Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who? (Read 114988 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #60 on:** March 16, 2016, 11:16:08 AM »

Quote from: ascent

First, Ambrose. Now, Tetherow.

Apparently, somebody has never heard of a screening process.

We have to ask ourselves WHY Fr. Pfeiffer keeps bringing in these types.

1. He is scraping the bottom of the lake, trying to dredge up independent priests that no one has discovered or accounted for yet. That's a tough task! They don't just spring up like mushrooms. There are only so many trained Trad priests out there; and they all have jobs right now (unless they're too old to say Mass).

2. He is motivated to "search out" undiscovered new Trad priests/bishops, because he has isolated himself. He is isolated because he rejects -- and attacks -- any independent/Resistance priest or bishop that doesn't want to submit to his authority and join the OLMC (SSPX-MC), which to him is the entirety of the Catholic Church, full stop. To Fr. Pfeiffer, you must be in union with him or you are an illegitimate, rogue schismatic group! Just look up the definition of schism: rejecting the authority of the Pope. And he is the Pope! So... (that's how his logic goes anyways...)

2b. To elaborate on Father's self-isolation: For example, Father doesn't get along with any Resistant priests who agree with +Williamson's strategy of a loose independent network. Fr. P wants another SSPX, and RIGHT NOW! Also, Father has such extreme rhetoric, he's not going to get very far with any existing SSPX priests -- most would hang up the phone on him, I'd imagine. And although his mind is already Sedevacantist, his heart and emotions still repel this position. He is Sedevacantist, but he doesn't know it yet, so he's also quite harsh against Sedevacantism. So he can't associate with any priests/bishops with that opinion. Who does that leave?

3. What Father doesn't realize is that there ARE NO GOOD TRAD PRIESTS OR BISHOPS UNACCOUNTED FOR. They all have Mass circuits, they are all known quantities. You're not going to bring out of the woodwork another legitimate Trad bishop, for example. If he's been hiding all these decades, he really needs to stay in hiding, know what I mean?

Tiffany · « **Reply #61 on:** March 16, 2016, 11:19:38 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Tiffany
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
MA,

Since you know of this priest and you live in the area do you have any idea why the Resistance group in Philadelphia would accept this man instead of a real priest? Do they not understand that he is defrocked? Do they not recognize the authority of the Pope in this matter?

I'm as baffled by that as I am the Colorado and Minnesota groups inviting Moran to their missions.

From the sermon it sounds like they are driving to him.

Marrano's hook-ups didn't happen by chance.
Rather it is all is being arranged from the rectory at OMLC, which is the seat of the Mexican.
These schemes can all be traced to his laptop/server in the main room.

I was referring to them driving to Father T.

Incredulous · « **Reply #62 on:** March 16, 2016, 11:50:25 AM »

Matthew, your analysis is logical, but the Pablo/pfeiffer mind is not.

Father Pfeiffer's logic is becoming more discombobulated as every month passes.

We may be seeing the last months of his "Berlin bunker". So be it.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #63 on:** March 16, 2016, 11:54:21 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

We have to ask ourselves WHY Fr. Pfeiffer keeps bringing in these types.

1. He is scraping the bottom of the lake, trying to dredge up independent priests that no one has discovered or accounted for yet. That's a tough task! They don't just spring up like mushrooms. There are only so many trained Trad priests out there; and they all have jobs right now (unless they're too old to say Mass).

2. He is motivated to "search out" undiscovered new Trad priests/bishops, because he has isolated himself. He is isolated because he rejects -- and attacks -- any independent/Resistance priest or bishop that doesn't want to submit to his authority and join the OLMC (SSPX-MC), which to him is the entirety of the Catholic Church, full stop. To Fr. Pfeiffer, you must be in union with him or you are an illegitimate, rogue schismatic group! Just look up the definition of schism: rejecting the authority of the Pope. And he is the Pope! So... (that's how his logic goes anyways...)

2b. To elaborate on Father's self-isolation: For example, Father doesn't get along with any Resistant priests who agree with +Williamson's strategy of a loose independent network. Fr. P wants another SSPX, and RIGHT NOW! Also, Father has such extreme rhetoric, he's not going to get very far with any existing SSPX priests -- most would hang up the phone on him, I'd imagine. And although his mind is already Sedevacantist, his heart and emotions still repel this position. He is Sedevacantist, but he doesn't know it yet, so he's also quite harsh against Sedevacantism. So he can't associate with any priests/bishops with that opinion. Who does that leave?

3. What Father doesn't realize is that there ARE NO GOOD TRAD PRIESTS OR BISHOPS UNACCOUNTED FOR. They all have Mass circuits, they are all known quantities. You're not going to bring out of the woodwork another legitimate Trad bishop, for example. If he's been hiding all these decades, he really needs to stay in hiding, know what I mean?

The two most prominent Pfeiffer proteges were not traditional Catholic priests. They are men acting the part. That's in the public record.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #64 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:01:18 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

MA,

Since you know of this priest and you live in the area do you have any idea why the Resistance group in Philadelphia would accept this man instead of a real priest? Do they not understand that he is defrocked? Do they not recognize the authority of the Pope in this matter?

