2015, 05:24:48 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Since the SSPX-MC is basically "all washed up", it makes sense they would, as an organization, like to pretend they are in the past, when things were better.

But Fr. Pfeiffer hasn't been concecrated in the past.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #4 on:** December 26, 2015, 05:47:12 PM »

Is there a person responsible for this action? Have you tried to find out who did it? It seems like speculation to put this on Boston.

Nevertheless, it is an unusual and unfortunate situation.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** December 26, 2015, 09:06:15 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Is there a person responsible for this action? Have you tried to find out who did it? It seems like speculation to put this on Boston.

Nevertheless, it is an unusual and unfortunate situation.

Who else would do this, but a "fan"?

Let's be logical here. Let's stick to the facts.

1. Father has said on many occasions that all the places he's planted his foot are "his Mass centers". So this isn't without precedent.

2. One's fans/followers are always likely to echo the leader's sentiments.

3. There is no logical reason to create a SECOND Google Business location for my house, when there's already "St. Dominic's Chapel" completely set up with all fields filled in. And there's certainly no reason to label the place simply "SSPX-MC" when I have nothing to do with Boston, KY going on 7 months now.

4. But it's only 7 months if you count Fr. Voigt as "part of SSPX-MC" -- but since Fr. Voigt was unceremoniously kicked out several months ago, and currently slandered by the Boston group, I'd say we have to go back further, back to Sept. 2013 when Fr. Hewko was last here.

5. So a representative of "SSPX-MC" hasn't been here since Sept 2013. I'd say they forfeited any rights to call this Mass center their own. It's Fr. Zendejas' territory now. (Given how many miles he drives per month to say weekly Mass here, and what he gets out of it -- I'd say he well-earned that privilege and title!)

I realize that not every fan is under the complete control of Boston -- but they have a certain spirit, formed by their master. Maybe they think (rightfully so) that Fr. would be proud of them for doing this?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** December 26, 2015, 10:49:39 PM »

Quote

Have you tried to find out who did it? It seems like speculation to put this on Boston.

Asking Google who did it is pretty useless. Getting in touch with a human being at Google is like making a personal phone call to Santa Claus.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2015, 10:11:33 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote
Have you tried to find out who did it? It seems like speculation to put this on Boston.

Asking Google who did it is pretty useless. Getting in touch with a human being at Google is like making a personal phone call to Santa Claus.

.

You've got it! Santa Claus did it! Mystery solved, why put this on Boston?

OHCA · « **Reply #8 on:** December 27, 2015, 10:59:28 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote
Have you tried to find out who did it? It seems like speculation to put this on Boston.

Asking Google who did it is pretty useless. Getting in touch with a human being at Google is like making a personal phone call to Santa Claus.

.
You've got it! Santa Claus did it! Mystery solved, why put this on Boston?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #9 on:** December 27, 2015, 07:11:54 PM »

Is Fr Chazal still affiliated with the Marian Corps at all? Has he resigned from it? I know he has voiced strong criticism over the Moran matter. Does he now identify himself solely and separately as belonging to St Marcel Initiative?

PG · « **Reply #10 on:** December 27, 2015, 10:05:20 PM »

1stmansion - I think I remember Fr. Chazal being the one who created the "marian core/MC" addition. Boston KY was just "sspx resistance" from what I remember. So, if Fr. Chazal is no longer "MC", then it is deliberate on his part. And, KY has picked up the remains. This is not a problem. Because, I personally like the sound of "union of Marcel Lefebvre". It has a nice ring.

chrstnoel1 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 27, 2015, 11:13:54 PM »

Quote from: PG

1stmansion - I think I remember Fr. Chazal being the one who created the "marian core/MC" addition. Boston KY was just "sspx resistance" from what I remember. So, if Fr. Chazal is no longer "MC", then it is deliberate on his part. And, KY has picked up the remains. This is not a problem. Because, I personally like the sound of "union of Marcel Lefebvre". It has a nice ring.

Fr. Chazal's Austrasia (India, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand) is the SPX MC (St. Pius X Marian Corps).

:cheers:

MaterDominici · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2015, 12:13:46 AM »

I believe Fr Chazal ended his recent public letter with something along the lines of 'I hope Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't kick me out of the MC!'

I SUSPECT given Boston's official statement of disassociation from Ambrose, that they're all at least officially on good terms again.

chrstnoel1 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2015, 01:12:25 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

I believe Fr Chazal ended his recent public letter with something along the lines of 'I hope Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't kick me out of the MC!'

I SUSPECT given Boston's official statement of disassociation from Ambrose, that they're all at least officially on good terms again.

I believe it was a courteous remark to Fr. Pfeiffer as what goes on in this part of the world has no connection with Boston, KY.

As for 'being on good terms again', that is not happening yet as there is an air of disagreement presently unresolved.

AJNC · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2015, 01:34:23 AM »

Quote from: chrstnoel1

Quote from: MaterDominici
I believe Fr Chazal ended his recent public letter with something along the lines of 'I hope Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't kick me out of the MC!'

I SUSPECT given Boston's official statement of disassociation from Ambrose, that they're all at least officially on good terms again.

I believe it was a courteous remark to Fr. Pfeiffer as what goes on in this part of the world has no connection with Boston, KY.

As for 'being on good terms again', that is not happening yet as there is an air of disagreement presently unresolved.

Noel, Fr Pfeiffer ha$ great influence in the India Re$i$tance $etup a$ far a$ I believe.
With the rupee cra$hing again$t the dollar hi$ influence will $till hold even if hi$ US collection$ are down.