Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on March 14, 2016, 11:48:40 PM

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 14, 2016, 11:48:40 PM
Near the end, Fr. Pfeiffer mentions some of "his faithful" from Philadelphia going to Mass with a Fr. Tetherow, who he describes as a "friend priest".

Another independent priest no one has heard of before has come out of the woodwork? Oh boy.

Anyhow, does anyone know who this priest is?


Fr. mentions it around 44:14:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/awX8pdPxmSQ[/youtube]
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 15, 2016, 12:17:48 AM
Father Pfeiffer doesn't look good.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Caraffa on March 15, 2016, 12:20:27 AM
Fr. Tetherow is a convicted pedophile.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/TETHEROW.htm

How ironic that the title of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon is "Ecclesiastical Wickedness."
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 15, 2016, 12:51:37 AM
Matthew and Caraffa,

Thank you for the astute observations.

This is another example of why the trad forums are important.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 15, 2016, 12:59:01 AM
When my husband, D.M. Drew, believed Tetherow's lies, he offered twice to pay a lawyer to clear his name. He turned him down to which my husband replied: "Father, you would not be here if you were not defensible". We later found out that the whole time my husband was defending his name, he was calumniating us to the faithful to gain their support. He knew it was only a matter of time before my husband would discover all his lies.

People tells us: "He is very convincing". Yes, his whole existence depends on his lies and false accusations of any one who is on to him. By the time you realize what he is, your name is mud.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 15, 2016, 06:08:30 AM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Have Frs P and H been made aware of the open letter above? Does anyone know for certain?


If Fr. Hewko would like to speak to DMD, or myself, PM and I'll give you our cell phone #s. We have more to say. I have met Fr. Hewko and he may remember me. DMD is taking hospital call until Wed. morning.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TKGS on March 15, 2016, 06:45:07 AM
The linked article seems to indicate that this man was ordained by a New Rite bishop since he was part of a group established--at later suppressed--by a Conciliar bishop, thus his orders are, at best, doubtful.  Why would any traditional Catholic priest have anything to do with him whether or not he knew anything about his other problems?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 07:28:11 AM
All good questions.

So to summarize:

1. Fr. Tetherow is a newpriest ordained in the new Rite of ordination, which is at least doubtful. He has not been conditionally ordained.
2. Following on #1, no Resistance or traditional priest should be referring their Faithful to a priest whose orders are doubtful. Isn't this why we attack the neo-SSPX: for ceasing to conditionally ordain priests, embracing Vatican II as much as possible, suppressing the truth, etc.?
3. According to Maria Auxiliadora, a local, there is only one Fr. Tetherow in the area, so there's not a mix-up or mistaken identity (oh, how much better it would be if there were!)
4. It sounds like this Fr. Tetherow has problems with slander and lying -- he's a different kind of liar than Ambrose Moran was. Why does Fr. Pfeiffer attract so many liars and bad men to himself? Birds of a feather flock together? Water seeks its own level?
5. It would appear that there are not just a few skeletons in Fr. Tetherow's closet, but he actually is A) laicized by the Novus Ordo and B) convicted of pedophilia and C) found to have downloaded child porn.
6. Note that Fr. Pfeiffer seems quite content that at least "some" of "his faithful" are attending Mass with this doubtfully ordained, convicted pedophile "friend priest" of his, rather than his competition Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia who have no such stains and who are priests with 100% certain ordination and training.
7. But, like with Ambrose Moran, it doesn't matter HOW INSANE it is on the surface to support certain priests or "priests" -- what matters is that they stay on Fr. Pfeiffer's good side. If you're Fr. Pfeiffer's friend, it doesn't matter how seriously messed up you are (Pablo? Ambrose Moran? Fr. Tetherow?). Fr. Pfeiffer will defend you to the death. On the other hand, if you have somehow gotten on Fr. Pfeiffer's bad side, it doesn't matter how saintly you are (Fr. Zendejas? Fr. Voigt? +Williamson? +Faure?). You're in for a constant and unrelenting attack, even to the point of lying, slander, and maliciously distorting the truth.

Apparently in Fr. Pfeiffer's reality, the state of grace is intrinsically bound up with love of Fr. Pfeiffer instead of love of God! No one gets into heaven without the love of Pfeiffer in their soul?

I leave you with a Scripture quote:

Quote from: St. Matthew, chapter 7
[3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother' s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 15, 2016, 07:38:30 AM
Well that just squashed the tiny glint of hope I'd been desperately fostering. He is nowhere near recognizing his errors. He is as obstinate as ever.

I started around minute 40 and heard Fr DeMerode's name so I went back even more to get context. What is this meeting Fr DeMerode was not allowed to attend? Does anyone know more about this and the veracity of Fr Pfeiffer's version?

In the same breath that Fr Tetherow is a friend priest, Fr Zendejas is still red-lighted. BUT Frs P and H are soooo open and generous that they will still accept anyone at their Masses, even if they had been to Fr Z's Mass. As if that's what is meant when it's said that they are  "exclusive".  :facepalm: Who uses the word exclusive anyway? The appropriate word most are using is cultish. And yes, cults will always accept you IN. It's getting OUT that is the problem.

This is the twilight zone. Completely and utterly unbelievable. How? How is he drudging up these characters but refusing to work with his XSSPX confreres?!

He speaks as if his seminarians are being refused the sacraments but Holy Orders is not a right in the same sense that Baptism, Penance and Communion are. I'm sorry but if you are badly formed and a bishop won't ordain you, it is not an act of persecution. The visions of grandeur are really sickening. They make any chance of reform completely impossible. I struggle with being in complete denial that this is really how it's going to end for Frs P & H. It's heartbreaking.



 

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 08:01:24 AM
When the Conciliar Church thinks a priest needs to be laicized, that really says something about him!

http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/notice-regarding-dismissal-of-gabriel-tetherow/


Posted on: 03-4-2015 Posted in: News
This notice is to inform the Christian faithful that Virgil Bradley “Gabriel Francis” Tetherow, formerly a priest of the Diocese of Scranton, was dismissed from the clergy and returned to the lay state by the Holy Father, Pope Francis, on January 23, 2015. Mr. Tetherow was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Scranton June 29, 2002 and for one year after that was part of a private association known as the Servants Minor of Saint Francis, which was dissolved on November 17, 2003. In January 2005, Bishop Joseph F. Martino removed Mr. Tetherow from any public ministry when the Diocese of Scranton learned that he had been arrested for possession of child pornography, for which Mr. Tetherow was later sentenced to two years’ probation. Although resident in a rectory in Tobyhanna at the time, Mr. Tetherow never had a parish assignment in the Diocese of Scranton. Because he has been removed from the clerical state, Virgil Bradley “Gabriel Francis” Tetherow is forbidden to function as a priest in the Catholic Church and should no longer present himself as such.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: PAT317 on March 15, 2016, 08:16:04 AM
Quote from: TKGS
The linked article seems to indicate that this man was ordained by a New Rite bishop since he was part of a group established--at later suppressed--by a Conciliar bishop, thus his orders are, at best, doubtful.  Why would any traditional Catholic priest have anything to do with him whether or not he knew anything about his other problems?


A few years ago Fr. Pfeiffer said in a sermon that probably most Novus Ordo Masses are valid.  Which implies he doesn't have much if any doubt about validity of New Rite priests.  This is a difference I've noticed between him & Fr. Zendejas, because Fr. Z has made comments regarding the doubtfulness, and how/why the SSPX used to conditionally ordain.  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 08:22:29 AM
Quote from: PAT317
Quote from: TKGS
The linked article seems to indicate that this man was ordained by a New Rite bishop since he was part of a group established--at later suppressed--by a Conciliar bishop, thus his orders are, at best, doubtful.  Why would any traditional Catholic priest have anything to do with him whether or not he knew anything about his other problems?


A few years ago Fr. Pfeiffer said in a sermon that probably most Novus Ordo Masses are valid.  Which implies he doesn't have much if any doubt about validity of New Rite priests.  This is a difference I've noticed between him & Fr. Zendejas, because Fr. Z has made comments regarding the doubtfulness, and how/why the SSPX used to conditionally ordain.  


Can you say hypocrisy?

Fr. Pfeiffer's only claim to attack +Williamson was the latter's balanced (non-Sedevacantist) view of the Novus Ordo Mass. (Nota Bene: +Williamson never said anything like "you can attend the Novus Ordo Mass." He was talking to one specific woman who basically begged permission in so many words.)
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 15, 2016, 09:52:50 AM
Quote
Fr. Tetherow is a newpriest ordained in the new Rite of ordination, which is at least doubtful. He has not been conditionally ordained.


He was ordained at the same time as some Fraternity of St. Peter priests by + Fabian Bruskewitz to start his own Franciscan order "according to the primitive rule" (according to him).
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 15, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Matthew
When the Conciliar Church thinks a priest needs to be laicized, that really says something about him!


Not to take away from your point because I agree that we shouldn't be dealing with him, but I do wonder if the laicizations today are a bit candy-coated like the annulments. Not that I have any better solution, I really don't know what ought to be done with pedophile priests. But did laicization happen before now? I can't help wondering if a holier and more faithful Papacy would come up with a better solution that kept people safe but didn't minimize/disregard the eternal character of the priesthood.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Guardian Angel on March 15, 2016, 11:12:59 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Fr. Pfeiffer's only claim to attack +Williamson was the latter's balanced (non-Sedevacantist) view of the Novus Ordo Mass. (Nota Bene: +Williamson never said anything like "you can attend the Novus Ordo Mass." He was talking to one specific woman who basically begged permission in so many words.)

And according to you, does her begging justify His Excellency allowing her?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: obediens on March 15, 2016, 12:04:50 PM
Tetherow was LAICIZED. He is no longer able to offer any sacraments even privately, only to absolve in danger of death.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 15, 2016, 12:39:58 PM
Quote
Tetherow was LAICIZED. He is no longer able to offer any sacraments even privately, only to absolve in danger of death.


Well, could it be then that Fr. P was referring to another "Fr. Tetherow?"
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 12:43:18 PM
More bad news:

For the sake of the truth, I will give you "full disclosure" here.
This woman is not a friend of Fr. Pfeiffer, OR of the rest of the Resistance (+Williamson, +Faure, Fr. Zendejas, etc.) -- there's a REASON she was banned from CathInfo.

Quote
Dear Matthew,

This is ____ ____. I am banned from your forum so I must send this info through a forum member.

This Tetherow came to Boston last spring. Not only were the seminarians subjected to him without any warning about his true identity, but one of the seminarians, very familiar with his case, warned Fr. Pfeiffer about it. He was roundly ignored, just as universal public outcry about Ambrose was roundly ignored.

I spoke to that seminarian's father today, who provided this information; and also to another seminarian, who is absolutely disgusted to think that this creep was foisted upon the young men with no warning,

We have a situation analogous in seriousness to the Ambrose scandal: Fr. Pfeiffer locates a scuмbag that should not be allowed to cross paths with Catholics. He is warned. He ignores the warnings and subjects the sheep to the wolf.

Months after Ambrose was publicly exposed, Pfeiffer continues to use him in Colorado and Minnesota. An entire year after Pfeiffer is made aware of Tetherow's disgusting proclivities, he is subjecting his Philadelphia sheep to this scuм.

The hypocrisy is inarticulable. He red lights Catholic priests on scurrilous accusations against their doctrine, and then brings in a lying schismatic imposter. He even let that imposter hear confessions at OLMC on the Sunday he disgraced that chapel forever. Are not those confessions invalid?

Talk about straining the gnat only to swallow the camel.

Now we have an incidence of grave immorality committed by the priests of OLMC - not the first by a long shot.

How can it not be a grave sin to attend their Masses and give them money? How?

In Christ,

_____
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: JPM on March 15, 2016, 12:45:44 PM
Quote from: Matthew
When the Conciliar Church thinks a priest needs to be laicized, that really says something about him!

http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/notice-regarding-dismissal-of-gabriel-tetherow/


Posted on: 03-4-2015 Posted in: News
This notice is to inform the Christian faithful that Virgil Bradley “Gabriel Francis” Tetherow, formerly a priest of the Diocese of Scranton, was dismissed from the clergy and returned to the lay state by the Holy Father, Pope Francis, on January 23, 2015. Mr. Tetherow was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Scranton June 29, 2002 and for one year after that was part of a private association known as the Servants Minor of Saint Francis, which was dissolved on November 17, 2003. In January 2005, Bishop Joseph F. Martino removed Mr. Tetherow from any public ministry when the Diocese of Scranton learned that he had been arrested for possession of child pornography, for which Mr. Tetherow was later sentenced to two years’ probation. Although resident in a rectory in Tobyhanna at the time, Mr. Tetherow never had a parish assignment in the Diocese of Scranton. Because he has been removed from the clerical state, Virgil Bradley “Gabriel Francis” Tetherow is forbidden to function as a priest in the Catholic Church and should no longer present himself as such.


A laicized, convicted child pornographer!? It didn't exactly take an investigation of Ambrosian proportions to come to this knowledge. Do they have the internets and Googles in Boston?

What.In.The.Hell.Is.Going.On.Down.On.The.Farm?!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 12:46:34 PM
This is really bad news for Boston, KY.

Has anyone made this connection? Fr. Hewko must know about this -- about Fr. Tetherow I mean. And he hasn't got the word out in any way that I know of. So he is morally complicit in this! He is culpable.

It's very sad, because a lot of people still like Fr. Hewko. But the poor man is unfortunately choosing "obedience to Fr. Pfeiffer" and letting himself be corrupted. We need many prayers and sacrifices for this priest.

Can we get a bunch of people writing to Fr. Hewko or calling him? Maybe we can try to wake him up. If this situation doesn't wake him up, I don't know what possibly could!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: JPM

A laicized, convicted child pornographer!? It didn't exactly take an investigation of Ambrosian proportions to come to this knowledge. Do they have the internets and Googles in Boston?

What.In.The.Hell.Is.Going.On.Down.On.The.Farm?!


My thoughts exactly.

And to answer your question, undoubtedly "yes" they have the Internet in Boston. As a matter of fact, this Fr. Pfeiffer video was already uploaded and live by MONDAY when the sermon was given sometime Sunday! That rather large 56 minute sermon MP4 video was uploaded with a pretty short turnaround.

For those who have never uploaded such a file, let me say: my Fr. Voigt sermons usually run around 3,000 MB and that's for a 30 minute sermon. So a 56 minute video could be as much as 5,600 MB.

Not only do they have Internet, but someone has a respectable, high-speed connection to it!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 15, 2016, 01:07:21 PM
I have done some research in this matter. Although a David M. Drew offered testimony on behalf of this Father Tetherow, he may have also withdrawn his positive testimonial. I am reading more about this, and getting a time line in order.

Nevertheless, this matter is a grave concern, one which I must ask Father Pfeiffer about. I hope and pray that this situation is not as dire as it seems.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 15, 2016, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: IHS
He's the fifth Resistance priest with such a background, but why is he being singled out, purely because he's been mentioned by Fr. Pfeiffer? If it was Bp. Williamson it would be OK, right?



He is the fifth convicted, laicized pedophile "priest" in the Resistance?? What rock am I under not to have heard of the others?



Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 01:15:36 PM
Quote from: IHS
He's the fifth Resistance priest with such a background, but why is he being singled out, purely because he's been mentioned by Fr. Pfeiffer? If it was Bp. Williamson it would be OK, right?


Don't be so superficial.

Firstly, please note the CONVICTED adjective. I am not aware of any other convicted pedophile priests in Tradition.

A priest who downloads child pornography to his computer is a very sick puppy. And apparently there was enough evidence to convict him in a court of law. Also, the court of law in question didn't throw out the case or drop the charges. That is another important point. Especially when comparing the Tetherow case to other cases, shall we say.

Quote from: As an aside
NOTE: We're not talking about the Johnnies (the Society of St. John, Shahola, PA in the late 1990s) wherein several SSPX seminarians got caught up in a group of art loving aesthetes, love of Greek philosophy, etc. and generally got caught up in a movement. Several seminarians, deacons, and a couple priests left the SSPX to start the Society of St. John. Note that St. John was the one who loved Our Lord and rested on Our Lord's chest during the Last Supper. This group got into the Greek notion of "close male friendship" and so forth. Like I said, "got caught up in" is a good description. A lot of real young, impressionable young men might have been caught up in this, and done a few things they perhaps regretted later.

And without being vulgar, let's just say that when talking about perversion, there's a scale of 1 to 10 -- with 10 being "going all the way". The graver and lower the depravity, the greater long-term damage it does to one's soul.


Secondly, note that he was laicized. To draw the ire of the Conciliar establishment really says something about a priest. There is quite a homo/pedo "lavender mafia" within the Conciliar Church, so it's remarkable that even THEY didn't try to give him psychological counseling, sweep his misdeeds under the rug, or try to move him around or otherwise cover up for him.

(Yes, Wallflower, I understand your point that the modern Church considers the priesthood on far too natural/human a level. But nevertheless, sometimes laicization, a.k.a. "do not present yourself as a priest any longer" is the traditional solution.)

P.S. I suggest you withdraw yourself from Fr. Pfeiffer's group, lest the poison affect you further. Just look at how your mind is already poisoned against +Williamson. I mean, honestly! Suggesting that +Williamson would send his faithful to a convicted, laicized pedophile! Give His Excellency some credit, will you? Most people normally would, if they hadn't been reading the Wreckusant and Pablo's filth for many months.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matto on March 15, 2016, 01:30:00 PM
There are rumors spread by his enemies but who knows what is true.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 15, 2016, 02:04:37 PM
Well, sorry MC, but this pretty much puts the cap on the outhouse as far as I'm  concerned. I had hopes that OLMC might recover from the Ambrose debacle, but this looks like the death rattle. If Frs P and H are KNOWINGLY sending a CONVICTED LAICIZED  PERVERT to serve their faithful and mingle with their seminarians--then I don't see any coming back from that. Get your brother the H out of there and drag Fr Hewko with you - straight to the de-programmer!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 15, 2016, 02:24:04 PM
Quote from: hollingsworth
Quote
Tetherow was LAICIZED. He is no longer able to offer any sacraments even privately, only to absolve in danger of death.


Well, could it be then that Fr. P was referring to another "Fr. Tetherow?"


There is only one "Fr. Tetherow". His father has the same name but there is no other priest by that name.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 02:40:26 PM
I just sent an earnest, heartfelt plea to Fr. Hewko.

That's Fr. Hewko at fr.d.hewko@gmail.com

I said what needed to be said, and was very charitable. I told him we are praying for him, and many other things.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 15, 2016, 02:50:05 PM
Quote from: wallflower
Quote from: Matthew
When the Conciliar Church thinks a priest needs to be laicized, that really says something about him!


Not to take away from your point because I agree that we shouldn't be dealing with him, but I do wonder if the laicizations today are a bit candy-coated like the annulments. Not that I have any better solution, I really don't know what ought to be done with pedophile priests. But did laicization happen before now? I can't help wondering if a holier and more faithful Papacy would come up with a better solution that kept people safe but didn't minimize/disregard the eternal character of the priesthood.



Yes, they can strip you in a blink of an eye which doesn't say much for their orders. Our priest was threatened with "excommunication" if he didn't leave the "Schismatic" (independent) chapel and sign the "P.F." and "O.F. to the pope" ("Doctrinal Preamble") which they sent to him by mail. He refused to leave and they did it. Then they threatened to laicize him and they did it without a canonical process (Letters on the webpage). He has also been conditionally re-ordained.

"Fr. Tetherow" canonical process went on for years.  We found the evidence and incriminating pictures. "Fr. Tetherow" will always blame "his enemies", as Matto suggests. We believed that for years. We pray for his salvation. I did the 30 Holy Communions personally for it. So...there!

The two oldest boys of the main family who supports him have lost the faith. I prefer not to go into it. They were pious altar boys when they left the Mission. The next three children in line (teenagers) are now in the public schools and their mother hasn't spoken to her sister (a traditional Catholic) for years because she knows what "Fr. Tetherow" is.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 03:03:59 PM
Quote from: Matto
There are rumors spread by his enemies but who knows what is true.


I don't think we can dismiss it that easily.

1. We heard Fr. Pfeiffer speak about his "friend priest Fr. Tetherow" with his own mouth, posted on his own channel.

2. We looked up Fr. Tetherow, and there are the facts large as life.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/TETHEROW.htm
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/notice-regarding-dismissal-of-gabriel-tetherow/

3. We also have the testimony of one local to the area (Maria Auxiliadora) who attests that there is only (1) Fr. Tetherow in the area.


Sorry, but I don't think we can just shrug this off as so much Internet rumor. I wish we could!

P.S. It's really hard to generalize about "the Internet" when you're talking about 3.17 billion people. You might as well try to generalize about people in general.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 15, 2016, 04:34:22 PM
Well, count on Fr. Pfeiffer, this Tetherow matter will simply get him talking faster and longer.  He'll merely accelerate the rhetoric.  He'll start talking so fast and so furiously that the only phrase the average person will understand is:  "We're standing with the truth."
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matto on March 15, 2016, 05:04:47 PM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Matto
There are rumors spread by his enemies but who knows what is true.


I don't think we can dismiss it that easily.

1. We heard Fr. Pfeiffer speak about his "friend priest Fr. Tetherow" with his own mouth, posted on his own channel.

2. We looked up Fr. Tetherow, and there are the facts large as life.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/TETHEROW.htm
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/notice-regarding-dismissal-of-gabriel-tetherow/

3. We also have the testimony of one local to the area (Maria Auxiliadora) who attests that there is only (1) Fr. Tetherow in the area.


Sorry, but I don't think we can just shrug this off as so much Internet rumor. I wish we could!

P.S. It's really hard to generalize about "the Internet" when you're talking about 3.17 billion people. You might as well try to generalize about people in general.

I know many rumors are true. But I hope it is not true.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 05:18:59 PM
From the mailbag:

Quote
Dear cathinfo

Fr Tetherow is also on Bishop Accountablitiy
What caught my eye was an arrest in West Orange NJ at At Anthony of Padua
This is the original chapel Fr Wickens started and was turned over to the diocese of Newark after his death.
Fr Tetherow also states he was Mr Oregon sometime after high school on his classmate account
Fr Tetherow has also been serving a small chapel in southern NJ.
Also, in 2013 his name appeared on your site on an anonymous thread.

There is a lot on this ex priest, keep digging.

Concerned in NJ
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 15, 2016, 05:38:37 PM
Quote from: Matthew
From the mailbag:

Quote
Dear cathinfo

Fr Tetherow is also on Bishop Accountablitiy
What caught my eye was an arrest in West Orange NJ at At Anthony of Padua
This is the original chapel Fr Wickens started and was turned over to the diocese of Newark after his death.
Fr Tetherow also states he was Mr Oregon sometime after high school on his classmate account
Fr Tetherow has also been serving a small chapel in southern NJ.
Also, in 2013 his name appeared on your site on an anonymous thread.

There is a lot on this ex priest, keep digging.

Concerned in NJ





http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2005_03_18_Birk_PriestFaces_Virgil_Tetherow_2.htm
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 15, 2016, 05:56:27 PM
Quote
The Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, has advised the
Conference of its concerns regarding Fr. Gabriel Francis (Virgil
Bradley) Tetherow, an incardinated priest of the Diocese who
was arrested for possession of child pornography in March
2005. Fr. Tetherow’s case is pending before the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. It has recently come to the
attention of the Diocese that Fr. Tetherow is celebrating Mass
for apparently schismatic group in York, Pennsylvania. Fr.
Tetherow’s faculties were removed and he is forbidden to
engage in any public ministry. Those needing further
information are asked to contact James B. Early, Chancellor of
the Diocese of Scranton, at 570-207-2216.


http://dioceseofcleveland.org/memo/2008/11-08/memo.pdf
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 15, 2016, 06:09:36 PM
Quote
Tetherow affair Rev. Virgil Bradley Tetherow (Father Gabriel), ordained in 2002. Case sent to Vatican for review. Privileges were removed when he was found celebrating mass in PA. Working as priest at traditionalist Catholic congregation in York until May 2010.

Tetherow porn I Tetherow downloaded and viewed images of child pornography while staying at St. Ann's Church rectory in Tobyhanna, Pa. in January 2005. He was arraigned on 10 counts each of sɛҳuąƖ abuse of children and criminal use of a communication facility, both third-degree felonies, 17 March 2005.

Tetherow porn II He was arrested in West Orange NJ while staying at St. Anthony of Padua. Pleaded guilty to one charge of criminal use of a communication facility; sentenced to two years probation.


http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Diocese_of_Scranton
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 15, 2016, 06:20:38 PM
Quote
The Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg has recently been informed that
Virgil Bradley “Gabriel Francis” Tetherow, formerly a
priest of the Diocese of Scranton, has been dismissed
from the clerical state by the Holy Father, Pope Francis. In
January of 2005, Bishop Joseph F. Martino removed Mr.
Tetherow from any public ministry when the Diocese of
Scranton learned that he had been arrested for possession
of child pornography, for which Mr. Tetherow was later sentenced
to two years’ probation. Most recent indications are
that Mr. Gabriel Tetherow has been serving at Saint Michael
the Archangel Chapel in Windsor, Pennsylvania. This
Chapel is not affiliated in any way with the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg
or with the Roman Catholic Church. Because Mr.
Tetherow has now been removed from the clerical state, he
is forbidden to function as a priest in the Catholic Church

and should no longer present himself as a priest. His celebration
of the sacraments would be gravely illicit and, in the
case of marriage and sacramental absolution, normally invalid.


http://stjosephslanc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/03223207.pdf
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 15, 2016, 06:27:44 PM
Quote
“An organization calling itself ‘Saint Michael the Archangel
Roman Catholic Church’ has been established in York County,
claiming to offer Catholic sacraments to the Faithful of the
Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg. Notice is hereby given that this is not an
authentic Catholic parish and the priest associated with this
organization, Reverend Gabriel Francis Tetherow, an
incardinated priest of the Diocese of Scranton, does not possess
faculties to celebrate sacraments within the Catholic Church
.
There is no connection between this organization and the
Catholic Dioceses of hαɾɾιsburg or Scranton.”


http://www.skdparish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1214243.pdf
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 15, 2016, 06:32:48 PM
Please don't Google "Mr Oregon".  Suffice it to say it's a beauty pageant for leather-clad sodomites.  

 :facepalm:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: thebloodycoven on March 15, 2016, 06:45:02 PM
It's a rare occasion when we ought to follow the directive and example of a Novus Ordo "bishop". The former "Father" Tetherow has been "laicized" and is no longer to function and be treated as a "priest". So now Fr. Pfeiffer must consider the danger MR. Tetherow can bring to his flock. Not only of his pedophilia proclivity, but of the possibility of having invalid sacraments.

Everyone in the Resistance must be warned of the great danger this Mr. Tetherow can bring.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 07:57:29 PM
Quote from: thebloodycoven
It's a rare occasion when we ought to follow the directive and example of a Novus Ordo "bishop". The former "Father" Tetherow has been "laicized" and is no longer to function and be treated as a "priest". So now Fr. Pfeiffer must consider the danger MR. Tetherow can bring to his flock. Not only of his pedophilia proclivity, but of the possibility of having invalid sacraments.

Everyone in the Resistance must be warned of the great danger this Mr. Tetherow can bring.



The laicization of this priest is probably just -- let's keep in mind that normally a Catholic can't just disregard the censures of Rome! It's only when Rome wields these punishments illegitimately and unjustly against innocent priests (e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre) that you can disregard things like censures, suspensions, and excommunications. Normally only a protestant flagrantly disregards these actions of the Catholic Church!

So we should respect these censures in the case of Fr. Tetherow, considering they were clearly just. Next, it doesn't take away his priesthood. That is permanent.

The issue TRADS should have with his priesthood is A) the legitimate penalty he has incurred, B) his grave derelicts in his past, and C) the fact he was ordained in the new Rite, and hasn't been conditionally ordained yet.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Motorede on March 15, 2016, 08:15:56 PM
Sorry. Instead,search: Off my knees+ Fr. Gabriel.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 08:23:40 PM
Here's the picture of Fr. Tetherow:

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 09:05:26 PM
Yes, again and again I see Fr. Pfeiffer, Pablo, Greg Taylor, Maccabees, etc. that whole group engage in the psychological phenomenon of PROJECTION, where a person projects their own faults onto their adversary, and then proceeds to lambast them.

It's kind of like "the pot calling the kettle black", only it's more like "the pot calling the (red) strawberry black." No, the strawberry isn't black, but as a matter of fact YOU are black, Mr. pot!

It's also a modern political technique. Don't go on the defensive; that can make you appear weak and passive. Rather than wait for your adversary to attack you, attack HIM with whatever you are guilty of! That way, if he ends up attacking you, it will seem like a desperate, tit-for-tat, "me too" maneuver.

It's also extremely bold and gutsy -- it takes a lot of chutzpah to pull that off. You also have to be pretty good at lying. Basically it's a Donald Trump kind of move.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 09:37:11 PM
1. I don't hate Trump.
2. Yes, I admit that was a cheap shot.
3. I agree that we shouldn't derail this thread, and that goes for me as well.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2016, 11:00:15 PM
Guess who?

This was drawn by a Dougherty brother.

This person certainly has a talent for caricatures -- exaggerating certain prominent features of a person in a cartoon drawing.

I think it really captures his essence.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 15, 2016, 11:24:25 PM
 NOTICE FROM THE DIOCESE OF hαɾɾιsBURG
The Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg has recently been informed that Virgil Bradley
“Gabriel Francis” Tetherow, formerly a priest of the Diocese of Scranton, has
been dismissed from the clerical state by the Holy Father, Pope Francis.
In January of 2005, Bishop Joseph F. Martino removed Mr. Tetherow from
any public ministry when the Diocese of Scranton learned that he had been
arrested for possession of child pornography, for which Mr. Tetherow was
later sentenced to two years’ probation.
Most recent indications are that Mr. Gabriel Tetherow has been serving at
Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel in Windsor, Pennsylvania. This Chapel
is not affiliated in any way with the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg or with the Roman
Catholic Church.
Because Mr. Tetherow has now been removed from the clerical state, he
is forbidden to function as a priest in the Catholic Church and should no
longer present himself as a priest. His celebration of the sacraments would
be gravely illicit and, in the case of marriage and sacramental absolution,
normally invalid.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 16, 2016, 02:45:04 AM
Quote from: Motorede
Sorry. Instead,search: Off my knees+ Fr. Gabriel.


Since my husband's first retraction, we found evidence of his addiction to pornography which led to the child pornography and admition that in fact he meant to do it. No accident.

He is a con artist with acting training (small parts in one or two movies, I don't know more), speech lessons...and a Calvin Kline model. We found out after his dismissal from SSP&P that he showed some women in the chapel pictures of his modeling underwater. We were told by one of the husband's. He also showed such pictures or/and his "Mr Oregon" pictures  to a priest who was visiting and who was greatly disturbed by it.

A woman at the chapel gave me a paper copy of a vain interview he gave to a Lancaster, PA magazine with a very effeminate picture. The magazine figured out who he was and immediately deleted the article. He was a "traditional" priest then. We didn't find out he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ until an elderly priest told me two days before his dismissal and he told me he had warned one of the families that followed him.

Anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt will repent some day as we did.



Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 16, 2016, 03:35:05 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
I have done some research in this matter. Although a David M. Drew offered testimony on behalf of this Father Tetherow, he may have also withdrawn his positive testimonial. I am reading more about this, and getting a time line in order.

Nevertheless, this matter is a grave concern, one which I must ask Father Pfeiffer about. I hope and pray that this situation is not as dire as it seems.



MC,

While you're researching yet another "Boston, KY PR crisis", please ask Father Pfeiffer to advise how many times Fr. Tetherow was on the OLMC property?

(https://michaelbaumann.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/tetherow-classmate.jpg?w=206&h=300)

What year(s) did he visit and how did Father become acquainted with him?

These are reasonable questions Father should come forth and answer.

Thank you.

PS  As with Bp. Marrano, the appearance of such characters leads us to suspect
that "pablo" is in charge of OLMC's religious recruitment program?   :scratchchin:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Croix de Fer on March 16, 2016, 05:39:47 AM
 :facepalm:

First, Ambrose. Now, Tetherow.

Apparently, somebody has never heard of a screening process.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 16, 2016, 07:35:14 AM
OLMC is very tolerant of queers.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 16, 2016, 09:13:59 AM
Quote from: Incredulous

PS  As with Bp. Marrano, the appearance of such characters leads us to suspect
that "pablo" is in charge of OLMC's religious recruitment program?[/color]


I am thinking Pablo gets way too much credit and Fr Hewko not enough. I am grateful to those who still have hope for Fr Hewko and are willing to plead with him. Maybe they can make up for the anger I am wrestling with. For me, he and Fr Pfeiffer are as guilty as the other. There is *nothing* keeping Fr Hewko there and going along with the madness but his own will. He left the SSPX when he saw fit, he could leave Fr Pfeiffer if he saw fit. But he hasn't. At this point he is as guilty as Fr Pfeiffer even if he is "simply" a follower or an enabler or whatever other excuses being made for him.

 
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 16, 2016, 09:17:22 AM
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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 16, 2016, 10:27:38 AM
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

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 16, 2016, 10:32:56 AM
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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 16, 2016, 10:50:37 AM
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



It sounds like he took a plea deal on a different charge. There are so many cases though where the NO has covered things up and law enforcement did nothing. The PA dioceses are against statute of limitations reform too.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ihsv on March 16, 2016, 10:51:02 AM
Some people take rigid positions on things that don't call for it, and take lax positions on things that do.  They end up digging a hole for themselves and, rather than climb out when its shallow enough, they end up deeper and deeper, until they are finally so deep that it takes a miracle of grace to get them out.

The shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered.  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 16, 2016, 10:52:26 AM
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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 16, 2016, 11:07:19 AM
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.


Good question.

I would think it meant he wasn't "playing ball" with his superiors or had gone off the deep end.   :thinking:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 16, 2016, 11:13:24 AM
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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 16, 2016, 11:16:08 AM
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?

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora 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.


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy 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?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant 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.)
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Recusant Sede 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!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Recusant Sede 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 16, 2016, 07:08:10 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: Motorede
Sorry. Instead,search: Off my knees+ Fr. Gabriel.


Since my husband's first retraction, we found evidence of his addiction to pornography which led to the child pornography and admition that in fact he meant to do it. No accident.

