He is currently in Boston, KY, featured in Pablo's videos.Doesn't this answer your question?
He is currently in Boston, KY, featured in Pablo's videos.If this is true, I can't imagine him lasting more than a couple months over there. I wouldn't think he'd put up with Pablo, or any of the other b.s. that goes on at that place.
I posted about this months ago in the Resistance Chapels subforum. I was told that Fr. Roberts was caught smooching with a married man in the chapel and whoever ran the chapel basically kicked him out and now Jacksonville has Mass on the weekends by the SSPX priests out of Sanford.This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you verify it in any way?
Was told this by a friend of over 13 years that would go to that church.....very trusted source.What is his source?
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you verify it in any way?.
Fr. Marshall Roberts was another SSJ priest who resided with Urrutigoity and Ensey at St. Gregory’s Academy from 1997 to 1999..
.
According to the Vice-Rector of Christ the King Institute in Gricigliano, Italy, in 1993 Roberts was kicked out of the seminary when he formed an inordinate sɛҳuąƖ attachment to a fellow seminarian with whom he had become infatuated. Within 24 hours of the Vice-Rector being informed of Roberts’ designs on his classmate, who did not appreciate the attention, Roberts was looking for new living quarters. Roberts was eventually ordained by the SSPX and later became a founding members of the SSJ.
.
While at St. Gregory’s, Roberts befriended a young man from the graduating class of 1999 who later became a postulant in the Society. In a very irregular arrangement, Roberts and the postulant shared the same room and bed in a housing unit on the SSJ property.[60] (http://www.newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john/#_edn60)
What is his source?Why do you want to know more? Is what has been written here not enough? Have you ever met him?
I posted about this months ago in the Resistance Chapels subforum. I was told that Fr. Roberts was caught smooching with a married man in the chapel and whoever ran the chapel basically kicked him out and now Jacksonville has Mass on the weekends by the SSPX priests out of Sanford.What??!!? Is there any record of this?
I'm privy to a relatively long history of similar incidents with Father Roberts where I would never leave my young boys alone with him. I knew him at the SSPX seminary in Winona. That's all I'm going to say ... because I feel obligated to warn people.Can you elaborate on these "similar incidents"? I'm just having a hard time believing some of the accusations posted here. He seems like a holy and pious priest from what I can tell.
Can you elaborate on these "similar incidents"? I'm just having a hard time believing some of the accusations posted here. He seems like a holy and pious priest from what I can tell..
Can you elaborate on these "similar incidents"? I'm just having a hard time believing some of the accusations posted here. He seems like a holy and pious priest from what I can tell.Have you ever met him and talked to him?
Have you ever met him and talked to him?No. Why?
Required reading from Randy Engel:Fr. Roberts spent the better part of 6 months with the SSJ. That is ALL you need to know.
.
Full article, with sources: http://www.newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john/
Can you elaborate on these "similar incidents"? I'm just having a hard time believing some of the accusations posted here. He seems like a holy and pious priest from what I can tell.Some people are just good salesmen ...
If this is true, I can't imagine him lasting more than a couple months over there.It is true:
Fr. Roberts spent the better part of 6 months with the SSJ. That is ALL you need to know.
First fr. Pfeiffer pushing fr. Tetherow as "our friend", then his vulgar and explicit sermon recently, and now showing friendship with fr. Roberts. "Birds of a feather?", as he says about b. Williamson?
God help those seminarians and young boys on the altar.
Fr. Pfeiffer has lost his mind, completely.
No. Why?You and another asked for more proof, and I asked the both of you the same question; have you ever met Fr. Roberts?". You answered; No Why?
Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Roberts have been close friends for a long time.I have taught my children that friends should be good for you. If they are not, they should not be your friend. How can being friends with such a priest be good for fr. Pf? How can he be friends with a priest who should not be doing public masses? How can he justify exposing all those young men and boys to such a priest? Sounds like the SSJ all over again.
The final proof is in meeting him, he is EXTREMELY effeminate.
I have taught my children that friends should be good for you. If they are not, they should not be your friend. How can being friends with such a priest be good for fr. Pf? How can he be friends with a priest who should not be doing public masses? How can he justify exposing all those young men and boys to such a priest? Sounds like the SSJ all over again.
and he complains about b. Williamson and our new fr. Mbadugha...