I'm as baffled by that as I am the Colorado and Minnesota groups inviting Moran to their missions.

Yes, we know this priest plenty well. He has a certain dramatic confident presentation that impresses impressionable people. We admit to having a very good first impression but it does not take long to see that there is nothing behind the first impression when you routinely catch him in lies. Just last week I learned of more lies from a family that just left him.

I would like to start my response by explaining why the SSPX may be responsible for Fr. Pfeiffer’s good impression of “Fr. Tetherow” (FT).

Fr. Patrick Mackin, as a seminarian, used to attend the chapel in York with his family. We were told by Mrs. Mackin that according to (now) Fr. Mackin, FT had made a “very good impression” on +Fellay at the Auriesville Pilgrimage (2008, I believe). FT was invited to the next SSPX Priest Meeting. Knowing that he had made a good impression on +Fellay, the chapel paid for his trip (hoping to build a good relationship with the SSPX) and at FT’s request to spend an extra day to be able to talk to +Fellay I personally changed his flight arrangements to stay the extra day.

Upon his return, FT announced from the pulpit: “as of now, I’m approved to say Mass at any SSPX chapel”. The SSPX continued to work with him. They even planned and published a summer boys camp in Pennsylvania with Fr. Mackin and FT. I have a picture of Tetherow at St. Jude in Philadelphia with Bishop de Galarreta assisting with the Mass at the Confirmations after FT’s dismissal from SSP&P Mission chapel. They obviously believed all his lies.

After FT’s group bought the chapel in Windsor, PA, members of SSP&P who did not follow FT were invited to the Consecration of the chapel (St. Michael the Archangel) by +Fellay. The press showed up and this article appeared in the local newspaper http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/07_08/2011_07_30_Nann_hαɾɾιsburgDiocese.htm +Fellay didn’t come out but I was told the chapel was consecrated after the press left.

When the article came out, the SSPX lawyer called our home (FT probably gave him the #). I answered the phone and first he tried to intimidate me explaining who he was and that “Fr. Rostand is very concerned about rumors that the SSPX bought the chapel for FT”. I responded calmly that it wasn’t a rumor and gave him the two reliable sources (one an SSPX priest and the other SSPX coordinators). His tone changed and wanted to find out all we knew about FT. Later my husband called him back for more information followed by emails. The lawyer, Mr. Wright (?) told us after that that they (SSPX/+Fellay) had ordered FT to “stay clear of SSPX chapels” but I guess they kept it quiet for fear of scandal. That was in July, 2010.

I would guess that Fr. Pfeiffer thought FT was a “good priest”. All the people in Philadelphia that follow FT were turned off by the changing the rubrics at St. Jude and contacted FT who was doing the pre-1962 Missal in York (That’s the Missal the chapel uses). They were very impressed with him and although some of them have known us since 1986, never came to us with questions. The old priest that told my husband he had to “fire” FT and told us he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and warned one of the families that follow him, gets upset when I try to reach out to people and said to me once: “Don’t you see they don’t want to know because they are not pure of heart?”. I guess that is the bottom line.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #65 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:36:00 PM »

Isn't there a penalty for receiving sacraments from a priest who had his faculties removed by the Pope? Why would people defy the Pope? How can a Catholic do that? Isn't that practical sedevacantism?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #66 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:59:00 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Isn't there a penalty for receiving sacraments from a priest who had his faculties removed by the Pope? Why would people defy the Pope? How can a Catholic do that? Isn't that practical sedevacantism?

I don't think the SSPX knew about it until the newspaper article and trusted "Fr. Tetherow" (I should say Mr. Tetherow). As far as the Philadelphia group, they blindly believed him after being dismissed from the York chapel. I was told by someone in his group that FT has stated he never received anything from the Vatican. That may be true. After all he is secret about his Mass locations. Other than St Michael's, the other location(s) are only by word of mouth (secret) because they are afraid of "detractors". I'm sure the Vatican has no idea where he lives. When our priest gets correspondence from the Vatican it's certified return receipt.

One thing is certain, he knows about it. Also, his followers believe the Vatican acted "unjustly" (persecuted). Until we saw the canonical case, we thought that too. I hope they are reading CathInfo.

Matthew · « **Reply #67 on:** March 16, 2016, 04:00:24 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Isn't there a penalty for receiving sacraments from a priest who had his faculties removed by the Pope? Why would people defy the Pope? How can a Catholic do that? Isn't that practical sedevacantism?

This is one of the points I made.

I mean, we're Trads I know, and we're used to disobeying the Pope. But not when he suspends/laicizes a priest for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. In that matter, the Pope is acting WELL WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY. And if you want to disobey the Pope on a matter like that, you might as well be schismatic Orthodox or a protestant like Luther! They reject the Pope's authority as well.

