Author Topic: Fr Marshall Roberts with the Resistance (Read 28523 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #45 on:** May 15, 2015, 08:44:10 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

It is extremely unwise to single out the SSPX as THE group capable of being infiltrated by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

No, I did nothing of the sort. I was only commenting vis-a-vis the subject of this thread. I strongly suspect many non-SSPX priests of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs as well. I don't have proof, so I avoid naming names. Just my "gαydar" at work.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #46 on:** May 15, 2015, 08:49:34 PM »

Quote from: Pilar

Lamb, I am in total agreement. As soon as I read Lad's post, I was absolutely floored that he didn't seem to be picking up on the irony of his comment! What you have said is more worrisome for the Resistance than anything I have yet read.

No irony, just a refusal to make inferences that could be tantamount to a grave sin of calumny.

stbrighidswell · « **Reply #47 on:** May 16, 2015, 12:17:29 AM »

Quote from: LAMB

Quote from: Ladislaus
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.

We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.

There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.

Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".

Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.

Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.

Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).

Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).

I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?

It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.

I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #48 on:** May 16, 2015, 12:47:30 AM »

Below is a highly relevant quote concerning the topic of this thread that is taken from the earlier CI thread "Restoring the Bastions: The Church Militant at War" contributed by "nipr" in 2013. This is very likely the best and most thorough presentation of this topic available. Those who read or contribute to this current thread ought to read it with feelings of humble gratitude to so fine a Roman priest as Fr. Marshall Roberts and then weep at the heartless ingratitude of men. The truth presented here concerning Fr. Roberts only makes this writer yearn to have the Catholics be rid of Jansenist heretics like "Pepe" even more.

And may the Good Lord forgive us for the many slanders contained in this current thread against His beloved Roman priests:

Please read the following words most carefully and with an open mind and a respectful heart:

"I cannot watch this go on any longer without saying something. We went through this at Christmas and here we are again.

I realize most of you do not know Fr. Roberts. I understand your suspicion these days of any priest, especially one who has been accused of something horrendous. But I'd like to give you MY impression of Fr. Roberts.

I met this good priest last Fall. I was impressed from the first moment I met him at his chapel. I knew practically nothing of the allegations against him and after meeting him such suspicions never even crossed my mind.

Now mind you, in my working years I worked alongside openly gαy men because they happened to work for the companies I worked for. In a large city that is the case. So I have been well-acquainted with the characteristics of a gαy man.

In my years in the Church I have met priests whom I suspect were gαy because I saw the same characteristics in them.

I SEE NONE OF THIS IN FR. ROBERTS.

If there ever was a heterosɛҳuąƖ man who went by the book, it is he. There is NO funny business about him in any way whatsoever. I attend his Mass weekly and only regret that I cannot attend daily. His sermons are out-of-the-ballpark good--especially the one he gave for the Sunday near the Feast of the Sacred Heart about how little devotion there is to Jesus's Heart and how little loved He is. I haven't heard these kinds of sermons since I was a kid before Vatican II. He quotes Scripture. He quotes Canon Law. He refers to Tradition when asked why this or that or what to do in such-and-such a circuмstance. He is a walking encyclopedia of Church history, lives of the Saints, you name it.

I've been searching for 51 years for a priest to answer some personal (apply only to me) questions I've had and Fr. Roberts is the ONLY priest who has been able to answer them. Again, he quotes Jesus's words and explains how they apply in the situations I asked him about. No priest has ever been able to do this for me. AND HE MAKES PERFECT SENSE. The ability to guide a soul (and I understand I am not the only one) with such precision is totally incompatible with someone in the state of mortal sin. If you don't believe me, look in your theology books. It's there. I've gotten one crazy answer with no foundations for it from priest after priest until I met Fr. Roberts.

Not only do I know him from Mass and Confession, but socially as well. He is a delight to be around. I've spoken to him privately and in a group setting. He has a very well-rounded personality and his conversation is fascinating because of his intelligence and knowledge.

Father wears the full Dominican habit all the time. I do not know his standing in the Dominican Order. He has a Dominican Third Order group in Jacksonville, FL and is starting up a Discalced Carmelite Third Order group there as well.

