Author Topic: Fr Marshall Roberts with the Resistance (Read 30801 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2015, 03:27:24 PM »

Perevang:

Quote

Simply, I'd like to know Pepe's stake in this. A former associate? a friend of someone involved? He doesn't have to answer, but it's fair to ask.

It most certainly is fair to ask. If "Pepe" is going to put this kind of stuff online, then he needs to identify himself, or at least, as you say, let us understand what his "stake in this" is. The accused has a right to know his accuser.

Richard:

Quote

One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.

Father Roberts may well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am totally suspicious about "Pepe." BTW, does anyone know if you-know-who is still back there in KY? This thread started as a thinly disguised attack upon the Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and their seminary. I am in no way associated with them, but It think this whole accusation is meant to sully their reputations.

To Pilar:
Baloney, Pilar! If this guy is going to come out on an open forum and out a priest, let him at least have the decency to identify himself.

BTW, from this post I expect to receive 10 'Thumbs up.' If I don't get them I will stamp my feet. :jumping2:

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2015, 03:29:38 PM »

richard, that's a subjective argument.
Any Catholic would be devastated to learn their family priest had such accusations made against him, so I understand your reaction, but we must always remain objective.
To that end, the items that Pepe posted are easily investigated as authentic docuмents/accounts. Just as important, the subjects are very credible and would hardly all conspire together to make the same accusations.

However, your account of his character goes to my first comment - to read the description of him 'before' vs. those who have known him in Jacksonville and attest to his good character, is like reading about 2 different people.

richard · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2015, 03:48:37 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

richard, that's a subjective argument.
Any Catholic would be devastated to learn their family priest had such accusations made against him, so I understand your reaction, but we must always remain objective.
To that end, the items that Pepe posted are easily investigated as authentic docuмents/accounts. Just as important, the subjects are very credible and would hardly all conspire together to make the same accusations.

However, your account of his character goes to my first comment - to read the description of him 'before' vs. those who have known him in Jacksonville and attest to his good character, is like reading about 2 different people.

Your point being? Fr.Roberts was recommended to us by Fr.Fullerton who was district superior at the time even though he was no longer in the SSPX. It doesn't doesn't make sense do keep bringing this out year after year when he is not guilty, the person dragging this up is in danger calumny as are those who back him up and spread it.

Pilar · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2015, 04:58:14 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Perevang:
Quote
Simply, I'd like to know Pepe's stake in this. A former associate? a friend of someone involved? He doesn't have to answer, but it's fair to ask.

It most certainly is fair to ask. If "Pepe" is going to put this kind of stuff online, then he needs to identify himself, or at least, as you say, let us understand what his "stake in this" is. The accused has a right to know his accuser.

Richard:
Quote
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.

Father Roberts may well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am totally suspicious about "Pepe." BTW, does anyone know if you-know-who is still back there in KY? This thread started as a thinly disguised attack upon the Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and their seminary. I am in no way associated with them, but It think this whole accusation is meant to sully their reputations.

To Pilar:
Baloney, Pilar! If this guy is going to come out on an open forum and out a priest, let him at least have the decency to identify himself.

BTW, from this post I expect to receive 10 'Thumbs up.' If I don't get them I will stamp my feet. :jumping2:

Hollingsworth, I did my part to keep you from having to stomp your feet. :wink:
But really, this is one of those times where guilt by association means something. The reputations of Fr. U. and Fr. Ensey are so compromised, their guilt so manifest that if this priest was with them, I would not be able to trust him with youth or children. Those priests mentioned all went on to disgrace themselves. None of these things can be dismissed as rumor, they are well known and public, both online and in newspapers. How long have you been traditional? Are you unaware of the events that occurred at Winona back when +Williamson was Rector?

Richard referred to a Fr. Fullerton who recommended him. Is he sure that it was the Fr. Fullerton who was the district superior for SSPX? Or could it have been Fr. Fullerton, his brother, a co-conspirator Fr. U. & Co. who left with them? I don't know, but apparently a vice-rector of the Institute of Christ the King makes the statement that this priest was kicked out due to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies and had a letter as proof. That is good enough for me. I have met priests of the Institute. Canon Hesse was close friends with them even though he disagreed with them on Vatican II. It seems unlikely that the vice-rector would lie.

At the very least, this man left the Society [?] with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests who were actively and secretly trying to undermine it, the seminary, and steal seminarians and priests also.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2015, 05:19:04 PM »

Quote from: richard

One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.

Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.