He is a con artist with acting training (small parts in one or two movies, I don't know more), speech lessons...and a Calvin Kline model. We found out after his dismissal from SSP&P that he showed some women in the chapel pictures of his modeling underwater. We were told by one of the husband's. He also showed such pictures or/and his "Mr Oregon" pictures  to a priest who was visiting and who was greatly disturbed by it.

A woman at the chapel gave me a paper copy of a vain interview he gave to a Lancaster, PA magazine with a very effeminate picture. The magazine figured out who he was and immediately deleted the article. He was a "traditional" priest then. We didn't find out he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ until an elderly priest told me two days before his dismissal and he told me he had warned one of the families that followed him.

Anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt will repent some day as we did.





That was underwear (my Iphone changed it). I do not give names because my purpose it's only to open people's eyes,  not to embarrass or insult his followers who were (before Tetherow) my good friends.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 16, 2016, 07:34:55 PM
This article (with link) reveals that the “child porn” images Tetherow downloaded were images of male adolescents in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts.  This is a double perversion: the age and the nature of the acts are both crimes.

It should be made clear to Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko by anyone who can reason with them that we can prove by sworn statements and photos that Tetherow was a frequent visitor to Fr. Kloton long before the suppression of his order by Bishop Martino and his being "framed".  We can also prove by sworn affidavits that Fr. Kloton, a priest with a history of substance abuse requiring clinical admission and suspected ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, had pornography on his personal computers that the clerical staff at St. Ann took to Bishop Timlin. We can prove that Tetherow confessed to this crime to the police, the courts, the diocese, and to Rome in his canonical case to prevent his laicization. And much besides this can be proven that everything written in his defense that he still passes around are based upon lies.  I am sure that Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko have never read my husband’s retraction and public apology for defending this sɛҳuąƖ predator.

Emphasis mine on one of the paragraphs.
 
Quote


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341710/posts?page=168

Child porn images found at Tobyhanna rectory (Catholic Church)

Scranton Times-Tribune ^ | 2/11/2005 | CHRIS BIRK
Posted on 2/12/2005, 7:39:16 AM by Born Conservative

TOBYHANNA (PA)
-- At least two computers from the St. Ann's church rectory contain images of child pornography, according to Pocono Mountain Regional Police, who continue to search for illicit images.

A visiting priest has admitted to police that he downloaded and viewed pornographic images, according to an affidavit of probable cause. But detectives are still trying to determine "what's on a computer, and is that illegal, and if it is, who's looking at it," Detective Sgt. Jeff Bowman said earlier this week.
"The investigation is far from complete," he said.

On Jan. 17, after tips funneled into police headquarters, two detectives began digging into child porn allegations at the rectory. The parish priest, the Rev. Michael Kloton, had already contacted authorities about the allegations, according to the affidavit of probable cause.

A man brought in to clean up the hard drives of the rectory computers discovered images of young men engaged in sɛҳuąƖ acts on a computer used by the church secretary, the priest told detectives. Father Kloton agreed to a voluntary search, and detectives removed the computer a day later.

The state police Computer Crime Task Force discovered about 10 images of children under 18 engaged in sɛҳuąƖ acts or in simulated sex acts. Police then received permission to confiscate all of the rectory computers, which are linked on a common server, along with Father Kloton's personal laptop computer.

On Jan. 20, a full forensic examination found one computer with images of child pornography. After returning the others to the rectory, detectives were given another computer to search -- this one used by a visiting priest.

Eleven days later, the visiting priest, the Rev. Gabriel Tetherow, traveled to Pocono Mountain police headquarters and admitted to downloading and viewing images of child pornography on the secretary's computer, "and that he also used the computer from upstairs located in his room" at the rectory, according to the affidavit.

He told police there "could be" images of child pornography on the computer that had been in his room.


Detectives obtained a search warrant Feb. 2 to check that computer's hard drive for illegal images.

So far, no arrests have been made.

Acting Diocese of Scranton spokesman Bill Genello said the diocese is fully cooperating with Pocono Mountain detectives.
Contacted at St. Ann's rectory, Father Kloton referred all questions to the diocese.
"I'm not at liberty to say anything at this point," he said.


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 16, 2016, 08:25:12 PM
Recusant Sede,

You, being a fervent Sedevacantist, (as evidenced by your choice of screen name -- your very identity here) represent the minority "tolerated" opinion on CathInfo. This is not a sedevacantist board; it is a Traditional Catholic board which doesn't EXCLUDE sedevacantists. There is a difference.

There's nothing I can say that you will agree with on this issue. We fundamentally disagree on the state of the Papacy.

But to answer your question, YES, a Catholic can know with moral certainty when something is just WRONG and when something is fine. It's called the sensus Catholicus, or Catholic sense. Saying we can't make a prudential judgment call on something like this is akin to saying that human beings can't attain to the truth, like some kind of relativist philosophers would have us believe.

Since YOU brought it up, I will give you my opinion: I personally think it's crazy when some Sedevacantists claim that we can't go ahead with any kind of moral certainty and disobey the pope when he's severely destroying the Church -- we have to deny his papacy; that's the only answer.

But any further discussion of the Papacy needs to be taken to the Crisis in the Church subforum.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Prayerful on March 16, 2016, 08:27:05 PM
I can foresee Mr Tetherow harming another child while posing as a priest, and this being blamed on Tradition or more particularly the Resistance, and that by the loose, lazy words of journalists, any Tetherow misdeed will get blamed on Bp Williamson. Bp Williamson is a 'h0Ɩ0cαųst Denier' for the msm. Maybe not. I pray that all concerned do the right thing, in particular that Mr Tetherow gets treatment and acts as the layman he is now.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 12:28:02 AM
I was 95% sure of this:

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
We didn't find out he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ until...


...when I go to this point:

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Since my husband's first retraction, we found evidence of his addiction to pornography which led to the child pornography and admition that in fact he meant to do it. No accident.

He is a con artist with acting training (small parts in one or two movies, I don't know more), speech lessons...and a Calvin Kline model.


And 99.9% sure when I got to this point:

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
He also showed such pictures or/and his "Mr Oregon" pictures  to a priest who was visiting and who was greatly disturbed by it.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 12:39:42 AM
Quote from: thebloodycoven
So now Fr. Pfeiffer must consider the danger MR. Tetherow can bring to his flock. Not only of his pedophilia proclivity, but of the possibility of having invalid sacraments.


My understanding is that Mr. Tetherow was "ordained" in the bastardized rite.  So yes--invalid sacraments.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 12:47:28 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Next, it doesn't take away his priesthood. That is permanent.


Can't take away what he never had.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 01:44:24 AM
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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 01:53:08 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
I have done some research in this matter. Although a David M. Drew offered testimony on behalf of this Father Tetherow, he may have also withdrawn his positive testimonial. I am reading more about this, and getting a time line in order.

Nevertheless, this matter is a grave concern, one which I must ask Father Pfeiffer about. I hope and pray that this situation is not as dire as it seems.


You should change your handle to something like DetectiveHugo or DeputyFife.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 17, 2016, 01:58:26 AM
Quote from: Prayerful
I can foresee Mr Tetherow harming another child while posing as a priest, and this being blamed on Tradition or more particularly the Resistance, and that by the loose, lazy words of journalists, any Tetherow misdeed will get blamed on Bp Williamson. Bp Williamson is a 'h0Ɩ0cαųst Denier' for the msm. Maybe not. I pray that all concerned do the right thing, in particular that Mr Tetherow gets treatment and acts as the layman he is now.



Yeah pray for him, get him into the Confessional, but molesters of children honestly deserve the business end of .0306 rifle.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 17, 2016, 02:01:20 AM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: thebloodycoven
So now Fr. Pfeiffer must consider the danger MR. Tetherow can bring to his flock. Not only of his pedophilia proclivity, but of the possibility of having invalid sacraments.


My understanding is that Mr. Tetherow was "ordained" in the bastardized rite.  So yes--invalid sacraments.


Yeah, give it to em OCHA... the stinking, the dirty, THE BASTARD RITE!   :jumping2:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 17, 2016, 02:11:06 AM
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?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
OLMC is very tolerant of queers.


This point has the makings of an interesting new thread.

I can already hear a voice squealing at Matthew demanding he shut it down though.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 07:12:54 AM
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?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 17, 2016, 07:19:43 AM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
[quoting Tetherow] take care of the farm animals…


This is a troubling statement.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA 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?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez 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.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora 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?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
[quoting Tetherow] take care of the farm animals…


This is a troubling statement.


I don't understand your statement. There were goats and can't remember what else according to Mr. T
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 11:18:17 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?


There is a possibility that they met through a common very good friend: Fr. Marshall Roberts
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: sea leopard on March 17, 2016, 11:31:42 AM
Yesterday my friend spoke on phone with Fr. Tetherow and he said he was ordained by Bishop Bruskowitz, in the old rite for the old rite. (what means "for the old rite") in 2002. He was 38 years old then.
.
.
I googled a hundred  plus pages and it sure don't look good.
Here is a picture of his church outside.

Here is a picture of his church inside..

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 17, 2016, 11:54:16 AM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
[quoting Tetherow] take care of the farm animals…


This is a troubling statement.


I don't understand your statement. There were goats and can't remember what else according to Mr. T


RealMcCoy is (perhaps facetiously) hinting at bestiality.

Which, I might point out, isn't called for here. Anything beyond "mere" ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and pedophilia is speculation and we don't need to go there. Let's stick to the actual facts -- they are grave enough!

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 11:55:32 AM
Quote
Yesterday my friend spoke on phone with Fr. Tetherow and he said he was ordained by Bishop Bruskowitz, in the old rite for the old rite.


That has already been stated a few pages back.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 17, 2016, 12:19:07 PM
Quote from: Centroamerica



Seriously! What is going on with these accused (and in this case convicted?) priests in Tradition?


I guess people are desperate for a Trad priest -- they are rare after all.

BUT when you factor that in, it's all the more horrifying when a GREAT priest, one without a "past", like Fr. Zendejas or Fr. Garcia, has to say Mass for just one family of 8 plus 1 or 2 individuals (which has happened!) That seems like a great travesty -- an injustice.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 17, 2016, 12:32:10 PM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Centroamerica



Seriously! What is going on with these accused (and in this case convicted?) priests in Tradition?


I guess people are desperate for a Trad priest -- they are rare after all.

BUT when you factor that in, it's all the more horrifying when a GREAT priest, one without a "past", like Fr. Zendejas or Fr. Garcia, has to say Mass for just one family of 8 plus 1 or 2 individuals (which has happened!) That seems like a great travesty -- an injustice.


Has nothing to do with desperation. It's because the powers that be ignore warnings about sodomite predators.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 12:43:51 PM
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.




I must make a correction to this post.

 Fr. "Angelus" (Philip Ferrara, aka Ferrar) worked with Mr.Tetherow's civil lawyer and the civil court. Mr.Tetherow plea bargained from child porn charges to misuse of a computer and was sentenced to two years in prison.  Fr. "Angelus" made it possible for Tetherow to spend his two years imprisonment at his one man monastery.

Fr. "Angelus" also worked with Mr. Tetherow's canon lawyer and submitted a letter of recommendation to Cardinal Levada recommending Mr. Tetherow not be laicized and that his time at his monastery should be accepted as appropriate canonical penance (?).

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ihsv on March 17, 2016, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: Centroamerica



Seriously! What is going on with these accused (and in this case convicted?) priests in Tradition?


"Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that offends God the most, and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them."

"That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell. … The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated souls. He tries to corrupt them in order to lull to sleep the souls of laypeople and thereby lead them to final impenitence. He employs all tricks, even going so far as to suggest the delay of entrance into religious life. Resulting from this is the sterility of the interior life, and among the laypeople, coldness (lack of enthusiasm) regarding the subject of renouncing pleasures and the total dedication of themselves to God."

-- Sr. Lucy
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 17, 2016, 02:16:22 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Fr. "Angelus" also worked with Mr. Tetherow's canon lawyer and submitted a letter of recommendation to Cardinal Levada recommending Mr. Tetherow not be laicized and that his time at his monastery should be accepted as appropriate canonical penance (?).



I hope everyone is disabused of the illusion that Chester the Molester would be trying to pass himself off as a solid traditionalist had he not been run out of conciliarist prietenderhood on a rail.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 03:52:57 PM
My husband and I just spoke on the phone with someone who ask for permission to pass on my posts to Fr. Pfeiffer. I told him it was public information and that I post with the understanding that every one knows my identity (Fr. Kramer made that clear on a long thread a while ago). For the record, I'm C. Drew, wife of David Drew who publicly defended Mr. Tetherow and who publicly offered a retraction and apology of his defense (2010). This retraction was written long before we got Mr. Tetherow's canonical papers. The gentleman we spoke to had never seen this before :

For those who have never seen it, here it is:
Quote

Retraction of my defense of Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow offered with a public apology:


I first met Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow when he was a Franciscan seminarian and was favorably impressed. I believed him to be honest and upright of character. When he told me that he was innocent of intentionally downloading child pornography and was not able to defend himself against these charges without compromising the confessional seal, I made an effort to examine the particulars of his case and found sufficient circuмstantial evidence to support a reasonable doubt to question the truth of the charges against him. His excuse for entering a plea bargain with the prosecution was simple moral weakness, seeking an end to an ugly situation while lacking financial and diocesan support. Human failures of this kind, although not approved, are understandable. My decision to defend Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow was grounded firstly and primarily upon the personal worth of his character, secondly, upon the obligation of every Catholic to help restore the unjustly damaged reputation of others, but especially a Catholic priest, and lastly upon the particular evidence relating to the charges of downloading child pornography.

Over the last two years, but particularly over the last six months, I have gotten to know Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow far better. I admit to having made a serious error in judgment of his character. He has been repeatedly caught in acts of deceit, detraction and calumny supported by several witnesses. The evidence of habitual and willful moral failings was placed before expert legal counsel who advised his immediate removal. It was also placed before an elderly priest, a canon lawyer of sound judgment, who, after a thorough investigation, said that I had an obligation to remove him directly as well as a moral responsibility to make amends for having brought him to our Mission. This priest said from the pulpit of Ss. Peter and Paul Chapel in York on June 13, 2010 that “he was removed for cause and the cause was just.” He also shared the evidence with another elderly priest, who regularly assists at SSPX chapels, who also agreed with his removal.

I can no longer justify any assumption of Fr. Tetherow’s claim of innocence with regard to his criminal conviction. He has deceived me, and he continues to deceive many others, that he is a man of virtue, but the truth always comes out in the end. It is with regret, but with a sense of moral obligation, that I hereby formally retract anything I have said or written in his defense. I apologize to anyone who may, based upon my defense, have presumed that he has been unjustly persecuted by the judicial authorities and the diocesan officials in Scranton. His public record is that of a convicted felon on child pornography related charges, and I caution anyone, who places themselves or their families in his trust, to bear this fact in mind.

David M. Drew
Chairman
Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 17, 2016, 06:03:30 PM
Thanks for sharing the retraction statement MA.  

Its a substantial character statement for Mr. Tetherow.

If Fr. Pfeiffer was duped too, why won't he admit it?





Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Regina on March 17, 2016, 06:54:02 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
My husband and I just spoke on the phone with someone who ask for permission to pass on my posts to Fr. Pfeiffer. I told him it was public information and that I post with the understanding that every one knows my identity (Fr. Kramer made that clear on a long thread a while ago). For the record, I'm C. Drew, wife of David Drew who publicly defended Mr. Tetherow and who publicly offered a retraction and apology of his defense (2010). This retraction was written long before we got Mr. Tetherow's canonical papers. The gentleman we spoke to had never seen this before :

For those who have never seen it, here it is:
Quote

Retraction of my defense of Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow offered with a public apology:


I first met Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow when he was a Franciscan seminarian and was favorably impressed. I believed him to be honest and upright of character. When he told me that he was innocent of intentionally downloading child pornography and was not able to defend himself against these charges without compromising the confessional seal, I made an effort to examine the particulars of his case and found sufficient circuмstantial evidence to support a reasonable doubt to question the truth of the charges against him. His excuse for entering a plea bargain with the prosecution was simple moral weakness, seeking an end to an ugly situation while lacking financial and diocesan support. Human failures of this kind, although not approved, are understandable. My decision to defend Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow was grounded firstly and primarily upon the personal worth of his character, secondly, upon the obligation of every Catholic to help restore the unjustly damaged reputation of others, but especially a Catholic priest, and lastly upon the particular evidence relating to the charges of downloading child pornography.

Over the last two years, but particularly over the last six months, I have gotten to know Fr. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow far better. I admit to having made a serious error in judgment of his character. He has been repeatedly caught in acts of deceit, detraction and calumny supported by several witnesses. The evidence of habitual and willful moral failings was placed before expert legal counsel who advised his immediate removal. It was also placed before an elderly priest, a canon lawyer of sound judgment, who, after a thorough investigation, said that I had an obligation to remove him directly as well as a moral responsibility to make amends for having brought him to our Mission. This priest said from the pulpit of Ss. Peter and Paul Chapel in York on June 13, 2010 that “he was removed for cause and the cause was just.” He also shared the evidence with another elderly priest, who regularly assists at SSPX chapels, who also agreed with his removal.

I can no longer justify any assumption of Fr. Tetherow’s claim of innocence with regard to his criminal conviction. He has deceived me, and he continues to deceive many others, that he is a man of virtue, but the truth always comes out in the end. It is with regret, but with a sense of moral obligation, that I hereby formally retract anything I have said or written in his defense. I apologize to anyone who may, based upon my defense, have presumed that he has been unjustly persecuted by the judicial authorities and the diocesan officials in Scranton. His public record is that of a convicted felon on child pornography related charges, and I caution anyone, who places themselves or their families in his trust, to bear this fact in mind.

David M. Drew
Chairman
Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission




Thank you for sharing this valuable information.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 08:10:20 PM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Quote from: Matthew
From the mailbag:

Quote
Dear cathinfo

Fr Tetherow is also on Bishop Accountablitiy
What caught my eye was an arrest in West Orange NJ at At Anthony of Padua
This is the original chapel Fr Wickens started and was turned over to the diocese of Newark after his death.
Fr Tetherow also states he was Mr Oregon sometime after high school on his classmate account
Fr Tetherow has also been serving a small chapel in southern NJ.
Also, in 2013 his name appeared on your site on an anonymous thread.

There is a lot on this ex priest, keep digging.

Concerned in NJ





http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2005_03_18_Birk_PriestFaces_Virgil_Tetherow_2.htm


Quote from: link above
On Jan. 31, Father Tetherow drove to Pocono Mountain police headquarters and admitted to downloading child porn from January to December 2004 on the secretary's computer as well as the one in his rectory room , according to the criminal complaint.

A search executed days later on the computer from Father Tetherow's room uncovered more than 10 images of children between the ages of 9 to 13 engaged in sɛҳuąƖ acts or simulated acts.

He had been accessing the Internet with the user name "Father Gabriel," according to the complaint. Earlier this winter, Father Tetherow had been working at St. Anthony of Padua in West Orange, N.J., brought in by friend and pastor the Rev. John Perricone.


Is anyone here familiar with Fr. Perricone? I never met him but have been told by several people who have attended St. Anthony's chapel, Orange, NJ (Well known to have been willed to the SSPX) that he is a "notorious ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" in the diocese of Newark. Any comments? My sources seem very reliable.

The quotes in bold are for the gentleman who called us today.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 09:03:03 PM
I apologize for the comment on Fr. Perricone. It was not prudent on my part.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 09:08:39 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
I apologize for the comment on Fr. Perricone. It was most imprudent on my part.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Regina on March 17, 2016, 09:57:54 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
I apologize for the comment on Fr. Perricone. It was not prudent on my part.


For the sake of our children we need to know about any special friendship between Fr. Teherow and Fr. Perricone. Lord have mercy.

When I grew up, it was the age of innocence, but children my age were being molested in secret in Irish orphanages, in boarding schools, in Franciscan seminaries, etc. Children could not complain because their parents and priests would not believe them, they would be branded as liars, and their lives would be ruined. So they remained silent.

Innocence lost

When my son grew up, it was all over the news, in print, on the TV, on the radio, and on the Internet. We screened the news and only watched the nightly news so that he would not be offended. However, when he was only four years old, he started to read the newspapers. We did not realize this until he stated that he did not want to attend Mass because he was afraid of the priests and what he had read in the newspapers about a certain Father Kelly who had escaped to Ireland. This priest was an associate pastor in our parish. Therefore, when he made his first confession three years later, he was absolutely terrified of priests.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Motorede on March 17, 2016, 10:31:40 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
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?


There is a possibility that they met through a common very good friend: Fr. Marshall Roberts
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 17, 2016, 10:34:19 PM
I have no certainty. A lady who lived in NYC for a long time and gets around (in her late fifties) claims to have known both priests for a long time and assures me that is the case but don't know her well enough to form my conscience. All I know for certain is that Mr. Tetherow went directly to Fr. Perricone when he took over the chapel and became his assistant until his arrest.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Motorede on March 17, 2016, 10:37:48 PM
Covens,networks,Yikes! then tetherow,perricone,ferrara,levada and now another possible link to them I did not want to hear about: Fr Marshall Roberts? Please say it ain't so! :facepalm:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 17, 2016, 10:47:02 PM
I tried commenting on the YouTube video, but someone kept deleting my comments.  Maybe they didn't like what I had to say...  :confused1:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: sea leopard on March 18, 2016, 01:52:16 AM
AJNC.

.

Please....... Your definition of a pedophile.

.
.
.   Your accusation  if they are "known"
.
.
.NAME THEM PLEASE.

.
(not shouting, for effect only)
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: AJNC on March 18, 2016, 03:47:25 AM
Quote from: sea leopard
AJNC..

Please....... Your definition of a pedophile..
.
.   Your accusation  if they are "known".
.
.NAME THEM PLEASE.
.
(not shouting, for effect only)


Not my accusation at all! Was mentioning a post on another Resistance forum.

My only input was to wonder how a loose association (of bishops and priests ) produces such a thing. There are (non-SSPX) Traditional Catholic bishops and priests in Europe, Mexico and the US in loose association with one another for many years now and there seem to be no problems.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 18, 2016, 08:08:29 AM
Quote from: Don
lord preserve us from gossipy so called catholics playing the telephone game. if you have concerns do it right and take it to law enforcement and church authorities to investigate otherwise shut the hell up because thats where your all headed.


Hey Don please keep me in your prayer intentions that I may overcome my temptation to gossip and I'll pray for you to overcome pride.  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 08:34:04 AM
AJNC,

If you thought you needed to post random s*** from Pablo on this forum, I'm here to clarify: you don't.

There's a reason I banned pablo from this forum.

Morality doesn't even ENTER THE PICTURE when Pablo decides what he's going to do and going to say. Slandering a priest is all the same to him as praising another priest. Sin has become that habitual and easy for him.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 08:43:25 AM
Quote from: AJNC
Quote from: sea leopard
AJNC..

Please....... Your definition of a pedophile..
.
.   Your accusation  if they are "known".
.
.NAME THEM PLEASE.
.
(not shouting, for effect only)


Not my accusation at all! Was mentioning a post on another Resistance forum.

My only input was to wonder how a loose association (of bishops and priests ) produces such a thing. There are (non-SSPX) Traditional Catholic bishops and priests in Europe, Mexico and the US in loose association with one another for many years now and there seem to be no problems.


Indeed.

Regarding your first sentence "on another Resistance forum" -- that's almost an exaggeration. Those other "fora" mis-named after the great Archbishop Lefebvre are a complete joke now. Both of them together have had about 7 posts since Passion Sunday. Even the Admin doesn't post there. Can you say GHOST TOWN?

I'm not going to let some random verbal hitman post stuff on CathInfo, just because "it was posted elsewhere" -- when he or one of his friends merely started a quick forum on a free forum site :)

My point: It's baseless slander that you quoted, and no forum with more than a ghost town's traffic would allow such nonsense. So I'm not going to feel the least bit guilty when I delete it (which is what it deserves). I hope this clarifies things.

P.S. You (and who you got it from: Pablo, Fr. Pfeiffer's other attack dogs, etc.)  can drop that number down a bit. Fr. Dominic Mary of the Pillar and Fr. Marshall Roberts are the SAME MAN. And quit mentioning that other Father, who was never accused of anything CLOSE to what we're talking about with Fr. Tetherow. With that priest, there was never even an ACCUSATION of homo, much less pedo.

But once again, Pablo loves to add confusion where good men would like to add clarity. He also likes to spread lies where most good men would prefer to discern and promote the truth.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Paul FHC on March 18, 2016, 08:53:07 AM
OLMC and it's followers must tread carefully. There may come a time when more light must be shed.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: Paul FHC
OLMC and it's followers must tread carefully. There may come a time when more light must be shed.


What is this, a teaser trailer?

Either shed or get off the pot.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2016, 09:13:29 AM
To the person who asked for the affidavits and the benefit of others:

The same woman, Mrs. Louise Carbonaro, who's Affidavit my husband used in the defense of Mr. Tetherow, writes in a second affidavit:

Quote from: Affidavit from Mrs. louise Carbonaro
I briefly met Fr. Tetherow once and thought he was a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest and holy man. However, I thought the brothers that lived with him were very effeminate and wasn't sure what to think of Tetherow...


Mr. Tetherow himself gave my husband a copy of these affidavits. We thought the above quote was odd but had no idea at the time that Mr. Tetherow himself was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Now, in light of his own canonical case this is just another affirmation. I only have paper copies of these affidavits, they have been taken off the internet. I will fax it to anyone who would like to see them. I should repeat that Mr. Tetherow always seemed quite uncomfortable with my husband offering him to pay for a lawyer to clear his name. Ironically, it is my husband's reputation and my own that has suffered at the hands of the very man we defended.

We have pictures of Mr. Tetherow proudly labeled "St Ann, Tobyhanna, December 28. 2002" in which he is socializing with  the very priests whose computers were loaded with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ porn as explained in the affidavits and where Mr. Tetherow was "FRAMED" in 2005. I can email them to Matthew, I don't know how to post pictures.


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 09:39:06 AM
Go ahead and e-mail them. I can easily post them.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2016, 09:50:47 AM
Matthew, please PM an email address I can use from my cell phone. I will take pictures of the photos and send you the originals if you want. There are two labeled pictures 8x10 but one of them has the assistant Pastor in the front and Mr. Tetherow in the background in his Franciscan habit as we met him (with a beard).
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: AJNC on March 18, 2016, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: Matthew
AJNC,

If you thought you needed to post random s*** from Pablo on this forum, I'm here to clarify: you don't.

There's a reason I banned pablo from this forum.

Morality doesn't even ENTER THE PICTURE when Pablo decides what he's going to do and going to say. Slandering a priest is all the same to him as praising another priest. Sin has become that habitual and easy for him.


I have absolutely nothing to do with this Pablo guy. Nothing at all. I knew Fr Pfeiffer very well when he was in India and I came to my own conclusion about him long before I ever heard about this Pablo.

I was browsing that forum earlier today and I saw the comment. Why did I quote it here? Because the post mentioned these priests and because such a situation, even if true, was blamed on the "loose association".


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
I should repeat that Mr. Tetherow always seemed quite uncomfortable with my husband offering him to pay for a lawyer to clear his name.


Big clue.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 10:04:00 AM
Quote from: AJNC
Quote from: Matthew
AJNC,

If you thought you needed to post random s*** from Pablo on this forum, I'm here to clarify: you don't.

There's a reason I banned pablo from this forum.

Morality doesn't even ENTER THE PICTURE when Pablo decides what he's going to do and going to say. Slandering a priest is all the same to him as praising another priest. Sin has become that habitual and easy for him.


I have absolutely nothing to do with this Pablo guy. Nothing at all. I knew Fr Pfeiffer very well when he was in India and I came to my own conclusion about him long before I ever heard about this Pablo.

I was browsing that forum earlier today and I saw the comment. Why did I quote it here? Because the post mentioned these priests and because such a situation, even if true, was blamed on the "loose association".


Well you and I both know that his blaming on the "loose association" is crap; you yourself gave the reason! Plenty of Trad groups have been independent or loosely associated over the years and never had a problem with pedophilia.

And basic logic would suffice, don't you think?

What part of having a loose network of independent chapels (rather than a strong authoritative structure like the SSPX) causes a few priests to A) become ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and B) prey upon children?

Just take your average priest -- do you think the power structure of the organization he's a part of is going to change his temptations to sins of the 6th/9th even 0.00001%? Of course not! Why would it?

And by the way, there hasn't been a single incident of sɛҳuąƖ abuse in the Resistance. Whatever priests have skeletons in their closets -- Fr. Tetherow included -- already had those skeletons safely stored away before the Resistance was even born. So why try to correlate the two, unless you are insane? (I guess that explains it then, doesn't it? Pablo is insane)

There is simply no causation there.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 10:15:11 AM
Actually, I should clarify what I said.

Pablo isn't insane, he's crazy like a fox. He's part of Fr. Pfeiffer's team of hitmen, who have been enlisted to DESTROY THE RESISTANCE.

Yes, you heard me right. Fr. Pfeiffer & Co. want to destroy the entire Resistance at large. If they had the ability, they would convince every Trad man, woman and child to avoid
+Williamson
+Faure
Fr. Zendejas
Fr. Garcia
Fr. Voigt
etc.
etc.

And the same would happen to buildings and chapels not in union with Boston, KY: +Faure's seminary, Fr. Zendejas' chapels, etc.

He would like to have LITERALLY on the street pretty much every Resistant priest that isn't Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko, or  perhaps a few others who acknowledge Fr. Pfeiffer's "primacy". Or perhaps rather than wanting to see them homeless, he'd prefer to take them in under his wing and wise guidance.

Why would Fr. Pfeiffer want to decimate the Resistance in this way?

The answer is simple. Back in 2013, Fr. Pfeiffer WAS the Resistance. That was probably the best year of his life. He was flying high, in demand, everyone he saw (Resistance faithful all around the US and around the world) was happy to see him. Everyone wanted him. That did wonders for his ego. Things were growing and "happening", and Fr. Pfeiffer lives off excitement.

If he could somehow turn back the clock, or turn back the growth of the Resistance to 2013 levels -- back to its infancy (which would require lots of DESTRUCTION at this point, let's face it!), then Father would be in demand again.

His motivation is so obvious a baby could figure it out.

If we took everything he said at face value, just look at the picture it would paint. All the Resistance outside Boston, KY is a no-go, the SSPX is a no-go, sedevacantism is a no-go, Ambrose is a valid bishop, I'm running a seminary, the world needs priests/bishops, there are almost no priests/bishops left, It's us vs. the entire world, we're being persecuted, that's why Ambrose consecrated me a bishop...

You get the picture. Again, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out Fr. Pfeiffer's motivations. Just listen to everything he says and put it all together, to figure out his goals and how he sees the world.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 10:22:15 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Actually, I should clarify what I said.

Pablo isn't insane, he's crazy like a fox. He's part of Fr. Pfeiffer's team of hitmen, who have been enlisted to DESTROY THE RESISTANCE.

Yes, you heard me right. Fr. Pfeiffer & Co. want to destroy the entire Resistance at large. If they had the ability, they would convince every Trad man, woman and child to avoid
+Williamson
+Faure
Fr. Zendejas
Fr. Garcia
Fr. Voigt
etc.
etc.

Pretty much every Resistant priest that isn't Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko, or  perhaps a few others who acknowledge Fr. Pfeiffer's "primacy".

Why would Fr. Pfeiffer want to decimate the Resistance?

The answer is simple. Back in 2013, Fr. Pfeiffer WAS the Resistance. That was probably the best year of his life. He was flying high, in demand, everyone he saw (Resistance faithful all around the US and around the world) was happy to see him. Everyone wanted him. That did wonders for his ego. Things were growing and "happening", and Fr. Pfeiffer lives off excitement.

If he could somehow turn back the clock, or turn back the growth of the Resistance to 2013 levels -- back to its infancy (which would require lots of DESTRUCTION at this point, let's face it!), then Father would be in demand again.

His motivation is so obvious a baby could figure it out.

If we took everything he said at face value, just look at the picture it would paint. All the Resistance is no-go, the SSPX is no-go, sedevacantism is a no-go, Ambrose is a valid bishop, I'm running a seminary, the world needs priests/bishops, there are almost no priests/bishops left, that's why Ambrose consecrated me a bishop...

You get the picture. Again, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out Fr. Pfeiffer's motivations. Just listen to everything he says and put it all together, to figure out his goals and how he sees the world.


Have you tried to comment on this particular video? I see that someone has posted information about Tetherow there. It seems that Pablo believes Tetherow's side of the story, despite the evidence provided. It is possible that Tetherow is that good of a snake oil salesman, that he has duped everyone in Boston. I tried posting on the video eight times, but my posts, all but one, were deleted.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 10:24:20 AM

Maria, are you sure the one you pointed to is Tetherow? I thought Fr. Tetherow looked like the man directly to the right of that one.

The man in the picture with the two laymen looks like the Fr. Tetherow picture I posted earlier in the thread.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 18, 2016, 10:28:16 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Actually, I should clarify what I said.

Pablo isn't insane, he's crazy like a fox. He's part of Fr. Pfeiffer's team of hitmen, who have been enlisted to DESTROY THE RESISTANCE.

Yes, you heard me right. Fr. Pfeiffer & Co. want to destroy the entire Resistance at large. If they had the ability, they would convince every Trad man, woman and child to avoid
+Williamson
+Faure
Fr. Zendejas
Fr. Garcia
Fr. Voigt
etc.
etc.

And the same would happen to buildings and chapels not in union with Boston, KY: +Faure's seminary, Fr. Zendejas' chapels, etc.

He would like to have LITERALLY on the street pretty much every Resistant priest that isn't Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko, or  perhaps a few others who acknowledge Fr. Pfeiffer's "primacy". Or perhaps rather than wanting to see them homeless, he'd prefer to take them in under his wing and wise guidance.

Why would Fr. Pfeiffer want to decimate the Resistance in this way?

The answer is simple. Back in 2013, Fr. Pfeiffer WAS the Resistance. That was probably the best year of his life. He was flying high, in demand, everyone he saw (Resistance faithful all around the US and around the world) was happy to see him. Everyone wanted him. That did wonders for his ego. Things were growing and "happening", and Fr. Pfeiffer lives off excitement.

If he could somehow turn back the clock, or turn back the growth of the Resistance to 2013 levels -- back to its infancy (which would require lots of DESTRUCTION at this point, let's face it!), then Father would be in demand again.