I will tell you one thing: It is worth moving to Jacksonville, FL to have the God-given grace to have this priest for your Mass. I've seen 51 years of priests and this one is OUTSTANDING. He encourages us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, that the servant cannot be greater than the Master, that we should pray to become holy, that our attention should be focused on God dwelling within us (if we are in the state of grace and if not, to get to confession ASAP) and our eyes should be on Heaven and not on the things of this earth. He has told me many times to "accept suffering" as that proves love of God and to depend on Divine Providence to work out my difficulties in life. HE CAUSES ME TO REMEMBER WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC IS ALL ABOUT, which I thought I knew until I met this hard-hitter priest (in the sense of nothing is trivial if it offends God). And he will spend as long a time as needed with you in confession to set your soul at ease and he lets you ask as many questions as you want.

Now you can say this is emotional and not based in facts about the allegations, but let me say this: You can read the top theologian's books on what a priest should be and this priest is IT. I know. I've read the books and have been searching for such a priest all my life.

As for his possible "reformation" -- I can't possibly see what there could have been to "reform." (Pardon me if I am using the wrong term but if I try to go back to see what was posted I'll lose this page for sure.) We recently celebrated his 17th year of ordination. He recounted to us his history with the Society and the St. John's group, etc. As I recall, he said he didn't like what was going on at St. John's and left. I wish I had paid more attention but my mind was centered on how utterly deplorable it is these days that a good priest like Fr. Roberts should have to endure so many difficulties just to be a good Catholic priest.

I am suspicious of ALL priests as I've had some things happen to me in dealing with some that are too shocking to write here so I don't automatically place ANY priest on a pedestal just because he's a priest. I learned to not do that the hard way. I've watched Fr. Roberts for months just waiting for something shocking or unpleasant to happen and the more I get to know him, the more I admire him.

Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return. Should that happen, I hope and pray Fr. Roberts will be my priest when I'm on my deathbed. I want HIM to prepare me to be judged by God. I mean this sincerely. I don't know what higher recommendation I can give a priest."

Posted Jul 5, 2013, 8:36 pm

Elizabeth · « **Reply #49 on:** May 16, 2015, 01:18:36 AM »

Nipr has a very pure and loving Catholic heart.

Pilar · « **Reply #50 on:** May 16, 2015, 02:59:31 AM »

"Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return."

Franciscan Solitary, you will be in my Rosary and Mass intentions!

richard · « **Reply #51 on:** May 16, 2015, 05:26:40 AM »

Quote from: IN VERITATE VICTORIA

Quote from: stbrighidswell
Quote from: LAMB
Quote from: Ladislaus
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.

We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.

There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.

Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".

Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.

Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.

Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).

Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).

I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?

It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.

I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like

I second stbrighidswell and LAMB and can vouch for the truth of these posts. It is a scandal that Bp. Williamson sent this priest Ireland and also that he still has a public apostolate in the UK. Add to this the association of Fr. Marshall Roberts with the OLMC Resistance and for all the world the Resistance is beginning to look like SSJ Mark 2!

I see Bp.Williamson's name and the word scandal,but I still haven't seen the name of this "scandalous" priest and until I do it seems to me that perhaps it is a group of disaffected laity who have banded together to destroy Bp.Williamson.

IN VERITATE VICTORIA · « **Reply #52 on:** May 16, 2015, 06:29:56 AM »

Quote from: richard

Quote from: IN VERITATE VICTORIA
Quote from: stbrighidswell
Quote from: LAMB
Quote from: Ladislaus
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.

We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.

There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.

Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".

Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.

Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.

Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).

Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).

I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?

It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.

I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like

I second stbrighidswell and LAMB and can vouch for the truth of these posts. It is a scandal that Bp. Williamson sent this priest Ireland and also that he still has a public apostolate in the UK. Add to this the association of Fr. Marshall Roberts with the OLMC Resistance and for all the world the Resistance is beginning to look like SSJ Mark 2!

I see Bp.Williamson's name and the word scandal,but I still haven't seen the name of this "scandalous" priest and until I do it seems to me that perhaps it is a group of disaffected laity who have banded together to destroy Bp.Williamson.

You always have some pat answer ready, don't you Richard? These are typical psy-op tactics.... turn an "accusation" around and question the motives of those bringing this very grave, factual information to the attention of people who need to know. Yea, that's right, discredit the messengers and deflect attention away from the main issue which is the alarming number of morally compromised priests joining the Resistance (given that it's such a small "loose association") And btw, even one is one too many! I would ask YOU "who is trying to destroy the Resistance?" Certainly not those who are trying to keep out moral corruption when they see it! But those who defend moral corruption have alot to answer for.

richard · « **Reply #53 on:** May 16, 2015, 06:56:02 AM »

Quote from: IN VERITATE VICTORIA

Quote from: richard
Quote from: IN VERITATE VICTORIA
Quote from: stbrighidswell
Quote from: LAMB
Quote from: Ladislaus
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.