At this meeting Fr. Roberts delivered an ultimatum from Fr. John Fullerton. We were told that we had three choices: 1) Become and indult community, 2) turn our property over to the SSPX through Fr. Roberts, or 3) continue as we were. The first two choices were acceptable to Fr. Fullerton but we were threatened that if we choose the third option, we would enter a “desert of spiritual desolation” and he would insure that no priest would help us.
It sounds like the SSPX's advice was not an unattached sincere recommendation, but motivated by the desire for a land grab.
Is your chapel still independent and owned by the parishioners?
Correct. I should have said "friends".So many lay people across the world have suffered at the hands of Traditional Catholic priests. When things go well they take the credit. When they go wrong, the lay people are blamed. I've noticed this sort of thing for 25 years, there's so much to say but I dont know where to start.
Fr. Marshall Roberts was at our chapel in York, PA for almost 1 1/2 years (2005-6) during which time, Fr. Pfeiffer was his frequent visitor until Fr. Roberts was removed for cause.
In our due diligence investigation regarding his background there was discovered several problems that would have ended any possibility of bringing him to Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. Our Mission was helped at its foundation by sound priests from whom we relied upon for advice in such matters all of whom are now deceased. Fr. Arthur DeMaio, a former professor of Thomistic theology at St. John University in New York who helped the SSPX at the chapel in Pittston, PA acted as our representative by contacting priests that knew Fr. Roberts. There were two recommendations that swayed our decision in favor of Fr. Roberts. I will address the most important and essential without which Fr. Roberts would never have been accepted. It came from Fr. John Fullerton who was then the district superior for the SSPX in the U.S. His recommendation, through Fr. DeMaio, was fulsome.
We were contacted by a Catholic attorney from New York City accusing us of gross irresponsibility for bringing Fr. Roberts to our chapel. She was told about Fr. Fullerton’s recommendation and then confronted Fr. Fullerton in public on this matter. Fr. Fullerton denied ever having recommend Fr. Roberts and we received a letter from this attorney accusing us of having fabricated the recommendation. That letter is also available.
We had nothing but trouble with Fr. Roberts from the first week he arrived. He demonstrated a level of immaturity that can only be called puerile. He had no convictions whatsoever and changed his direction all over the map sometimes in a matter of weeks always looking out for what he thought would be in his immediate interest. If there is any interest in the details I will provide several examples. There is also a letter written to Fr. Fullerton and +Fellay on our files.
The immediate cause for which he was removed followed upon a meeting he called for with our board. At this meeting Fr. Roberts delivered an ultimatum from Fr. John Fullerton. We were told that we had three choices: 1) Become and indult community, 2) turn our property over to the SSPX through Fr. Roberts, or 3) continue as we were. The first two choices were acceptable to Fr. Fullerton but we were threatened that if we choose the third option, we would enter a “desert of spiritual desolation” and he would insure that no priest would help us.
Fr. Roberts was told to leave our chapel immediately and given two weeks to clear his apartment and return the car. He left sooner than that completely trashing the apartment which took a full day for three persons to clean which included purchasing a new rug. I have kept picture of the apartment as evidence.
As for Fr. Roberts, he left immediately and went directly to Richfield CT where Fr. Gonzales and Fullerton received him. Fr. Gonzales immediately contact Fr. DeMaio and asked him to never help us again. Fr. DiMaio declined. Fr. Roberts then went to the independent chapel in Jacksonville, Fl. He was received there on the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton. The board only asked from us if we had any evidence of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predatory behavior of Fr. Roberts. We did not. They were not interested in any other information regarding Fr. Roberts behavior at our chapel.
Someone from Jacksonville recently visited the Mission in York and I shared some of these facts with him. He did not look surprised, and seemed interested in hearing it.
Can we have the rest of the story, Ladislaus?
Correct. I should have said "friends".
Fr. Marshall Roberts was at our chapel in York, PA for almost 1 1/2 years (2005-6) during which time, Fr. Pfeiffer was his frequent visitor until Fr. Roberts was removed for cause.