His motivation is so obvious a baby could figure it out.

If we took everything he said at face value, just look at the picture it would paint. All the Resistance outside Boston, KY is a no-go, the SSPX is a no-go, sedevacantism is a no-go, Ambrose is a valid bishop, I'm running a seminary, the world needs priests/bishops, there are almost no priests/bishops left, It's us vs. the entire world, we're being persecuted, that's why Ambrose consecrated me a bishop...

You get the picture. Again, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out Fr. Pfeiffer's motivations. Just listen to everything he says and put it all together, to figure out his goals and how he sees the world.


Matthew this seems pretty far fetched. He helped raise support for Bishop Williamson when he was expelled from the SSPX.  For months you were complaining that Father Pfeiffer didn't contact you.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 10:29:09 AM
Here is the pic of Fr. Tetherow I posted earlier.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 10:36:13 AM
Quote from: Tiffany

Matthew this seems pretty far fetched. He helped raise support for Bishop Williamson when he was expelled from the SSPX.  For months you were complaining that Father Pfeiffer didn't contact you.


No it's not far-fetched. I'm not making any of this up, it's all stuff Fr. Pfeiffer has said in his sermons. Shouldn't we assume that Fr. wants us to believe him and take appropriate action?

That's not far fetched at all.

If you just imagine the world as it would look if everyone believed Fr. Pfeiffer at face value, you can figure out the world that Fr. Pfeiffer is pushing for. It's simple.

And no, Tiffany, this isn't the book Nineteen Eighty Four, where "my opponent is pure evil and thus I was never friends with pure evil (are you crazy?), so I have to rewrite history accordingly..."

No. I'll happily admit that I strongly supported Fr. Pfeiffer when he first started the Resistance, before he did anything reprehensible. He was a different man back then. He wasn't attacking other priests, he seemed to be on the same side as Bishop Williamson, he didn't require the Red Light the SSPX position, he certainly wasn't red-lighting other Resistance priests, Ambrose Moran was still unknown, etc.

Are you going to accuse Fr. Voigt of inconsistency as well, because he joined them and was part of their group for a time, but later on left the group?

Bishop Williamson, plenty of priests, and countless laymen have left Fr. Pfeiffer AFTER he starting doing reprehensible things. That is praiseworthy. You can't know what a person or group is going to become in the future.

Heck, just look at the SSPX! I strongly supported that group too -- until they compromised. Then I promptly cut off my support and left.

I don't know what your line of thinking is here -- is this why so many people support Fr. Pfeiffer today? Because they supported him once, so they think they're stuck? Give me a break! You can always get out, and you don't even have to blame yourself or admit you made a mistake.

The only mistake is to CONTINUE TO SUPPORT a man who has clearly fallen, and to bend over backwards making excuses for him.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2016, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Maria, are you sure the one you pointed to is Tetherow? I thought Fr. Tetherow looked like the man directly to the right of that one.

 
ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN !!! We met Mr. Tetherow as a seminarian and as a Franciscan priest he came to say Mass for us at the Comfort Inn in Lancaster, PA. He had a beard and a bit heavier. Anyone from Scranton, PA or FSSP priest or faithful can affirm it.

Fr. Wilfredo Comellas was a Cuban priest. The couple with him may be his parents, I don't know. Try to find his obituary, he died Sunday, November 10th, 2013
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 10:41:16 AM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: Matthew
Maria, are you sure the one you pointed to is Tetherow? I thought Fr. Tetherow looked like the man directly to the right of that one.

 
ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN !!! We met Mr. Tetherow as a seminarian and as a Franciscan priest he came to say Mass for us at the Comfort Inn in Lancaster, PA. He had a beard and a bit heavier. Anyone from Scranton, PA or FSSP priest or faithful can affirm it.

Fr. Wilfredo Comellas was a Cuban priest. Try to find his obituary, he died Sunday, November 10th, 2013


The picture I just posted  (a few posts ago), is that Fr. Tetherow as well?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2016, 10:51:15 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: Matthew
Maria, are you sure the one you pointed to is Tetherow? I thought Fr. Tetherow looked like the man directly to the right of that one.

 
ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN !!! We met Mr. Tetherow as a seminarian and as a Franciscan priest he came to say Mass for us at the Comfort Inn in Lancaster, PA. He had a beard and a bit heavier. Anyone from Scranton, PA or FSSP priest or faithful can affirm it.

Fr. Wilfredo Comellas was a Cuban priest. Try to find his obituary, he died Sunday, November 10th, 2013


The picture I just posted  (a few posts ago), is that Fr. Tetherow as well?


See this link, page 7 of the newsletter. It has a picture of Fr. Wilfredo Comellas.
http://dioceseofscrantonarchive.org/clight/CatholicLight11-14-13.pdf

I used a marker to point out Mr. Tetherow because most people now would not recognize him. I suggest you put the two pictures side by side.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 18, 2016, 10:55:07 AM
Moderator Edit: Sorry, but you're going to have to bring some kind of proof with an accusation like that.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 18, 2016, 11:10:11 AM
Matthew there is a difference between no longer supporting someone or pointing out errors than saying they want other clergy destitute.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 11:29:20 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
It is possible that Tetherow is that good of a snake oil salesman, that he has duped everyone in Boston.


How good of a snake oil salesman would it take to dupe everyone in Boston?   :roll-laugh1:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: Matthew
Maria, are you sure the one you pointed to is Tetherow? I thought Fr. Tetherow looked like the man directly to the right of that one.

 
ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN !!! We met Mr. Tetherow as a seminarian and as a Franciscan priest he came to say Mass for us at the Comfort Inn in Lancaster, PA. He had a beard and a bit heavier. Anyone from Scranton, PA or FSSP priest or faithful can affirm it.

Fr. Wilfredo Comellas was a Cuban priest. Try to find his obituary, he died Sunday, November 10th, 2013


The picture I just posted  (a few posts ago), is that Fr. Tetherow as well?


Yes, that was taken at SSP&P Mission chapel for the vain interview he gave to the Magazine: "Connections" May, 2009. (While I and another lady were making vestments in the basement of the chapel) I have a paper copy of that article but pictures are very dark and was deleted by the Magazine as soon as they checked him out.

I suggested in another post you put the picture of Fr. Comellas by side with Mr. Tetherow's. The priest the black marker arrow points at is  most certainly Mr. Tetherow.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Quote from: Matthew

Maria, are you sure the one you pointed to is Tetherow? I thought Fr. Tetherow looked like the man directly to the right of that one.

The man in the picture with the two laymen looks like the Fr. Tetherow picture I posted earlier in the thread.


As I said in my email, Mr.Tetherow is the person facing the camera behind Fr. Comellas and the couple I don't recognize. I know personally Mr. Tetherow's mother. It's not her and his Father remarried decades ago. Anyone who knew Mr. T as a Franciscan would identify him. The pictures were found under his bed in a shoe size box a while after his dismissal while cleaning.

Edit: I thought it would show the pictures.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 18, 2016, 12:30:28 PM
Yikes! Incred!     :shocked: :fryingpan:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 18, 2016, 12:57:49 PM
re: Incred's insinuations: Early on in 2012, while they were stopping over at my home, I was serving Frs P and C breakfast, and heard them discussing some priests they might contact about the resistance. They asked me about a couple of priests I knew, whether I thought they might be disposed to meet with them.  Sometimes a name would come up, and one or the other would dismiss that person with a derisive look and the comment that the particular priest was "very sweet", with an odd inflection. Slow on the uptake, it took weeks  to dawn on me what was being conveyed.  So, I doubt very much that they would purposely choose to associate with such types.
Just a small anecdote, so take it for what it's worth...

 
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: Tiffany
Matthew there is a difference between no longer supporting someone or pointing out errors than saying they want other clergy destitute.


Has Fr. Pfeiffer ever limited (set well-defined boundaries on) his hatred/attacks on these priests? Or does he detest them with such vitriol that you get the impression he doesn't care what happens to them? Has Fr. Pfeiffer ever explicitly described any boundaries, or said how he wants his enemies to make a living? He certainly doesn't put on the kid gloves in his attacks against these priests.

I said in my post that Fr. Pfeiffer PROBABLY is hoping to "humble" these priests/bishops and have them drag themselves back to Fr. Pfeiffer to join his group and beg forgiveness.

So perhaps even he isn't hoping for their total destruction.

But don't kid yourself -- he's talked about them being evil, he certainly thinks they're all in mortal sin, and Pablo (his other half) talks about Satan in conjunction with these priests. Fr. Pfeiffer & Co might very well intend their enemies' total destruction, in this world AND in the next. Yes, that seems horrifying to the ears of any good Catholic.

But we're not dealing with good Catholics here.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 01:18:53 PM
Another picture, this one of Fr. Wilfredo Comellas

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 18, 2016, 02:14:53 PM

I will stand by what I said:

1. The Pablo/pfeiffer singular relationship is unnatural and sick.
2. Pablo is a docuмented liar, who projects his sins onto others as a defense mechanism.

Concerning the curses, there is testimony by seminarians, observations by holy religious, by the faithful on many accounts.

I believe you're aware Paul Hernandez spent years in Phoenix as a lay exorcist?  

So, you, being Catholic, believe in the devil and the supernatural, right?
Then tell me, how was Paul Hernandez able to "cast out demons"?

The answer is, He wasn't.  The next logical Catholic conclusion is... a man playing with the occult... has demons.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 18, 2016, 02:18:07 PM

Incred is correct in saying that Fr P and Pablo have a singular relationship. It doesn't have to be sɛҳuąƖ to be sick and unnatural. I've known a few people to have very unhealthy attachments to each other and nothing sɛҳuąƖ about it.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 02:22:41 PM
Quote from: Incredulous


I will stand by what I said:

1. The Pablo/pfeiffer singular relationship is unnatural and sick.
2. Pablo is a docuмented liar, who projects his sins onto others as a defense mechanism.

Concerning the curses, there is testimony by seminarians, observations by holy religious, by the faithful on many accounts.

I believe you're aware Paul Hernandez spent years in Phoenix as a lay exorcist?  

So, you, being Catholic, believe in the devil and the supernatural, right?
Then tell me, how was Paul Hernandez able to "cast out demons"?

The answer is, He wasn't.  The next logical Catholic conclusion is... a man playing with the occult... has demons.


Have you been to or spent any time in Boston?

Have you any docuмented evidence of your claims?

Pablo did claim to be a lay exorcist. That little is true. Don't go mixing lies and deception with that which is docuмented and true.

I have been to Boston. I have experience there. My brother is there now. I have spoken with many who have been to or still are in Boston. I have not heard any claims of occultism or nefarious food manipulation.

Go to confession. You have borne false witness against thy neighbor.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 02:32:31 PM
Incredulous may or may not be aware that his type of posts are exactly what gives Pablo and Father Pfeiffer ammunition against Cathinfo. The truth, such as the sins of Father Tetherow, is mixed with lies and deception, such as the alleged poisoned food.

Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 18, 2016, 02:32:34 PM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
re: Incred's insinuations: Early on in 2012, while they were stopping over at my home, I was serving Frs P and C breakfast, and heard them discussing some priests they might contact about the resistance. They asked me about a couple of priests I knew, whether I thought they might be disposed to meet with them.  Sometimes a name would come up, and one or the other would dismiss that person with a derisive look and the comment that the particular priest was "very sweet", with an odd inflection. Slow on the uptake, it took weeks  to dawn on me what was being conveyed.  So, I doubt very much that they would purposely choose to associate with such types.
Just a small anecdote, so take it for what it's worth...

 



Father Chazal?  

Oh, then "very sweet" sounds like it could be a "European" comment.

Boy, I bet the conversations between the Mexican and Fr. Pfieffer would fill this forum with 5-years of topics.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 18, 2016, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Incredulous may or may not be aware that his type of posts are exactly what gives Pablo and Father Pfeiffer ammunition against Cathinfo. The truth, such as the sins of Father Tetherow, is mixed with lies and deception, such as the alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, and poisoned food.

Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.



Destruction of Cathinfo?

Double-check your bearings MC.

It's OLMC that's on fire and going down in flames.


(https://forum.netweather.tv/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3201%2F3130109117_65bb2217e2.jpg&key=25e012a53f87c4fa61130f1926e7ee1536acedb5d44f5eda7b33ccab0529ba12)
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Incredulous may or may not be aware that his type of posts are exactly what gives Pablo and Father Pfeiffer ammunition against Cathinfo. The truth, such as the sins of Father Tetherow, is mixed with lies and deception, such as the alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, and poisoned food.

Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.



Destruction of Cathinfo?

Double-check your bearings MC.

It's OLMC that's on fire and going down in flames.


(https://forum.netweather.tv/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3201%2F3130109117_65bb2217e2.jpg&key=25e012a53f87c4fa61130f1926e7ee1536acedb5d44f5eda7b33ccab0529ba12)


Yes, destruction, because you have spread lies and deception. Your words are evil and unfounded. Begone.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: drew on March 18, 2016, 03:00:38 PM
I spoke to a person reading this thread a few days ago who has been in communication with Tetherow and Fr. Pfeiffer. The conversation was interesting for two points: firstly, Fr. Pfeiffer has made no inquiry whatsoever into Tetherow's past. He has simply taken Tetherow's word for everything and will hear nothing to the contrary.  And secondly, the information provided by Tetherow in his defense to the Caller already contains several lies that can be proven with a simple internet search. Normally, when you learn that the person you are interviewing for a job is lying to you, you end the interview unless lying is part of the job description.

The truth of the matter is that I have no dog in this fight.  Fr. Pfeiffer and Tetherow were both engaged as agents of the SSPX in the past for the purpose of destroying our Mission and its chapel.  They were not successful but did do material damage to our work. They really deserve each other and the outcome of their collaboration is easier to predict than yesterday's news.  The only thing that is not certain is whether or not this end is exactly what Fr. Pfeiffer is intending.

Still, the eventual outcome of Fr. Pfeiffer's collaboration with Tetherow is clearly harmful for faithful Catholics.  For me, it is analogous to watching the recent interview of Bishop Fellay on Conflict Zone.  You could not help hoping he would say something intelligent because his shameful performance disgraced every traditional Catholic.

I will offer, at my expense, to employ an attorney to conduct a complete due diligence investigation into Tetherow's past provided Fr. Pfeiffer obtains from Tetherow all the necessary legal forms for release of confidential information.  Tetherow should have no objection to this because if Tetherow's story is true, it would only help to exculpate him. And at the same time, Fr. Pfeiffer will have publically demonstrated that he has fulfilled his responsibility to make a careful inquiry into this matter before risking the welfare of faithful Catholics and their families who are trusting his judgment.

It will require a general legal consent for release of information to examine all Tetherow's medical/legal files whatsoever.  This should include his personnel files from the diocese of Scranton of his entire clerical record and all internal discussions and memos regarding his civil and canonical cases; all files and notes from his civil lawyer, Mr. Mark Love, Esq.; from his canon lawyer, J. Michael Ritty, J.C.L., Ph.D.; and from his psychologist(s), (name(s) withheld), to include all factual data collected and the results of all psychological exams administered; also that he provide release of information for all other medical/psychological evaluations whatsoever over the last 14 years particularly related to treatments for depression, substance abuse, and any addictive behavior treatments, such as but not limited to, pornography. With Tetherow's cooperation it should not take long to assemble all the necessary information. Lastly, Tetherow must sign a general release of liability for any person revealing negative opinions or factual information of him.

My only caveat is that if Tetherow witholds any release of information forms for any pertinent docuмents then Fr. Pfeiffer will be responsible for the legal expenses.

This will clear the air for everyone.  

I will entrust this message to the person who called me to inform Fr. Pfeiffer.

Drew

P.S.: I have already made a similar offer to Tetherow to clear his name more than seven years ago. It was never accepted.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 03:30:45 PM
Incredulous,

From what I know of Fr. Pfeiffer, I've never seen any hints of what you allege. Pablo too for that matter.

From Fr. Pfeiffer I can clearly see megalomania and ambition, a martyr complex, lots of emotion, manipulation, lack of organization, poor judgment, over-activity (at the neglect of the interior life), slander of fellow priests, and lying. Fr. Voigt addresses all these problems in his open letters.

When I look at Pablo I see an extremely proud apostate, a superstitious man of Hispanic descent, who foolishly dabbles in the devil. Again, I don't see what you allege in him either.

I'd say take it to another thread (as this thread is about Fr. Tetherow), but actually I don't want you to take it anywhere else on this forum, unless you have proof.
You allege something quite grave that no one else has alleged.

We're not just going to toss priests on the pile "for good measure" which is precisely what Pablo recently did with a certain priest. When the discussion is about pedophilia or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, you can't throw a priest into the mix who was guilty of something TOTALLY DIFFERENT (disobeying his superior, being rude to parishioners, liking wine too much, or something like that).

"Oh, it's all the same thing, flawed priest, pedophile, toMAYto, toMAHto..."

Uh, no it's not. I have some flaws myself, but that doesn't mean it would be just or fair to list me with a group of pedophiles!

As I said earlier, even convicted felons in prison consider "pedophilia" to be particularly hateful and shameful.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 18, 2016, 03:41:49 PM

Well, not accepting such an offer isn't necessarily a sign of guilt. I have a fairly clean past and present and still would never consent to such an investigation. Am I wrong in thinking most here wouldn't?

Honestly the fact that he is laicized ought to be enough. I know we "pick and choose" when we obey the Pope, but is there something sinful about accepting a laicization? Perhaps someone can think of a scenario where it would be sinful or a danger to the Faith and we'd have to recognize someone as a priest anyway but this doesn't seem to be it. Even if he were innocent there are many ways he could be helpful to a parish without blatantly ignoring his laicization. I've been looking into it a bit more and although it happens more frequently now than in past times, it's still a big move and not done for nothing.



 
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 03:47:19 PM
Quote from: wallflower

Well, not accepting such an offer isn't necessarily a sign of guilt. I have a fairly clean past and present and still would never consent to such an investigation. Am I wrong in thinking most here wouldn't?

Honestly the fact that he is laicized ought to be enough. I know we "pick and choose" when we obey the Pope, but is there something sinful about accepting a laicization? Perhaps someone can think of a scenario where it would be sinful or a danger to the Faith and we'd have to recognize someone as a priest anyway but this doesn't seem to be it. Even if he were innocent there are many ways he could be helpful to a parish without blatantly ignoring his laicization. I've been looking into it a bit more and although it happens more frequently now than in past times, it's still a big move and not done for nothing.
 


You weren't sentenced to 2 years probation for downloading child porn, nor are you a priest laicized by the Church authorities.

Of course the average law-abiding citizen wouldn't need such a "name clearing". But Fr. Tetherow clearly does need one -- at least if he's innocent of these charges.

Because his reputation is mud right now; that is a plain and simple fact.


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 18, 2016, 04:00:22 PM
What I have observed at Pfeifferville is that the plumber is what corporate America calls a "work wife".  You can Google that.

It's interesting that someone mentioned that when Pfeiffer crashed +Faure's consecration last year that +Williamson said to him "Where's your wife?"   :shocked:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 18, 2016, 04:23:18 PM
What I don't understand is why folks can not seem to close the books on Fr. Pfeiffer.  We know both Frs. P and H. Both have been in our home.  We helped host the first Mass event in Post Falls with Fr. P.  We were somewhat uneasy about him from almost the very beginning.  Two years later our apprehensions about him were fully confirmed.  We believe firmly that Fr. Pfeiffer is both a thief and a liar.   We believe that he owes thousands of dollars to Fr. Voigt, but is not about to pay them back, even though his own father assured Fr. V that the money would be paid.
 We have a recorded audio conversation between Frs. Pfeiffer and Fr. Voigt, in which the Fr. P accuses the latter of stealing from him, when actually, we know,  it is just the other way around.  Fr. P lies.  
We are convinced that Pablo is either a mental case, or in league with the devil.  How could any reasonable person think otherwise?
What is more, we know how Bp. Williamson, (along with the other bishops) feel about the so-called "resistance" priests at Boston, KY.  He has revealed those sentiments in at least two emails to me personally.  I have been exchanging emails, off and on, with +W since 2009.  I will not specify exactly what Bp. W has written about them. He must take responsibility for that himself.  Why he hasn't done it thus far is anyone's guess.  I'll just say that Pfeiffer and Hewko, and, of course, Pablo, do not get any ringing endorsements from this bishop or the other new bishops.
Some of you on this forum, who know Bp. W., and may be in contact with him, ought to try to pressure His Excellency into some kind of official or formal statement concerning this errant bunch.  Fr. P has been left dangling in the wind long enough.  He is spiritually DOA anyway, most of us know.  Now he needs to be cut down and given a proper burial.  Otherwise, the man will go on until his dying (physical) breath muttering inanities about "condemning errors" and "standing with the truth."
Haven't we all had enough of Fr. Pfeiffer and conversation about him?
   
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: St Ignatius on March 18, 2016, 04:33:27 PM
Quote from: hollingsworth
What I don't understand is why folks can not seem to close the books on Fr. Pfeiffer.  We know both Frs. P and H. Both have been in our home.  We helped host the first Mass event in Post Falls with Fr. P.  We were somewhat uneasy about him from almost the very beginning.  Two years later our apprehensions about him were fully confirmed.  We believe firmly that Fr. Pfeiffer is both a thief and a liar.   We believe that he owes thousands of dollars to Fr. Voigt, but is not about to pay them back, even though his own father assured Fr. V that the money would be paid.
 We have a recorded audio conversation between Frs. Pfeiffer and Fr. Voigt, in which the Fr. P accuses the latter of stealing from him, when actually, we know,  it is just the other way around.  Fr. P lies.  
We are convinced that Pablo is either a mental case, or in league with the devil.  How could any reasonable person think otherwise?
What is more, we know how Bp. Williamson, (along with the other bishops) feel about the so-called "resistance" priests at Boston, KY.  He has revealed those sentiments in at least two emails to me personally.  I have been exchanging emails, off and on, with +W since 2009.  I will not specify exactly what Bp. W has written about them. He must take responsibility for that himself.  Why he hasn't done it thus far is anyone's guess.  I'll just say that Pfeiffer and Hewko, and, of course, Pablo, do not get any ringing endorsements from this bishop or the other new bishops.
Some of you on this forum, who know Bp. W., and may be in contact with him, ought to try to pressure His Excellency into some kind of official or formal statement concerning this errant bunch.  Fr. P has been left dangling in the wind long enough.  He is spiritually DOA anyway, most of us know.  Now he needs to be cut down and given a proper burial.  Otherwise, the man will go on until his dying (physical) breath muttering inanities about "condemning errors" and "standing with the truth."
Haven't we all had enough of Fr. Pfeiffer and conversation about him?
   


Amen!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 04:38:19 PM
Perhaps His Excellency is drawing from the wisdom of Holy Scripture, particularly the end of St. Luke's parable of the rich man and Lazarus:

Quote from: St. Luke Chapter 16
[27] And [the rich man] said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father' s house, for I have five brethren, [28] That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. [29] And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [30] But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
[31] And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.


This is a parable from Our Lord's own mouth, so no one can gainsay it. But to help explain it, keep in mind that Moses and the prophets were *full* of the supernatural and miraculous events. If someone could dismiss all that (the Israelites crossing dry shod over the Red Sea, manna falling from heaven for 40 years, etc.), one more person appearing from beyond the grave isn't going to suddenly make an impression on them.

To make my comparison explicit:

If the remaining Pfeiffer fanatics won't wake up to the reality about Fr. Pfeiffer after all that has happened (Ambrosegate, Pablo's constant nonsense, Fr. Pfeiffer's sermons from the past year and a half, etc.) then they're not likely to wake up even if +Williamson makes a formal, public statement about the group.

But just the act of TRYING to bury Fr. Pfeiffer for good, and not succeeding, will make +Williamson look bad and give Fr. Pfeiffer more political ammo (particularly by means of his Martyr and Persecution complexes).

Long story short, I think His Excellency has been most wise and prudent in his behavior thus far.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: St Ignatius on March 18, 2016, 04:49:04 PM
Quote from: Matthew

Long story short, I think His Excellency has been most wise and prudent in his behavior thus far.


Reminds me of his three years of exile in an attic... I believe he came out stronger without ever uttering a single word of complaint of the injustices committed against him.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: stgobnait on March 18, 2016, 04:55:47 PM
I still wish he would say something... about anything.....
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Incredulous may or may not be aware that his type of posts are exactly what gives Pablo and Father Pfeiffer ammunition against Cathinfo. The truth, such as the sins of Father Tetherow, is mixed with lies and deception, such as the alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, and poisoned food.

Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.



Destruction of Cathinfo?

Double-check your bearings MC.

It's OLMC that's on fire and going down in flames.


(https://forum.netweather.tv/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3201%2F3130109117_65bb2217e2.jpg&key=25e012a53f87c4fa61130f1926e7ee1536acedb5d44f5eda7b33ccab0529ba12)


Yes, destruction, because you have spread lies and deception. Your words are evil and unfounded. Begone.


I sent you a PM to save you some embarassment MC.  
But, if you want me to post it, I will.


You can if you wish, but you have not the whole story, nor do you understand what exactly is going on in Boston. Some people have lied about Boston. While some stories are true, others are false, and are designed to destroy reputations.

Do not take things at face value. Research, find the truth, separate it from the lies and the biased opinions.

I will always look out for my brother, and make sure he is safe, healthy and happy, and free from all trouble and tribulations.

I am aware of problems at the seminary. I don't believe that the seminary is a lost cause. I am planning a trip after the Easter break, to see what I may be able to do to help Boston get back on track.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 18, 2016, 06:13:17 PM
Yeah, maybe you can help Pablo and the boys build another chicken coup on Easter Sunday?

Then, how about relaxing in the rectory with some "interesting programs" loaded on "pablo's" laptop?

And when it's all over, if you really care for your brother, you'll take him with you when you leave Boston.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 18, 2016, 06:29:25 PM
The truth can be painful: (evidently his youtube name was replaced with Cathinfo)


Sorry, but it really is a matter of public record that the man in question was convicted of downloading child porn and tossed out of the NO . And how bad  must it be when the NO that is famous for its tolerance of such types  actually defrocks a priest for such actions? Docuмents show he admitted his guilt. Please tell Fr that he must never allow this LAY person to say Mass for the faithful again.  Its sacrilege.  Please ask Fr to speak about this soon publicly. Its a complete disaster.
Reply    
 CathInfo
CathInfo11 minutes ago
No, it is not. I am contacting the prosecutor's through my private channels to find why he was not convicted of sex crimes...as it stands so far, Court docuмents read "...illegal use of the internet..."



+CathInfo   OK- he was convicted of "illegal use of the internet"- but what he was downloading illegally was child porn. Its docuмented.  He admitted to this.  Not sure if that meets the legal definition of "sex crime" as you are using it. But we don't need to play word games- the guy was caught having had downloaded child pornography-- more than once--  was convicted, received 2 yrs probation rather than prison, and is now a felon--- and was stripped of his priesthood. He is not valid to do anything other than hear a deathbed confession-- this is a fact. He would have a hard time getting a mainstream job anywhere with this record. As much as you may dislike this ugly truth,  playing semantic games to make the matter seem trivial is not worthy of a Cristero.  Unless the OLMC does something really quick, this is gum (or something else) they will never, ever get off of their shoes.  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 18, 2016, 07:20:17 PM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
The truth can be painful: (evidently his youtube name was replaced with Cathinfo)


Sorry, but it really is a matter of public record that the man in question was convicted of downloading child porn and tossed out of the NO . And how bad  must it be when the NO that is famous for its tolerance of such types  actually defrocks a priest for such actions? Docuмents show he admitted his guilt. Please tell Fr that he must never allow this LAY person to say Mass for the faithful again.  Its sacrilege.  Please ask Fr to speak about this soon publicly. Its a complete disaster.
Reply    
 CathInfo
CathInfo11 minutes ago
No, it is not. I am contacting the prosecutor's through my private channels to find why he was not convicted of sex crimes...as it stands so far, Court docuмents read "...illegal use of the internet..."



+CathInfo   OK- he was convicted of "illegal use of the internet"- but what he was downloading illegally was child porn. Its docuмented.  He admitted to this.  Not sure if that meets the legal definition of "sex crime" as you are using it. But we don't need to play word games- the guy was caught having had downloaded child pornography-- more than once--  was convicted, received 2 yrs probation rather than prison, and is now a felon--- and was stripped of his priesthood. He is not valid to do anything other than hear a deathbed confession-- this is a fact. He would have a hard time getting a mainstream job anywhere with this record. As much as you may dislike this ugly truth,  playing semantic games to make the matter seem trivial is not worthy of a Cristero.  Unless the OLMC does something really quick, this is gum (or something else) they will never, ever get off of their shoes.  


1st,

You are missing a vital part of this scandal--OLMC is not concerned that this man is no longer a priest.  They are defying and will continue to defy the Pope himself.  They are practically speaking schismatic.  Possibly ex-communicated.  Notice that they are only concerned with determining if Tetherow conviction was valid or not?  This is the same pattern as with Moran.  The "private channels" are most likely Greg Taylor.  You are better off to forget you ever heard of OLMC as many of us have.  They are in schism.  They do not submit to the authority of Peter.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Tiffany
Matthew there is a difference between no longer supporting someone or pointing out errors than saying they want other clergy destitute.


Has Fr. Pfeiffer ever limited (set well-defined boundaries on) his hatred/attacks on these priests? Or does he detest them with such vitriol that you get the impression he doesn't care what happens to them? Has Fr. Pfeiffer ever explicitly described any boundaries, or said how he wants his enemies to make a living? He certainly doesn't put on the kid gloves in his attacks against these priests.

I said in my post that Fr. Pfeiffer PROBABLY is hoping to "humble" these priests/bishops and have them drag themselves back to Fr. Pfeiffer to join his group and beg forgiveness.

So perhaps even he isn't hoping for their total destruction.

But don't kid yourself -- he's talked about them being evil, he certainly thinks they're all in mortal sin, and Pablo (his other half) talks about Satan in conjunction with these priests. Fr. Pfeiffer & Co might very well intend their enemies' total destruction, in this world AND in the next. Yes, that seems horrifying to the ears of any good Catholic.

But we're not dealing with good Catholics here.


It is naivety in the extreme to fail to grasp the essence of this--nearly to the point of culpable neglect.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Preach on brother--of course posts such as that of Incredulous will destroy CI's credibility--everybody else perceives the relationship between Fr. Pfeiffer & the lay exorcist to be as healthy and natural as imaginable, perfectly & harmoniously advancing the legitimate true well-being of the Church.  Along the path, a little soft-porn enthusiasts here, a little gαy kiddie porn enthusiast there--it's all good.  #SARCASM
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 18, 2016, 09:13:02 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Fr Pfeiffer doesn't go on the internet Manuel so this site has nothing to do with his resistance to the Bishops and other priests.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 09:13:50 PM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Sometimes a name would come up, and one or the other would dismiss that person with a derisive look and the comment that the particular priest was "very sweet", with an odd inflection. Slow on the uptake, it took weeks  to dawn on me what was being conveyed.


Projection maybe?  Never mind--the concept of "projection" is certainly lost on anybody who is too naive to recognize what was being conveyed in the first place.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Fr Pfeiffer doesn't go on the internet Manuel so this site has nothing to do with his resistance to the Bishops and other priests.


Father Pfeiffer does not use the internet, but Pablo does. He filters the stories to Father. So, yes, it does affect the situation.


A grand choice for an information gatekeeper.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on March 18, 2016, 09:34:26 PM
Let's cut to the chase. The Boston seminary has been a complete disaster and Fr. Pfeiffer has lost all sense of judgment. All the facts have been presented meticulously and yet he is still operating with this misguided notion of his own importance. The problem is that it will take an incredible act of humility for him to realize the terrible disaster that he has caused. Human nature being what it is, it seems unlikely that he will ever change.

The tragic thing is that in the process souls are being hurt.

Manuel, please get your brother out of that toxic environment before he loses his faith. There is NO reforming of that place.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Let's cut to the chase. The Boston seminary has been a complete disaster and Fr. Pfeiffer has lost all sense of judgment. All the facts have been presented meticulously and yet he is still operating with this misguided notion of his own importance. The problem is that it will take an incredible act of humility for him to realize the terrible disaster that he has caused. Human nature being what it is, it seems unlikely that he will ever change.

The tragic thing is that in the process souls are being hurt.

Manuel, please get your brother out of that toxic environment before he loses his faith. There is NO reforming of that place.



I am headed to Boston after Easter. I have high hopes that my visit, God willing, will be more fruitful than the last (and the last one was not too bad).
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2016, 09:47:00 PM
OHCA and Manuel,

You guys take it outside, please! You're derailing this thread. Put each other on ignore or something.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 09:53:00 PM
Quote from: Matthew
OHCA and Manuel,

You guys take it outside, please! You're derailing this thread. Put each other on ignore or something.


Sorry about that.

I believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: St Ignatius on March 18, 2016, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Fr Pfeiffer doesn't go on the internet Manuel so this site has nothing to do with his resistance to the Bishops and other priests.


Father Pfeiffer does not use the internet, but Pablo does. He filters the stories to Father. So, yes, it does affect the situation.


I don't know who you are,  but I've been biting my tongue for some time now. You are a pretty poor choice of a PR agent, in my opinion. I've known this relationship between Fr Pfeiffer and this wretched mexican for at least 15 years. I know personally with very little time around them together, it doesn't  take long to figure things out. You say you have a brother there and you have spent at least 30 days there that I know of.  What I'm saying is cut the crap and start being honest about what is really going on.   I know a lot of past history and really don't want to divulge it because it could affect people who would rather not be involved in this matter. I believe in justice, being you've somehow have assumed this role of being the "Devils advocate" for OLMC, that you come clean on this matter. It is my opinion, your interjections have not borne good fruit.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 10:06:47 PM
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Fr Pfeiffer doesn't go on the internet Manuel so this site has nothing to do with his resistance to the Bishops and other priests.


Father Pfeiffer does not use the internet, but Pablo does. He filters the stories to Father. So, yes, it does affect the situation.


I don't know who you are,  but I've been biting my tongue for some time now. You are a pretty poor choice of a PR agent, in my opinion. I've known this relationship between Fr Pfeiffer and this wretched mexican for at least 15 years. I know personally with very little time around them together, it doesn't  take long to figure things out. You say you have a brother there and you have spent at least 30 days there that I know of.  What I'm saying is cut the crap and start being honest about what is really going on.   I know a lot of past history and really don't want to divulge it because it could affect people who would rather not be involved in this matter. I believe in justice, being you've somehow have assumed this role of being the "Devils advocate" for OLMC, that you come clean on this matter. It is my opinion, your interjections have not borne good fruit.