We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.

There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.

Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".

Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.

Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.

Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).

Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).

I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?

It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.

I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like

I second stbrighidswell and LAMB and can vouch for the truth of these posts. It is a scandal that Bp. Williamson sent this priest Ireland and also that he still has a public apostolate in the UK. Add to this the association of Fr. Marshall Roberts with the OLMC Resistance and for all the world the Resistance is beginning to look like SSJ Mark 2!

I see Bp.Williamson's name and the word scandal,but I still haven't seen the name of this "scandalous" priest and until I do it seems to me that perhaps it is a group of disaffected laity who have banded together to destroy Bp.Williamson.

You always have some pat answer ready, don't you Richard? These are typical psy-op tactics.... turn an "accusation" around and question the motives of those bringing this very grave, factual information to the attention of people who need to know. Yea, that's right, discredit the messengers and deflect attention away from the main issue which is the alarming number of morally compromised priests joining the Resistance (given that it's such a small "loose association") And btw, even one is one too many! I would ask YOU "who is trying to destroy the Resistance?" Certainly not those who are trying to keep out moral corruption when they see it! But those who defend moral corruption have alot to answer for.

I go to a resistance chapel why would I want to destroy the resistance? I would ask you are you a sede troll?Why are you trying to destroy the resistance? Who is this unnamed priest? Until the "messenger"can come up with a name for this "scandalous" priest then the "messenger" is discrediting himself/herself. I think you people are making it up to destroy Bp.Williamson,so put up or shut up.

JPaul · « **Reply #54 on:** May 16, 2015, 08:27:23 AM »

In a general sense this is why the loose association idea is unstable. Anyone can quite easily attach themselves to this resistance, with little no screening or scrutiny being applied to them. Of course you are going to have substandard priests and associates.
There are no standards or otherwise enforced, and there is no one who can or will dislodge these people when problems arise.
One of its luminaries repeatedly refused to do anything about his wayward assistant, but, I find it hard to believe that the Bishop would run interference for one of these people. If that happened then there are serious problems afoot.

richard · « **Reply #55 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:05:00 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

In a general sense this is why the loose association idea is unstable. Anyone can quite easily attach themselves to this resistance, with little no screening or scrutiny being applied to them. Of course you are going to have substandard priests and associates.
There are no standards or otherwise enforced, and there is no one who can or will dislodge these people when problems arise.
One of its luminaries repeatedly refused to do anything about his wayward assistant, but, I find it hard to believe that the Bishop would run interference for one of these people. If that happened then there are serious problems afoot.

JPaul writes:. If that happened then there are serious problems afoot.

Thank you! If that happened! At last somebody willing to concede that maybe just maybe this might all be heresay and inuendo.

Matthew · « **Reply #56 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:50:43 AM »

Quote from: stbrighidswell

I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like

You're not going to confirm, but "100% confirm". Not shock, but "absolute shock". A bit emotional, perhaps?

You seem to be over-invested in this, as if you're not completely objective and only interested in the truth.

He ALSO said that "it could have been much worse". Now I doubt +W was referring to the fact that he could have murdered his victims and chopped up their bodies. No, I take that to mean that Fr. _____ didn't go "all the way".

You see, we don't really know much about either of these cases (Fr. Roberts or Fr. _____). We know that Fr. Roberts was mixed up in the Society of St. John. True. We know that he wasn't kidnapped by them -- also true. But what exactly DID he personally do? We are not privy to all the details.

It might have been only indiscretion and imprudence he was ever guilty of. Suggesting a really close friendship with a boy, or something imprudent like sleeping in the same bed as another man or boy.

The Society of St. John, or "Johnnies" as they were nicknamed, were really into Platonic philosophy, Platonic friendship, and the concept of deep male friendships. (Think: David and Jonathan in the Bible). Yes, we all know what that leads to in the practical realm, with fallen human nature. But not necessarily, or in 100% of cases. Maybe he was mostly sold on the "deep friendship" idea.

But even if he did cross the line into something seriously sinful, Are you saying that any man or priest becomes useless once he falls into mortal sin? That one can't build up enough virtue to fill in the "pits" left by sin?