In our due diligence investigation regarding his background there was discovered several problems that would have ended any possibility of bringing him to Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. Our Mission was helped at its foundation by sound priests from whom we relied upon for advice in such matters all of whom are now deceased. Fr. Arthur DeMaio, a former professor of Thomistic theology at St. John University in New York who helped the SSPX at the chapel in Pittston, PA acted as our representative by contacting priests that knew Fr. Roberts. There were two recommendations that swayed our decision in favor of Fr. Roberts. I will address the most important and essential without which Fr. Roberts would never have been accepted. It came from Fr. John Fullerton who was then the district superior for the SSPX in the U.S. His recommendation, through Fr. DeMaio, was fulsome.
We were contacted by a Catholic attorney from New York City accusing us of gross irresponsibility for bringing Fr. Roberts to our chapel. She was told about Fr. Fullerton’s recommendation and then confronted Fr. Fullerton in public on this matter. Fr. Fullerton denied ever having recommend Fr. Roberts and we received a letter from this attorney accusing us of having fabricated the recommendation. That letter is also available.
We had nothing but trouble with Fr. Roberts from the first week he arrived. He demonstrated a level of immaturity that can only be called puerile. He had no convictions whatsoever and changed his direction all over the map sometimes in a matter of weeks always looking out for what he thought would be in his immediate interest. If there is any interest in the details I will provide several examples. There is also a letter written to Fr. Fullerton and +Fellay on our files.
The immediate cause for which he was removed followed upon a meeting he called for with our board. At this meeting Fr. Roberts delivered an ultimatum from Fr. John Fullerton. We were told that we had three choices: 1) Become and indult community, 2) turn our property over to the SSPX through Fr. Roberts, or 3) continue as we were. The first two choices were acceptable to Fr. Fullerton but we were threatened that if we choose the third option, we would enter a “desert of spiritual desolation” and he would insure that no priest would help us.
Fr. Roberts was told to leave our chapel immediately and given two weeks to clear his apartment and return the car. He left sooner than that completely trashing the apartment which took a full day for three persons to clean which included purchasing a new rug. I have kept picture of the apartment as evidence.
As for Fr. Roberts, he left immediately and went directly to Richfield CT where Fr. Gonzales and Fullerton received him. Fr. Gonzales immediately contact Fr. DeMaio and asked him to never help us again. Fr. DiMaio declined. Fr. Roberts then went to the independent chapel in Jacksonville, Fl. He was received there on the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton. The board only asked from us if we had any evidence of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predatory behavior of Fr. Roberts. We did not. They were not interested in any other information regarding Fr. Roberts behavior at our chapel.
Someone from Jacksonville recently visited the Mission in York and I shared some of these facts with him. He did not look surprised, and seemed interested in hearing it.
We had nothing but trouble with Fr. Roberts from the first week he arrived. He demonstrated a level of immaturity that can only be called puerile. He had no convictions whatsoever and changed his direction all over the map sometimes in a matter of weeks always looking out for what he thought would be in his immediate interest.What do you mean by that?
What do you mean by that?What language would you prefer?
What do you mean by that?
1) Happy to read that your chapel has clung to the fully Catholic, pre-Pius XII "reformed" missal.
In a lengthy letter to Fr. Fullerton after Fr. Roberts was told to leave, there are things detailed that even we had forgotten about.
To begin with, Fr. Roberts came here with the full understanding that the Mission had formally adopted the pre Bugnini Missal from its inception. It is in its by-laws. In fact, it was one of my husband's (D.Drew) three conditions for getting involved in it and agreeing to accept the position of chairman of the board of directors. Fr. Roberts enthusiastically agreed saying that this Missal was his preference.
After a few weeks, he announced that he will no longer offer the pre-1955 Missal after being told by an SSPX priest that "only sedevacantes" use that Missal. He was told by my husband that the Mission's bulletin will continue to reflect the pre-1955 Missal.
At that time, (now) Fr. Mackin, as a young seminarian and his family used to attend Mass in York. The first summer the young seminarian was home on vacation, the Mackins were not coming to the Mission. Fr. Roberts went to their home to ask the reason. He was told that bishop Fellay had forbidden the seminarian to come to SS. Peter and Paul Mission under Fr. Roberts. We were told this both by Fr. Roberts and Mrs. Mackin.