There is no need for hostility. I am not their PR agent, either. I have spent more than 30 days at the seminary. I have been honest about my time there. I believe that the seminary is not a lost cause, but that changes need to be made for it to survive. I tried a more subtle approach in November, and encouraging change through what I hoped to be a good example. I wasn't entirely successful, apparently.

I am going back after Easter to help the seminarians in their desire to give their lives to God.

I hope there is still a chance to create a positive change. Please pray for my brother and I. We can use the prayers.

Tetherow concerns me greatly, but I have some hope that Boston will listen to reason.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 10:35:53 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: obscurus
Let's cut to the chase. The Boston seminary has been a complete disaster and Fr. Pfeiffer has lost all sense of judgment. All the facts have been presented meticulously and yet he is still operating with this misguided notion of his own importance. The problem is that it will take an incredible act of humility for him to realize the terrible disaster that he has caused. Human nature being what it is, it seems unlikely that he will ever change.

The tragic thing is that in the process souls are being hurt.

Manuel, please get your brother out of that toxic environment before he loses his faith. There is NO reforming of that place.



I am headed to Boston after Easter. I have high hopes that my visit, God willing, will be more fruitful than the last (and the last one was not too bad).


Whatever Manuel...

Maybe you can do a sequel thread "Another 30 Days in La-La-Land."

Or maybe call it "Boston--Can It Survive a Lay Exorcist, a Schismatic Fraud, and a New Church 'Priest' 'Laicized' For Being a gαy Kiddie Porn Connoisseur."
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 18, 2016, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Fr Pfeiffer doesn't go on the internet Manuel so this site has nothing to do with his resistance to the Bishops and other priests.


Father Pfeiffer does not use the internet, but Pablo does. He filters the stories to Father. So, yes, it does affect the situation.


I don't know who you are,  but I've been biting my tongue for some time now. You are a pretty poor choice of a PR agent, in my opinion. I've known this relationship between Fr Pfeiffer and this wretched mexican for at least 15 years. I know personally with very little time around them together, it doesn't  take long to figure things out. You say you have a brother there and you have spent at least 30 days there that I know of.  What I'm saying is cut the crap and start being honest about what is really going on.   I know a lot of past history and really don't want to divulge it because it could affect people who would rather not be involved in this matter. I believe in justice, being you've somehow have assumed this role of being the "Devils advocate" for OLMC, that you come clean on this matter. It is my opinion, your interjections have not borne good fruit.


I tried a more subtle approach in November, and encouraging change through what I hoped to be a good example.


Aside from the amusing arrogance and narcissism of this statement, what is wrong with this picture--a layman, going into an alleged Catholic seminary to fill the void for good example?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 10:56:23 PM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Matthew, people such as Incredulous will only aid in the destruction of your site's reputation, and serve as the means for Boston to continue its resistance to the Bishops and to their affiliated priests.


Fr Pfeiffer doesn't go on the internet Manuel so this site has nothing to do with his resistance to the Bishops and other priests.


Father Pfeiffer does not use the internet, but Pablo does. He filters the stories to Father. So, yes, it does affect the situation.


I don't know who you are,  but I've been biting my tongue for some time now. You are a pretty poor choice of a PR agent, in my opinion. I've known this relationship between Fr Pfeiffer and this wretched mexican for at least 15 years. I know personally with very little time around them together, it doesn't  take long to figure things out. You say you have a brother there and you have spent at least 30 days there that I know of.  What I'm saying is cut the crap and start being honest about what is really going on.   I know a lot of past history and really don't want to divulge it because it could affect people who would rather not be involved in this matter. I believe in justice, being you've somehow have assumed this role of being the "Devils advocate" for OLMC, that you come clean on this matter. It is my opinion, your interjections have not borne good fruit.


I tried a more subtle approach in November, and encouraging change through what I hoped to be a good example.


Aside from the amusing arrogance and narcissism of this statement, what is wrong with this picture--a layman, going into an alleged Catholic seminary to fill the void for good example?


You claim narcissism, but I think you are not properly applying this word.

It is not arrogance. I can see problems and find solutions, and apply them in ways that can get the best performance out of each person involved. After more than a decade of retail management, I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money, rather than hemorrhage funds. It would take a team effort, and I could not do it alone. I need help in order to succeed.

Father Pfeiffer needs help. I need to try again, or I will forever regret not taking that risk.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: St Ignatius on March 18, 2016, 11:22:20 PM
Quote from: manuel
I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money


So this is the solution to fix the Moral decadence of OLMC?

Quote
 rather than hemorrhage funds


You definitely don't know the ways of Fr Pfeiffer! Trust me... I know!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 11:25:45 PM
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: manuel
I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money


So this is the solution to fix the Moral decadence of OLMC?

Quote
 rather than hemorrhage funds


You definitely don't know the ways of Fr Pfeiffer! Trust me... I know!


To rebuild burned bridges, and to help make money are two separate tasks. Money can't heal wounds.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: St Ignatius on March 18, 2016, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: manuel
I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money


So this is the solution to fix the Moral decadence of OLMC?

Quote
 rather than hemorrhage funds


You definitely don't know the ways of Fr Pfeiffer! Trust me... I know!


To rebuild burned bridges, and to help make money are two separate tasks. Money can't heal wounds.


You go ahead and raise all the money you want, it will burn any bridges you think you can fix. Like I said, trust me!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 11:38:59 PM
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: manuel
I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money


So this is the solution to fix the Moral decadence of OLMC?

Quote
 rather than hemorrhage funds


You definitely don't know the ways of Fr Pfeiffer! Trust me... I know!


To rebuild burned bridges, and to help make money are two separate tasks. Money can't heal wounds.


You go ahead and raise all the money you want, it will burn any bridges you think you can fix. Like I said, trust me!


It is not about money. It is about getting the right people to do the job right. I feel that Tetherow is an example of the wrong man for the job, though. Any association with him will only do harm.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 18, 2016, 11:44:41 PM
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: manuel
I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money


So this is the solution to fix the Moral decadence of OLMC?

Quote
 rather than hemorrhage funds


You definitely don't know the ways of Fr Pfeiffer! Trust me... I know!


To rebuild burned bridges, and to help make money are two separate tasks. Money can't heal wounds.


You go ahead and raise all the money you want, it will burn any bridges you think you can fix. Like I said, trust me!


It is not about money. It is about getting the right people to do the job right.


 :facepalm:  Why did I ever open my big mouth?!


Am I missing something? If I am, please tell me. If you know something I don't, please let me know, either here or via PM.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 19, 2016, 12:00:24 AM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
I feel that Tetherow is an example of the wrong man for the job, though. Any association with him will only do harm.


Prediction:  Fr. Pfeiffer will not disassociate from Tetherow; Manuel's position stated here will soften, if he does not outright backtrack from it.


That man will not be allowed to say Mass for this mission. Period. He is not welcome here, in my part of the world.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 19, 2016, 07:00:41 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: OHCA
Aside from the amusing arrogance and narcissism of this statement, what is wrong with this picture--a layman, going into an alleged Catholic seminary to fill the void for good example?


You claim narcissism, but I think you are not properly applying this word.

It is not arrogance. I can see problems and find solutions, and apply them in ways that can get the best performance out of each person involved. After more than a decade of retail management, I am fairly certain that I can help the seminary rebuild burned bridges and help mend the wounds of the last few years. I have ideas on how the seminary can make money, rather than hemorrhage funds. It would take a team effort, and I could not do it alone. I need help in order to succeed.

Father Pfeiffer needs help. I need to try again, or I will forever regret not taking that risk.


OHCA is actually using the word well. In your case maybe it's more of a naiveté, but when a person believes so much influence sits on their shoulders and they can be the savior of another there is often a thick layer of pride beneath such "good intentions".

The most classic case is the good girl who thinks she can be the ONE to change the bad boy. So she dates him or marries him in spite of all reason and warnings not to associate with him. He never does change and she is the one to suffer because now she is stuck. Or she ends up falling herself because she placed herself in occasions of sin or a life of suffering that she could not handle.

Wanting to help others is a good thing and we all depend heavily on good examples. But the other person has to be WILLing to love God and save their souls. Not for you, not for anyone but God's sake and their own. When that prerequisite is not present, a person wanting to help is depending too much on their own efforts. If such a one won't change for God, why would they change for you?

When you dig deep into such situations they are rooted in the person overestimating their influence and importance. They see themselves as saviors though they may not realize it at first. It takes a lot of introspection to find that layer of pride beneath it all. On the surface the intentions are good, but we know what they say about good intentions...

That is, I believe, what OHCA is pointing out here and has pointed out in many other threads where you come across as having OLMC's success or failure depending on you.
 

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 19, 2016, 08:08:47 AM
Manuel, there are people on this forum that have known Fr Pfeiffer much longer and much more intimately than you.  Listen to their wisdom.  If a good priest like Fr Voigt can't help Father to turn away from his wickedness and turn back to God do you think you can?  

Pablo must be permanently banned from any contact with Fr Pfeiffer and his ministry FOREVER.  That relationship must not be changed.  It must be ended.  Their coupling is toxic to each other and to those around them.  It's destroying the bonds of the Pfeiffer family.  It's put enmity between the patriarch and his wife.  Even if Pablo were a good man his presence in Boston would still be problematic because of the natural of that relationship to the prior and the operation.  It's not how the Church operates.  Only after that happens can any good begin.  You know this to be true in your heart but for personal reasons that I can only guess why you don't articulate that.

You are a very smart man so I know you have figured out that the Fathers would have NEVER had anything to do with Moran or Tetherow if Pablo had not engineered those meetings and goaded them on in the associations.  Right now Pablo is hard at work trying to find evidence to justify a continued association with Tetherow.  He has his "private channels" contacting the prosecutors to gather enough evidence to proclaim that Tetherow was falsely defrocked and he can still say Mass.  Does Pablo have authority to override the Pope?

If your brother, despite all his hard work, falls out of favor with Pablo he will never be ordained.

We can't replace one evil layman with a non-evil layman and expect good results.  OLMC and the seminary must be run by clergy alone.  That is the model of the Church.  And it must be morally sound Catholic clergy.  God is disgusted by the corruption of that operation and He is answering the prayers of the Catholic widows and children who have been praying for years now for Him to bring an end to it.  You can't stop God.

In your heart you know these things to be true.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on March 19, 2016, 08:19:29 AM
Has Tethrow actually been to Boston? Or is it just that Fr's Pfieffer knows some who attended the resistance circuit Masses are driving to Tehtrow's chapel as an alternative to the SSPX?
With the  trads I've met IRL people are not "only going to Mass from one group" like they are on the internet.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 19, 2016, 08:27:44 AM
Quote from: Tiffany
Has Tethrow actually been to Boston? Or is it just that Fr's Pfieffer knows some who attended the resistance circuit Masses are driving to Tehtrow's chapel as an alternative to the SSPX?
With the  trads I've met IRL people are not "only going to Mass from one group" like they are on the internet.


He visited the OLMC property, approximately 2-years old (+/- 8month window of error).
There's a faithful who remembers him distinctly.
He stayed only a short time.  
There's a lot of "eyes" there, and just guessing, he sensed it was not the best place to "party-down".
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 19, 2016, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Manuel, there are people on this forum that have known Fr Pfeiffer much longer and much more intimately than you.  Listen to their wisdom.  If a good priest like Fr Voigt can't help Father to turn away from his wickedness and turn back to God do you think you can?  

Pablo must be permanently banned from any contact with Fr Pfeiffer and his ministry FOREVER.  That relationship must not be changed.  It must be ended.  Their coupling is toxic to each other and to those around them.  It's destroying the bonds of the Pfeiffer family.  It's put enmity between the patriarch and his wife.  Even if Pablo were a good man his presence in Boston would still be problematic because of the natural of that relationship to the prior and the operation.  It's not how the Church operates.  Only after that happens can any good begin.  You know this to be true in your heart but for personal reasons that I can only guess why you don't articulate that.

You are a very smart man so I know you have figured out that the Fathers would have NEVER had anything to do with Moran or Tetherow if Pablo had not engineered those meetings and goaded them on in the associations.  Right now Pablo is hard at work trying to find evidence to justify a continued association with Tetherow.  He has his "private channels" contacting the prosecutors to gather enough evidence to proclaim that Tetherow was falsely defrocked and he can still say Mass.  Does Pablo have authority to override the Pope?

If your brother, despite all his hard work, falls out of favor with Pablo he will never be ordained.

We can't replace one evil layman with a non-evil layman and expect good results.  OLMC and the seminary must be run by clergy alone.  That is the model of the Church.  And it must be morally sound Catholic clergy.  God is disgusted by the corruption of that operation and He is answering the prayers of the Catholic widows and children who have been praying for years now for Him to bring an end to it.  You can't stop God.

In your heart you know these things to be true.


Yes.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 19, 2016, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: Tiffany
Has Tethrow actually been to Boston? Or is it just that Fr's Pfieffer knows some who attended the resistance circuit Masses are driving to Tehtrow's chapel as an alternative to the SSPX?
With the  trads I've met IRL people are not "only going to Mass from one group" like they are on the internet.


According to Fr. Voigt, Fr. Tetherow has been to the Boston, KY main chapel, but he said a private Mass on one of the 2 side altars while Fr. Pfeiffer said Mass for everyone on the main altar.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 19, 2016, 10:43:39 AM
Quote from: wallflower

OHCA is actually using the word well. In your case maybe it's more of a naiveté, but when a person believes so much influence sits on their shoulders and they can be the savior of another there is often a thick layer of pride beneath such "good intentions".

The most classic case is the good girl who thinks she can be the ONE to change the bad boy. So she dates him or marries him in spite of all reason and warnings not to associate with him. He never does change and she is the one to suffer because now she is stuck. Or she ends up falling herself because she placed herself in occasions of sin or a life of suffering that she could not handle.

Wanting to help others is a good thing and we all depend heavily on good examples. But the other person has to be WILLing to love God and save their souls. Not for you, not for anyone but God's sake and their own. When that prerequisite is not present, a person wanting to help is depending too much on their own efforts. If such a one won't change for God, why would they change for you?

When you dig deep into such situations they are rooted in the person overestimating their influence and importance. They see themselves as saviors though they may not realize it at first. It takes a lot of introspection to find that layer of pride beneath it all. On the surface the intentions are good, but we know what they say about good intentions...

That is, I believe, what OHCA is pointing out here and has pointed out in many other threads where you come across as having OLMC's success or failure depending on you.


Very wise post, wallflower. This post really rang true and resonated with me. Especially the part about the "girl trying to change the bad boy".

In fact, I've seen this personally -- only with a magnanimous, noble-hearted young man feeling pity for a "damaged goods" girl (mental problems, mental retardation, physical defects, a Magdalene, etc.). I've even heard such young men say, "I can't just dump her; who else will marry her?" but like Wallflower says, these big-hearted, noble gestures are often rashly made, and based on pure emotion at the time (love, infatuation) and don't necessarily imply the wherewithal or long-term ability to carry through on a LIFE OF SUFFERING that will follow if they marry someone for life.

Luke chapter 14 comes to mind:  [28] For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: [29] Lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, [30] Saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Now in Manuel's case, there's not a lifelong marriage at stake, but his brother might be scarred for life, and his Faith might be affected long-term by Pablo and his multi-year stay at OLMC in Kentucky.

For Manuel, I would advise St. Matthew chapter 7: [6] Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

I find that verse interesting, because beyond than the commonly understood and obvious meaning (the waste of time in presenting the Faith to those not interested) he actually warns of actual DANGER to the person wasting their time thus. They could actually end up in trouble for their wasted effort!

If swine trampled pearls under their feet, wouldn't some of them get scuffed, or lost in the muck? If you wade into a group of atheists and try to convert them, and they throw at you all kinds of arguments why they don't believe, might it not damage your Faith somewhat in the process? Especially if you weren't super-prepared (like a priest spending 7 years in a seminary) both spiritually and intellectually?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on March 19, 2016, 10:53:47 AM
Good post.

There needs to be an absolute clean break with Boston. It needs to wither away and die. Fr. Hewko needs to regroup and think clearly. Fr. Pfeiffer needs to spend time with his family and simply pray - he is heading for destruction. All the people who are supporting Boston must realize that this endeavour has not been blessed by God no matter all the rationalizations people may use.

People need to stop mincing words.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 19, 2016, 11:06:48 AM
Another thought that comes to mind --

You know how countless times you have a good priest in the Novus Ordo converting to Tradition, but he doesn't want to jump into the "Traditional Catholic" world (because they fight so much, there's so much messiness there) and he wants to have it both ways, so he tries to not get fired or suspended by his Bishop and still say the Tridentine Mass.

Well, these priests always have to choose eventually. They discover that no, Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't rash to end up in the "Traditional Catholic" milieu. If anyone could have had it both ways, it was a prudent, balanced, wise prelate like +ABL.

It's like they judge him, "Oh, he went off right away and left the Church. I like the Tridentine Mass and know that it's the only Mass I can say in good conscience, but I'm sure I can handle it a bit better than +ABL..."

Then a number of months and years pass, and these priests have to decisively choose: stop saying the Latin Mass entirely like their angry, red-faced Bishop demands, or go "Traditional" and lose their position in the diocese (health insurance, pension, good standing with their bishop, etc.)

And so, in the end, they finally understand why SO MANY priests before them had to leave the Novus Ordo just to do something clearly good like keep the Faith and say the Mass of All Times.

But then, a couple years later, a young priest with a deep spiritual life and a good heart discovers the Latin Mass, and decides he can only say that Mass. He thinks, "Oh, I don't want to join that mess in the Traditional World; I'm going to be different! I'll be the first one to be a good holy priest and still be on good terms with the Church authorities. How hard can it be, to be civil and charitable rather than feisty and abrasive?"

And so the process begins again. Lather, rinse, repeat...

It gets wearisome though, for those who have seen it a MILLION TIMES (or what feels like a million times).

This also applies to laymen. In their case, they are also reluctant to embrace the "Trad" label, trying to deny it as long as possible. They say things like, "Why can't we just be Catholics? Why all the labels?" They try to be some kind of "first" or "pioneer", like they were the first to think of this, and they believe they're somehow above the whole struggle. The Indulters are often guilty of this -- they want to be on good terms with the Conciliar Church, while trying to be faithful to the Catholic Faith like a good Trad.

But you can't have it both ways. The sad fact is that the two are diametrically opposed, and so eventually you WILL have to choose.

To answer their first question: "Why can't we just be Catholics?" Well, because words mean things, that's why. "Catholic" today means "maybe Catholic, poorly catechized, attending a de-facto protestant service on Sunday, and little-to-no fasting or abstinence".

Here is my point:
This applies to Fr. Pfeiffer as well. So many want to give him a 10th chance, a 150th helping of benefit of the doubt, hope beyond all reason, etc.

But in doing so, you judge those of us who have already been there, done that. You assume we haven't given him many, many chances! You assume we jumped off the boat at the first opportunity, anxious to attack the poor priest. No, we were as reluctant as you. Don't think yourself so special!

I supported Fr. Pfeiffer every bit as much as you. He was NOT a popular priest at my SSPX chapel, but I talked him up to everyone I could, trying to organize a local Resistance. And I was very reluctant to publicly excoriate Fr. Pfeiffer; I only did so for the greater good and past/present/future I don't do it because it was fun for me. It's extremely sad and frustrating. I wish I could have the old Fr. Pfeiffer from 4 years ago back. He was a good priest, a good fighter in the trenches. He was a go-getter. Now he's using his oratorical gifts to slam perfectly innocent priests and bishops.

By giving him a "chance" under these circuмstances, what I'm actually doing is siding with him against his victims. His victims are ALSO priests, only they are doing good RIGHT NOW. Fr. Pfeiffer needs to convert first before he can be in that category.

If you have two human beings, one holding a baseball bat and hitting the other and the other on the ground taking a beating, how can you be charitable towards both? That charity is going to look DIFFERENT applied to each of these men. The attacker doesn't have the same claim on your love as the victim. The attacker needs to be OPPOSED FOR HIS OWN GOOD, whereas the victim has first claim on your money, time, and love. He's good RIGHT NOW whereas the attacker is only POTENTIALLY good (if he converted).

That doesn't mean you can hate either of them, but the dictates of charity say that you should give to each something different:

Attacker: opposition, even beat him up/call the cops, for the sake of charity (the good of his soul)
Victim: go full-on good Samaritan with him: take care of him, take him to the hospital, make him comfortable, etc.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 19, 2016, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: obscurus
People need to stop mincing words.


Proud to say that not "mincing words" is what I'm known for.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 19, 2016, 01:15:44 PM
Cathinfo 'Understatement of the Week' Award goes to OHCA.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: obediens on March 20, 2016, 10:07:53 PM
Just like all the clear evidence presented against Moran? Don't be naive!


Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Matthew
OHCA and Manuel,

You guys take it outside, please! You're derailing this thread. Put each other on ignore or something.


Sorry about that.

I believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 20, 2016, 11:26:09 PM
A week has past since Fr. Pheiffer gave a sermon stating that Fr. Tetherow was his friend.

Has there been any retraction or apology for this mistaken endorsement ?

Does Father and "pablo", his press agent, think they'll be given a pass on this one?

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 21, 2016, 12:06:16 AM
I was asked to post this, taken from a magazine article:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: knish on March 21, 2016, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: Caraffa
Fr. Tetherow is a convicted pedophile.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/TETHEROW.htm

How ironic that the title of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon is "Ecclesiastical Wickedness."


Wow, this is scary. I can't help but feel bad for Fr. Pfeiffer. https://michaelbaumann.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/tetherow-is-now-garbiel-francis-and-now-he-is-building-a-school/
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 21, 2016, 01:54:41 AM
Quote from: Matthew
I was asked to post this, taken from a magazine article:



Let me guess...

Father Pfeiffer met Tetherow at the KC airport...

Then he convinced to give up modeling and join the Resistance?   :thinking:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: knish on March 21, 2016, 02:59:33 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Yes, again and again I see Fr. Pfeiffer, Pablo, Greg Taylor, Maccabees, etc. that whole group engage in the psychological phenomenon of PROJECTION, where a person projects their own faults onto their adversary, and then proceeds to lambast them.

It's kind of like "the pot calling the kettle black", only it's more like "the pot calling the (red) strawberry black." No, the strawberry isn't black, but as a matter of fact YOU are black, Mr. pot!

It's also a modern political technique. Don't go on the defensive; that can make you appear weak and passive. Rather than wait for your adversary to attack you, attack HIM with whatever you are guilty of! That way, if he ends up attacking you, it will seem like a desperate, tit-for-tat, "me too" maneuver.

It's also extremely bold and gutsy -- it takes a lot of chutzpah to pull that off. You also have to be pretty good at lying. Basically it's a Donald Trump kind of move.

This is absolutely spot on -- to include the Trump reference.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 21, 2016, 04:56:10 AM
Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: Matthew
I was asked to post this, taken from a magazine article:



Let me guess...

Father Pfeiffer met Tetherow at the KC airport...

Then he convinced to give up modeling and join the Resistance?   :thinking:


Close.

I asked my husband to put the whole article on pdf. I'll ask him to post it for me.

This happened while in York , functioning as a "traditional" priest and only months before he helped serve Mass at the SSPX chapel in Philadelphia for + de Galarreta because the SSPX was so "impressed" by him even after he  was dismissed from SSP&P. I should add, the year after going to the SSPX priest meeting as a guest.

He only told one of the women about it. I was sewing with her at the basement of the Chapel when the Magazine people came and she was so mortified she told me. When the article came out, this woman gave me a hardcopy just before it was taken out by the Magazine when they saw his background.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 21, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: obediens
Just like all the clear evidence presented against Moran? Don't be naive!


Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Matthew
OHCA and Manuel,

You guys take it outside, please! You're derailing this thread. Put each other on ignore or something.


Sorry about that.

I believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.


I spoke with Father Hewko on the matter. I believe what he told me, and it is why I have some hope that they will release an official statement soon, that they will not make use of his services for the missions or the seminary.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: BJ5 on March 21, 2016, 10:56:06 AM
Someone should docuмent this procedure so that it can be followed more efficiently in the future:

1) Cathinfo does due diligence on matters of faith and morals concerning OLMC where Kentucky priests have not time/interest.
2) Cathinfo passes its findings to Martin
3) Martin discusses the matter Fr. Hewko
4) OLMC promises to remedy the situation immediately
5) "immediately"  translates to "at some point, perhaps"

A repeatable process is worth its weight in gold.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 21, 2016, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: BJ5
Someone should docuмent this procedure so that it can be followed more efficiently in the future:

1) Cathinfo does due diligence on matters of faith and morals concerning OLMC where Kentucky priests have not time/interest.
2) Cathinfo passes its findings to Martin
3) Martin discusses the matter Fr. Hewko
4) OLMC promises to remedy the situation immediately
5) "immediately"  translates to "at some point, perhaps"

A repeatable process is worth its weight in gold.


I hope step five will be "ASAP"... That's what I'm hoping and praying for.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 21, 2016, 11:15:22 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
I believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.


Why do you think he's not trustworthy?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 21, 2016, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy
Quote from: ManuelChavez
I believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.


Why do you think he's not trustworthy?


I don't think he is trustworthy because of the case against him, the evidence from multiple sources and his own words and actions.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: drew on March 21, 2016, 12:09:03 PM
TETHEROW INTERVIEW

This interview attached below sheds light on Tetherow's personality. It was arranged by Tetherow's personal life coach Mr. David Romeo who is in the field of psycho-cybernetics. David Romeo's hero is the inimitable Tony Robbins, the Babe Ruth of the Human Potential Movement (HPM). David Romeo employs Robbins' visual imagine techniques in his hope to be a big as Robbins.  Wikkipedia says, "The emergence of HPM is linked to humanistic psychology. The movement is strongly influenced by Abraham Maslow's theory of self-actualization as the supreme expression of a human's life." Maslow was a member of the Frankfurt School which tells you everything you really need to know. It was these same psychological techniques of Maslow along with Carl Rogers that the IHM nuns, along with other religious orders, were subjected to in the 1960s which ultimately destroyed them.  Dr. William Coulson, who was a disciple of Rogers, repented of what he had done and described the techniques in an interview published in Latin Mass Magazine article about 20 years ago. "We Overcame Their Traditions, We Overcame Their Faith," explains exactly how it was done.

Why this back ground? HPM is antithetical to the Catholic faith. It begins by denying original sin and everything it does is therefore corrupted. After Tetherow met Romeo he was warned about the conflict between the Catholic faith, especially while wearing the clerical collar, and HPM theory. Tetherow looked at it as an opportunity for self promotion  and dove right in for vanity knows no restraints.  Romeo arranged the interview with Connections Magazine, the "premier magazine for the teleservices call center industry." After publication the magazine was informed that they had done a fold-out  feature on a convicted felon on child porn related charges and the issue was quietly withdrawn. The more salacious pictures in the article were covered over by the woman who gave the article to my wife because she found them so shameful.

The interview title calls Tetherow a "social entrepreneur" which is revealing. Tetherow in fact treated his priesthood as an exercise "social entrepreneurship."  In the article Tetherow emphasizes  the importance of Truth and Honesty. And that from a man who habitually lies but it is ironic that he could talk about the truth and honesty in the context of an interview of a priest promoted by an HPM guru in a telemarketing journal.

This interview took place three months after getting +Fellay's approval to preach at any SSPX chapel and fifteen months before he was forbidden to ever set foot on any SSPX property again.

Drew
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 21, 2016, 02:02:26 PM
Great find Drew!  
So, Tetherow's religious persona has been partly programmed ?

Now, we get into the Jєωs monkeying around with "human engineering", as they call it, to undermine Christian civilization.

This is a bigger story than I suspected.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 21, 2016, 02:11:57 PM
This situation coupled with the Moran affair have proven to me that Pfeiffer, Hewko, and Pablo are just plain stupid.  I don't even think Hernandez is smart enough to be a masonic occultist.

I'm wondering if the chronic exposure to black mold has caused brain damage.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 21, 2016, 02:32:43 PM
Quote from: BJ5
Someone should docuмent this procedure so that it can be followed more efficiently in the future:

1) Cathinfo does due diligence on matters of faith and morals concerning OLMC where Kentucky priests have not time/interest.
2) Cathinfo passes its findings to Martin
3) Martin discusses the matter Fr. Hewko
4) OLMC promises to remedy the situation immediately
5) "immediately"  translates to "at some point, perhaps"

A repeatable process is worth its weight in gold.


I suggest the process is much more complex and mysterious:

1) Cathinfo does due diligence on matters of faith and morals concerning OLMC where Kentucky priests have not time/interest.

2) Cathinfo publishes its in forum topics and Martin plays "point man" forgiving faithful to field the complaint.

3) If Martin's responses yield too many "thumbs down", Martin discusses the matter with Fr. Hewko.  

4) Father Hewko mentions it to Fr. Pfeiffer.

5) Fr. Pfeiifer calls to "pablo" for advice.

6). "Pablo" rolls the chicken bones to select the team response, depending on how it might impact donations:

     A. "Its a pack of lies".
     B.  "We have other sources".
     C.  "We'll look into it"
     C.  Say nothing.

7. Pablo advises Fr. Pfieffer.

8). Fr. Pfeiifer works a "plausible denial" of the charge into his next sermon.

9). Fr. Hewko only learns of the Pablo/pfieffer response through the Youtube sermon.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Miseremini on March 21, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
As Drew mentioned above Dr. William Coulson did repent.
Everyone should read the interview he gave.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/COULSON.TXT
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on March 21, 2016, 07:07:19 PM
From the article:
"Find someone who will tell you, not what you want to hear, but what you need to hear," said Tetherow".

Dear Mr Tetherow,
Remove yourself from public life and stop committing sacrilege by pretending to offer Sacraments that you are unable to bestow. Find a hermitage somewhere, far away from  boys and gullible people, and stay there.  Glad to oblige. 1MT
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 22, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Fr. Pfeiffer apparently believes Tetherow’s story regarding his felony conviction on child porn related charges that he was “framed.” If that is the case it would be a lot easier for him to believe that his firing for “cause” from Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission in York, PA was an injustice as well. Mr. Tetherow was fired before we had proof of his confession for downloading child porn or proof of his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. All we could prove at the time of his firing was that he was a notorious liar and fraud. He was discharged for maliciously “destroying the bond of charity” (Letter of Dismissal is available) that existed in the Mission before his arrival by promoting factions to be used for his own ends. He was caught in more than a dozen docuмented lies with two or more witnesses. What is worse, he was even caught forging a letter and the signature of another priest. That priest was providentially able to examine the letter and declared it to be forgery.  He signed an affidavit to this effect for our records. This sworn testimony of a priest perhaps might make an impression on Fr. Pfeiffer.

This discloses a manipulative criminal mind that is well focused on specific long term goals for which he is willing to lie and cheat and employ any unethical means to bring about over an extended period of time. This indicates a degree of malice that Fr. Pfeiffer better become familiar with if he intends to work with this pervert. All the docuмents exchanged docuмenting his “cause” for firing are available but perhaps this sworn statement from another traditional priest might make an impression.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on March 22, 2016, 02:27:32 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
This sworn testimony of a priest perhaps might make an impression on Fr. Pfeiffer.


It might if he weren't a nutter.  Your inability to comprehend his actions is because you believe him to be a sane traditional Catholic priest.  

No, Fr Pfeiffer will only be swayed by a priest if that priest unconditionally supports his agenda.  And he's not about to let something as insignificant as schism, heresy, or even pedophilia stand in his way.  

Ask Fr Pfeiffer some time who is the Prelate of Our Lady of Quito.  His answer should be very interesting.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 22, 2016, 03:02:18 PM
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Ask Fr Pfeiffer some time who is the Prelate of Our Lady of Quito.  His answer should be very interesting.


What is his answer?

Ambrose? A modern-day St. Augustine who will convert and be consecrated bishop? (Pablo?)

Or is it Fr. Pfeiffer himself after his consecration?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 22, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: OHCA on March 22, 2016, 09:21:10 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.


Will this finally cause him to depart from Boston?  May this cause your brother to leave?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on March 22, 2016, 09:29:22 PM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.


Will this finally cause him to depart from Boston?  May this cause your brother to leave?


He "would not want to"? Why hasn't he departed because of the Ambrose scandal? Why hasn't he departed due to Fr. Pfeiffer's alienation of Bishops Williamson and Faure? Why hasn't he departed due to Fr. Pfeiffer's attack on Fr. Zendejas?

Why doesn't he definitively depart because of this new scandal?

What is it going to take?!!!!!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 22, 2016, 09:36:12 PM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.


Will this finally cause him to depart from Boston?  May this cause your brother to leave?


I look forward to seeing my brother again as he is flying home on Easter Sunday.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 22, 2016, 09:52:18 PM
We've had 46 pages of posts, revealing solid evidence of a homo-predator priest and this is all Fr. Pfeiffer can comment... through a 3rd party?   :facepalm:

What sort of priestly man do we have here?

In the last 5-years, Father's intellect has suffered greatly.  

Of course we've figured out the responsibility due to Father's "alter-ego" who lives in the rectory.

(https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/KfPnVhBO0Ys/mqdefault.jpg)

Perhaps Our Lady will help us?
Because the only way OLMC will ever turn around is when Pablo/pfeiffer are gone for good.



Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on March 22, 2016, 10:00:55 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.


Will this finally cause him to depart from Boston?  May this cause your brother to leave?


He "would not want to"? Why hasn't he departed because of the Ambrose scandal? Why hasn't he departed due to Fr. Pfeiffer's alienation of Bishops Williamson and Faure? Why hasn't he departed due to Fr. Pfeiffer's attack on Fr. Zendejas?

Why doesn't he definitively depart because of this new scandal?

What is it going to take?!!!!!


"Due to the scandal it would cause"... Is this another play at blaming the faithful for being scandalized like he kind of did in his Ambrose sermon? I believe he is sincere about not wanting anyone scandalized, but one gets the impression that if these darn faithful weren't so easily scandalized, they'd keep associating with both. Why not simply disassociate with Ambrose and Tetherow because of who they are?



 
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 23, 2016, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: Tiffany
Father Pfieffer or any other priest has no duty to post on cathinfo and IMO is wise to avoid doing so.


