Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?  (Read 139370 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
« Reply #90 on: March 17, 2016, 07:28:39 AM »
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: ascent
:facepalm:

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?



Why?  All the reasons you say plus the expedience of having warm bodies donning clerical attire come aboard with a story that Father Pfeiffer, being the bull$#!++er he is, trusts that he can sell; and said warm bodies are probably stroking his ego just right.

Disclaimer:  Any puns contained in my post are, of course, unintentional, but quite amusing nonetheless.

Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
« Reply #91 on: March 17, 2016, 07:32:29 AM »
Quote from: Incredulous
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.


Jonestown kool-aid, anybody?


Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
« Reply #92 on: March 17, 2016, 07:42:42 AM »
Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
When the KC, MO SSPX lawyer asked me where Tetherow was before he came to York, I could not remember the name of the ONE man tiny “Monastery”. Looking up the priest name I found this article:

http://independentweekender.com/index.php/2011/03/23/priest-accused-of-sex-assault/

This is the priest that Mr.Tetherow, after being in York for two months spent the next two years with. While there, he communicated regularly with one or two members of SSP&P chapel. He told everyone “he had to go to that Monastery to help an invalid priest who needed someone to say Mass for him, take care of the farm animals…”

Only after a year+ after reading this article we read the canonical case and found out it was this Fr. “Angelus” (Philip Ferrara), who had petitioned to Cardinal Levada to allow Mr. Tetherow to spend the 2 years probation at his (T’s) request. At the end of the two years, he was eager to come. But he never mentioned the word probation.

Fr. “Angelus” was sentenced to jail a few months after this article.



The two queer massing priests are part of a larger coven.

We have to understand that point, there's a network.

And we need to know exactly how Tetherow came to know Pablo/pfieffer?


Perhaps Manuel and Dr. Drew could look into this--they seem to have some real bang-up sleuthing skills.

Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
« Reply #93 on: March 17, 2016, 09:51:09 AM »
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
When the KC, MO SSPX lawyer asked me where Tetherow was before he came to York, I could not remember the name of the ONE man tiny “Monastery”. Looking up the priest name I found this article:

http://independentweekender.com/index.php/2011/03/23/priest-accused-of-sex-assault/

This is the priest that Mr.Tetherow, after being in York for two months spent the next two years with. While there, he communicated regularly with one or two members of SSP&P chapel. He told everyone “he had to go to that Monastery to help an invalid priest who needed someone to say Mass for him, take care of the farm animals…”

Only after a year+ after reading this article we read the canonical case and found out it was this Fr. “Angelus” (Philip Ferrara), who had petitioned to Cardinal Levada to allow Mr. Tetherow to spend the 2 years probation at his (T’s) request. At the end of the two years, he was eager to come. But he never mentioned the word probation.

Fr. “Angelus” was sentenced to jail a few months after this article.



The two queer massing priests are part of a larger coven.

We have to understand that point, there's a network.

And we need to know exactly how Tetherow came to know Pablo/pfieffer?


Perhaps Manuel and Dr. Drew could look into this--they seem to have some real bang-up sleuthing skills.


I am looking into this and other things. What matters most is what is best for the faithful, that such a sin be driven away, and not hidden or explained away.

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
« Reply #94 on: March 17, 2016, 10:54:39 AM »
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: Tiffany
I wonder why the NO dismissed him when so many others they moved around and give  passports to so they escape legal proceedings. Was it because the law enforcement convicted him? So many others law enforcement did nothing even though reports were made.


His canonical case explains that it was 'because he actually admitted it to the local authorities'

Quote from: Fr. Andrew Greeley
But even in Chicago, the ring of predators about whom I wrote in the paperback edition of “Confessions” remains untouched. There is no evidence against them because no one has complained about them and none of their fellow Priests have denounced them. Those who have been removed are for the most part lone offenders who lacked the skill to cover their tracks. The ring is much more clever. Perhaps they always will be.  But should they slip, should they get caught, the previous scandals will seem trivial…. They are a dangerous group. There is reason to believe that they are responsible for at least one murder and may perhaps have been involved in the murder of the murderer. Am I afraid of them? Not particularly. They know that I have in safekeeping information which would implicate them. I am more of a threat dead than alive.
Fr. Andrew Greeley, Archdiocese of Chicago, Furthermore! Memories of a Parish Priest, 1999, pg. 80, died 5-29-2013



Not saying the info is wrong.  But I would hardly cite Andrew Greeley as a source.  He is a renegade.  You folks do recognize his name, right?  And about something as saucy as this topic, of all things.  Doesn't he have some quite explicit writings to his credit?  Same Fr. Andrew Greeley, right?




I am not endorsing Fr. Andrew Greeley who was a liberal Irish priest from Chicago. But at the same time, he was an educated sociologist, active in and knowledgeable about the archdiocese of Chicago, and very well read author. When he talks about the existence of a real hardcore ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network in the Catholic Church as he did in the quotation provided, he deserves to be listened to. Fr. Greely died three years ago and the quotation was published 17 years ago. What has become of the papers he claims to have stored away for his own protection that in the event of his death would expose the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network, who he claims are guilty of murder?