After that, and a failed attempt to have the Mission formally adopt the 1962 Missal, Fr. Roberts began to secretly campaign to turn the Mission into an indult. He had even board members convinced. Only the three tenured board members didn't know about this campaign until the time came for an appointment with the Vicar General of the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg for his incardination. A few days before the appointment with the V.G., Fr. Roberts met individually with the three tenured board members I believe on the same day. He came to my home to meet with my husband begging him to turn the Mission over to the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg in exchange for his incardination. My husband told him that the Mission had already rejected two offers by the Diocese to make us "the" indult community before they started the indult Mass in hαɾɾιsburg. My husband called the other two tenured members and agreed to send a letter immediately to Bishop Rhoades (which by the way, was charitable to Fr. Roberts all things considered). http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/letter_to_bishop_kevin_c_rhoades.htm
The Diocese of course cancelled their appointment with Fr. Roberts who became furious and in a sermon accused the Mission of being run like a Protestant church under a board of directors. He advised the people to leave and some left immediately, about 50% of the remaining left to the indult when he has told to leave York. I should add that he stole the Holy Oils which the Mission had obtained through a priest, now deceased who was very fond of it.
Fr. Roberts didn't tell the people he was going directly to another independent chapel run by a Board of Directors who voted his acceptance (also at the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton).
That Fr. Fullerton would recommend Fr Roberts to St. Michael the Archangel in Jacksonville after being informed on Fr. Roberts, says it all. I was told by someone in Jacksonville, that although the SSPX is helping them, the B.D.s is still in place. May God protect them.
1) Happy to read that your chapel has clung to the fully Catholic, pre-Pius XII "reformed" missal.Fr Vernoy's first posting was in Asia District which some consider to be an SSPX gulag
2) The MO for SSPX involvement in independent chapels is that there is a 1 year "probation" period, where the two sides see if they like each other. After that, the SSPX, if they want the chapel, will require ownership. Moreover, my understanding is that the SSPX prior in Sanford is Fr. Vernoy (i.e., "It is a mortal sin to refuse a deal from the Pope," and the other lone SSPX signatory besides Bishop Fellay to the Fraternal Correction, before that signature inexplicably disappeared).
In short, that chapel is all but doomed, barring a new priest emerging from somewhere.
I'm wondering why Fr. Pfeiffer would take this Fr. Roberts into his fold knowing that reputations of his seminarians are affected by Roberts' presence there?
It's because anyone willing to pay obeisance to Father Pfeiffer's fiefdom (say that quickly five times) will be welcomed with open arms.Fr. Pfeiffer refused to listen to anybody about Moran and was squashed into passive submission. Does Fr Pfeiffer enjoy being crucified for all the wrong reasons? I don't get it. This notion that if he is getting kicked around he's doing the right thing is a pattern, fine. But this seriously appears to be a death wish. For someone so adamant about running a seminary, this is mass ѕυιcιdє.
Since you seem to be very well-informed regarding Fr. Roberts, do you know of any instances where he did something similar to the perverse acts he is accused of by some of the other members?
In a lengthy letter to Fr. Fullerton after Fr. Roberts was told to leave, there are things detailed that even we had forgotten about.
To begin with, Fr. Roberts came here with the full understanding that the Mission had formally adopted the pre Bugnini Missal from its inception. It is in its by-laws. In fact, it was one of my husband's (D.Drew) three conditions for getting involved in it and agreeing to accept the position of chairman of the board of directors. Fr. Roberts enthusiastically agreed saying that this Missal was his preference.
After a few weeks, he announced that he will no longer offer the pre-1955 Missal after being told by an SSPX priest that "only sedevacantes" use that Missal. He was told by my husband that the Mission's bulletin will continue to reflect the pre-1955 Missal.
At that time, (now) Fr. Mackin, as a young seminarian and his family used to attend Mass in York. The first summer the young seminarian was home on vacation, the Mackins were not coming to the Mission. Fr. Roberts went to their home to ask the reason. He was told that bishop Fellay had forbidden the seminarian to come to SS. Peter and Paul Mission under Fr. Roberts. We were told this both by Fr. Roberts and Mrs. Mackin.