I didn't mean Pablo/pfieffer should start posting.
He's more comfortable communicating via his eclectic, long winded Youtube sermons.

It is fitting and just for him to come forward and apologize to "his public" for his lack of discernment and judgement.

This is what we expect from a good priest who is honest and cares for his faithful.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 23, 2016, 10:13:17 AM
Quote from: hollingsworth
Do you folks honestly think that Pfeiffer and Tetherow are worth devoting 47 pages of comments to?  


I'm okay with it because we learned about a pseudo-trad predator homo priest, we never knew about.

We gained more insight into the Pablo/pfeiffer mentality, which will one day be written about in another great Catholic Church exorcism story.

We're living through it and wait to see how it will all end  :popcorn:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: drew on March 23, 2016, 07:07:21 PM
Quote from: wallflower
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.


Will this finally cause him to depart from Boston?  May this cause your brother to leave?


He "would not want to"? Why hasn't he departed because of the Ambrose scandal? Why hasn't he departed due to Fr. Pfeiffer's alienation of Bishops Williamson and Faure? Why hasn't he departed due to Fr. Pfeiffer's attack on Fr. Zendejas?

Why doesn't he definitively depart because of this new scandal?

What is it going to take?!!!!!


"Due to the scandal it would cause"... Is this another play at blaming the faithful for being scandalized like he kind of did in his Ambrose sermon? I believe he is sincere about not wanting anyone scandalized, but one gets the impression that if these darn faithful weren't so easily scandalized, they'd keep associating with both. Why not simply disassociate with Ambrose and Tetherow because of who they are?


I would trust that Fr. Hewko is using the word “scandal” properly, that is, as an act or an omission in word or deed that is evil in itself which becomes the moral cause of another committing sin.  If Fr. Hewko considers that an association with Tetherow “would cause, and has caused… scandal,” it means that he considers the association an “evil in itself” that “would (lead), and has (led)” others into sin.

Drew
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: The Mrs on March 24, 2016, 10:41:22 AM
Quote from: Incredulous
We've had 46 pages of posts, revealing solid evidence of a homo-predator priest and this is all Fr. Pfeiffer can comment... through a 3rd party?   :facepalm:

What sort of priestly man do we have here?

In the last 5-years, Father's intellect has suffered greatly.  

Of course we've figured out the responsibility due to Father's "alter-ego" who lives in the rectory.

(https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/KfPnVhBO0Ys/mqdefault.jpg)

Perhaps Our Lady will help us?
Because the only way OLMC will ever turn around is when Pablo/pfeiffer are gone for good.



Incred, am I missing something?  Are you assuming that Father Hewko is speaking for Father Pfeiffer?  The only opinion I recall seeing in this thread of Father Pfeiffer is that the allegations against Father Tetherow were irrelevant (when the seminarian first approached him about Father T).  What makes you think Father P is in agreement with Father H?  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 24, 2016, 11:15:20 AM
Oh, that's an easy one.

If Father Hewko were in true disagreement with Pablo/pfeiffer, he'd leave OLMC.

Let me reverse the question.  

Are you implying that Father Hewko is in functioning in a void, without communication with Pablo/pfeiffer ?

Father Hewko is a most exceptional priest, so his attachment to OLMC is perplexing?

The only way to even try to understand it, is to consider the supernatural.
There's a demonic infiltration at the property.

It has affected Father Hewko and many others there.
This has been anecdotaly docuмented multiple times over by folks who know them.

Just look at the photo of "pablo" sitting in the Rectory. Does it not give you the creeps?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: PAT317 on March 24, 2016, 11:34:56 AM
Quote from: Incredulous
Just look at the photo of "pablo" sitting in the Rectory. Does it not give you the creeps?


Quote
Of course we've figured out the responsibility due to Father's "alter-ego" who lives in the rectory.

(https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/KfPnVhBO0Ys/mqdefault.jpg)

[/color]



Quote
(https://i.imgflip.com/10xu3x.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/10xu3x)
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: The Mrs on March 24, 2016, 11:41:55 AM
Quote from: Incredulous
Oh, that's an easy one.

If Father Hewko were in true disagreement with Pablo/pfeiffer, he'd leave OLMC.

Let me reverse the question.  

Are you implying that Father Hewko is in functioning in a void, without communication with Pablo/pfeiffer ?

Father Hewko is a most exceptional priest, so his attachment to OLMC is perplexing?

The only way to even try to understand it, is to consider the supernatural.
There's a demonic infiltration at the property.

It has affected Father Hewko and many others there.
This has been anecdotaly docuмented multiple times over by folks who know them.

Just look at the photo of "pablo" sitting in the Rectory. Does it not give you the creeps?
I agree that Father Hewko is influenced by Father Pfeiffer and Pablo. I am not questioning that. But, during the Ambrose affair, in the beginning, weren't Father P and Father H contradicting eachother in their initial statements?  My recollection is that Father H was telling their faithful there needed to be an investigation of Ambrose and Father Pfeiffer was sticking to his guns that Ambrose was legit.  My apologies if that is not correct, I am lacking the time to go through the videos and threads from the Ambrose incident.  In my mind, Father P could still be toeing the line that Fr Tetherow was "framed" and that there was nothing wrong with him referring his faithful to this laicized priest.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 24, 2016, 12:06:08 PM
Yes, Mrs.Johnson,

I think you're right on the sequence of statements coming from the Ambrose affair.

It's unclear to me where Fr. P and Fr. H stand on the Tetherow affair, but Fr. Pfeiffer's refusal to comment belies a greater struggle.

From observations, Fr. P is definitely the "Alpha male" in a gathering of Resistance priests.

However, Pablo/pfeiifer is clever enough to know that if they alienate Fr. Hewko, their whole Resistance gig, is going down, so to say.

I suppose I should make a special intention for Father Hewko, this Holy week.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 24, 2016, 02:13:09 PM
mea culpa:
Quote
I can see why no one will want to join the "Resistance".........resistance to what?


I've been asking a similar question for months, off and on, both on forums and in individual person to person contacts.  To date, I've had no satisfactory answer.  What exactly is being resisted.  Is it Fellay & Co.? Is it the church of Bergoglio?  Is it attendance at the NO Mass. Is it Bp. Williamson's approach to "resistance?" Who or what exactly is being resisted?  Or put in the active voice, who or what should we be presently resisting.

Because of this forum's numerous topics concerning Fr. Pfeiffer, one could be led to believe that the major "resistance" today should be directed against one lowly priest, who has obviously gone off the rails.  But surely, he can not continue to be a worthy or necessary object of "resistance."  He's the one who sullied the meaning and purpose of "resistance" to begin with.   :confused1:
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 24, 2016, 02:30:31 PM
"Resistance" is avoiding the sell-outs to the Faith as articulated by +ABL.

There's no effective Resistance now.  It has been derailed as you say.

In practical terms, Resistance is now reduced to finding a validly ordained priest, likely an independent, who will bring you the Sacraments.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Mea Culpa on March 24, 2016, 02:47:01 PM
From the little I've seen by visiting these forums, it looks like many of today's "Trads" seem to favour in attaching themselves to the personality of a priest or Bishop rather than the Truth......God.

Whether we get Holy Mass or not, sacraments or not, priests or not, etc....

 It is good to confide in the Lord, rather than to have confidence in man. It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes. Psalms 117:9
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Don on March 25, 2016, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Recusant Sede
If he lied about someone, I must have missed it.

well nows your chance to tell us all about it or forever be known as a slandering scuмball

What were the accusations exactly

who reported the accusations to the police

what did the police do about it

why
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Recusant Sede on March 25, 2016, 07:41:20 PM
Quote from: Don
youve been advized what to do for the good of your soul.... good luck at your Judgement


Well Don, it seems to me I've done nothing wrong or sinful in our exchange and I pray that God enlightens me if I did write something that I ought not have.

Remember that you have, in fact, called several people, including myself, liars and slanderers.

I forgive you.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Recusant Sede on March 25, 2016, 08:57:31 PM
Food for thought:

Saint Alphonsus punished Saint Gerard because of false accusations by a woman. When asked to defend himself against the accusations, Saint Gerard remained silent. His silence was taken as consent. There was no court of law and Saint Alphonsus made the assumption that he was guilty of the crime. What else could Saint Alphonsus do? No one came to the defense of Saint Gerard, not even himself.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: drew on March 26, 2016, 06:26:36 AM
This discussion brings up a serious question.  When should sound suspicions regarding a cleric be shared with others?  Only after a criminal conviction related to child porn?  With Tetherow there were many signs of serious problems before this criminal indictment that were excused.  Bishop Timlin did nothing about a problem that Bishop Martino addressed within a month of taking over the Diocese of Scranton.  Traditional Catholics were left to their own resources for discovery of any problems.

Our Mission began with Mass offered one Sunday a month and worked up to every Sunday and Holy Day over several years before having a resident priest.  We engaged different priests to offer a Mass from time to time to fill the schedule so we have had about 15 to 20 priests who have helped us over the years.  We have made an effort to do due diligence examination into their backgrounds but we have made two mistakes.  One was because information was withheld and the other because we were intentionally given false information.  We have also refused two priests who offered to help.  What is common to occur is that Catholics cover up for priests.  There was considerable evidence regarding Tetherow that was withheld by responsible sources that we learned about only after he was discharged.  

In these posts regarding Tetherow I have tried to only discuss what can be easily proved in the external forum which was enough for the Novus Ordo Church to laicize him after a canonical investigation lasting ten years.  Except for the procedure of administrative laicization that Benedict XVI established in 2008, which can only be used in very restricted cases that must unquestionably meet stringent criteria, a thorough canonical trial is always required to laicize any priest against his will.  Ten years is a long time to consider objective facts before making a judgment.  It clearly is not taken lightly.  All the information that was used in Tetherow’s laicization should have been made available to every Catholic.

But at the same time, I have a number of personal things I have witnessed and other well grounded suspicions of a deep seated moral corruption that, if true, are far more damnable than what the tribunal considered in making their judgment.  Should this information be shared with everyone?  Perhaps, because, despite the public information on this pervert, he still has a following of Catholics who believe him to be an unjustly persecuted priest.  

Tetherow is not just your common habitual liar.  Habitual liars (compulsive liars or pathological liars) just lie all the time but the lying is not typically goal directed and it is not typically associated with malice.  Tetherow’s lying is always goal directed even though he is often caught in lies that don’t seem to have any reason behind them, at least any reason that is clearly evident.  A sociopath (psychopath) is a liar who always has a clear purpose for telling lies.  Even though the consequences of lying are not well thought out by a sociopath, he always assumes that he can just tell another lie to avoid any problems.  The sociopath has no shame or regard for the rights of others while the habitual liar often regrets his lies when confronted.  More importantly a habitual liar can be helped by others to recognized and overcome the problem.  A sociopath knows he is a liar but he doesn’t care.  He has no remorse.  With indifference to the consequences of lying, the sociopath cannot be helped.  Once when Tetherow was caught in a public notorious lie he did apologize from the pulpit dripping in tears begging to be forgiven.  The apology was directed at one parishioner who he could not afford to offend.  The apology was just another lie.  A sociopath only repents when he’s caught or sees it as a profitable move.    

Quote from: Robert D. Hare, PhD
“Psychopaths (sociopaths) are social predators who charm, manipulate and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations and empty wallets.  Completely lacking in conscience and feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.” Robert D. Hare, PhD


Quote from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, i.e.: a sociopath or psychopath
Sociopath (psychopath) is a medical diagnosis called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), lists the diagnostic criteria as:
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose Antisocial Personality Disorder, the following criteria must be met:

1.   Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
a.   Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
i.   Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
ii.   Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of pro-social internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
b.   Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
i.   Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
ii.   Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
2.   Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
a.   Antagonism, characterized by:
i.   Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.
ii.   Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
iii.   Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism.
iv.   Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
b.   Disinhibition, characterized by:
i.   Irresponsibility: Disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises.
ii.   Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
iii.   Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self - damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.
3.   The impairments in personality functioning and the Individual’s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
4.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
5.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
6.   The individual is at least age 18 years.

We have specific examples of Tetherow meeting every one of these positive diagnostic criteria.  

I have not seen Tetherow in nearly six years but only last week I was told another story of him being caught in lie.  He told a group of Catholics that he had never met a certain priest before at any time.  A sixteen year old girl present quietly told her mother that he was lying.  She knew he was lying because six years ago this coming June this young girl was in the company of my wife when she drove the priest to meet Tetherow.  This priest wanted to meet Tetherow so it was arranged at the rental property of one of Tetherow’s she-women.  He spent most of the afternoon alone with Tetherow.  The mother of the young girl who passed on this story wondered why Tetherow would deny ever meeting this priest.  It seemed to her to be a lie without any reason, thus easier to dismiss.  Well, one very good reason is that this priest told me and my wife shortly after he had spoken in detail with Tetherow that he exercised an unnatural influence upon this woman in question and that ‘Tetherow and this woman had broken the sixth commandment.’   I did not ask him how he came to this conclusion.  When I called Tetherow a habitual liar, I was avoiding the more damming accusation that he is a “sociopath.”  It is easier to forgive a habitual liar than a sociopath.  It was Fr. Casimir Peterson, who just turned 95 years this month but still a priest and canon lawyer of sound mind who has helped our Mission from its beginning, after his investigation said plainly that Tetherow was a “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ” and “con-man.”  A “con-man” is just the everyday language for sociopath (psychopath).

How does a sociopath function as a priest?  The answer is that I don’t think he can but it’s not uncommon to see.  It is my opinion that there is a much greater incidence of sociopaths among ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs than heterosɛҳuąƖs because both are goal directed at self-satisfaction at the expense of others.  The love of a sociopath is like the love a man has for pizza.  It is a consuming love that destroys the thing loved.  Now, by some estimations, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs make up as much as 50% of the Novus Ordo clergy, it is not be surprising to find sociopaths common among clerics.  Actually, as a profession for personal profit, a sociopathic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can hardly find a better job.  The clerical collar is a very convincing cover for sociopathic behavior.  

I served Tetherow’s weekday Mass daily for about two years.  Kneeling directly behind him to elevate his chasuble at the consecration, I never once, not once, heard him pronounce the words of consecration during Mass.  I could hear nothing.  I have discussed this with other priests and they have told me that the form of the sacrament is to be said in a low voice, not an inaudible voice, for if the voice is inaudible there is no sensible form that is necessary for a valid sacrament.  It is no longer an “outward sign.”  I don’t believe that he consecrated the sacrament.  His abuse of the confessional was just as bad.  He routinely pried into areas of the conscience of penitents that were none of his business and have nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament.  He frequently told penitents confidential information, often lies, which he then bound to secrecy.  

To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.  

Tetherow habitually employs a Bela Lugosi “Look into my eyes” routine when he wants to impress his truthfulness on anyone.  He has tried it on me and my wife.  I found it weird and told him to knock it off.  My wife found it disturbing.  

Maybe the question to ask Fr. Pfeiffer is, “Have you been exorcised by Tetherow?”

I was responsible for bringing Tetherow to the York, PA area.  When he was discharged for cause on the advice of Fr. Casimir Peterson, about which Fr. Arthur DeMaio was informed and was in agreement, and legal counsel.  Fr. Peterson told me that I have an obligation to make known the information I had to inform faithful Catholics.  The revelation of the facts alone should be sufficient but still there are traditional Catholics who believe that this convicted felon on child porn charges is an unjustly persecuted holy priest.  This is a serious moral problem for Catholics who are trying to keep the faith and its necessary ecclesiastical traditions outside of normal governing structures that worked in the past and which no longer work even in the Novus Ordo structures.

In spite of these past problems, I strongly believe that the structure of our Mission in York is the best under these circuмstances in which we practice our faith today.  I would be willing to discuss what and why they are to anyone considering establishing an “independent” chapel.  

Wishing a blessed Easter to all.  Christ is Risen; Indeed He is Risen.  

Drew
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 26, 2016, 06:33:00 PM
Recusant Sede,

To answer your question,

YES Greg Taylor is a liar and a tool of Fr. Pfeiffer. To that entire group* (Pablo, Fr. Pfeiffer, Greg Taylor, "Maccabees", etc.) the ends justifies the means.

They will pore over a priest's sermon, looking for some "weak link" they can exploit and twist into some kind of error or heresy. Nevermind the TRUTH, or what the priest truly stands for (looking at his doctrine, behavior, or history as a whole). They treat life like a game of Axis and Allies, where winning (conquering the board) is all that matters, and that "no one ever remembers who came in 2nd".

*Note: I'm not saying everyone who supports (or is favorable to) Fr. Pfeiffer is like this, but there is certainly an "inner circle" that is guilty of this.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on March 26, 2016, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Matthew
Recusant Sede,

To answer your question,

YES Greg Taylor is a liar and a tool of Fr. Pfeiffer. To that entire group (Pablo, Fr. Pfeiffer, Greg Taylor, "Maccabees", etc.) the ends justifies the means.



I don't think in such a manner, and neither does anyone in my family. Everything, from beginning to end, must be done to please God. Unjust and sinful means do not please God.


*Note: I'm not saying everyone who supports (or is favorable to) Fr. Pfeiffer is like this, but there is certainly an "inner circle" that is guilty of this.

I wasn't referring to you.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 28, 2016, 11:33:23 AM


So is there enough to say that Fr. Pfeiffer is associating himself with convicted child porn harborers? Is there a concisae explanation for this?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 28, 2016, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: Centroamerica


So is there enough to say that Fr. Pfeiffer is associating himself with convicted child porn harborers? Is there a concisae explanation for this?


Perhaps Pablo needs another "amateur exorcist"? Many people are aware of Mr. Tetherow being an exorcism enthusiast. He even mentioned it in his sermons.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on March 28, 2016, 05:01:31 PM
Drew said:
I served Tetherow’s weekday Mass daily for about two years.  Kneeling directly behind him to elevate his chasuble at the consecration, I never once, not once, heard him pronounce the words of consecration during Mass.  I could hear nothing.  I have discussed this with other priests and they have told me that the form of the sacrament is to be said in a low voice, not an inaudible voice, for if the voice is inaudible there is no sensible form that is necessary for a valid sacrament.  It is no longer an “outward sign.”  I don’t believe that he consecrated the sacrament.  His abuse of the confessional was just as bad.  He routinely pried into areas of the conscience of penitents that were none of his business and have nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament.  He frequently told penitents confidential information, often lies, which he then bound to secrecy.  

To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.  

Tetherow habitually employs a Bela Lugosi “Look into my eyes” routine when he wants to impress his truthfulness on anyone.  He has tried it on me and my wife.  I found it weird and told him to knock it off.  My wife found it disturbing.  

Maybe the question to ask Fr. Pfeiffer is, “Have you been exorcised by Tetherow?”
[/quote]

Drew you nailed it.

I didn't know Tetherow had done all this.

This is a demonic possession case.
I don't believe he was operating alone, but rather, a satanic coven is behind him.
Besides Boston, KY, there's been a satanic infiltration at the trad chaples in Australia too.

Paul Hernandez has also been known to prey on women, trying to separate them from their spouses.

One of his ex-helper lady friends from the Phoenix area escaped and was hiding from him.
The person in contact with her said she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

These coven operations are networked. This isn't happening by chance.

It was providence that Fr. Pfeiffer let it slip that he was "friends" with Tetherow.

We don't need Pablo/pfeiffers response.



Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 29, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
I agree it was providence. I began a Novena to OL of Sorrows March 10th and to St. Joseph for this intention and on the 15th I saw this thread. For me it was Their "go ahead". We have more to add but we're giving someone else a chance to do it, God willing.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 31, 2016, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: drew
To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.



Quote from: Incredulous
Drew you nailed it.

I didn't know Tetherow had done all this.

This is a demonic possession case.
I don't believe he was operating alone, but rather, a satanic coven is behind him.
Besides Boston, KY, there's been a satanic infiltration at the trad chaples in Australia too.

Paul Hernandez has also been known to prey on women, trying to separate them from their spouses.

One of his ex-helper lady friends from the Phoenix area escaped and was hiding from him.
The person in contact with her said she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

These coven operations are networked. This isn't happening by chance.

It was providence that Fr. Pfeiffer let it slip that he was "friends" with Tetherow.



Important facts about the three women used by Tetherow to calumniate “his enemies”:


1-The woman he moved to York (name withheld):


As soon as Tetherow settled in York in the Summer of 2008, he asked my husband and I if this woman could stay in our home as a guest for a
couple of months while he found her a place to live. She was older and relied in his counseling. He got a member of the Mission to rent an apartment to her for which he applied for Section 8 in order to accommodate her. Tetherow collected money to rent a trailer to move her from New York and borrowed our Suburban to personally move her to York. Upon arrival, on October 31st, 2008, Tetherow called our home (2 miles away) for help unloading all the boxes. Two more months went by and she was still living in our home. She had not unpacked. In fact, she wanted to go back to NY and Tetherow asked me to help convince her to stay. She met Fr. Arthur de Maio, a priest who helped SSP&P as well as the SSPX in Pittston, PA at a funeral and talked to him in confidence. She told me that Fr. de Maio told her she had leave Tetherow and to go back to NY immediately. Tetherow suddenly surprised her! He came to our home to pick her up and take her to her apartment. He had single-handedly unpacked everything and decorated her home and bought her a new TV set. She was pleased and disobeyed the advice of Fr. de Maio. Never went back. When New Years Eve came, one of the families from SSP&P had a beautiful party for all the members and of course Tetherow. Tetherow declined because he had a “previous engagement”. He spent the evening instead in the apartment and company of this woman.

From that point I noticed much detraction from Fr. de Maio on the part of Tetherow. Later I found out it was calumny. He has done the same with other priests who knew him and often accused even priests of things we found that he is guilty of.

The priest who told us about this woman and Tetherow breaking the 6th commandment was not Fr. DeMaio. It was the priest that Tetherow denies ever meeting.



2- Second woman used by Tetherow:


This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.

#3 Woman used by Tetherow:
 
The next woman has seen through Tetherow from the start. She warned us about him a couple of months before the dismissal in 2010 but it was only from her own experiences with him and many, many lies, that Tetherow had been caught in regarding myself and my husband but by this time Tetherow had so turned everyone against us that they couldn’t care less. They all were willing and ready to turn the Mission of SSP&P to the SSPX.

The day before the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, 2013 this woman called me and told me she was ready (again) to leave Tetherow. I told her all we knew, which was the information we have shared here. The only thing we withheld was the canonical papers because we thought she may go back and did not want Tetherow to know what information we had until the proper time. The woman came to SSP&P Mission for Mass the next day. She arrived early and wanted to tell me “All the calummies she help Tetherow spread to destroy our reputation”. I didn’t want to know (better that way) and told her: “We move on,(name), I don’t need to know”. After taking for about 40 minutes, she told me she could not leave Tetherow without proof to show the people at Tetherow’s chapel because: “What he did to you and David, he will do to me” and she could not risk that. She tried to get information from Fr. Peterson but he would not give it to her because he is very experienced and he knew even his old friends refused to believe him. He reprimanded me for attempting to open people’s eyes in the past. He knew it was useless. He said to me: “Can’t you see that they don’t want to know because their hearts are not pure?! And indeed! This poor woman went back to Tetherow and as far as I know, she is still there.

I will copy below a letter we received from this woman (name withheld) on 08/2015. She had left Tetherow and sent us this letter at that time. Since then, she has returned to Tetherow. In her letter she blamed “her Hell” on us and Fr. Peterson for being “uncharitable” in not giving her the kind of “proof” that she needed to leave him. This woman received a “minor exorcism” from Tetherow. It was after this “exorcism” that she underwent a radical change in personality doing things objectively against the commandments at his direction that were entirely uncharacteristic of her behavior before.


PS:SMA= St Michael the Archangel, Tetherow's chapel. The email she speaks about was a reply to an email sent to SSP&P Mission by a friend of Tetherow and only those people he copied the email to, received my husband's reply.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 03, 2016, 03:09:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant Sede
Food for thought:

Saint Alphonsus punished Saint Gerard because of false accusations by a woman. When asked to defend himself against the accusations, Saint Gerard remained silent. His silence was taken as consent. There was no court of law and Saint Alphonsus made the assumption that he was guilty of the crime. What else could Saint Alphonsus do? No one came to the defense of Saint Gerard, not even himself.



This is hardly the case with Mr. Tetherow. He admitted his crime to the local authorities, to the diocese and to Rome in his canonical case. His followers who believe he is “a persecuted priest” would never mud their own names to defend his  in public. They cannot defend him on CathInfo because they know they cannot do it anonymously when those exposing him are doing it openly. When my husband defended him he saw it as a duty to defend an  "innocent" priest. Now, his duty is to warn others.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 06, 2016, 06:54:10 AM
Quote from: Caraffa
Fr. Tetherow is a convicted pedophile.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/TETHEROW.htm

How ironic that the title of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon is "Ecclesiastical Wickedness."


Since the links are not working, I wanted to post the announcement on the SS Peter and Paul website previously posted by Caraffa for the benefit of some. It has come to my attention that some people have left Mr. Tetherow's chapel including woman #3 mentioned in a previous post.

Quote from: D.M. Drew

Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow* published in a Catholic Blog:

Knights of Divine Mercy (http://www.knightsofdivinemercy.com/2010/12/04/fr-isaacs-contact-information/)

fr. gabriel tetherow says:  August 13, 2015 at 3:42 pm

“Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea is now a member of my community the Servants Minor of St. Francis and he is saying mass everyday and will soon be taking over a parish in Philadelphia.”


It has come to our attention that Tetherow is again passing around an argument offered in his defense which was formally retracted and apologized for many years ago.  Now that Tetherow is reforming his order we offer again a public evaluation of the man’s character.

I had direct experience dealing with Tetherow over several years.  In fact, I am the only one foolish enough to have defended this man in the public forum with credible arguments, a defense which I have publically apologized for because the arguments were proven to be entirely grounded upon lies, half-truths, and factual distortions provided by Tetherow.  Despite my public apology, Tetherow still passes the defense around.  If Tetherow wants to defend his name in this post or any other internet forum, I welcome the opportunity to confront him with his own record for the purpose of offering a charitable warning to other Catholics.  At any other time in the Church history Tetherow would never be permitted to be involved in pastoral care again.  At best he would be restricted to a monastery for a life of supervised penitence, and at worse, a life in clerical prison if he escaped burning at the stake. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow is a convicted felon on child pornography related charges and a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  The charge of “convicted felon” is a matter of public record.  The charge of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is based upon indirect evidence by his many associations with known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and a convicted ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ child abuser who was his principle advocate whose assistance prevented him from going to prison.
 
His original group of "Servants Minor of St. Francis" approved by Bishop Timlin in Scranton was suppressed by Bishop Martino within a month after he took over the diocese, not as Tetherow claims because of his traditional Catholicism, but because his order was considered to be a scandalous playhouse by the diocese. Bishop Martino confiscated the assets of the order and Tetherow was made a diocesan cleric and given liberty to go to any parish in the diocese who would take him.

After the suppression, Tetherow went by his own choice, and not as he claims under obedience to Bishop Martino, to live with his checkered friend Fr. Michael Kloton, who had a reputation for pornography and long history of substance abuse, at the parish of St. Ann in Tobyhanna where Kloton was pastor. The friendship between Tetherow and Kloton before the suppression of his order was established by sworn affidavits by clerical staff at St. Ann parish and proven by photographic evidence.  Tetherow had on previous occasions taken the members of his order to St. Ann to be entertained by Kloton. Before Tetherow had taken up residence at St. Ann, Kloton was already under investigation by the Diocese of Scranton because the clerical employees of the parish had discovered and complained about pornography on the Kloton’s computers at the parish.  They provided evidence to Bishop Timlin who did nothing beyond sending his representatives to pressure the staff into dropping the matter and keeping their mouths shut.  It was the same St. Ann employees who described in a sworn statement that the members of Tetherow's order were notoriously “effeminate.”  It was while Tetherow was living at St. Ann with Kloton that Tetherow downloaded child pornography. Once the child pornography was discovered on Tetherow’s personal computer, the police were called and Kloton pointed the finger at Tetherow as the only possible culprit.

Tetherow confessed to the police of downloading child pornography. He was arrested and charged with ten counts related to downloading and using child pornography. He plea-bargained guilty to the lesser charge of misuse of a communication facility and was sentenced to two years in Angelus_Fr.Arrested_1.jpgprison which was suspended on the condition that he serve the time at a monastery under the supervision of its one and only monk, Fr. Phillip (Angelus) Ferrara.  The monastery was Our Lady of Solitude Retreat Home in Little Meadows, PA.  Tetherow told everyone that he stayed at the monastery only to help an old and infirm monk with the care of the property and lend personal assistance.  Another lie! Ferrara is two years older than Tetherow and was in good enough health to be walked off the grounds in handcuffs by the police.  Not long after Tetherow completed his sentence, his friend and mentor, Fr. (Angelus) Ferrara, was arrested and charged for the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse of a teenage boy, convicted, and sentenced to prison in Pennsylvania.  Tetherow’s confession to downloading child pornography was also made to the diocese of Scranton and affirmed again in his canonical case sent to Rome to contest his laicization by the diocese of Scranton.  Tetherow now claims that he pled guilty because he could not defend himself without violating the confessional seal.  That is nothing but another big ugly lie which cannot stand the light of close examination.  I leave it to anyone to ask an experienced priest regarding the merits of this claim.  

It was Tetherow’s friend, Fr. (Angelus) Ferrara, who wrote the letter of recommendation to Rome in support of Tetherow who was trying to canonically contest the process of laicization. Tetherow's canonical argument to Rome, I kid you not, was that he had a long standing addiction to pornography, and, after the suppression of his order, he became depressed and abused alcohol which lead to his indiscrete use of child pornography. His argument continued that since he had obtained clinical medical help and was no longer depressed or abusing alcohol, therefore his addiction to pornography was under control and consequently he was no longer likely to indulge in illegal forms of pornography, and therefore, he should not be laicized.
 
Tetherow lost his canonical case and was laicized in 2015.  It should be emphasized that he was laicized through a formal canonical process in which he participated with canonical legal representation.  I do not know the competency of his legal representation but even Perry Mason could not have won his case.

I have personally caught Tetherow telling more lies than I can count or care to remember.   Even now, after more than five years of seeing this man, conversations with others uncover lies that he told.  Most of them are petty lies to puff-up his own image and usually include the demeaning others.  But his lies are habitual and I can throw more than dozen in his face that were witnessed by others that any Catholic would be ashamed to confess only because they are the work of small and petty soul.  If he tells anyone something in “confidence” they had better check the story out directly and at least twice with other sources.

 

Anyone associated with Tetherow or his reconstituted order had better be aware of his record because they will end up making it their own.  Anyone who would entrust their spiritual direction or the spiritual welfare of their children to this man will have no excuse for any of the consequences that may follow.

 
A more detailed discussion of Tetherow's character can be found reading the CathInfo Blog posting:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-mentions-a-Fr-Tetherow-who



D. M. Drew
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
York, PA

 

 

*AKA:  Virgil B. Tetherow

           Virgil Bradleigh Tetheaux

            Virgil B. Tetheaux

            Bradleigh V. Tetheaux

            U. B. Tetheaux

            Bradley V. Teetherow

            Bradley V. Tetherow

            V. B. Tetherow

            Bradleigh Tetheaux
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 12, 2016, 09:35:10 AM
Quote from: drew
This discussion brings up a serious question.  When should sound suspicions regarding a cleric be shared with others?  Only after a criminal conviction related to child porn?  With Tetherow there were many signs of serious problems before this criminal indictment that were excused.  Bishop Timlin did nothing about a problem that Bishop Martino addressed within a month of taking over the Diocese of Scranton.  Traditional Catholics were left to their own resources for discovery of any problems.

Our Mission began with Mass offered one Sunday a month and worked up to every Sunday and Holy Day over several years before having a resident priest.  We engaged different priests to offer a Mass from time to time to fill the schedule so we have had about 15 to 20 priests who have helped us over the years.  We have made an effort to do due diligence examination into their backgrounds but we have made two mistakes.  One was because information was withheld and the other because we were intentionally given false information.  We have also refused two priests who offered to help.  What is common to occur is that Catholics cover up for priests.  There was considerable evidence regarding Tetherow that was withheld by responsible sources that we learned about only after he was discharged.  

In these posts regarding Tetherow I have tried to only discuss what can be easily proved in the external forum which was enough for the Novus Ordo Church to laicize him after a canonical investigation lasting ten years.  Except for the procedure of administrative laicization that Benedict XVI established in 2008, which can only be used in very restricted cases that must unquestionably meet stringent criteria, a thorough canonical trial is always required to laicize any priest against his will.  Ten years is a long time to consider objective facts before making a judgment.  It clearly is not taken lightly.  All the information that was used in Tetherow’s laicization should have been made available to every Catholic.

But at the same time, I have a number of personal things I have witnessed and other well grounded suspicions of a deep seated moral corruption that, if true, are far more damnable than what the tribunal considered in making their judgment.  Should this information be shared with everyone?  Perhaps, because, despite the public information on this pervert, he still has a following of Catholics who believe him to be an unjustly persecuted priest.  

Tetherow is not just your common habitual liar.  Habitual liars (compulsive liars or pathological liars) just lie all the time but the lying is not typically goal directed and it is not typically associated with malice.  Tetherow’s lying is always goal directed even though he is often caught in lies that don’t seem to have any reason behind them, at least any reason that is clearly evident.  A sociopath (psychopath) is a liar who always has a clear purpose for telling lies.  Even though the consequences of lying are not well thought out by a sociopath, he always assumes that he can just tell another lie to avoid any problems.  The sociopath has no shame or regard for the rights of others while the habitual liar often regrets his lies when confronted.  More importantly a habitual liar can be helped by others to recognized and overcome the problem.  A sociopath knows he is a liar but he doesn’t care.  He has no remorse.  With indifference to the consequences of lying, the sociopath cannot be helped.  Once when Tetherow was caught in a public notorious lie he did apologize from the pulpit dripping in tears begging to be forgiven.  The apology was directed at one parishioner who he could not afford to offend.  The apology was just another lie.  A sociopath only repents when he’s caught or sees it as a profitable move.    