Fr. Pfeiffer needs to be careful. I suppose one might say that this is one of the main dangers of Traditionalism, compared to "other paths" of dealing with the Crisis in the Church. Getting so comfortable with disobeying the Pope, that it becomes a habit, and soon you do it without thinking, even when you shouldn't.

We have to stay rational and keep our Catholic heads, at all times.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #68 on:** March 16, 2016, 04:14:46 PM »

Are we 100% sure that Fr P knew about Tetherow's 'situation' while associating with him?
Is it possibly a case of Fr not doing his homework and not being aware that Mr Tetherow was tossed out of the NO for perversion? If this is the case, I think we may have been somewhat rash here; but even so- OLMC should speak out solidly on the matter. (and soon. Especially, one would think, after the lambasting they gave +W about Fr A.)

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #69 on:** March 16, 2016, 04:25:08 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Are we 100% sure that Fr P knew about Tetherow's 'situation' while associating with him?
Is it possibly a case of Fr not doing his homework and not being aware that Mr Tetherow was tossed out of the NO for perversion? If this is the case, I think we may have been somewhat rash here; but even so- OLMC should speak out solidly on the matter. (and soon. Especially, one would think, after the lambasting they gave +W about Fr A.)

Fr Pfeiffer was alerted last spring by one of his seminarians that Tetherow was a convicted pedophile who was defrocked. It was dismissed as being irrelevant.

I spoke with a different seminarian who said that he Googled Tetherow when he showed up mysteriously last year and was creeped out by what he found. He emphasized that he did not do an intensive search but a 5 minute Google.

Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko as well as the Pfeiffer family are totally aware as of today of the circuмstances of Tetherow. I can confirm that. Actions from this point forward will show if it is taken seriously or not.

Matthew · « **Reply #70 on:** March 16, 2016, 04:38:50 PM »

Someone called Fr. Pfeiffer, and regarding the charges against Fr. Tetherow, Fr. Pfeiffer said, "All lies. None of it's true."

...Just like he said about Ambrose Moran.

History repeats itself.

So yes, he's aware of it.

But even if someone didn't tell me personally that he called Fr. Pfeiffer and asked him about it, I'd guess Fr. Pfeiffer knows, because it's on CathInfo for crying out loud!

Everyone that "matters" in the SSPX and Resistance either reads CathInfo, or has someone keep an eye on it for them -- even if I do say so myself.

Let's be realistic. There is no larger or more popular forum for this topic (Trad Catholicism, the Resistance) than CathInfo.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #71 on:** March 16, 2016, 05:00:10 PM »

Quote

Someone called Fr. Pfeiffer, and regarding the charges against Fr. Tetherow, Fr. Pfeiffer said, "All lies. None of it's true."

This is exactly why our friend, the elderly priest has told me: “Don’t you see they don’t want to know because they are not pure of heart?”. THAT IS the bottom line.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #72 on:** March 16, 2016, 05:15:47 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Isn't there a penalty for receiving sacraments from a priest who had his faculties removed by the Pope? Why would people defy the Pope? How can a Catholic do that? Isn't that practical sedevacantism?

This is one of the points I made.

I mean, we're Trads I know, and we're used to disobeying the Pope. But not when he suspends/laicizes a priest for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. In that matter, the Pope is acting WELL WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY. And if you want to disobey the Pope on a matter like that, you might as well be schismatic Orthodox or a protestant like Luther! They reject the Pope's authority as well.

Fr. Pfeiffer needs to be careful. I suppose one might say that this is one of the main dangers of Traditionalism, compared to "other paths" of dealing with the Crisis in the Church. Getting so comfortable with disobeying the Pope, that it becomes a habit, and soon you do it without thinking, even when you shouldn't.

We have to stay rational and keep our Catholic heads, at all times.

Isn't that rich. A bit hypocritical don't you think? Since when does a layman decide when a pope's authority needs to be obeyed?

I know, I know, when he's a bad dad.......no! Good dad........yes!

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #73 on:** March 16, 2016, 05:25:34 PM »

I didn't mean to derail the thread, I'm just tired of laymen and clergy being the ultimate decision makers on what papal authority encompasses.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #74 on:** March 16, 2016, 05:46:34 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Are we 100% sure that Fr P knew about Tetherow's 'situation' while associating with him?
Is it possibly a case of Fr not doing his homework and not being aware that Mr Tetherow was tossed out of the NO for perversion? If this is the case, I think we may have been somewhat rash here; but even so- OLMC should speak out solidly on the matter. (and soon. Especially, one would think, after the lambasting they gave +W about Fr A.)

Fr Pfeiffer was alerted last spring by one of his seminarians that Tetherow was a convicted pedophile who was defrocked. It was dismissed as being irrelevant.

I spoke with a different seminarian who said that he Googled Tetherow when he showed up mysteriously last year and was creeped out by what he found. He emphasized that he did not do an intensive search but a 5 minute Google.

Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko as well as the Pfeiffer family are totally aware as of today of the circuмstances of Tetherow. I can confirm that. Actions from this point forward will show if it is taken seriously or not.

Well then, that's that.