Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer and The Recusant keeping up the wicked fight (Read 13452 times)

Guardian Angel · « **Reply #30 on:** December 21, 2015, 07:51:56 AM »

Quote from: Guardian Angel

Quote from: ManuelChavez
They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose.

What were the reasons that caused them to reach this conclusion? They did not publicly give any.

Manuel, please answer my question.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #31 on:** December 21, 2015, 09:24:43 AM »

Quote from: Guardian Angel

Quote from: Guardian Angel
Quote from: ManuelChavez
They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose.

What were the reasons that caused them to reach this conclusion? They did not publicly give any.

Manuel, please answer my question.

Sorry for the delay.

They had issues with certain aspects of his story, which could not be clarified or supported.

It slowly unraveled, and the things which they thought were certain came apart with the flood of evidence against Ambrose.

I asked them why they didn't release a detailed report on not associating with Ambrose. Father seems to feel that any such report would only cause more problems; that it would fuel the fires caused by those with an axe to grind against Boston, and would spin any such release into an attack.

After all, if people can turn a photo of a children's TV shows host into a Jєωιѕн and Masonic plot or conspiracy or as a means for character assassination, they can twist Father's words into devilish works designed to destroy the resistance.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #32 on:** December 21, 2015, 11:50:25 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: ManuelChavez
From OHCA:Right--we shouldn't deprive smokescreeners of the opportunity to hear themselves talk, as many love it so very much. I'm not into asking somebody with measured words and a polished script to take a shot at duping me.

My response: So you don't care to hear what they have to say? You don't feel the need to ask questions and get answers, even if the answers may or may not be factual?

It is apparent that you have chosen a closed-minded approach to the situations and events revolving around OLMC, one that supports your biased view, and you will continue to do so with derogatory and inciteful language, to the detriment of yourself and to the reputation of Cathinfo.

Nothing is resolved with sarcasm or closed minds and hearts. This situation will only further degenerate, because no one is willing to listen and learn in all due respect and charity.

Ask questions. Get answers. You may not like the answers, but they will help nevertheless.

Note to Manuel: deflections don't count as answers. We all knew Ambrose was a fake, but Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko let him say Mass. The time for answers is over because there is no question about it; they have thrown their own credibility out the window.

You can continue to be part of this sham and keep posting like a shaken bottle of soda, but one of these days someone around here has to learn to clean up their own mess.

They did not know he was a fake. What information was presented on Ambrose was unfortunately diluted by falsehoods regarding other situations regarding Boston.

They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose. This is because the vital information was shaken free of the surrounding lies, errors and deception that surrounded the truth (examples: animal sacrifices, curses, etc).

The real sham is the lack of charity and humility, and the unwillingness to listen, to ask questions and to understand. Both sides of the argument are guilty of this. Both have caused the mess, each in their own ways.

I pray that there can be a good solution for the many problems facing the resistance today.

Manuel, this is completely untrue. Both Fathers had been shown by people (who they consider(ed) reliable) that Billy-Bob Moran was a fraud by mid-September of this year. That included content of some personal conversations with William Moran which was already ringing all sorts of alarm bells in well-formed and reasonably discerning minds. This information was presented to the Fathers aside from any "dilution by falsehoods" to paraphrase your pathetic excuse for this travesty.

Making overtly stupid excuses for people is a breach of charity.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #33 on:** December 21, 2015, 12:29:18 PM »

Quote from: Maria Regina

Quote from: cebu
Please do not encourage anyone to read this vile diatribe.

Just as when a rat is backed into a corner, the wrecusant will lash out anyone. It will amuse you to know that Greg Taylor, the editor and only writer, is so busy spewing his venom at Matthew in his editorial that he forgets to mention the Billy Boy Moron fiasco or the letter of Fr Voigt. All this hatred and bitchy sarcasm is ultimately aimed at Bishop Williamson because he will not be the lap dog of Fr Pfeiffer. Then he goes on about himself and how everyone will detest him. Just me, me, me.

God help them all on Judgment Day when they will have to answer for their actions. They have become a complete cult like the Jehovah Witnesses - the more they are attacked, the more they think they are doing right. They are no longer Roman Catholics but Resistance Catholics with Sunday Holy Hours rather than Holy Masses.