Quote from: Robert D. Hare, PhD
“Psychopaths (sociopaths) are social predators who charm, manipulate and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations and empty wallets.  Completely lacking in conscience and feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.” Robert D. Hare, PhD


Quote from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, i.e.: a sociopath or psychopath
Sociopath (psychopath) is a medical diagnosis called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), lists the diagnostic criteria as:
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose Antisocial Personality Disorder, the following criteria must be met:

1.   Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
a.   Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
i.   Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
ii.   Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of pro-social internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
b.   Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
i.   Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
ii.   Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
2.   Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
a.   Antagonism, characterized by:
i.   Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.
ii.   Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
iii.   Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism.
iv.   Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
b.   Disinhibition, characterized by:
i.   Irresponsibility: Disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises.
ii.   Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
iii.   Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self - damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.
3.   The impairments in personality functioning and the Individual’s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
4.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
5.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
6.   The individual is at least age 18 years.

We have specific examples of Tetherow meeting every one of these positive diagnostic criteria.  

I have not seen Tetherow in nearly six years but only last week I was told another story of him being caught in lie.  He told a group of Catholics that he had never met a certain priest before at any time.  A sixteen year old girl present quietly told her mother that he was lying.  She knew he was lying because six years ago this coming June this young girl was in the company of my wife when she drove the priest to meet Tetherow.  This priest wanted to meet Tetherow so it was arranged at the rental property of one of Tetherow’s she-women.  He spent most of the afternoon alone with Tetherow.  The mother of the young girl who passed on this story wondered why Tetherow would deny ever meeting this priest.  It seemed to her to be a lie without any reason, thus easier to dismiss.  Well, one very good reason is that this priest told me and my wife shortly after he had spoken in detail with Tetherow that he exercised an unnatural influence upon this woman in question and that ‘Tetherow and this woman had broken the sixth commandment.’   I did not ask him how he came to this conclusion.  When I called Tetherow a habitual liar, I was avoiding the more damming accusation that he is a “sociopath.”  It is easier to forgive a habitual liar than a sociopath.  It was Fr. Casimir Peterson, who just turned 95 years this month but still a priest and canon lawyer of sound mind who has helped our Mission from its beginning, after his investigation said plainly that Tetherow was a “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ” and “con-man.”  A “con-man” is just the everyday language for sociopath (psychopath).

How does a sociopath function as a priest?  The answer is that I don’t think he can but it’s not uncommon to see.  It is my opinion that there is a much greater incidence of sociopaths among ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs than heterosɛҳuąƖs because both are goal directed at self-satisfaction at the expense of others.  The love of a sociopath is like the love a man has for pizza.  It is a consuming love that destroys the thing loved.  Now, by some estimations, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs make up as much as 50% of the Novus Ordo clergy, it is not be surprising to find sociopaths common among clerics.  Actually, as a profession for personal profit, a sociopathic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can hardly find a better job.  The clerical collar is a very convincing cover for sociopathic behavior.  

I served Tetherow’s weekday Mass daily for about two years.  Kneeling directly behind him to elevate his chasuble at the consecration, I never once, not once, heard him pronounce the words of consecration during Mass.  I could hear nothing.  I have discussed this with other priests and they have told me that the form of the sacrament is to be said in a low voice, not an inaudible voice, for if the voice is inaudible there is no sensible form that is necessary for a valid sacrament.  It is no longer an “outward sign.”  I don’t believe that he consecrated the sacrament.  His abuse of the confessional was just as bad.  He routinely pried into areas of the conscience of penitents that were none of his business and have nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament.  He frequently told penitents confidential information, often lies, which he then bound to secrecy.  

To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.  

Tetherow habitually employs a Bela Lugosi “Look into my eyes” routine when he wants to impress his truthfulness on anyone.  He has tried it on me and my wife.  I found it weird and told him to knock it off.  My wife found it disturbing.  

Maybe the question to ask Fr. Pfeiffer is, “Have you been exorcised by Tetherow?”

I was responsible for bringing Tetherow to the York, PA area.  When he was discharged for cause on the advice of Fr. Casimir Peterson, about which Fr. Arthur DeMaio was informed and was in agreement, and legal counsel.  Fr. Peterson told me that I have an obligation to make known the information I had to inform faithful Catholics.  The revelation of the facts alone should be sufficient but still there are traditional Catholics who believe that this convicted felon on child porn charges is an unjustly persecuted holy priest.  This is a serious moral problem for Catholics who are trying to keep the faith and its necessary ecclesiastical traditions outside of normal governing structures that worked in the past and which no longer work even in the Novus Ordo structures.

In spite of these past problems, I strongly believe that the structure of our Mission in York is the best under these circuмstances in which we practice our faith today.  I would be willing to discuss what and why they are to anyone considering establishing an “independent” chapel.  

Wishing a blessed Easter to all.  Christ is Risen; Indeed He is Risen.  

Drew


For the benefit of the few who have left Mr. Tetherow's chapel recently, I wanted to bring this important post to the front. I'm sorry for the repetition for those who have read it.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Croixalist on April 12, 2016, 12:15:10 PM
Wait, what? Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea is associated with Tetherow? This is getting really weird!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 12, 2016, 01:26:16 PM
That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Croixalist on April 12, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.


But as far as you know, Fr. Relyea was/is working alongside him or was that a lie by Rowofteeth? I'd just like to know if that connection was real or imagined. Thanks!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 12, 2016, 03:32:05 PM
I don't know who Father Relyea is. The post by Mr. Tetherow was or is in a webpage for Knights of Divine Mercy. The link on CI is not showing but it is on Saints Peter and Paul Mission website under announcement s and then under TETHEROW. I don't know who the  KDM are. A friend of Mr. Tetherow insists on sending information to our website to show "how well he is doing". That's how we learned about the Tetherow post and all we know.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on April 12, 2016, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.


But as far as you know, Fr. Relyea was/is working alongside him or was that a lie by Rowofteeth? I'd just like to know if that connection was real or imagined. Thanks!


Fr. Relyea has never worked with Tetherow! I will send you a PM.

Update:

I sent you a message.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 12, 2016, 07:03:30 PM
Obscurus,

This is the time to speak up. People have to know how Mr. Tetherow operates, lies and manipulates. He intimidates "enemies" by telling them he has a "mafia friend who owes him favors and would do anything for him". My husband says it's just another lie. Who knows?

By the way, the name of the man that has been emailing SSP&P webpage with the most ridiculous things is Mr. John Modler. His emails are copied to many other people, even SV bishops and Mr. tetherow included so I don't think it would be imprudent to give his name and may help get somewhere as far as where some lies are coming from. Mr. Tetherow is well known for spreading disinformation to prove his "enemies" as liars who repeat his lies. He used that technique at SSP&P to discredit us. So we just ignore the emails.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on April 12, 2016, 07:42:25 PM
All I will say is that Tetherow's claim to be working with Fr. Relyea is a complete lie. It is unbelievable that Tetherow has made such a claim.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 12, 2016, 08:10:30 PM
As my husband says, his lies always seem to have a purpose. Fr. Relyea should be careful. Mr. Tetherow calumniates even priests. Usually those who know about his character in order to destroy their credibility.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 12, 2016, 08:50:29 PM
Obscurus,
If Fr. Relyea would like to send a disclaimer to Saints Peter and Paul Mission webpage, my husband can post it next to the lie. Mr. Tetherow claims  that Father Relyea is working for him.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 13, 2016, 10:00:35 AM
Someone (and his friends) must be very angry. This morning, during Mass I thought I heard someone come in silently, then a noise, but I wasn't sure. After Mass, as I was leaving I noticed a mess on the floor. I checked where it was coming from and noticed one of the two matching Holy Water fonts had been ripped from the wall and gone!

Happy Feat of the Solemnity of St. Joseph!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on April 13, 2016, 10:12:08 AM
Oh cram, another Pfeiffer flying monkey.  Modler was at OLMC last year so there's another connection to Pfeiffblo.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 13, 2016, 11:48:16 AM
Mr. Modler says he is a teacher and an original TOF with Mr. Tetherow, but look at one of his absurd emails. According to Modler, he was recruited to this area to help Tetherow start a school. This email was sent to the Washington Post from whom we got an auto email reply sent to SSP&P.

Quote
----Original message below-----
From: john.modler@gmail.com
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Fwd: sister servants of st. francis

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Modler <john.modler@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:03 PM
Subject: sister servants of st. francis
To: Christanne Roberts <maryscrusader33@gmail.com>, Jennifer Brown <celticjennibrown@yahoo.com>, CRUSADER OF MARY <faithandtradition@gmail.com>, "Muldowney, Rev. Thomas (Vicar General)" <Rev-TM-Muldowney@dioceseofscranton.org>, "Osborne, Teresa" <Teresa-Osborne@dioceseofscranton.org>
Cc: "stbonaventure@gmail.com" <stbonaventure@gmail.com>, virgil tetherow <posenti3@gmail.com>, Dave Romeo <DaveRomeo@daveromeo.com>, bpdimarzio@diobrook.org, archbishop.dolan@archny.org, chancery@youngstowndiocese.org, chancery@charlottediocese.org, Monsignor Jerome Lloyd OSJV <frjeromeosjv@yahoo.co.uk>, Mother Olga <motherolga@dmnazareth.org>, "St. Anthony of Padua Mission" <stantnypadmission@gmail.com>, TRADITIO Network <traditio@traditio.com>

https://web.archive.org/web/20010405014302/http://www.sssf.latinmass.org/[web.archive.org] Christy-you and jen can restart the sister servants of st. francis that Fr. Gabriel tetherow started in 1999-when he started the servants minor of st. francis. Now that he has restarted the servants minor of st. francis with fr. isaac jogues andfr. basel sarweh you can restart the sistersunder fr.tetherow's direction. Anna marie mcckomack that was the original nun for the community-is a loon and a total crackpot. Fr. Tetherow said she is a nutjob and the project would workwith a descent person.You and jen can do that. I have always been a third order member of the servants minor of st. francis and we were never suppressed and since fr. Tetherow wants the servants minor to be strictly a clerical priestly group of friars-i am proposing a residential community component of the smf-the Tosf would be the brothers side of the community. and would live in community and where a full habit.
   Fr. Gabriel Tetherow is loaded and has unlimited amounts of cash www.tetherow.com[tetherow.com] His family owns this resort and he is part owner and gets lots of cash every month. He can buy a house for the convent and another house for the tosf. He bought a house behind the church for himself and his mother and he had the parish buy new cars for him and his mother . The two parishes he has-st. padre pio and st.michael the archangel are loaded and have unlimited amounts of cash. Fr. Tetherow says he is debt free and has more cash on hand then the diocese of hαɾɾιsburgh and philadelphia combined.
    Fr. Gabriel Tetherow is a follower of the reforms of st. bonaventure. Fr. Tetherow believes in " whole person prosperity" He teaches that god does no want people to be poor. He teaches that god wants people to be rich and to have mre then enough.Lots of cash-new car-new house-new everything-unlimited riches. Fr. Tetherow lives a lavish lifestyle with his mother and the parish pays for it. Fr. Tetherow teaches that people are to take care of their priest and that means new cars and lots of cash. he and his mother get a new car every year. Fr. Tetherow believes his job is to get people out of bondage and into cash and prosperity. That means looking at the rood causes of why people are in poverty and poor and then attacking that and getting them out of poverty and into prosperity. Fr. Tetherow has made many of his parishioners-multi-millionaries.

Mr. Tetherow's father is in fact a business man in Oregon. However, his parents divorced decades ago and his father has been long remarried. Mr Tetherow Jr. has no partnership in his father's business or anything of the kind.

I wonder who "Anna marie mcckomack" is who Mr. Tetherow calls "a nutjob" in the email. Knowing what we now know and from this email from Modler, I think she was probably the only sane one. Anyway, I am sure no one will want Modler teaching their children.  He has no skills in basic English grammar.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 13, 2016, 02:15:44 PM
For entertainment only.  :popcorn: Maybe now Mr. Modler will lose our address.

Quote
Sent By:   Sent By John Modler
On:   Jan 01/29/16 6:56 PM
To:   To saintspeterandpaulrcm@comcast.net
   
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Modler <john.modler@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:54 PM
Subject: Big ceremony tommorrow afternoon

To: Markus Ramolla <MarkusRamolla@web.de>, Our Lady of Victory <ourladyofvictory@mail.com>, Christanne Roberts <maryscrusader33@gmail.com>
Cc: Jennifer Brown <celticjennibrown@yahoo.com>, CRUSADER OF MARY <faithandtradition@gmail.com>, amyshilts@chg.org

In a pontifical high mass-Fr. Gabriel Tetherow in potensia for the " Chair of st. peter" will ordain make Bishop Carlos Urrigoity a cardinal to the roman catholic church. Fr. tetherow will give Bishop urrigioty a red hat. Making him a cardinal of the roman catholic church. Also later in the day at evening vespers Fr. Tetherow will bless the habits and recieve the life vows of two girls who will be carmelit sisters. On sunday Fr. Tetherow in a high mass will ordain 3 men to the deaconate and alos accept their life vows as franciscan friars with his servants minor of st. francis and then next week he will ordain them to the priesthood and then Cardinal Urrgioty will consecrate them as bishops.


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Croixalist on April 13, 2016, 02:38:53 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Fr. Relyea has never worked with Tetherow! I will send you a PM.

Update:

I sent you a message.


Deo gratias!

Again, thanks for the heads up. I thought it made no sense for Fr. Relyea to be caught dead with that flaming fruitcake from Hell.

And for what it's worth Maria, that original link you posted now says "deleted post." If that was the original source and/or only place where he made that claim, perhaps there's no need for further action. Although I would really like to see Fr. Relyea come down hard on this bunch!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Prayerful on April 13, 2016, 06:44:57 PM
Mr Tetherow should have got far more psychiatric treatment. Even if his sɛҳuąƖ attraction to children is now gone, being charitable, he still is labouring under some deeply malign personality disorder.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on April 13, 2016, 07:56:53 PM
I hope this was simply satirical. If not it is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read. Minds are gone....
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 13, 2016, 11:30:09 PM
Precisely. What could this person be doing at OLMC seminary? Why do  Mr. Tetherow and Fr. Pfeiffer keep such company? Mr. Modler seems to be the equivalent of Pablo to Mr. Tetherow and has been around him almost as long. Same obsession.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: ultrarigorist on April 14, 2016, 11:28:59 AM
Here is a glimpse of John Modler's you-know-what account: You'll know them by the company they keep. That's Tetherow in 2 of the frames.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: BJ5 on April 14, 2016, 11:51:08 AM
This could mean a slew of Bishops and Cardinals for Kentucky!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Alexandria on April 14, 2016, 01:01:36 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.


But as far as you know, Fr. Relyea was/is working alongside him or was that a lie by Rowofteeth? I'd just like to know if that connection was real or imagined. Thanks!


Fr. Relyea has never worked with Tetherow! I will send you a PM.

Update:

I sent you a message.


This shocks me.  Fr. Relyea has been around for a while now.  He used to be with the FFI, then went out on his own.  Last I heard, he was somewhere in the midwest I think and was trying to start up his own religious community.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 14, 2016, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
And please don't tell me Urri-guru is a bishop?   :facepalm:

Will this insanity ever end???


Of course not! He is Vicar General for a diocese in Paraguay. That is why the email was so incredibly ridiculous! I'm just trying to show the madness of Fr. Pfeiffer's connection with Mr. Modler and company.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Alexandria on April 14, 2016, 01:34:54 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: Alexandria
And please don't tell me Urri-guru is a bishop?   :facepalm:

Will this insanity ever end???


Of course not! He is Vicar General for a diocese in Paraguay. That is why the email was so incredibly ridiculous! I'm just trying to show the madness of Fr. Pfeiffer's connection with Mr. Modler and company.


That's just as insane.  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on April 14, 2016, 07:21:59 PM
It's another sign, like the Yellowstone seismic activity, that something is about to blow, in Boston, KY.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on April 14, 2016, 07:55:08 PM
A quick perusal of his FB site and it shows a mish-mash of Catholic AND Protestant images...what in the world?

One example being "Word of Faith Worldwide Church"

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: wallflower on April 14, 2016, 07:58:48 PM
Quote from: obscurus

I hope this was simply satirical. If not it is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read. Minds are gone....


Ditto. I am so confused.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cathman7 on April 14, 2016, 08:04:21 PM
Why is he promoting Protestant material AND Bishop Williamson?

The mind reels...

Are these the people Fr. Pfeiffer attracts?
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 15, 2016, 10:59:24 AM
 I apologize for causing any confusion.  I have never met Mr. John Modler.  He contacted my husband who had a few conversations with him and he has sent us several emails.  We have only published a couple that were copied to us and several others.  What was clear to us from the beginning is that he was in communication with  Mr. Tetherow to whom he expressed devotion and he believed everything that Mr. Tetherow was saying to him. The information he passes on about Mr. Tetherow is information he has received from Mr. Tetherow himself and this is evident because he knows things he could only learn from Mr. Tetherow (and he mentions in the emails he has been in his Third Order from the beginning).  It was also evident to my husband that Modler is suffering from intellectual, psychological, and perhaps moral problems that are serious.
 
One of the first communications we received from Mr. Modler was that 'he understood and was pleased to know from Mr. Tetherow and we were now all very good friends and were working with him (Mr.T) to establish a school'.  We also learned from Mr. Modler, what we also knew from others, that Mr. Tetherow was continuing to pass on my husband's defense of him 5 years after it had been retracted.  All this had to be corrected in the public forum.
 
The reason for posting these emails was not for the purpose of giving any credibility to what Mr. Modler said, which is clearly mindless, but as my husband explained to me, others should see an example of how a psychopath is willing to unconscionably abuse another person.  Mr. Tetherow has done this very same thing to other people with serious psychological problems.  These are people who really need help but Mr. Tetherow uses them to spread rumors and disinformation.  Then, when he wants to cover himself, he gets them to pass on information that is obviously absurd.  Should anyone then confront him, he will blame the poor fool whom “he was only trying to help”.  

Mr. Tetherow is just using Mr.  Modler, for his own ends.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: drew on April 18, 2016, 02:49:44 PM
There has been a reply to our arguments and evidence from one of the psychopath's psychophants. Yesterday while at Mass my car was sprayed with acid ruining the paint across the hood, left panel and driver's door.  The difference in damages between my car and Tetherow's self-inflicted notoriety is that my car can be repainted.  

Drew
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: mw2016 on April 18, 2016, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Why is he promoting Protestant material AND Bishop Williamson?

The mind reels...

Are these the people Fr. Pfeiffer attracts?


Pardon my mistake, obscurus. I thought that FB page was for Fr. T and now I see it was "John Modler's" FB page.

At any rate, he's "friends" with a dead porn star...LOL.

Carry on!
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: obediens on April 19, 2016, 04:24:35 PM
Fr. Relyea was not and is not and never will be associated with Tetherow.

This Modler is a real piece of work. He calls himself a 'teacher' at hypothetical, religious orders which don't exist and the idea behind which is that of an eccentric woman with her own websites. See - http://cloisters.tripod.com/sistersofstlazarusraised and http://cloisters.tripod.com/holyinnocents.


Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.


But as far as you know, Fr. Relyea was/is working alongside him or was that a lie by Rowofteeth? I'd just like to know if that connection was real or imagined. Thanks!


Fr. Relyea has never worked with Tetherow! I will send you a PM.

Update:

I sent you a message.


This shocks me.  Fr. Relyea has been around for a while now.  He used to be with the FFI, then went out on his own.  Last I heard, he was somewhere in the midwest I think and was trying to start up his own religious community.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 20, 2016, 03:54:31 PM
Obediens,
Who owns that website?  Sounds like something designed by J. Modler.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: mw2016 on April 20, 2016, 04:22:03 PM
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Perhaps she was just an R rated star?


Sadly, no. A quick read of headlines showed she was (just before her death) involved in a high-profile rape case against a fellow porn star. I know, try not to laugh - I'm not sure how rape and fellow porn star co-workers go together exactly, *cough*.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Prayerful on April 20, 2016, 08:14:19 PM
If Mr T is now sticking to the legal sort of porn, it's an improvement. Maybe he could give it up, it hasn't helped him.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 23, 2016, 03:10:55 AM
Matthew, someone showed me John Modler's FB page a few days ago and it had a picture of two Franciscans. One of them is Mr. Tetherow as he looked then. Compare him to the picture you posted for me on page 46 of this thread which had the arrow pointing at him. As I mentioned before, he was much heavier and of course much shorter hair.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on April 23, 2016, 11:32:38 AM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy


Perhaps she was just an R rated star?


Sadly, no. A quick read of headlines showed she was (just before her death) involved in a high-profile rape case against a fellow porn star. I know, try not to laugh - I'm not sure how rape and fellow porn star co-workers go together exactly, *cough*.


Sorry, inside joke regarding calling pornography "R rated".  It's an OLMC thing.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 12, 2016, 10:56:32 AM

the grand master,

Your style of writing and vocabulary is so like John Modler that I might think that you are one and the same character.  "Grand Master" is a Masonic title.  Did it come to you as a momentary inspiration or is it the result of dedicated study?  Since you accuse others of "hiding behind false names" you should not object to publishing your own.  

The person you are defending is a convicted felon on child pornography related charges who confessed his guilt of the crime to both civil and Church authorities.  That is a "fact."  With friends like you, Mr. Tetherow has nothing to worry about from his enemies.

But just for the record, produce some evidence to your claim that "Tetherow has challenged Drew (for) years in a(n) open forum (to) debate - and drew (sic) and his wife never show up."  Obviously, an "open debate" requires docuмentary evidence.  For example, my husband has challenged the diocese of hαɾɾιsburg to an open debate regarding the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and canonical claims of Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission for more than 14 years and the letters docuмenting this open challenge are published on the Mission web page.

When you produce your evidence we can continue this discussion.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: the grand master on May 12, 2016, 02:52:29 PM
People are stupid-No this is not John Modler-and I will say-John Modler is not a defender of Fr. Gabriel Tetherow-Drew has his way and style of exposing Tetherow and J Modler has his own. John Modler was fooledby tetherow and Modler is like a shock jock- he sends out satire-crazy emails mentioning tetherow all over the place-this makes tetherow look stupid and gets people to react and also to look more at tetherow so they see hom for what he is and stop supporting him-he only has 2 small churches. drew and modler are actually trying to accomplish the same thing-they both have different tactics. Dr. drew is the investigator and Bill o'rielly way and Modler is like Howard stern. both are effective.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Croixalist on May 12, 2016, 06:44:20 PM
First I gotta say, that is one garbled paragraph. Secondly, one church is too many for Teethrow. Thirdly, I don't like cult members.

Got your first post deleted huh? You aren't long for this forum.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 12, 2016, 07:49:52 PM
Matthew,

My husband and I don't mind the insults of "the grand master." His accusations can be easily verified or refuted by anyone who is interested in examining the matter.  The "grand master" did not make up these charges but almost certainly received them from Mr. Tetherow.  We think his deleted posts are actually helpful for others to understand the kind of influence Mr. Tetherow, as a cult leader, exercises upon his followers.

A cult is characterized by the personality of the leader and never on fixed principles.  It may use principles at times when they are useful but when they no longer serve a purpose they are simply discarded.  This is exactly how Mr. Tetherow operates and many specific example can be offered.  But a mind that is grounded upon a human personality is no more stable than that personality.  It is a disturbing revelation to see traditional Catholics dissolved from being defenders of the faith to becoming cult members.  

On the other hand, the Catholic faithful only venerate personality in the context of its heroic steadfastness to the unchanging truths of our faith.  To find a cult leader within traditional Catholicism who turns Catholics from devotion to the faith to devotion to himself should make everyone reflect on how serious this problem is.    

This is an open forum and perhaps Mr.Tetherow can be induced to come forward and defend himself.  But that is not likely to happen. Psychopaths (sociopaths) exercise their influence by direct contact.  They almost always avoid written records of their dealings.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on May 12, 2016, 08:32:15 PM
I measured "the grand master" and found him wanting. Wanting in sanity, Catholic decency, and any degree of love of truth. His accusations were nonsensical and random -- complete garbage on my forum.

I know people like to throw around the term "cesspool" like it's nothing -- many people who choose to hang out on another forum will frequently call CathInfo various names, including "cesspool". But I defy them to point to any post that is "filth", "garbage", or "wretched sin" -- in other words, the "crap" that makes CathInfo a virtual "cesspool".

Fisheaters has been called this in the past, and for good reason. The moderator insists that transsɛҳuąƖs be respected in their gender bending, various worldly amusements are promoted, scandals are given (2 divorced Trad Catholics living together while only civilly married). THAT is a cesspool.

But how often do we routinely name call other forums on here? (Besides Fisheaters, which indeed has serious issues.) I certainly don't encourage it. But it goes beyond "hey, it's not me...it's my members!" because even my members don't do it.

Of course, these CathInfo slanderers don't have any reasons. It's completely a team game for them. CathInfo is Coke; they prefer Pepsi. But I don't ever want there to be a concrete reason for that epithet to be used against my forum.

When I see garbage, I delete it. Period. When I see a post that is sinful in itself, I delete it.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cloisters1963 on May 17, 2016, 11:46:31 AM
Quote from: obediens
Fr. Relyea was not and is not and never will be associated with Tetherow.


This is the "eccentric woman" behind those websites.  Those two initiatives are now part of our emerging charity charism, and Modler is not a part of it.  Out of charity, I ask your prayers for him, as he does have issues.  We do not have any brick-and-mortar institutes.  The formation at the present moment is entirely online, and will stay that way for the foreseeable future, with the members working locally in their apostolates.

The St. Lazarus Raised initiative is a simple webpage with coma resources, and prayer for the comatose.  The Holy Innocents' Karen Lhotka will begin her "seminary" formation in November with a co-founder.  This formation will take two years, with the intention of producing a society of apostolic life.

Anyone with inquiries can email me at conewfoundations@lycos.com

Blessings,
Cloisters1963

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 17, 2016, 01:29:43 PM
Quote from: cloisters1963

This is the "eccentric woman" behind those websites.  Those two initiatives are now part of our emerging charity charism, and Modler is not a part of it.  Out of charity, I ask your prayers for him, as he does have issues.  We do not have any brick-and-mortar institutes.  The formation at the present moment is entirely online, and will stay that way for the foreseeable future, with the members working locally in their apostolates.

The St. Lazarus Raised initiative is a simple webpage with coma resources, and prayer for the comatose.  The Holy Innocents' Karen Lhotka will begin her "seminary" formation in November with a co-founder.  This formation will take two years, with the intention of producing a society of apostolic life.

Anyone with inquiries can email me at conewfoundations@lycos.com

Blessings,
Cloisters1963



Is Virgil (Gabriel) Tetherow in any way, directly or indirectly, associated with your community?  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: cloisters1963 on May 17, 2016, 01:34:47 PM
Tetherow is not associated with our initiatives.

Blessings,
Cloisters1963
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: onewhoknows on May 18, 2016, 06:57:18 AM
2- Second woman used by Tetherow:

This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.


I would like to add that husband of second woman told a few persons that he moved to get his wife away from Tetherow.  Unfortunately he was spineless and moved her back.

As of recent, the husband and remaining 6 children no longer attend Tetherow's chapel.  He and the children go elsewhere without his wife.  And to add, most from Tetherow's chapel have all left.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: onewhoknows on May 18, 2016, 07:01:03 AM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: drew
To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.



Quote from: Incredulous
Drew you nailed it.

I didn't know Tetherow had done all this.

This is a demonic possession case.
I don't believe he was operating alone, but rather, a satanic coven is behind him.
Besides Boston, KY, there's been a satanic infiltration at the trad chaples in Australia too.

Paul Hernandez has also been known to prey on women, trying to separate them from their spouses.

One of his ex-helper lady friends from the Phoenix area escaped and was hiding from him.
The person in contact with her said she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

These coven operations are networked. This isn't happening by chance.

It was providence that Fr. Pfeiffer let it slip that he was "friends" with Tetherow.



Important facts about the three women used by Tetherow to calumniate “his enemies”:


1-The woman he moved to York (name withheld):


As soon as Tetherow settled in York in the Summer of 2008, he asked my husband and I if this woman could stay in our home as a guest for a
couple of months while he found her a place to live. She was older and relied in his counseling. He got a member of the Mission to rent an apartment to her for which he applied for Section 8 in order to accommodate her. Tetherow collected money to rent a trailer to move her from New York and borrowed our Suburban to personally move her to York. Upon arrival, on October 31st, 2008, Tetherow called our home (2 miles away) for help unloading all the boxes. Two more months went by and she was still living in our home. She had not unpacked. In fact, she wanted to go back to NY and Tetherow asked me to help convince her to stay. She met Fr. Arthur de Maio, a priest who helped SSP&P as well as the SSPX in Pittston, PA at a funeral and talked to him in confidence. She told me that Fr. de Maio told her she had leave Tetherow and to go back to NY immediately. Tetherow suddenly surprised her! He came to our home to pick her up and take her to her apartment. He had single-handedly unpacked everything and decorated her home and bought her a new TV set. She was pleased and disobeyed the advice of Fr. de Maio. Never went back. When New Years Eve came, one of the families from SSP&P had a beautiful party for all the members and of course Tetherow. Tetherow declined because he had a “previous engagement”. He spent the evening instead in the apartment and company of this woman.

From that point I noticed much detraction from Fr. de Maio on the part of Tetherow. Later I found out it was calumny. He has done the same with other priests who knew him and often accused even priests of things we found that he is guilty of.

The priest who told us about this woman and Tetherow breaking the 6th commandment was not Fr. DeMaio. It was the priest that Tetherow denies ever meeting.



2- Second woman used by Tetherow:


This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.

#3 Woman used by Tetherow:
 
The next woman has seen through Tetherow from the start. She warned us about him a couple of months before the dismissal in 2010 but it was only from her own experiences with him and many, many lies, that Tetherow had been caught in regarding myself and my husband but by this time Tetherow had so turned everyone against us that they couldn’t care less. They all were willing and ready to turn the Mission of SSP&P to the SSPX.

The day before the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, 2013 this woman called me and told me she was ready (again) to leave Tetherow. I told her all we knew, which was the information we have shared here. The only thing we withheld was the canonical papers because we thought she may go back and did not want Tetherow to know what information we had until the proper time. The woman came to SSP&P Mission for Mass the next day. She arrived early and wanted to tell me “All the calummies she help Tetherow spread to destroy our reputation”. I didn’t want to know (better that way) and told her: “We move on,(name), I don’t need to know”. After taking for about 40 minutes, she told me she could not leave Tetherow without proof to show the people at Tetherow’s chapel because: “What he did to you and David, he will do to me” and she could not risk that. She tried to get information from Fr. Peterson but he would not give it to her because he is very experienced and he knew even his old friends refused to believe him. He reprimanded me for attempting to open people’s eyes in the past. He knew it was useless. He said to me: “Can’t you see that they don’t want to know because their hearts are not pure?! And indeed! This poor woman went back to Tetherow and as far as I know, she is still there.

I will copy below a letter we received from this woman (name withheld) on 08/2015. She had left Tetherow and sent us this letter at that time. Since then, she has returned to Tetherow. In her letter she blamed “her Hell” on us and Fr. Peterson for being “uncharitable” in not giving her the kind of “proof” that she needed to leave him. This woman received a “minor exorcism” from Tetherow. It was after this “exorcism” that she underwent a radical change in personality doing things objectively against the commandments at his direction that were entirely uncharacteristic of her behavior before.


PS:SMA= St Michael the Archangel, Tetherow's chapel. The email she speaks about was a reply to an email sent to SSP&P Mission by a friend of Tetherow and only those people he copied the email to, received my husband's reply.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 18, 2016, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: onewhoknows
2- Second woman used by Tetherow:

This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.


I would like to add that husband of second woman told a few persons that he moved to get his wife away from Tetherow.  Unfortunately he was spineless and moved her back.

As of recent, the husband and remaining 6 children no longer attend Tetherow's chapel.  He and the children go elsewhere without his wife.  And to add, most from Tetherow's chapel have all left.


onewhoknows,
I'm glad to hear the husband is taking charge of the children. Unfortunately for him, "families that pray together stay together". Tetherow doesn't care what relationships he destroys. I pray for them daily at Mass.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 19, 2016, 10:41:15 AM
Quote from: onewhoknows


Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
2- Second woman used by Tetherow:

This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.


I would like to add that husband of second woman told a few persons that he moved to get his wife away from Tetherow.  Unfortunately he was spineless and moved her back.

As of recent, the husband and remaining 6 children no longer attend Tetherow's chapel.  He and the children go elsewhere without his wife.  And to add, most from Tetherow's chapel have all left.


I should mention that "woman #2" and husband (Mr. X) led the SSP&P revolt against us for Tetherow in spite of their dear friend and elderly priest's warning (Fr. Peterson) that Tetherow was a pedophile. He was also the financial backbone behind Tetherow. This man abandoning Tetherow is a big deal and a real threat to his continuing to deceive other Catholics. Mr. X is an excellent, generous, hardworking and very successful business man who loves his wife dearly and allows himself to be manipulated by Tetherow through her. They will need all the prayers your (every one's) charity can afford to get Mrs. X away from Tetherow. They have a beautiful family and the only way to get the two older ones brought back to the faith is to leave Tetherow 100% behind them and dedicate their time to them. Let's pray.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: onewhoknows on May 19, 2016, 01:49:20 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Quote from: onewhoknows


Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
2- Second woman used by Tetherow:

This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.


I would like to add that husband of second woman told a few persons that he moved to get his wife away from Tetherow.  Unfortunately he was spineless and moved her back.

As of recent, the husband and remaining 6 children no longer attend Tetherow's chapel.  He and the children go elsewhere without his wife.  And to add, most from Tetherow's chapel have all left.


I should mention that "woman #2" and husband (Mr. X) led the SSP&P revolt against us for Tetherow in spite of their dear friend and elderly priest's warning (Fr. Peterson) that Tetherow was a pedophile. He was also the financial backbone behind Tetherow. This man abandoning Tetherow is a big deal and a real threat to his continuing to deceive other Catholics. Mr. X is an excellent, generous, hardworking and very successful business man who loves his wife dearly and allows himself to be manipulated by Tetherow through her. They will need all the prayers your (every one's) charity can afford to get Mrs. X away from Tetherow. They have a beautiful family and the only way to get the two older ones brought back to the faith is to leave Tetherow 100% behind them and dedicate their time to them. Let's pray.