Yes, I understand that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a unique animal -- it's a difficult sin to recover from. BUT the scarring from this sin (as with all other sins) depends on how deep the wounds went -- and how many wounds there were.

If it comes to light that Fr. X used to be a thief, just don't have him be in charge of the finances and you're good to go! If Fr. Y had an association like this, just don't let him train Altar Boys in private and you're good to go! It's not like he's doing to do anything during Mass. And there is a good chance he has reformed, from "whatever" he did in the past.

All the evidence (much of which was posted in this thread, by NIPR and others) strongly suggests that -- that Fr. Roberts is "safe" now. Again, I don't know that I'd send my son on a mini boys camp with Fr. Roberts and 2 other boys -- but that's just a question of prudence. I'm sure even Fr. Roberts would understand my concern, and that of others expressed on this thread. The fact is that he really made a mistake joining the Johnnies -- his reputation will never fully recover. He made his bed; now he has to sleep in it.

But there is enough of a priest shortage without wasting priests. Let's face it -- a Mass at a Resistance Mass center consists of a priest showing up, often at a rented facility, saying Mass for 1 hour, and leaving shortly after.

I've never heard of a deep parish life at a Resistance location -- at least nothing that requires a priest outside of Mass times. Priests are simply too busy! If there is altar boy training, it's done by the laity. Ditto for boys camps. The SSPX is large enough to organize these sort of things, but even the SSPX often draws on the laity to take care of things like training altar servers.

Back to "what would I do" -- I would certainly be willing to attend the Mass of Fr. Roberts, from what I have heard on this thread. Furthermore, I would be OK with my son serving his Mass at that rented facility. It's not like they're going to be "alone" at any time, or for any length of time.

But although I have emotions (including fear and the intense desire to "protect my children") I also try to be rational.

Do we REALLY need to be THIS careful, when the priest shows no signs of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or any other danger at the moment? There's careful, and then there's paranoid.

wallflower · « **Reply #57 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:21:04 AM »

That's almost exactly what I have been thinking Matthew, but wasn't going to post since I don't know the circuмstances at all in this case.

Whatever happened to Fr Fullerton? I think of him every once in a while but it's a hard question to broach to the family so I am just left wondering. Does anyone know, since we are on this topic?

Matthew · « **Reply #58 on:** May 16, 2015, 01:06:28 PM »

The long and short of it is:

Has Fr. Roberts, or Fr. ______, done sufficient penance to correct (build up contrary virtues to oppose) whatever vice(s) they had in the area of unnatural vice, if any?

But we are missing a key element of the equation: what "damage" was done to their souls to begin with. To know how much catching up they had to do, we'd have to know how low they had fallen. But we know very little.

Matthew · « **Reply #59 on:** May 16, 2015, 01:07:32 PM »

I have two questions.

1. Were either of these priests convicted in a court of law?

2. Is Fr. Roberts even working with the Resistance? The nice cut-and-paste job done by the OP suggests that a sermon or two exists on Fr. Pfeiffer's group website. But what date were those sermons? Anything recent?

EDIT: I answered my own question. The most recent sermons for Fr. Roberts are from June 2014 -- almost a year ago. So it's unclear whether or not he's still a part of Fr. Pfeiffer's Resistance.

If he's an independent priest now, you can't use him as a stick to beat the Resistance...

The whole thing is ridiculous if you think about it. Tradition always had occasional problems with priests. Not just "unnatural vice" but other problems as well -- money, alcoholism, worldly priests, bullying, manipulation, smooth-talking the women, leaving the priesthood to get married, starting a cult, etc.

Remember that Tradition (and the Resistance) appeals on a human level to cholerics and mavericks of all kinds. Anyone who has problems with authority will enjoy being a Traditional Catholic. I'm not saying Trads have no justification, I'm just saying that many disobedient types WILL happen to enjoy on a human level the "being aloof from Church authorities" part of the gig.

I'd bet you $100 double or nothing that the % of cholerics in Tradition is greater than the % of cholerics in the population at large.

Tradition isn't some sort of "elite club" or "society of the perfect", and neither is the Resistance. The Resistance is nothing more -- or less -- than the continuation of the Traditional movement (non-Sedevacantist branch). Any priest or layman can stand up and say, "Enough of +Fellay's new direction. I'm resisting!"

If the Resistance leadership hand-picked each priest and layman, excommunicating everyone else, it would be (justly) accused of being a cult.

It's a classic case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't!"