Exactly. When the Resistant Catholics have lost their last priest, who will take his place? There is no bishop to consecrate anyone of their liking unless they pick up another ex-SSPX or ex-other priest.

Japan's faithful kep the Faith for 250 years without priests or the Mass.

I've suspected this is the direction we're headed.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #34 on:** December 21, 2015, 01:37:46 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: ManuelChavez
From OHCA:Right--we shouldn't deprive smokescreeners of the opportunity to hear themselves talk, as many love it so very much. I'm not into asking somebody with measured words and a polished script to take a shot at duping me.

My response: So you don't care to hear what they have to say? You don't feel the need to ask questions and get answers, even if the answers may or may not be factual?

It is apparent that you have chosen a closed-minded approach to the situations and events revolving around OLMC, one that supports your biased view, and you will continue to do so with derogatory and inciteful language, to the detriment of yourself and to the reputation of Cathinfo.

Nothing is resolved with sarcasm or closed minds and hearts. This situation will only further degenerate, because no one is willing to listen and learn in all due respect and charity.

Ask questions. Get answers. You may not like the answers, but they will help nevertheless.

Note to Manuel: deflections don't count as answers. We all knew Ambrose was a fake, but Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko let him say Mass. The time for answers is over because there is no question about it; they have thrown their own credibility out the window.

You can continue to be part of this sham and keep posting like a shaken bottle of soda, but one of these days someone around here has to learn to clean up their own mess.

They did not know he was a fake. What information was presented on Ambrose was unfortunately diluted by falsehoods regarding other situations regarding Boston.

They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose. This is because the vital information was shaken free of the surrounding lies, errors and deception that surrounded the truth (examples: animal sacrifices, curses, etc).

The real sham is the lack of charity and humility, and the unwillingness to listen, to ask questions and to understand. Both sides of the argument are guilty of this. Both have caused the mess, each in their own ways.

I pray that there can be a good solution for the many problems facing the resistance today.

Manuel, this is completely untrue. Both Fathers had been shown by people (who they consider(ed) reliable) that Billy-Bob Moran was a fraud by mid-September of this year. That included content of some personal conversations with William Moran which was already ringing all sorts of alarm bells in well-formed and reasonably discerning minds. This information was presented to the Fathers aside from any "dilution by falsehoods" to paraphrase your pathetic excuse for this travesty.

Making overtly stupid excuses for people is a breach of charity.

It is not untrue. I was there and saw and heard these conversations, and I asked them questions. It was a long process, but eventually they could not account for certain problems within Ambrose's claims. There was a lot of dilution, and it took time to sort through it all. I believe that I was able to help in some small way in sorting through this material, and in helping Father recognize the validity of the information presented.

It is not an excuse. While they could have improved on their response, this is what happened and why it happened.

OHCA · « **Reply #35 on:** December 21, 2015, 01:47:09 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

I asked them why they didn't release a detailed report on not associating with Ambrose. Father seems to feel that any such report would only cause more problems; that it would fuel the fires caused by those with an axe to grind against Boston, and would spin any such release into an attack.

Never mind the souls who may be at risk because of the example and implications of Father's initial association with the schismatic fraud. We must not do anything that may cause more problems FOR FR. PFEIFFER AND BOSTON!!!

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #36 on:** December 21, 2015, 01:53:44 PM »

There were people who warned Father Pfeiffer about Ambrose. Some of them were reputable and had good intentions, other were not, and used the information to attack Father.

In the end, they decided not to associate with Ambrose.

The situation could have been handled better. That much is certain.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #37 on:** December 21, 2015, 02:06:52 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: ManuelChavez
I asked them why they didn't release a detailed report on not associating with Ambrose. Father seems to feel that any such report would only cause more problems; that it would fuel the fires caused by those with an axe to grind against Boston, and would spin any such release into an attack.

Never mind the souls who may be at risk because of the example and implications of Father's initial association with the schismatic fraud. We must not do anything that may cause more problems FOR FR. PFEIFFER AND BOSTON!!!

As I was saying, some people will use anything and everything to attack Father.