Yes I am well aware that they led the revolt.  If you can pray for them you are very charitable.  I do pray for the children.  The Mrs. will definitely need prayers when this all comes down.
There is a lot of pride there.
I wish I could pm you but this system doesn't let me.  I know you and you know me.  
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Matthew on May 19, 2016, 02:45:30 PM
I observe that each of us, on occasion, comes across a clear-cut case of objective, willful evil. And when we see it, we know it for what it is.

It's not a different opinion, not a different point of view, not something we could be wrong about -- but something that is just WRONG and we can't be silent about it.

For me, it's the man stubbornly following Fr. Pfeiffer -- now he's upset that Fr. Voigt isn't saying Mass here anymore, now he doesn't come to Fr. Voigt's Mass because Fr. Pfeiffer changed his view on Fr. Voigt... and telling his daughter to stop taking her 5 children to Mass with an awesome priest like Fr. Zendejas.

I do have an easier time pitying the woman and 5 children rather than the patriarch. The patriarch is clearly to blame for the great evils that will spring from his bad decision (children growing up without practice of the Faith, possibly ending up apostate and/or Novus Ordo)

Actually, in both our cases we have a psychopath that is content to manipulate people. The man (in my case) and the woman #2 (in your case) are both victims of a master manipulator. But are they blameless? Have they been hypnotized and totally blinded to the evils they perpetrate? That is hard to believe...

It reminds me of a man I knew who was dating a non-Catholic. Everyone in his family including me knew that she was a compulsive liar, but he stayed with her for quite a while. He had to be denying the truth, which is always sad.
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 19, 2016, 06:07:57 PM
onewhoknows,

IMO, to pray for the parents is to pray for the children. There are enough broken families even in traditional circles. There is enough scandal here to turn the children away from the faith and this is not just speculation, two already have. I have known some since they were infants. The mother needs to come to her senses and the father needs to step up to his responsibility as husband and father.

I think it takes a few days to send/receive messages. I don't know who you are but I hope you PM me when able. Thank you for your input.


Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: onewhoknows on May 19, 2016, 07:23:04 PM
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
onewhoknows,

IMO, to pray for the parents is to pray for the children. There are enough broken families even in traditional circles. There is enough scandal here to turn the children away from the faith and this is not just speculation, two already have. I have known some since they were infants. The mother needs to come to her senses and the father needs to step up to his responsibility as husband and father.

I think it takes a few days to send/receive messages. I don't know who you are but I hope you PM me when able. Thank you for your input.



We talked about this a little over a year ago face to face.

Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 26, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
Thank you, Matthew for this quote. I thought it would be a good ending for this thread.

Quote from: Matthew
St. Pius V
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).
So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n009rp_ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖPriests.htm


Quote from: D.Drew
I had direct experience dealing with Tetherow over several years.  In fact, I am the only one foolish enough to have defended this man in the public forum with credible arguments, a defense which I have publically apologized for because the arguments were proven to be entirely grounded upon lies, half-truths, and factual distortions provided by Tetherow.  Despite my public apology, Tetherow still passes the defense around.  If Tetherow wants to defend his name in this post or any other internet forum, I welcome the opportunity to confront him with his own record for the purpose of offering a charitable warning to other Catholics.  At any other time in the Church history Tetherow would never be permitted to be involved in pastoral care again.  At best he would be restricted to a monastery for a life of supervised penitence, and at worse, a life in clerical prison if he escaped burning at the stake...


Quote

Saint Catherine of Siena, a religious mystic of the 14th century, relays words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacred ministers, He says: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] … but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them…. It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.” (St. Catherine of Siena, El diálogo, in Obras de Santa Catarina de Siena (Madrid: BAC, 1991), p. 292)
Title: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Tiffany on May 29, 2016, 06:30:03 AM
Quote from: Matthew
I observe that each of us, on occasion, comes across a clear-cut case of objective, willful evil. And when we see it, we know it for what it is.

It's not a different opinion, not a different point of view, not something we could be wrong about -- but something that is just WRONG and we can't be silent about it.

For me, it's the man stubbornly following Fr. Pfeiffer -- now he's upset that Fr. Voigt isn't saying Mass here anymore, now he doesn't come to Fr. Voigt's Mass because Fr. Pfeiffer changed his view on Fr. Voigt... and telling his daughter to stop taking her 5 children to Mass with an awesome priest like Fr. Zendejas.

I do have an easier time pitying the woman and 5 children rather than the patriarch. The patriarch is clearly to blame for the great evils that will spring from his bad decision (children growing up without practice of the Faith, possibly ending up apostate and/or Novus Ordo)

Actually, in both our cases we have a psychopath that is content to manipulate people. The man (in my case) and the woman #2 (in your case) are both victims of a master manipulator. But are they blameless? Have they been hypnotized and totally blinded to the evils they perpetrate? That is hard to believe...

It reminds me of a man I knew who was dating a non-Catholic. Everyone in his family including me knew that she was a compulsive liar, but he stayed with her for quite a while. He had to be denying the truth, which is always sad.


This had nothing to do with priests or a trad chapel but I've been there seeing a psychopath con and manipulate and what you said is exactly right. Seeing it gave me nightmares for months. I  knew speaking up would hurt my reputation but I could not remain silent.

Yes it is hard to believe they are blind but look at the tactics the psychopaths use. It's very heart breaking to see someone under it. When the person comes close to breaking away they loosen the line a bit or they create fake abandonment drama.  Remember too the victims become brainwashed by the psychopath and may no longer trust those who actually care for them or believe that they still care.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hermit urban on May 14, 2017, 07:27:29 PM
There is no better way to cover up than to become the priest pious, so they gain the trust of the people, and then hurt ... :facepalm:
Title: Re: Rumor control reporting in...
Post by: drew on May 14, 2017, 08:26:55 PM
Okay, guys, I know fr Tetherow quite well.  
If you want to defend Tetherow, you should be willing to post using your proper name.  An anonymous posting does Tetherow no good.  No one has ever defended the pervert Tetherow in the public forum except me and, for whatever its worth, Fr. Pfeiffer.  Now Pfeiffer offered no evidence whatsoever beyond his personal conviction, and I have publically retracted and apologized for what I wrote, so that leaves you if you are willing to sign up.  I have known Tetherow longer than you and probably in closer proximity.  He is a liar and a pervert.  The entire argument that Tetherow was framed for the child porn was mine and it was based upon lies provided by Tetherow.  If you want to resurrect my defense than use you proper name and I will again address this false claim.

I have proof that Tetherow confessed to both criminal and clerical authorities of being guilty of downloading child pornography. For this act, he was convicted and sentenced to two years probation.  He was permitted to spend this two-year probation at the one-man monastery with his friend and clerical defender, the now convicted child molester, Fr. "Angelus" (Philip Ferrara).  It was Fr. Angelus who wrote Tetherow's character reference in his canonical trial in his effort to prevent laicization.  His canonical case lasted ten years before he was officially laicized. Fr. Angelus' ending up in jail might have been what finally sank Tetherow's case.  

You are correct that Tetherow "plays the field."  This is true every sociopath.  The story changes to manipulate the audience.  I have personally caught Tetherow in many lies that can be corroborated by witnesses.  I affirm that he lies habitually.  He tells some big lies like when he told everyone that Fr. Angelus was an old and infirmed man and he stayed at the monastery only as an act of charity, but more often he lies habitually in petty and what appears insignificant matters.  It often takes time to reveal his actual motives for lying but they eventually come out.  I have not seen or spoken to Tetherow since 2010 and still new lies are discovered during casual conversations with others.  If you do not know this, than you do not know Tetherow.

Anyone who would entrust their spiritual direction or the spiritual direction of their children to this man will have no excuse for the consequences.

Drew
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on May 14, 2017, 08:56:21 PM


Reprehensione dignum et justum! 
:fryingpan:
Title: Who is defending Fr Tetherow?
Post by: White Wolf on May 15, 2017, 02:19:35 PM
In response to Drew, my name is Michael Bradley and many know me quite well.  I was not trying, nor do I want to be, anonymous.  But at the same time, I would rather people consider what is being said rather than who is saying it.  Your whole report is just a recapitulation of what is already on the public forum.  Yeah, I know what Fr Tetherow confessed to and, yada, yada, yada.  You say you know him better than I do.  Well, give the evidence. At the end of the day, all you have is the police report.  The $64,000 question is: Are those proceedings credible.  I know well how Justice INC works in this country.  Do you?  I am going by frontline, first hand evidence.  Are you?  Yes, Fr has told lies to cover up things, and he also has a habit of telling the truth to parties where silence might be more in order.  But I could run down a long list of SSPX, FSSP, Independent, and sundry priests who have lied to yours truly on matters great and small.  If Fr Tetherow is a pervert, please provide the smoking gun, or, with all due respect, shut up.  We are talking about a priest here.  We are talking about God's holy priesthood.
And yes, I know Fr Angelus as well.  Did work for him both in Scranton and Lauraeysville, or however you spell it.  Lived the monastic life there for six months.  Had more dogs than you could shake a Kong at.  I would agree he had mental problems, and maybe really is a molester, though for the life of me I just can't see a 70 year old man...  But when I was there he did have health problems.  He was on a whole regimen of medications.  Maybe something snapped?  I don't know.  I do know this "pedophilia" thing goes at least as far back as the 1940's, and that the further up the hierarchy you were the more prevalent.  All the gory details are docuмented in the "Rite of Sodomy".  
Fr Tetherow does have the background.  He was raised in a silver spoon environment.  He worked as a "model" and one can only imagine the kind of people he was in daily contact with.  When he was a seminarian at Mt Angel he told me of the rampant pornography there.  He also had his brains fried in college.  But if he really was a liability, he would have never been ordained, never involved with the FSSP, which sees pedophilia a close second to criticizing Vatican II.
I'm only giving the facts as I see them.  I'm neither trying to do Fr Tetherow any "good", nor calumniate others. 
I myself have many questions about the matter, and as you can see I have a stake here.  I would like solid facts on which to make informed decisions, not rants from people who may have some agenda.
When you stumble across the perfect priest, let me know, I'd love to meet him.  In the meantime, a lot of us have to put aside the conceptions we formed in third grade about authority figures and move on.  SOmeday, the world will recover its innocence, but that will not be until the internet is brought to naught (which it soon, very soon, shall be.  Just wait and see.)
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us, you are our only hope.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hermit urban on May 15, 2017, 04:38:58 PM
White Wolf ¿your name is s Michael Bradley o  Virgil Bradley Tetherow?   I ask because casually the pervert has the same name and uses it many times to change his identity, I give examples:

Virgil Bradleigh Tetheaux

Virgilio B. Tetheaux  

Bradleigh V. Tetheaux  

Bradley V. Teetherow  

Bradley V. Tetherow    

VB Tetherow  

bradleigh Tetheaux


Mmmm ... ¿pedophile doing self-defense?...
Title: Re: Who is defending Fr Tetherow?
Post by: drew on May 15, 2017, 04:52:18 PM
In response to Drew, my name is Michael Bradley and many know me quite well.  I was not trying, nor do I want to be, anonymous.  But at the same time, I would rather people consider what is being said rather than who is saying it.  Your whole report is just a recapitulation of what is already on the public forum.  Yeah, I know what Fr Tetherow confessed to and, yada, yada, yada.  You say you know him better than I do.  Well, give the evidence. At the end of the day, all you have is the police report.  The $64,000 question is: Are those proceedings credible.  I know well how Justice INC works in this country.  Do you?  I am going by frontline, first hand evidence.  Are you?  Yes, Fr has told lies to cover up things, and he also has a habit of telling the truth to parties where silence might be more in order.  But I could run down a long list of SSPX, FSSP, Independent, and sundry priests who have lied to yours truly on matters great and small.  If Fr Tetherow is a pervert, please provide the smoking gun, or, with all due respect, shut up.  We are talking about a priest here.  We are talking about God's holy priesthood.
And yes, I know Fr Angelus as well.  Did work for him both in Scranton and Lauraeysville, or however you spell it.  Lived the monastic life there for six months.  Had more dogs than you could shake a Kong at.  I would agree he had mental problems, and maybe really is a molester, though for the life of me I just can't see a 70 year old man...  But when I was there he did have health problems.  He was on a whole regimen of medications.  Maybe something snapped?  I don't know.  I do know this "pedophilia" thing goes at least as far back as the 1940's, and that the further up the hierarchy you were the more prevalent.  All the gory details are docuмented in the "Rite of Sodomy".  
Fr Tetherow does have the background.  He was raised in a silver spoon environment.  He worked as a "model" and one can only imagine the kind of people he was in daily contact with.  When he was a seminarian at Mt Angel he told me of the rampant pornography there.  He also had his brains fried in college.  But if he really was a liability, he would have never been ordained, never involved with the FSSP, which sees pedophilia a close second to criticizing Vatican II.
I'm only giving the facts as I see them.  I'm neither trying to do Fr Tetherow any "good", nor calumniate others.  But I do get irked at seeing a priest slammed on the basis of internet posts that are 99% unsubstantiated rumors and 1% fact.
I myself have many questions about the matter, and as you can see I have a stake here.  I would like solid facts on which to make informed decisions, not rants from people who may have some agenda.
When you stumble across the perfect priest, let me know, I'd love to meet him.  In the meantime, a lot of us have to put aside the conceptions we formed in third grade about authority figures and move on.  SOmeday, the world will recover its innocence, but that will not be until the internet is brought to naught (which it soon, very soon, shall be.  Just wait and see.)
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us, you are our only hope.

There are a number of problems with your post.  You claim to know "Fr. Angelus (Philip Ferrara) as well" and "lived the monastic life there for six months."  You say the he is a "70 year old man" with "health problems... taking a whole regimen of medications."  He is not.  He is about two years older than Tetherow.  His picture of his arrest and his age is available with a web search.  I believe he was 46 years of age when he began his prison term.  His only health problem revealed in his criminal proceedings was a non-specific urological problem that he claimed made his abuse of the minor boy necessary because the priest that used to help him was no longer around.  The priest that was no longer around was Tetherow.  It was Tetherow who lied to everyone that Fr. Angelus was in his seventies and gravely ill.  Maybe you are having trouble pasting things together.
 
Tetherow confessed to the police of downloading child pornography and was convicted of a felony on a plea bargain and sentenced to two years in prison.  He was permitted to spend his prison term with Fr. Angleus.  This is a matter of public record.  I have seen Tetherow's canonical case filed to Rome in his attempt to prevent his laicization.  It contains a record of his admission of guilt to his local ordinary and to Rome.  I also have a record of his admission regarding his efforts to obtain docuмented medical help in overcoming his admitted addiction to pornography and alcohol with a specific risk stratification for recidivism. 
 
Tetherow has a long history of working in fields predominated by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs such as male modeling, Mr. Oregon contestant, working as a waiter in high end restaurants, etc., and I can provide the names of individuals to whom Tetherow showed his lewd modeling pictures. He has many associations as friends with known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs such as Fr. Angelus.  It is a docuмented fact that he routinely went with his fellow "effeminate" Franciscans to St. Ann in Tobyhanna where the computers were loaded with pornography long before he moved there after the suppression of his order. 
 
I would not want to know as his friend.
 
If you post again please provide a home address with personal and professional references.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hermit urban on May 15, 2017, 05:14:35 PM
Philip Ferrara  http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/KS22530/Philip-Albert-Ferrara.html 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on May 15, 2017, 11:00:06 PM
White Wolf ¿your name is s Michael Bradley o  Virgil Bradley Tetherow?   I ask because casually the pervert has the same name and uses it many times to change his identity, I give examples:

Virgil Bradleigh Tetheaux

Virgilio B. Tetheaux  

Bradleigh V. Tetheaux  

Bradley V. Teetherow  

Bradley V. Tetherow    

VB Tetherow  

bradleigh Tetheaux


Mmmm ... ¿pedophile doing self-defense?...

And Michael as his chapel's mame (St.Michael the Archangel)? Please!
Title: The plot thickens....
Post by: White Wolf on May 16, 2017, 10:14:24 AM
So I give my name, and nobody believes me?  At any rate, if all this stuff is so docuмented, please provide proof.  No, I am not going to post contact information etc.  But it seems to me that at least some of you are posting from the York Chapel, Sts Peter and Paul, I think.  You don't know me; you know nothing of my background, and so you are making inferences as to things you know nothing about.  At any rate, ask Fr Ken Novak who I am, or his brother Lawrence, or Fr Cyprian, or Fr Gizmondi, or half the people at St Vincent's in Kansas City, or Dickinson TX, or El Paso, or Boston Kentucky, or St Michaels in Scranton, or and etc.  But let me continue.  I do know there was a lot of bad blood between the York Chapel and Fr Tetherow.  I know the chapel basically split over the issue.  And now I, who am telling the truth and trying to get to the truth, have to be bombarded by rancor from people that obviously orbit this post like Darth Vader searching for Klingons.  I can offer that up to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  For people like Miss Auxiliadora to make posts based on a coincidence inferring that I am some sort of fellow pervert traveler is appalling.  You are slaughtering your integrity in plain sight. If this is representative of the quality of people who post here perhaps Bishop W is right after all and I might as well set up a hermitage on tops of Mt Peale and just be done with it until I see the mushroom clouds on the far horizon.  As for Fr Angelus, no, everything I said is true.  I am not saying he is or was angelic.  He tried to curry favor to the the powers that be and failed.  I was not there with the incident concerning Fr Angelus and the youth, so I cannot comment.  Yes I am aware of Fr Tetherow's background and yes it is appalling, but so was ST Augustine and St Magdalene if you will recall.  I am not so much defending Fr Tetherow in particular as the Catholic priesthood in general.  If, Mr Drew, you have all this damnable information, why did you not post it in your open letter?  (Can I assume you are the author?)  I read that letter some months ago.  You are going to impugn a priest based on a police report where Fr Tetherow very well may have had grave pressure placed on him to "confess".  Ever hear of the "brownstoning" technique?  Ever hear of somebody's reputation being smeared with lies and etc.  This society is operated by criminals with a satanic hatred for Holy Mother Church, so perhaps you should not jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.  Obviously people are making flaming leaps to draw conclusions about me without knowing any of the facts.
Never did I claim that Fr Tetherow is not a pervert.  But if you are going to make accusations of this nature you had better back them up.  I am not making stuff up to defend either Fr Tetherow or Fr Angelus.  Perversion is rampant in the Catholic Church, probably going back generations.  I am of the opinion that when it all finally hits the fan, many people are going to gasp in unbelief.
I am not saying that Fr Tetherow did not mislead you.  He has mislead people and told lies.  I know that for a fact.  But I could fill a greyhound bus with all the priests who have told me lies vast and sundry, from SSPX, FSSP, and elsewhere.  That is tragic.  And I do think there are predators out there in Tradition.  We must be careful these days.  
But this will be my last post on this thread unless somebody wants to have a truly constructive dialog, and not one filled with petty rancor.  In the meantime, we must pray for all the clergy vast and sundry.
(Meanwhile, as we say in bomber command, if you're getting flak that means you're close to the target. :jumping2:)
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, you are our only hope.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: hermit urban on May 16, 2017, 01:26:01 PM
Why so nervous? :cussing: (ironic) I did not ask for your various forms of contact, but thank you, we will make our inquiries, because we do not want pedophiles between us. If the bishops and priests do not throw them out, we will throw them out   :boxer:.

But you lied saying that Ferrara was 70 years old and younger: 
Philip Ferrara  http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/KS22530/Philip-Albert-Ferrara.html 


The justice has already been executed, it only needs to be dropped by the Divine, that no one escapes  :heretic:

Good Bye!!!
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: TheRealMcCoy on May 16, 2017, 03:08:59 PM
Hello,

I personally know White Wolf.  His IRL name is Mike Bradley and he resided at the OLMC campus for well over a year as a lay brother and handyman.  He participated in the Divine Office and was a member of the scola.  Pablo despised Mike and finally got rid of him last year.  Mike was the person that clocked Pablo in Nazareth, KY.  Mike was known by locals as a quiet and hard-working man who kept to himself.  He loved his dog Lucretia and could be seen frequently walking with his dog and praying the Rosary on the country roads around Boston.  Although he's a bit eccentric he is very gentlemanly and has a dry sense of humor.  The seminarians liked him and he often engaged in epic Axis & Allies allnighters with Fr. Pfeiffer.  So I vouch for his identity and the story he tells about the happenings at OLMC are true.

About half a dozen former OLMC residents post on this board.  
Title: Kudos to The Real McCoy
Post by: White Wolf on May 17, 2017, 02:27:30 PM
Thanks for the support, McCoy.
Actually, my dog was named Chrisha, officially, but was short for Lucretia.  (One of the seminarians insisted my dog's name was Krishna, proof that I was a flaming pagan :P)  Only a very few people were privy to that info, so I have you narrowed down...  :laugh1:.
But should you tell the fans that I LOVED my dog?   Golly, the rumors that might start.  :laugh2:
But talking about my second life as Admiral  Isoroku Yamamoto is giving away way too much... say much more, and I will have you pegged. ;D
But what is this about "clocking Pablo" in Narareth KY??  I have no recollection of what seems to be a legendary and well known event.  But please, don't enlighten me.  Let's just hope Pablo can avoid hell.  

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.  You are our only hope.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Incredulous on May 17, 2017, 03:43:23 PM

Do you mean to say Chrisha was not sacrificed like the other dogs and chickens on the property ?

(http://cosmosandlogos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Aztec-Sacrifice.jpg)
Title: Re: The plot thickens....
Post by: drew on May 17, 2017, 04:23:09 PM
So I give my name, and nobody believes me?  At any rate, if all this stuff is so docuмented, please provide proof.  No, I am not going to post contact information etc.  But it seems to me that at least some of you are posting from the York Chapel, Sts Peter and Paul, I think.  You don't know me; you know nothing of my background, and so you are making inferences as to things you know nothing about.  At any rate, ask Fr Ken Novak who I am, or his brother Lawrence, or Fr Cyprian, or Fr Gizmondi, or half the people at St Vincent's in Kansas City, or Dickinson TX, or El Paso, or Boston Kentucky, or St Michaels in Scranton, or and etc.  But let me continue.  I do know there was a lot of bad blood between the York Chapel and Fr Tetherow.  I know the chapel basically split over the issue.  And now I, who am telling the truth and trying to get to the truth, have to be bombarded by rancor from people that obviously orbit this post like Darth Vader searching for Klingons.  I can offer that up to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  For people like Miss Auxiliadora to make posts based on a coincidence inferring that I am some sort of fellow pervert traveler is appalling.  You are slaughtering your integrity in plain sight. If this is representative of the quality of people who post here perhaps Bishop W is right after all and I might as well set up a hermitage on tops of Mt Peale and just be done with it until I see the mushroom clouds on the far horizon.  As for Fr Angelus, no, everything I said is true.  I am not saying he is or was angelic.  He tried to curry favor to the the powers that be and failed.  I was not there with the incident concerning Fr Angelus and the youth, so I cannot comment.  Yes I am aware of Fr Tetherow's background and yes it is appalling, but so was ST Augustine and St Magdalene if you will recall.  I am not so much defending Fr Tetherow in particular as the Catholic priesthood in general.  If, Mr Drew, you have all this damnable information, why did you not post it in your open letter?  (Can I assume you are the author?)  I read that letter some months ago.  You are going to impugn a priest based on a police report where Fr Tetherow very well may have had grave pressure placed on him to "confess".  Ever hear of the "brownstoning" technique?  Ever hear of somebody's reputation being smeared with lies and etc.  This society is operated by criminals with a satanic hatred for Holy Mother Church, so perhaps you should not jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.  Obviously people are making flaming leaps to draw conclusions about me without knowing any of the facts.
Never did I claim that Fr Tetherow is not a pervert.  But if you are going to make accusations of this nature you had better back them up.  I am not making stuff up to defend either Fr Tetherow or Fr Angelus.  Perversion is rampant in the Catholic Church, probably going back generations.  I am of the opinion that when it all finally hits the fan, many people are going to gasp in unbelief.
I am not saying that Fr Tetherow did not mislead you.  He has mislead people and told lies.  I know that for a fact.  But I could fill a greyhound bus with all the priests who have told me lies vast and sundry, from SSPX, FSSP, and elsewhere.  That is tragic.  And I do think there are predators out there in Tradition.  We must be careful these days.  
But this will be my last post on this thread unless somebody wants to have a truly constructive dialog, and not one filled with petty rancor.  In the meantime, we must pray for all the clergy vast and sundry.
(Meanwhile, as we say in bomber command, if you're getting flak that means you're close to the target. :jumping2:)
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, you are our only hope.

"So (you) give (your) name and nobody believes (you)? Mr. Bradley, you need to post besides your name, you place of residence with contact information as well as good references that are verifiable. Why?
Quote from: White Wolf
And yes, I know Fr Angelus as well. Did work for him both in Scranton and Lauraeysville, or however you spell it. Lived the monastic life there for six months. Had more dogs than you could shake a Kong at. I would agree he had mental problems, and maybe really is a molester, though for the life of me I just can't see a 70 year old man... But when I was there he did have health problems. He was on a whole regimen of medications.

The man you claim to have "know well," to have “worked” for in two locations, to have spent six months at his one-man monastery is about 25 years younger than you have affirmed and he is not in poor health. You are a liar. This lie just happens to be the same lie that Mr. Tetherow has passed along since 1995 in every detail.  Either you got it firsthand from Tetherow or pickled it up from one of the many he has told it to but your version of the story is clearly a fabrication.  Philip Ferrara may still be in prison.  But then, maybe you think he, like his friend Tetherow, is just another victim.

 Why should an established liar be given any credibility when he calls into question and dismisses the proceedings of the criminal justice system's handling of the Tetherow case as nothing more than a “police report” without a shred of evidence? Or calls into question the proceedings of his canonical case that after ten year laicized him based upon the evidence submitted by the diocese of Scranton and Mr. Tetherow who was ably represented? You are defending a convicted felon on child pornography related charges and the burden of proof wholly rests with you to overturn the public record that begins with an admission of guilt from Tetherow.

There are numerous, numerous problems with you post but why address them?  You are a liar and I and everyone reading this thread now knows it.
 
 Drew


Title: Re: The plot thickens....
Post by: drew on May 17, 2017, 07:11:27 PM
The man you claim to have "know well," to have “worked” for in two locations, to have spent six months at his one-man monastery is about 25 years younger than you have affirmed and he is not in poor health. You are a liar. This lie just happens to be the same lie that Mr. Tetherow has passed along since 1995 in every detail.  Either you got it firsthand from Tetherow or pickled it up from one of the many he has told it to but your version of the story is clearly a fabrication.  Philip Ferrara may still be in prison.  But then, maybe you think he, like his friend Tetherow, is just another victim.

 Why should an established liar be given any credibility when he calls into question and dismisses the proceedings of the criminal justice system's handling of the Tetherow case as nothing more than a “police report” without a shred of evidence? Or calls into question the proceedings of his canonical case that after ten year laicized him based upon the evidence submitted by the diocese of Scranton and Mr. Tetherow who was ably represented? You are defending a convicted felon on child pornography related charges and the burden of proof wholly rests with you to overturn the public record that begins with an admission of guilt from Tetherow.

There are numerous, numerous problems with you post but why address them?  You are a liar and I and everyone reading this thread now knows it.
 
 Drew

Correction: Should be 2005 and not 1995.

Drew
Title: Don helmets and fasten seat belts...
Post by: White Wolf on May 18, 2017, 03:42:11 AM
Massive truth bombs ahead.
Okay, I have read this entire thread.  I have heard the rat-atat-tat of piddly 9mm machine guns vast and sundry against Fr Tetherow.  I have heard all the silly accusations based on innuendo and rumors and etc.  I have seen all the silly accusations of Fr Tetherow doing everything from shacking up to placing demonic hexes on women to... :facepalm:.  All these accusations appear to have no foundation whatsoever...
(Battleship guns locking into position...)
But there IS a well-docuмented case that has not even been mentioned here, a case that has real victims, sordid, ugly court depositions...
(Stand by to fire...)
And this case has widespread ramifications, ramifications that go all the way to the Vatican...
(five.... four.... )
This case has cut a swath of destruction through the SSPX... FSSP...
(three... Two...)
This case may even have "Pizzagate" ramifications...
(one...)
And this case is the real reason for any angst I might have with Fr Tetherow...
(Hope those blast shields are down...)
But this case is going to give lots of other people angst as well...
(Fire!)
"Emboldened by the apparent support from Rome, Livieres courted controversy in early 2014 by promoting (Fr) Urrutigoity to vicar general—second in command of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este. The decision made international headlines, forcing the new bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joseph Bambera,  to a local paper’s report on Urrutigoity’s history in the diocese, where he was accused of fondling young men while they slept (he has denied the allegations under oath). The article claimed that Bishop Joseph Martino “allowed” Urrutigoity to transfer to Ciudad del Este. The Diocese of Scranton’s statement, issued March 15, noted that Martino strenuously objected to Livieres’s request to excardinate Urrutigoity, but failed to mention that Martino eventually said he would grant that request. Bambera brought his concerns about Urrutigoity’s promotion to the attention of Pope Francis, according to a spokesman for the diocese. “In so doing, Bishop Bambera’s participation in this matter ceased.” The bishop refused to comment further."

So, who is Fr Carlos Urrutigoity?

This man first came on the radar at the SSPX seminary in Argentina.  He was accused of seducing a fellow seminarian and, after the predictable storm, was transferred to the seminary in Winona Minnesota I think about 1992, but I am not absolutely sure.  At any rate, in 1997, under a storm of controversy, Fr U left Winona and...

"On May 24, 1998, less than a year after the former members of SSPX arrived seeking to return to the Catholic Church, Bishop Timlin established the Society of St. John as a 'public association of the faithful,' a designation granting them certain rights under canon law. The bishop held a series of meetings with members of the society, now officially led by Urrutigoity, to work out the organization’s mission. Their ambition was to establish a community for Catholics committed to the rites of the 1962 Roman Missal—that is, the unreformed Latin rites—a Catholic liberal-arts college, and a Catholic village. Timlin approved their plan, even though he had not run background checks on any Society of St. John members, nor had he reviewed their seminary formation records."

It is claimed that Bishop Fellay warned Bishop Timlin in 1999 about A) Fr U's perversions and B) Fr U's "Guru like" relationship with former seminarians at Winona. Bishop Timlin was told by Fr U that the allegations were all false.  Then came the "Society of St John".

If you really want an eyeful of events that would do any supermarket tabloid proud, just wade through the sordid testimony of the victims of Fr U at Shohola, the testimony about misallocation of funds, and the testimony of priests living like jet-set playboys while passing themselves of as a quasi-monastic group.  (Talk about "Dessert Fathers"... :facepalm:)

It is absolutely incredible that actual sworn testimony of multiple victims from multiple countries just bounces of this priest's chest as though he were superman, while priests like Fr Tetherow are lambasted by "guilty pleas" when not a single person witnessed him committing a crime.  Fr U gets a free pass to Ciudad del Este by simply denying all the allegations under oath? (So much for the integrity of "court systems", huh?)

And then just guess what happens in South America, under the auspices of this "Vicar General"...

So, you can line Fr Tetherow against the wall.  Yes, his friary was under the same roof as the Society of St John, at the FSSP headquarters and boarding school at Elmhurst, PA, in the diocese of Scranton, for a time.  But the "guilt by association" problem also encompasses Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Fr Marshall Roberts (who was, I believe, the priest at the York Pa chapel of Sts Peter and Paul before Fr Tetherow came to town), Fr Cordaro (an "independent" priest I know in Scranton), Pope Benedict, and Pope Frantic, and many others.

Fr U appears to be the tip of a very, very, very hideous iceberg.

I will close this post with a personal experience...

Once upon a time, when my family was moving (I'll spare the gory details) Fr Cordaro invited us to watch his residence while he attended to duties at a chapel down South (Florida or Louisiana, I forget which).  He left the Blessed Sacrament in repose while we were there.  At the FSSP of St Michaels in Scranton, which I had attended and was on the scola there for years, one Fr O'Leary found out about it, and said we were in violation of canon law.  So I went down and asked him to cite specifically what canons we were in violation of... no reply.  I went down to the chancery office and inquired about Fr Cordaro, and was told more or less that he was some pervert associated with Shohola, but no docuмentation was forthcoming.  I call the district office in Elmhurst and talked to (I cannot even recall the name of that superior, the post was a revolving door at the time, and I'm not going to bother to look it up.)  the superior and he told me it was a problem for the diocese.  Meanwhile, the diocese told me the problem was for the FSSP to resolve.  Meanwhile, Fr O'Leary banishes my parents from the chapel as some sort of public sinners and my mother is practically in tears and here acquaintances there are shunning her and I attended Mass at St Michaels and the people were looking at me as though I was Adolf himself.  Fr O'Leary insists he wants to remove the Blessed Sacrament from Fr Cordaro's residence.  I say "fine, just contact Fr Cordaro".  Fr O'Leary refuses to contact Fr Cordaro; Fr O'Leary continues to lambaste me and my family.  The climax was when Fr O'Leary pays a call to Fr Cordaro's residence with a St Michael's parishioner in tow, and insists he is going to remove the Blessed Sacrament.  I asked him if he contacted Fr Cordaro.  He said he had not.  I told him he was not going upstairs (to the chapel) and I did not care what "authority" he said he had from the diocese (which the diocese denied, saying he was under the authority of the FSSP). The only thing that saved Our Lord that day was Nanuk, my Siberian husky.  Now, Nanuk would not hurt a fly... this was a happy go lucky dog for whom the whole world was just one big friendly wolf pack... but the look he gave Fr O'Leary convinced that man it was time to turn around and leave.  But not before he turned to me and said..."Well, I excommunicate you..."  
Now, most of the Novus Ordo Sheeple out there would gasp in horror, but any real Catholic knows a priest has absolutely no authority to do such a thing. I confronted the district superior of the FSSP with this fact.  He said it was a matter for the diocese.  I said that this is your priest, and your problem... what are you going to do about it?   Nothing but silence.  I told him that the only function you perform is to keep a chair warm at the district office...right?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is up to us, the laity, it appears.  But we have the laywoman of laywoman as our head, as our commandress.  After all, she was never consecrated, never ordained, never presented with the instruments of the clergy, never instituted an exorcist (though she is the terror of demons) and not even tonsured.  She is, of course, Our Lady, Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces.

Let us fight this war with the sword of truth.  The whole truth, and only the truth, no matter where it leads.

In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, you are only hope.

Title: Re: The plot thickens....
Post by: drew on May 18, 2017, 06:17:06 AM
"So (you) give (your) name and nobody believes (you)? Mr. Bradley, you need to post besides your name, your place of residence with contact information as well as good references that are verifiable. Why?