After that, and a failed attempt to have the Mission formally adopt the 1962 Missal, Fr. Roberts began to secretly campaign to turn the Mission into an indult. He had even board members convinced. Only the three tenured board members didn't know about this campaign until the time came for an appointment with the Vicar General of the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg for his incardination. A few days before the appointment with the V.G., Fr. Roberts met individually with the three tenured board members I believe on the same day. He came to my home to meet with my husband begging him to turn the Mission over to the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg in exchange for his incardination. My husband told him that the Mission had already rejected two offers by the Diocese to make us "the" indult community before they started the indult Mass in hαɾɾιsburg. My husband called the other two tenured members and agreed to send a letter immediately to Bishop Rhoades (which by the way, was charitable to Fr. Roberts all things considered). http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/letter_to_bishop_kevin_c_rhoades.htm
The Diocese of course cancelled their appointment with Fr. Roberts who became furious and in a sermon accused the Mission of being run like a Protestant church under a board of directors. He advised the people to leave and some left immediately, about 50% of the remaining left to the indult when he has told to leave York. I should add that he stole the Holy Oils which the Mission had obtained through a priest, now deceased who was very fond of it.
Fr. Roberts didn't tell the people he was going directly to another independent chapel run by a Board of Directors who voted his acceptance (also at the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton).
That Fr. Fullerton would recommend Fr Roberts to St. Michael the Archangel in Jacksonville after being informed on Fr. Roberts, says it all. I was told by someone in Jacksonville, that although the SSPX is helping them, the B.D.s is still in place. May God protect them.
It's because anyone willing to pay obeisance to Father Pfeiffer's fiefdom (say that quickly five times) will be welcomed with open arms..
Since you seem to be very well-informed regarding Fr. Roberts, do you know of any instances where he did something similar to the perverse acts he is accused of by some of the other members?
It is a very grave accusation, and difficult to believe.
.
Yes. I said this maybe two years ago, that Fr. Pfeiffer's only and singular condition is loyalty. It's not the Catholic faith, not even in some weird "the Catholic faith reduces to exactly what we're doing" subjective type of way; Pablo the amateur exorcist, Moran the schismatic (in the most literal sense), Tetherow, Roberts, and all the rest have one thing in common. If you'll lock arms and walk step in step with Pfeiffer, that's all that matters to him. Sad, but true.
If this is true, I can't imagine him lasting more than a couple months over there. I wouldn't think he'd put up with Pablo, or any of the other b.s. that goes on at that place.In light of the recent comments here, perhaps I should have said "I wouldn't think they'd put up with Fr. Roberts, or any of the b.s. that he brings.". Unfortunately, that would be a very naive statement to make.
Apparently there was some legal action in March 2018. Not sure if it is still ongoing.
But this is obviously public record, so it can be posted anywhere and everywhere.
Fr. Marshall Roberts
vs.
Mr. John Pfeiffer
In my opinion, I have SERIOUS doubts that Mr. Pfeiffer (a lawyer, I believe) would just, out of malice, make up all these things about Fr. Roberts. Why would he have such an axe to grind against a Trad priest. What, did Fr. Roberts run over his child, or at least his dog? What motive does Fr. Roberts suggest for Mr. Pfeiffer making all this up? I suppose something along the lines of, "He's pure evil, a child of the devil"? Give me a break! Let's be realistic here.
And it's not like Fr. Roberts had a reputation beyond reproach before Mr. John Pfeiffer came along. It's a fact that Fr. Roberts was with the Society of St. John, and a lot of scandals happened in that group. A lot of which is public record. AT LEAST there should be a cloud of suspicion over Fr. Roberts.
Father Roberts is a well-respected clergyman.
FIRST LINE of the "Factual Statement" is already false --Isn't that a textbook case of "begging the question"?