Perhaps they should release something more detailed than what they have already released.

I do not know if it would help much.

There has been much damage done to the reputation of the Boston seminary. Some of it has been caused internally, some has been because of external forces.

Nevertheless, the seminary in Boston can survive and indeed thrive. Changes must be made; that much is certain.

All I can ask is that there be more understanding and less speculation regarding the seminary. Also, stop the insults and the rumor mongering. Neither will foster an atmosphere of trust on either side of this issue.

Matthew · « **Reply #38 on:** December 21, 2015, 02:49:31 PM »

It should be obvious to all that Fr. Pfeiffer has a tendency to throw years of loyalty out the window (into the trash can) the minute a person criticizes him, legitimately or otherwise.

For example, Tony La Rosa. He is hardly a "Pfeiffer hater from way-back". What about Fr. Voigt? Fr. Chazal? Matthew from CathInfo? None of these people qualify as "Fr. Pfeiffer just rubs them the wrong way." On the contrary.

I've said many times on here, that I personally got along fine with Fr. Pfeiffer -- just like I got along fine with the SSPX -- until real problems surfaced. Then I was forced to raise my voice in criticism, for the sake of truth and the Catholic Faith.

I am not going to be a respecter of persons, out of some distorted, misplaced idea of loyalty. The man comes second. The truth comes first.

Fr. Pfeiffer has *never* acknowledged that any criticism of him is anything but "haters gonna hate". That is ridiculous, and I hope most people can see that.

Matthew · « **Reply #39 on:** December 21, 2015, 02:54:08 PM »

Father loves to play the martyr. "If people are criticizing and attacking me, I must be doing something right."

Uh, no. That is not logical. I'm sure Pope Michael gets mostly criticism too. Pope Francis gets plenty of criticism all over the world. Neither of them can rest that they are on the right path, or in possession of the truth!

If I murdered my family I would be hated by this world as well. Being hated (or opposed, criticized) by the world does NOT automatically mean you are a saint!

Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, and Adolf Hitler were hated by the world as well. Now what?

There is being persecuted A) UNJUSTLY, B) FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, and then there is just being persecuted for your own crimes, mistakes, and errors.

Go read the Scripture Quote. Christ qualifies it very clearly. To be "blessed", men have to say all that is evil against you A) untruly and B) for His sake.

If they truly criticize you, or criticize you for your own faults, then leave Jesus out of it!

wallflower · « **Reply #40 on:** December 21, 2015, 03:51:14 PM »

Both posts are exactly it. I was happily in touch with both Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko in the beginning. I don't qualify at all as a hater.

But as soon as I heard Fr Hewko's "apology" sermon I knew it was over. When he said they were being attacked for the good they were doing... that's it, I knew they are locked in. If people cannot or will not make distinctions on why criticism is coming their way, there is truly nothing that can be done for them.

I don't know about anyone else but I have "aha" moments years later where I realize maybe my intentions weren't as pure as I had thought they were, or had convinced myself they were at the time. Or perhaps this or that action was misunderstood and prompted a negative reaction. Whatever the case, hindsight is powerful. So we can hope that years from now they will get it. But for now, no I don't foresee any change in their ways. They will continue to think they are martyrs for the good job they are doing. And the more often they repeat that to us or to themselves, the less chance they have of ever realizing otherwise.

Guardian Angel · « **Reply #41 on:** December 21, 2015, 04:15:58 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: Guardian Angel
Quote from: Guardian Angel
Quote from: ManuelChavez
They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose.

What were the reasons that caused them to reach this conclusion? They did not publicly give any.

Manuel, please answer my question.

I asked them why they didn't release a detailed report on not associating with Ambrose. Father seems to feel that any such report would only cause more problems; that it would fuel the fires caused by those with an axe to grind against Boston, and would spin any such release into an attack.

I disagree. Releasing a detailed report would help us understand why the sudden turn of events after having Moran being fed to us as a potential solution to the lack of bishop problem. Instead, we are now left wondering.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #42 on:** December 21, 2015, 04:46:44 PM »

Fr. Pfeiffer's "problems" can be blamed on no one but himself.

For most of us, things are not as complicated as Manuel suggests. The Conciliar Church is the enemy, the SSPX might be friend or foe depending on the individual, and all those of the Resistance are friends unless clearly and repeatedly proven otherwise.

Fr. Pfeiffer (along with his cook) is the FIRST, often the ONLY, and certainly the MOST FREQUENT violator of this basic equation. Just this week there have been shots fired from OLMC at nearly everyone in the Resistance.

What he describes as "being attacked" is nothing more than honest people pointing out unpleasant realities. As evidence to this, many here will attest to the fact that the general opinion of Boston, KY was favorable until Nov 1, 2014 when Fr. Pfeiffer began to openly attack fellow Resistors.

Perhaps Manuel was in the wrong place to clearly see this all unfold, but no one in the Resistance suggested avoiding or red-lighting Boston, KY before Fr. Pfeiffer brought it upon himself by his own actions and/or inaction.

OHCA · « **Reply #43 on:** December 21, 2015, 05:06:08 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

. . . As evidence to this, many here will attest to the fact that the general opinion of Boston, KY was favorable until Nov 1, 2014 when Fr. Pfeiffer began to openly attack fellow Resistors.

Yes--that's where I fit. Considerably dismayed and perplexed by the Pablo "dilemma;" severely put off and teetered to "unfavorable" by what you described here; consider them borderline schismatic since the schismatic fraud debacle, for which they have not sufficiently denounced and made amends for me to consider them above suspicion of schism.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #44 on:** December 22, 2015, 09:12:11 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: ManuelChavez
From OHCA:Right--we shouldn't deprive smokescreeners of the opportunity to hear themselves talk, as many love it so very much. I'm not into asking somebody with measured words and a polished script to take a shot at duping me.

My response: So you don't care to hear what they have to say? You don't feel the need to ask questions and get answers, even if the answers may or may not be factual?

It is apparent that you have chosen a closed-minded approach to the situations and events revolving around OLMC, one that supports your biased view, and you will continue to do so with derogatory and inciteful language, to the detriment of yourself and to the reputation of Cathinfo.

Nothing is resolved with sarcasm or closed minds and hearts. This situation will only further degenerate, because no one is willing to listen and learn in all due respect and charity.

Ask questions. Get answers. You may not like the answers, but they will help nevertheless.

Note to Manuel: deflections don't count as answers. We all knew Ambrose was a fake, but Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko let him say Mass. The time for answers is over because there is no question about it; they have thrown their own credibility out the window.

You can continue to be part of this sham and keep posting like a shaken bottle of soda, but one of these days someone around here has to learn to clean up their own mess.

They did not know he was a fake. What information was presented on Ambrose was unfortunately diluted by falsehoods regarding other situations regarding Boston.

They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose. This is because the vital information was shaken free of the surrounding lies, errors and deception that surrounded the truth (examples: animal sacrifices, curses, etc).

The real sham is the lack of charity and humility, and the unwillingness to listen, to ask questions and to understand. Both sides of the argument are guilty of this. Both have caused the mess, each in their own ways.

I pray that there can be a good solution for the many problems facing the resistance today.

Manuel, this is completely untrue. Both Fathers had been shown by people (who they consider(ed) reliable) that Billy-Bob Moran was a fraud by mid-September of this year. That included content of some personal conversations with William Moran which was already ringing all sorts of alarm bells in well-formed and reasonably discerning minds. This information was presented to the Fathers aside from any "dilution by falsehoods" to paraphrase your pathetic excuse for this travesty.

Making overtly stupid excuses for people is a breach of charity.

It is not untrue. I was there and saw and heard these conversations, and I asked them questions. It was a long process, but eventually they could not account for certain problems within Ambrose's claims. There was a lot of dilution, and it took time to sort through it all. I believe that I was able to help in some small way in sorting through this material, and in helping Father recognize the validity of the information presented.

It is not an excuse. While they could have improved on their response, this is what happened and why it happened.

Really? So you also read the emails and texts to both priests concerning "Ambrose" Moran? Whatever you saw and heard was only a small piece of the info, so it's really disingenuous for you to make the ridiculous claim that they weren't aware that he is a fraud.
Considering your role as a soapy PR functionary, you've made a good choice of avatar.