Please post links for these police reports. I would like to read them. Thank you.The reason for writing this pertains to victims and police reports from Colorado on Ambrose Moran. These police investigations which “The Recusant” study covers briefly in a well-written report about Ambrose Moran, is only a short synopsis of the actual lengthy investigations which are available and include many interviews of many victims and are presented in reliably docuмented records from the Salida, Colorado police department and also docuмents from the Buena Vista, Colorado police department.It is important for proper discernment to read these police reports in order to evaluate the morally grave as well as criminally grave activities revealed; and they also reveal that the victims of Ambrose Moran are many. Let us now add to the list of attempted victims, those of the Resistance who fought for the truth and were maligned, condemned, and falsely “excommunicated”; in addition, there are those who could suffer greatly while attempting to figure things out in the context of all the diabolical disorientation of Ambrose Moran and those others with an agenda who offer chaos and confusion and use bullying tactics for the purpose of controlling the Resistance fighters. The truth is being purposely undermined by hiding it from view.The police reports are of fraud, the conning of many victims, and they also include disturbing accounts from teenagers who said that Ambrose Moran provided them with underage and illegal drinking and also attempted to coerce them to come to his place of residence to drink wine and stay the night, etc. These teenagers express their thoughts on the motives according to their experiences. Although only God knows what A. Moran had in mind for these teenagers, nevertheless, the truth remains that Ambrose Moran could possibly continue to victimize others unless attempts are made to thwart him by allowing others to view police reports which provide clear evidence of his method of operation. A cover up would be another grievous scandal. It is very important that the TRUTH about A. Moran NOT BE COVERED UP.The Vatican II conciliar church victims multiplied and increased greatly because of the cover ups by those who could have stopped other victims from being harmed and from ruined lives. Many victims went on to live seriously destructive lives with addictions and much worse such as loss of Faith, ѕυιcιdєs, etc.We have spoken to Father Hewko asking him to alert Christa Richards and her husband and to inform them about these police reports so that they will be able to protect their two sons from A. Moran. The mother, Christa Richards, disclosed on “The Catacombs” that they rent a place to Ambrose Moran in Ohio and also entrust their sons to the care of Ambrose Moran for catechizing and so forth.Future victims of A. Moran could be averted when the TRUTH is UNMASKED and made available for others in order to protect them.Father Hewko told us that Father Pfeiffer’s contention is that A. Moran was not convicted of any of the crimes that are on these docuмents of the Colorado police reports. This contention is absurd because it amounts to a cover up if it is not made known in order to alert others of the dangers for their children and themselves.There are so many crimes and evils that have been committed in the anti-church of our times for which the criminals have not been convicted, but have been allowed to go on their way to commit more crimes, more evil, and more harm to souls. Were the lessons of the shameful cover ups within the anti-church of our times not lessons enough as how to proceed with right reason and right judgement and therefore expose predatory criminals to the light in order to protect victims?To explain away the duty of those in the Resistance who can halt Ambrose Moran from victimizing others, as if it is committing the sin of detraction, gossip, calumny or otherwise is an unworthy pretense and grave error that is straight from hell.
We are our brother’s keeper.
Apparently there was some legal action in March 2018. Not sure if it is still ongoing.This was begun by pablo, using olmc benefactor money.
But this is obviously public record, so it can be posted anywhere and everywhere.
Fr. Marshall Roberts
vs.
Mr. John Pfeiffer
In my opinion, I have SERIOUS doubts that Mr. Pfeiffer (a lawyer, I believe) would just, out of malice, make up all these things about Fr. Roberts. Why would he have such an axe to grind against a Trad priest. What, did Fr. Roberts run over his child, or at least his dog? What motive does Fr. Roberts suggest for Mr. Pfeiffer making all this up? I suppose something along the lines of, "He's pure evil, a child of the devil"? Give me a break! Let's be realistic here.
And it's not like Fr. Roberts had a reputation beyond reproach before Mr. John Pfeiffer came along. It's a fact that Fr. Roberts was with the Society of St. John, and a lot of scandals happened in that group. A lot of which is public record. AT LEAST there should be a cloud of suspicion over Fr. Roberts.
This was begun by pablo, using olmc benefactor money.And you wonder what motivates me to wake people up to the evils of the Pfeiffer cult... the more people I can wake up, the less resources he will have for evil deeds like this (legal attacks on an innocent man).
Apparently there was some legal action in March 2018. Not sure if it is still ongoing.
But this is obviously public record, so it can be posted anywhere and everywhere.
Fr. Marshall Roberts
vs.
Mr. John Pfeiffer
In my opinion, I have SERIOUS doubts that Mr. Pfeiffer (a lawyer, I believe) would just, out of malice, make up all these things about Fr. Roberts. Why would he have such an axe to grind against a Trad priest. What, did Fr. Roberts run over his child, or at least his dog? What motive does Fr. Roberts suggest for Mr. Pfeiffer making all this up? I suppose something along the lines of, "He's pure evil, a child of the devil"? Give me a break! Let's be realistic here.
And it's not like Fr. Roberts had a reputation beyond reproach before Mr. John Pfeiffer came along. It's a fact that Fr. Roberts was with the Society of St. John, and a lot of scandals happened in that group. A lot of which is public record. AT LEAST there should be a cloud of suspicion over Fr. Roberts.
| Filing Date: 03/06/2018 | Case Type: INTENTIONAL TORT | |
| Division: Law Division | District: First Municipal | |
| Ad Damnum: $50001.00 | Calendar: R |
| Plaintiff(s) | Attorney(s) | |
| ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M | MUDD LAW OFFICES | |
| 3114 W IRVING PK#1W | ||
| CHICAGO IL, 60618 | ||
| (773) 588-5410 | ||
| Defendant(s) | Defendant Date of Service | Attorney(s) |
| PFEIFFER JOHN G | 05/21/2018 | OLP THOMAS G |
| 1713 SHIRE COURT | ||
| WHEATON IL, 60189 | ||
| (630) 220-7329 |
| Activity Date: 03/06/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| INTENTIONAL TORT COMPLAINT FILED (JURY DEMAND) | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 03/06/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| EXHIBITS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 03/06/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| SUMMONS ISSUED AND RETURNABLE | |
| Activity Date: 03/06/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| CASE ELECTRONICALLY FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 03/09/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MA |
| POSTCARD GENERATED | |||||
|
| Activity Date: 03/09/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| CASE MANAGEMENT DATE GENERATED | |||||
|
| Activity Date: 03/21/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| EXHIBITS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 03/21/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| EXHIBITS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 03/21/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| NOTICE OF FILING FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 03/21/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 03/22/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| APPOINT SPECIAL DEPUTY - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 04/02/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| NOTICE OF FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 04/17/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 04/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 04/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (JURY DEMAND) | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 04/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| CERTIFICATE FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 04/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| NOTICE OF MOTION FILED | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 04/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| MOTION FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 04/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| MOTION SCHEDULED | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/01/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| NOTICE OF MOTION FILED | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/01/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| MOTION SCHEDULED | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/02/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 05/02/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| PRODUCE EXHIBITS OR OTHER RECORDS OR DOcuмENTS OR PERSON - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 05/02/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| STRIKE FROM CASE MANAGEMENT CALL - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/02/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/08/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 05/08/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| STRIKE OR WITHDRAW MOTION OR PETITION - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/09/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| EXHIBITS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 05/09/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE APPEARANCE OR JURY DEMAND, ANSWER OR PLEAD - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/09/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/09/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 05/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| SUMMONS - RETD P.S. | |||
|
| Activity Date: 06/19/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| MOTION TO DISMISS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: ROBERT |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| COURTESY COPIES REQUIRED - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: ROBERT |
| COURTESY COPIES REQUIRED - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 06/26/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| STRIKE OR WITHDRAW COMPLAINT, AMENDED COMPLAINT OR PORTION THEREOF - CNT - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 07/30/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| NOTICE OF MOTION FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 07/30/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| MOTION FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 07/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| EXTEND TIME - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 07/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 07/31/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 07/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| COURT DATE TO STAND - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 08/21/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| EXHIBITS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/21/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| MOTION FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/23/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| NOTICE OF MOTION FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/23/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| AMEND COMPLAINT OR PETITION - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 08/29/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/29/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE APPEARANCE OR JURY DEMAND, ANSWER OR PLEAD - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 08/29/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/29/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| AMEND COMPLAINT OR PETITION - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 08/29/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 08/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| CERTIFICATE FILED | |
| Activity Date: 08/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| EXHIBITS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 08/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| NOTICE OF FILING FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/09/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| MOTION TO DISMISS FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| STRIKE OR WITHDRAW MOTION OR PETITION - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| COURTESY COPIES REQUIRED - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| COURTESY COPIES REQUIRED - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/16/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/23/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS FATHER MARSHALL M |
| MOTION FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/30/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER JOHN G |
| RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED - | |||
|
| Activity Date: 10/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| COURTESY COPIES REQUIRED - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/31/2018 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| COURTESY COPIES REQUIRED - ALLOWED | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 10/31/2018 | Participant: ROBERTS |
| STRIKE OR WITHDRAW MOTION OR PETITION - CONTINUED - | |||||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 01/07/2019 | Participant: PFEIFFER |
| FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED - | |||||
|
|
| Activity Date: 01/07/2019 | Participant: ROBERTS MARSHAL |
| STRIKE OR WITHDRAW COMPLAINT, AMENDED COMPLAINT OR PORTION THEREOF - ALW - | ||
|
One can only imagine how much in legal fees and costs have already been generated over the last year with apparently no end in sight.Makes one wonder if fr. Pfeiffer informs benefactors where their money is spent.
Makes one wonder if fr. Pfeiffer informs benefactors where their money is spent.One of these days a benefactor is going to get randomly audited by the IRS (it happens, you know! Just not for those who make less than $50,000 a year. There just isn't enough potential payoff to make it worth the IRS effort of an audit), maybe they donated several thousand to OLMC which they deducted as a charitable contribution, and then the crap is going to hit the fan.
I know for a fact he refuses to open his books when legally requested. You've got to file a suit if you want to see his books, and there will be no guarantee you see the real books.
Do people know there isn't an OLMC "seminary" or "convent" 501c3? That none of their donations are tax deductible? Do they know OLMC doesn't have a bank account, that all money goes through an account in Mr. Hernandez' name?
Mr. John Pfeiffer's lawyer (which might have been himself, since he is a lawyer) must have had a field day with this one.
All he'd need to do is show evidence, on the Internet and elsewhere, that suggests Fr. Roberts was not a "respected clergyman" as of dates that precede whatever statements John Pfeiffer made (specific exhibits that Fr. Roberts put forward as evidence against him).
Hi,US Conference of Bishops? Although I doubt you’ll get a reply. There’s no money in it for them, and the issue isn’t big enough to cause a public image problem.
I realize this is an old thread, but I found it from googling Fr. Marshall Robert's name. I was prompted to do some research when my parish which is in the Jackson Diocese sent out the following statement:
Statement on Fr. Marshall Roberts -- The Diocese of Jackson has issued the following statement yesterday:
Father Marshall Roberts, an incardinated priest of the Diocese of Scranton, has reportedly assumed residence in Water Valley, Mississippi in the Diocese of Jackson. Since January 2005, Father Roberts has been unlawfully absent from priestly ministry in the Diocese of Scranton and does not have permission to exercise priestly ministry outside of the Diocese of Scranton. Furthermore, Father Marshall Roberts does not possess the faculty to validly hear confessions. Any inquiries about the priestly ministry of Father Marshall Roberts are to be directed to the Vicar General of the Diocese of Jackson: Reverend Lincoln Dall Chancery Building 237 E. Amite Street, Jackson, MS 39201 - 601-960-8476.
This brought-up many thoughts and feelings for me because our bishop, Joseph Kopacz, is also from the Scranton Diocese. Bishop Kopacz knew that Fr. Lenin Vargas was defrauding parishoners at my home parish in Starkville, MS, and he did nothing to protect our parish. I am so angry and unhappy with the bishop's response once some clergy went to the authorities and the investigation began. He allowed Fr. Lenin to devastate our parish, and we have no recourse to even complain to church hierarchy about our bishop. I would like to write to church oversight, if it exists. Does anyone have any suggestions short of writing Pope Francis?
Does anyone know what is going on with Fr. Marshall Roberts? The SSPX is supposed to have taken over/be taking over St. Michael the Archangel Chapel in Jacksonville, where Fr. Roberts was pastor for the better part of a decade.From a Third Order Dominican to a Third Order Franciscan, and now a Benedictine oblate of Clear Creek (despite their full acceptance of Vatican II, and concelebration of both a hybrid '65 Mass at home, and the Novus Ordo outside of the monastery!): https://x.com/friaranthony62/status/1834579075521818901 (https://x.com/friaranthony62/status/1834579075521818901)
Previously wearing a Dominican habit as "Fr. Dominic Mary of the Pillar, O.P." he is now calling himself Fr. Marshall Roberts, T.O.S.F. (initials for a secular Franciscan tertiary), has grown a beard and is apparently wearing some kind of Franciscan habit.
He is currently in Boston, KY, featured in Pablo's videos.