Quote from: White Wolf
Quote
And yes, I know Fr Angelus as well. Did work for him both in Scranton and Lauraeysville, or however you spell it. Lived the monastic life there for six months. Had more dogs than you could shake a Kong at. I would agree he had mental problems, and maybe really is a molester, though for the life of me I just can't see a 70 year old man... But when I was there he did have health problems. He was on a whole regimen of medications.

The man you claim to have "know well," to have “worked” for in two locations, to have spent six months at his one-man monastery is about 25 years younger than you have affirmed and he is not in poor health. You are a liar. This lie just happens to be the same lie that Mr. Tetherow has passed along since 2005 in every detail.  Either you got it firsthand from Tetherow or pickled it up from one of the many he has told it to but your version of the story is clearly a fabrication.  Philip Ferrara may still be in prison.  But then, maybe you think he, like his friend Tetherow, is just another victim.

 Why should an established liar be given any credibility when he calls into question and dismisses the proceedings of the criminal justice system's handling of the Tetherow case as nothing more than a “police report” without a shred of evidence? Or calls into question the proceedings of his canonical case that after ten year laicized him based upon the evidence submitted by the diocese of Scranton and Mr. Tetherow who was ably represented? You are defending a convicted felon on child pornography related charges and the burden of proof wholly rests with you to overturn the public record that begins with an admission of guilt from Tetherow.

There are numerous, numerous problems with you post but why address them?  You are a liar and I and everyone reading this thread now knows it.
 
 Drew


You are a liar.  When this first matter is addressed, your defense of Tetherow, the convicted felon on child pornography charges can be examined.


Drew
Title: My final word....
Post by: White Wolf on June 03, 2017, 09:18:55 PM
 :sleep:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: happenby on December 19, 2017, 01:32:01 PM
Found this online.  

Official Notice
John J. Cordaro, a resident of Scranton and a former priest of the
Oblates of Saint Joseph, has been forbidden to exercise priestly
ministry. Catholics of the Diocese of Scranton should be mindful that, in
view of this prohibition, they may not approach this person for any of
the sacraments.
Reverend Brian J. W. Clarke
Vicar General
Diocese of Scranton
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Fanny on December 19, 2017, 04:08:48 PM
Found this online.  

Official Notice
John J. Cordaro, a resident of Scranton and a former priest of the
Oblates of Saint Joseph, has been forbidden to exercise priestly
ministry. Catholics of the Diocese of Scranton should be mindful that, in
view of this prohibition, they may not approach this person for any of
the sacraments.
Reverend Brian J. W. Clarke
Vicar General
Diocese of Scranton
Where did you find this online?
What is the date of this notice?
Did it give a reason?
Please post link.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Fanny on December 19, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Found this online.  

Official Notice
John J. Cordaro, a resident of Scranton and a former priest of the
Oblates of Saint Joseph, has been forbidden to exercise priestly
ministry. Catholics of the Diocese of Scranton should be mindful that, in
view of this prohibition, they may not approach this person for any of
the sacraments.
Reverend Brian J. W. Clarke
Vicar General
Diocese of Scranton
Nevermind.  Found it:
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/official-notice-regarding-john-j-cordaro/
No reason given.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Fanny on April 07, 2018, 06:46:04 PM


Don't be so superficial.

Firstly, please note the CONVICTED adjective. I am not aware of any other convicted pedophile priests in Tradition.

A priest who downloads child pornography to his computer is a very sick puppy. And apparently there was enough evidence to convict him in a court of law. Also, the court of law in question didn't throw out the case or drop the charges. That is another important point. Especially when comparing the Tetherow case to other cases, shall we say.


Secondly, note that he was laicized. To draw the ire of the Conciliar establishment really says something about a priest. There is quite a homo/pedo "lavender mafia" within the Conciliar Church, so it's remarkable that even THEY didn't try to give him psychological counseling, sweep his misdeeds under the rug, or try to move him around or otherwise cover up for him.

(Yes, Wallflower, I understand your point that the modern Church considers the priesthood on far too natural/human a level. But nevertheless, sometimes laicization, a.k.a. "do not present yourself as a priest any longer" is the traditional solution.)

P.S. I suggest you withdraw yourself from Fr. Pfeiffer's group, lest the poison affect you further. Just look at how your mind is already poisoned against +Williamson. I mean, honestly! Suggesting that +Williamson would send his faithful to a convicted, laicized pedophile! Give His Excellency some credit, will you? Most people normally would, if they hadn't been reading the Wreckusant and Pablo's filth for many months.

CONFESSED convict, laicised.

This thread, even though it is old, is good to re-read for enlightenment on how far, how quickly, fr. Pfeiffer is going down the wrong path.
Title: Re: Don helmets and fasten seat belts...
Post by: Fanny on May 16, 2018, 09:04:40 PM
Massive truth bombs ahead.
Okay, I have read this entire thread.  I have heard the rat-atat-tat of piddly 9mm machine guns vast and sundry against Fr Tetherow.  I have heard all the silly accusations based on innuendo and rumors and etc.  I have seen all the silly accusations of Fr Tetherow doing everything from shacking up to placing demonic hexes on women to... :facepalm:.  All these accusations appear to have no foundation whatsoever...
(Battleship guns locking into position...)
But there IS a well-docuмented case that has not even been mentioned here, a case that has real victims, sordid, ugly court depositions...
(Stand by to fire...)
And this case has widespread ramifications, ramifications that go all the way to the Vatican...
(five.... four.... )
This case has cut a swath of destruction through the SSPX... FSSP...
(three... Two...)
This case may even have "Pizzagate" ramifications...
(one...)
And this case is the real reason for any angst I might have with Fr Tetherow...
(Hope those blast shields are down...)
But this case is going to give lots of other people angst as well...
(Fire!)
"Emboldened by the apparent support from Rome, Livieres courted controversy in early 2014 by promoting (Fr) Urrutigoity to vicar general—second in command of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este. The decision made international headlines, forcing the new bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joseph Bambera,  to a local paper’s report on Urrutigoity’s history in the diocese, where he was accused of fondling young men while they slept (he has denied the allegations under oath). The article claimed that Bishop Joseph Martino “allowed” Urrutigoity to transfer to Ciudad del Este. The Diocese of Scranton’s statement, issued March 15, noted that Martino strenuously objected to Livieres’s request to excardinate Urrutigoity, but failed to mention that Martino eventually said he would grant that request. Bambera brought his concerns about Urrutigoity’s promotion to the attention of Pope Francis, according to a spokesman for the diocese. “In so doing, Bishop Bambera’s participation in this matter ceased.” The bishop refused to comment further."

So, who is Fr Carlos Urrutigoity?

This man first came on the radar at the SSPX seminary in Argentina.  He was accused of seducing a fellow seminarian and, after the predictable storm, was transferred to the seminary in Winona Minnesota I think about 1992, but I am not absolutely sure.  At any rate, in 1997, under a storm of controversy, Fr U left Winona and...

"On May 24, 1998, less than a year after the former members of SSPX arrived seeking to return to the Catholic Church, Bishop Timlin established the Society of St. John as a 'public association of the faithful,' a designation granting them certain rights under canon law. The bishop held a series of meetings with members of the society, now officially led by Urrutigoity, to work out the organization’s mission. Their ambition was to establish a community for Catholics committed to the rites of the 1962 Roman Missal—that is, the unreformed Latin rites—a Catholic liberal-arts college, and a Catholic village. Timlin approved their plan, even though he had not run background checks on any Society of St. John members, nor had he reviewed their seminary formation records."

It is claimed that Bishop Fellay warned Bishop Timlin in 1999 about A) Fr U's perversions and B) Fr U's "Guru like" relationship with former seminarians at Winona. Bishop Timlin was told by Fr U that the allegations were all false.  Then came the "Society of St John".

If you really want an eyeful of events that would do any supermarket tabloid proud, just wade through the sordid testimony of the victims of Fr U at Shohola, the testimony about misallocation of funds, and the testimony of priests living like jet-set playboys while passing themselves of as a quasi-monastic group.  (Talk about "Dessert Fathers"... :facepalm:)

It is absolutely incredible that actual sworn testimony of multiple victims from multiple countries just bounces of this priest's chest as though he were superman, while priests like Fr Tetherow are lambasted by "guilty pleas" when not a single person witnessed him committing a crime.  Fr U gets a free pass to Ciudad del Este by simply denying all the allegations under oath? (So much for the integrity of "court systems", huh?)

And then just guess what happens in South America, under the auspices of this "Vicar General"...

So, you can line Fr Tetherow against the wall.  Yes, his friary was under the same roof as the Society of St John, at the FSSP headquarters and boarding school at Elmhurst, PA, in the diocese of Scranton, for a time.  But the "guilt by association" problem also encompasses Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Fr Marshall Roberts (who was, I believe, the priest at the York Pa chapel of Sts Peter and Paul before Fr Tetherow came to town), Fr Cordaro (an "independent" priest I know in Scranton), Pope Benedict, and Pope Frantic, and many others.

Fr U appears to be the tip of a very, very, very hideous iceberg.

I will close this post with a personal experience...

Once upon a time, when my family was moving (I'll spare the gory details) Fr Cordaro invited us to watch his residence while he attended to duties at a chapel down South (Florida or Louisiana, I forget which).  He left the Blessed Sacrament in repose while we were there.  At the FSSP of St Michaels in Scranton, which I had attended and was on the scola there for years, one Fr O'Leary found out about it, and said we were in violation of canon law.  So I went down and asked him to cite specifically what canons we were in violation of... no reply.  I went down to the chancery office and inquired about Fr Cordaro, and was told more or less that he was some pervert associated with Shohola, but no docuмentation was forthcoming.  I call the district office in Elmhurst and talked to (I cannot even recall the name of that superior, the post was a revolving door at the time, and I'm not going to bother to look it up.)  the superior and he told me it was a problem for the diocese.  Meanwhile, the diocese told me the problem was for the FSSP to resolve.  Meanwhile, Fr O'Leary banishes my parents from the chapel as some sort of public sinners and my mother is practically in tears and here acquaintances there are shunning her and I attended Mass at St Michaels and the people were looking at me as though I was Adolf himself.  Fr O'Leary insists he wants to remove the Blessed Sacrament from Fr Cordaro's residence.  I say "fine, just contact Fr Cordaro".  Fr O'Leary refuses to contact Fr Cordaro; Fr O'Leary continues to lambaste me and my family.  The climax was when Fr O'Leary pays a call to Fr Cordaro's residence with a St Michael's parishioner in tow, and insists he is going to remove the Blessed Sacrament.  I asked him if he contacted Fr Cordaro.  He said he had not.  I told him he was not going upstairs (to the chapel) and I did not care what "authority" he said he had from the diocese (which the diocese denied, saying he was under the authority of the FSSP). The only thing that saved Our Lord that day was Nanuk, my Siberian husky.  Now, Nanuk would not hurt a fly... this was a happy go lucky dog for whom the whole world was just one big friendly wolf pack... but the look he gave Fr O'Leary convinced that man it was time to turn around and leave.  But not before he turned to me and said..."Well, I excommunicate you..."  
Now, most of the Novus Ordo Sheeple out there would gasp in horror, but any real Catholic knows a priest has absolutely no authority to do such a thing. I confronted the district superior of the FSSP with this fact.  He said it was a matter for the diocese.  I said that this is your priest, and your problem... what are you going to do about it?   Nothing but silence.  I told him that the only function you perform is to keep a chair warm at the district office...right?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is up to us, the laity, it appears.  But we have the laywoman of laywoman as our head, as our commandress.  After all, she was never consecrated, never ordained, never presented with the instruments of the clergy, never instituted an exorcist (though she is the terror of demons) and not even tonsured.  She is, of course, Our Lady, Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces.

Let us fight this war with the sword of truth.  The whole truth, and only the truth, no matter where it leads.

In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, you are only hope.
Fr. Pfeiffer said he would welcome fr. U with open arms if fr. U would come to KY.
.
Mr. Tetherow CONFESSED to child pornography and was laicised.  He should have no public presence and should not present himself as a priest in public.
.
Mr. Cordaro was expelled from his order, his order said there was accusation of inappropriate conduct with a minor, the Scranton diocese says he was laicised. Mr. Cordaro should not be presenting himself as a priest in public.  You should not be receiving sacraments from mr. Cordaro.
.
Fr. Marshall Roberts saving grace, I am assuming, is that he was careful in his perversion to seek adults, not minors.  Nonetheless, there is ample data exposing  fr. Roberts as a clear pervert.
.
The data against these priests is overwhelming.  Laity should stay away from them.  Clerics should protect the laity and not allow them a public presence.
.
Fr. Pfeiffer has opened the door to us all wondering what's really going on in KY...
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: klasG4e on May 17, 2018, 10:17:32 AM
Do you mean to say Chrisha was not sacrificed like the other dogs and chickens on the property ?

(http://cosmosandlogos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Aztec-Sacrifice.jpg)

As we can see here the sign on the front of Central Headquarters at Pfeifferville has been changed. 

(http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/data/leeflan/2007116174318_Lloyds.jpg)
Title: Re: The plot thickens....
Post by: Fanny on May 17, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
So I give my name, and nobody believes me?  At any rate, if all this stuff is so docuмented, please provide proof.  No, I am not going to post contact information etc.  But it seems to me that at least some of you are posting from the York Chapel, Sts Peter and Paul, I think.  You don't know me; you know nothing of my background, and so you are making inferences as to things you know nothing about.  At any rate, ask Fr Ken Novak who I am, or his brother Lawrence, or Fr Cyprian, or Fr Gizmondi, or half the people at St Vincent's in Kansas City, or Dickinson TX, or El Paso, or Boston Kentucky, or St Michaels in Scranton, or and etc.  But let me continue.  I do know there was a lot of bad blood between the York Chapel and Fr Tetherow.  I know the chapel basically split over the issue.  And now I, who am telling the truth and trying to get to the truth, have to be bombarded by rancor from people that obviously orbit this post like Darth Vader searching for Klingons.  I can offer that up to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  For people like Miss Auxiliadora to make posts based on a coincidence inferring that I am some sort of fellow pervert traveler is appalling.  You are slaughtering your integrity in plain sight. If this is representative of the quality of people who post here perhaps Bishop W is right after all and I might as well set up a hermitage on tops of Mt Peale and just be done with it until I see the mushroom clouds on the far horizon.  As for Fr Angelus, no, everything I said is true.  I am not saying he is or was angelic.  He tried to curry favor to the the powers that be and failed.  I was not there with the incident concerning Fr Angelus and the youth, so I cannot comment.  Yes I am aware of Fr Tetherow's background and yes it is appalling, but so was ST Augustine and St Magdalene if you will recall.  I am not so much defending Fr Tetherow in particular as the Catholic priesthood in general.  If, Mr Drew, you have all this damnable information, why did you not post it in your open letter?  (Can I assume you are the author?)  I read that letter some months ago.  You are going to impugn a priest based on a police report where Fr Tetherow very well may have had grave pressure placed on him to "confess".  Ever hear of the "brownstoning" technique?  Ever hear of somebody's reputation being smeared with lies and etc.  This society is operated by criminals with a satanic hatred for Holy Mother Church, so perhaps you should not jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.  Obviously people are making flaming leaps to draw conclusions about me without knowing any of the facts.
Never did I claim that Fr Tetherow is not a pervert.  But if you are going to make accusations of this nature you had better back them up.  I am not making stuff up to defend either Fr Tetherow or Fr Angelus.  Perversion is rampant in the Catholic Church, probably going back generations.  I am of the opinion that when it all finally hits the fan, many people are going to gasp in unbelief.
I am not saying that Fr Tetherow did not mislead you.  He has mislead people and told lies.  I know that for a fact.  But I could fill a greyhound bus with all the priests who have told me lies vast and sundry, from SSPX, FSSP, and elsewhere.  That is tragic.  And I do think there are predators out there in Tradition.  We must be careful these days.  
But this will be my last post on this thread unless somebody wants to have a truly constructive dialog, and not one filled with petty rancor.  In the meantime, we must pray for all the clergy vast and sundry.
(Meanwhile, as we say in bomber command, if you're getting flak that means you're close to the target. :jumping2:)
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, you are our only hope.
I just read this...
I know who you are...  Mike Bradley...
You are the bum that goes from location to location leeching off others for room and board  typically at seminaries, retreat houses, priories.  This is why you know so many priests personally.
You are the bum fr. Pfeiffer kicked out after you continued to enter the chapel with dog feces on your clothing and boots.  The final straw was when you entered the kitchen with dog feces and hair on your clothing.  You slept with 8 dogs in a tiny room under the stairs in the schoolhouse that you had to crawl into.  But you were willing, for free room and board... do you KNOW how long it took and how gross it was to clean that room after you left?  :barf:
.
How dare you compare Mr. Tetherow to great saints!!  St. Augustine and Mary Magdalene stopped their bad ways after finding the Lord.  Mr. Tetherow did his evil since being a priest and CONFESSED, which is why he was finally laicised, thank God.  He has no business presenting himself to the public as a priest in any way.
.
Sometimes when you're getting flak it's not because you are close to the target, but because you deserve flak.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on August 17, 2018, 01:11:24 PM
Thanks, Smedley Butler, for the update on another thread.

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pa-grand-jury-report-priests-list/msg622501/#msg622501

I would like to add that there is another of Tetherow's friends on the list: Fr. John Tokarick. This priest visited Tetherow in York many times. After Tetherow was dismissed from York, he came to speak to my husband and I wanting to know why we dismissed him (no doubt sent by his friend). He said that Tetherow had recommended the pervert Fr. "Angelus" Ferrara's Monastery to him and that he had recently returned from there and needed a place to stay. My husband, giving him the benefit of the doubt agreed to pay for one week only at the motel he was staying. The motel was a short distance from Gap, PA where Tetherow has another chapel. It appears that he wanted a room near Gap, PA to help Tetherow get that chapel ready. Otherwise, just to be close to him.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on August 17, 2018, 01:44:09 PM

https://cbspittsburgh.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/interimredactedreportandresponses.pdf

Tetherow's legal docuмents start on page 1332
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: josefamenendez on August 17, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
So he pled guilty to Criminal use of a Communications Facility, and the child porn charges were dropped?
 Is that a typical plea deal ? Sheesh
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on August 17, 2018, 06:39:49 PM

On page 1339 Exhibit B, page 440 has the Order- Sentence Imposed which was 2 years Probation :facepalm:. These two years, he petitioned through his canon lawyer to be spent with Fr. "Angelus" (Philip) Ferrara, at Our Lady of Solitude (one priest) "Monastery" located in Little Meadows, PA.

The link below shows the arrest of Fr. "Angelus" who went to jail (too crude to read).

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/03_04/2011_03_24_Wilson_PriestAccused.htm
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on August 18, 2018, 12:19:33 PM
Birds of a feather... :barf:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on August 19, 2018, 05:31:29 PM
Picture of Tetherow's chapel in Windsor, PA taken from his website. A rainbow?


(https://smarcc.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/img_2313.jpg?w=279)

https://smarcc.org/

He claims that his two chapels, St. Michael the Archangel Church in Windsor, PA and Our Lady of Good Success Chapel (previously Padre Pio's House) in Parkesburg, PA (near Gap) "are served by priests of The Guild of St. Peter ad Vincula", meaning he's a member of it. He's not publishing his name. Does anyone know anything about the Guild? I wonder if they know he's doing it.

https://smarcc.org/pastor/

Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on August 19, 2018, 06:10:42 PM

I guess the Guild of St Peter ad Vincula has Tetherow's chapels listed on the webpage.

https://peteradvincula.org/home.htm
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on August 26, 2018, 07:12:04 PM

Father Bernard G. Hall is the Dean of the Guild of St. Peter ad Vincula . Bishop Macek and Petko are chaplains of the Guild.

Around three (?)  years ago, my husband and I got a phone call from B. Petko asking for information on Tetherow. We had known Fr. Petko from the beginning of the chapel in York where he occasionally came to fill in when needed. Bishop Petko told us that Bishop Macek had stopped helping Tetherow and Tetherow was asking him for help in his capacity as Bishop so he wanted to know more about him. I'm not sure how much we knew about Tetherow at that time but we filled him in on what we knew.

Fr. Bernard G. Hall endorses Tetherow's chapels but doesn't list his name anywhere! My husband emailed him regarding Tetherow a week ago and sent the link to this thread for his information but he has not responded. Is Tetherow a board member? We found the following on his webpage:


Quote
https://peteradvincula.org/bylaws.htm

6.2 Qualifications (For Board of Directors)

 
All members of the Board shall be men or women of sound mind who have reached the age of twenty-one (21) years, and have not been convicted of a felony within the ten years prior to their nomination. No one shall be appointed to serve as a Director un¬less he agree to observe and abide by the pro¬visions and restrictions set forth in the Bylaws.

I guess Tetherow qualifies :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: IllyricumSacrum on August 27, 2018, 02:36:36 PM
Paycheck and RowofTeeth are still working together. 
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on November 15, 2018, 11:18:19 AM

11/14/2010 Article on Tetherow by the York Daily Record with the police statements included:

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/watchdog/2018/11/15/rogue-priest-father-tetherow-gabriel-convicted-child-porn-st-michael-archangel-roman-catholic-church/1998395002/
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on November 15, 2018, 02:01:08 PM

11/14/2010
Article on Tetherow by the York Daily Record with the police statements included:

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/watchdog/2018/11/15/rogue-priest-father-tetherow-gabriel-convicted-child-porn-st-michael-archangel-roman-catholic-church/1998395002/

Please excuse me. The article is from today, NOVEMBER 15, 2018.
Title: Re: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on November 18, 2018, 02:08:25 PM


The article below was published in the York Daily Record (link given on my last post) and now the Washington Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer.  The article is written from a secular perspective which is inherently anti-Catholic and pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  The article in the YDR also provides copies of the police report where you can read first hand his confession.  Not one word is said concerning Tetherow being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ although evidence for this fact was provided.  It does make clear that Tetherow obtained sɛҳuąƖ gratification through pornographic images of adolescent boys 9-14 years old and that he was habituated to viewing pornography.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/convicted-in-child-porn-case-rogue-priest-still-pr/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/convicted-in-child-porn-case-rogue-priest-still-pr/)
Convicted in child porn case, rogue priest still preaching
By BRANDIE KESSLER and DYLAN SEGELBAUM - Associated Press - Friday, November 16, 2018
YORK, Pa. (AP) - Harry Spencer realized that he was home.
(http://file:///C:\Users\DAVIDM~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg)He’d grown uncomfortable with the direction of the Catholic Church, particularly since Vatican II. The doctrines had changed. The Mass had changed. So had all the traditions and rituals.
Then, about seven years ago, Spencer started going to what would become St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Churchin Lower Windsor Township. It offers a traditional Latin Mass. The Rev. Virgil Tetherow, also known as Father Gabriel (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/), leads the church.
“I have never met a priest that I’ve felt more comfortable with in his religiosity and his ability to teach the religion of the Roman Catholic faith,” Spencer said. “I love my religion. And Father Tetherow is a true Catholic priest.”
But that is not what the Catholic church says.
In fact, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) “is not recognized as a priest, is prohibited from presenting himself as clergy and is not associated with the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg,” said Mike Barley, a spokesman for the diocese, who encouraged the faithful to not attend Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s services.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/), 54, is among 301 “predator priests” named in the recent landmark grand jury report that details widespread sɛҳuąƖ abuse in six Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania. He was arrested in 2005 after police found child pornography on two computers and he later pleaded guilty to criminal use of a communication facility.
In a statement provided to the grand jury, he maintains his conviction isn’t what it seems and that the grand jury report distorts the public record. He’s never been accused of physical sɛҳuąƖ abuse of children.
Many of the clergy named in the almost 900-page report are dead. But Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/), who declined to be interviewed, is still actively running a church - and there’s nothing, and apparently no one, that can prevent him from doing so. A York Daily Record/Sunday News investigation based on dozens of interviews, Right-to-Know Law requests, court records and secret canonical letters reveals how he’s been able to weave a narrative to discredit the conviction and keep loyal followers in his flock.
‘NICE CLOTHES, FANCY CARS, AND A GORGEOUS PLACE TO LIVE’
Virgil Bradley Tetherow was born on Aug. 25, 1964.
He graduated from Hidden Valley High School in Grants Pass, Oregon, about four hours south of Portland.
In his 1982 senior yearbook photo, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/), wearing a plaid suit jacket and sporting a hairstyle typical of the time, looks out to the right, a mole on his right cheek, the name under his photo, “Brad Tetherow.”
Throughout the years, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) has gone by other names, including Gabriel Tetherow, Brother Gabriel Francis Tetherow and Father Gabriel (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/).
In a 2009 interview with Connections magazine, a short-lived, digital-only publication in Lancaster County, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/) spoke about how he went from a glamorous life as a professional model to being called to the priesthood.
He’s told people that he modeled underwear for Calvin Klein. Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/), a fellow priest later reported, once said he was previously in the Sceen Actors Guild, since he’d played the “Winnie-the-Pooh” character Tigger for Disney.
A spokesman for the Walt Disney Co. said Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) never worked for the company.
“I had everything in the world - nice clothes, fancy cars, and a gorgeous place to live but I didn’t have peace,” Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) said in the magazine article, adding that he was once Mr. Oregon.
In the story, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) said he had an epiphany at an airport. He said he stepped off a plane and saw three nuns and two priests standing before him.
“I looked at them and knew these people were living an authentic life that was externally visible to everyone,” he said. “I felt so self-centered and realized, in that moment, I didn’t want to be self-centered anymore.”
Next, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) said, he flew home to Florida. He threw a party and gave away almost everything that he owned, except for his car and the clothes on his back. “I used to love a woman very deeply, but I have since become the godfather of her children,” he said.
In 1996, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/) joined the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. He was assigned to St. Leopold’s Friary in Yonkers, New York, after taking his first vows.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) helped renovate the friary and lived a life of prayer and mission. He left in 1998.
Later, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) talked with then-Scranton Bishop James Timlin about establishing a religious community within that diocese.
Timlin signed off and the Servants Minor of St. Francis was started in 2001.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) was ordained at Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, Nebraska, on June 29, 2002.
He was incardinated in the Diocese of Scranton but never given an assignment, according to the grand jury report. It’s unclear how or why he went from New York to Pennsylvania to Nebraska then back to Pennsylvania - or where else he might have stopped along the way.
In the Scranton diocese, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/) lived at St. Ann Catholic Church in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County. That’s where he got into trouble with the law.
‘HE ADMITTED THAT HE SOMETIMES MASTURBATED . AND VIEWED THE IMAGES’
On Jan. 17, 2005, the Rev. Michael Kloton, the priest from St. Ann’s, went to Pocono Mountain Regional police to file a report.
According to police records, Kloton brought a 14-page list of computer data and a disc with images of “immoral material” that had been found on a church computer.
Kloton told detectives that a man who was working on the church computers found the files, some of which had names that some might associate with child pornography.
The man, Kloton reported, told him that he viewed an image of two young males engaged in sɛҳuąƖ acts on the computer.
Kloton told police that several people had access to the computer. A secretary, a woman named Vicky, most often used it.
But Kloton named Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) as a suspect because of when the files were downloaded.
Kloton did not respond to recent requests for an interview, instead referring questions to the Scranton diocese.
Police examined the computer at the church and found more than 10 images of child pornography. They later learned of another computer at the church - one Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) used in the room he sometimes occupied. Police took that one, too.
About two weeks later, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) went to police to give a statement. He “admitted that he downloaded and viewed images of child pornography” at the church for almost one year, between January and December 2004.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/) told police he used the computer that several people had access to and the one that was found in the room he sometimes used at the church.
“He admitted that he sometimes masturbated while he sat at Vicky’s desk and viewed the images,” police wrote in an affidavit of probable cause.
A few days later, police examined the computer that Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) said he used in his room at the church to view child pornography. Police found more than 10 images of child pornography on that computer. Police learned that he used the name “Father Gabriel (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/)” to access the internet.
A pediatrician reviewed the images for police and identified the children in the pornographic files as being boys between 9 and 14.
On Aug. 16, 2005, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/) pleaded guilty to criminal use of a communication facility, a felony, and was later sentenced to serve two years of probation. Prosecutors moved to dismiss the remaining charges, including 10 counts of possession of child pornography.
In a written form, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) signed his name acknowledging that he understood all the elements of the crime to which he was pleading guilty.
“I illegally used a computer in January 2005 in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County Pennsylvania,” the docuмent states.
The York Daily Record requested court transcripts from the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. But in an order denying the motion, President Judge Margherita Patti-Worthington wrote that “the raw notes of testimony, having never been transcribed, have been destroyed.”
The judge who presided over the case, Ronald E. Vican, died in 2014.
Mark Love, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s former attorney, said he couldn’t discuss how or why the plea agreement was reached because of attorney-client confidentiality.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) had a “sterling reputation,” he said, and a lot of people came forward to support him. Love said the case was appropriately handled.
“When you hear about what’s in the grand jury report, those things considering other people were far more serious,” Love said. “There was no allegation that he touched anybody or did anything inappropriate with anyone else. His actions were solely on a computer.”
Rob Saurman, who prosecuted the case as an assistant district attorney in the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office, said he recalled that the punishment for child pornography then wasn’t as severe as it is now. Plea negotiations take place in cases, he said.
Prosecutors have used criminal use of a communication facility to get convictions in drug cases in which dealers arranged transactions using a cellphone, he said. “It doesn’t mean I’m not a drug dealer because I took that charge,” Saurman said.
“This guy is a felon for life as a result of using a church computer to look at child pornography,” said Saurman, who’s now a criminal defense, civil and family law attorney in Stroudsburg. “There’s no exoneration there.”
‘HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND OR BELIEVE THAT HE WAS ADMITTING TO DOWNLOADING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY’
The York Daily Record obtained several letters containing private correspondence about the case against Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/).
In a letter dated Sept. 21, 2006, J. Michael Ritty, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s attorney, wrote to Cardinal William Levada in Rome about the church's preliminary investigation into his client, asserting that Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino was overstating his case.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) agreed to make an admission to “settle the charges against him without going through a lengthy public trial.”
“He did not understand or believe that he was admitting to downloading child pornography,” Ritty wrote in the letter, adding that his client “understood only that he had admitted that he had illegally used a computer.”
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/), the lawyer wrote, “in fact did not actually understand the full implication of what others would believe he had admitted to until I pointed out the various counts or charges that were involved in the discussion reaching the agreement with the Court.”
“As you may be aware, the internet is a dangerous place - a person and his computer are exposed to viruses, spy-ware, misdirection from one site to another site, unwanted and automatic downloading of materials,” Ritty wrote. “Parents of children in the United States are constantly on the alert because of the great abuse of the internet by those promoting pornography.”
Ritty wrote that it was not entirely clear what transpired with his client’s use of a computer. But there were also circuмstances in his life that could be considered “mitigating factors.”
For example, on Nov. 17, 2003, Martino ended the Servants Minor of St. Francis because Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) was the only member of the community, said Bill Genello, executive director of communications for the Scranton diocese, in an email.
When the association was disbanded, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) suffered depression and disorientation and began drinking to excess, Ritty wrote.
In a letter dated Oct. 5, 2006, Ritty wrote that his client underwent a psychosɛҳuąƖ assessment and appeared to place in the normal range of the population.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/), the letter states, scored in the low range of a category, which “reflects him to be a low risk of developing attitudes and/or beliefs that would enable him to develop excuses and/or justifications to sɛҳuąƖly molest children.”
He also did not match against any of the known categories of sɛҳuąƖ offenders and pedophiles who’ve taken the screening, the letter states, or against those who molest children and attempt to deny the allegations.
“It would appear that Mr. Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/)’s use of child pornographic materials on the Internet was not part of a fixed and persistent pedophilic interest towards minor children,” David Humphreys with Tri-County Human Services Center Inc. wrote in a report. “However, it may, more likely, have been part of his overall pornography use, which included adults at that time, and that he allowed his curiosity to occur within the child pornography material.”
When reached by phone, Ritty said he does not discuss cases involving former clients.
SAINTS PETER & PAUL ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION
Claudia Drew and her husband, David, were among Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s loyal followers and his most passionate defenders. They met him almost 20 years ago when he was a young seminarian, she recalled during a recent interview.
“From what we saw, really, we just fell for him,” she said.
He was humble. He had a kind smile. And he was very charming.
Back then, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) had a beard and wore sandals - very Franciscan looking. Drew recalled she and her husband were still traveling, sometimes two hours away, to have Mass in the traditional Latin rite.
As traditional Catholics, they spent years traveling long distances for Mass, carting flowers and statues and other things with them. For a time, they met at a hotel in Lancaster County, Drew said.
Traditional Catholics believe in an old way of doing things, the way Mass was performed before Vatican II, a meeting of Catholic hierarchy in the 1960s that modernized the church. That’s why going to just any Catholic church isn’t an option for traditional Catholics.
Drew said she only ever went to traditional Mass before she moved to the United States from Nicaragua. When she raised her eight children, she never once took them to the new Mass.
In the early 2000s, with their congregation growing, Drew said, members of her church wanted to find a building of their own. They found a former ѕуηαgσgυє in York that was for sale. It needed substantial renovations but they made the purchase and did the work.
In 2004, Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Chapel opened its doors at the corner of South Beaver Street and West Newton Avenue.
Then, in 2005, Drew and her husband heard that Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) had been arrested. They reached out to his mother. When they heard from Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) that he had been framed, they sent him $500 to help him defend himself, Drew recalled.
“To us, he was a persecuted priest,” Drew said. She explained that it’s not uncommon for priests who perform the Latin rite Mass and who don’t follow the ways of Rome to be laicized and shunned by the church. She and her husband believed that’s what happened to Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/).
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/virgil-tetherow-father-gabriel/) told them he didn’t understand what he had pleaded guilty to, that he didn’t know what the word “download” meant. He told them he couldn’t defend himself against the charges because he was protecting another priest who had confessed to him.
“He had to protect the seal of confession,” Drew said.
They invited him to their church, and he came and stayed for a few weeks. But then he left suddenly, Drew said. He called them a short time later and he said he was going to a monastery to volunteer helping an elderly priest who was crippled and needed someone to say Mass for him and help take care of farm animals at his property.
The Drews didn’t know it at the time, but Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) was on probation.
Letters from his attorney indicate that Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) had intended to spend his time on probation living in Susquehanna County with a fellow priest, Hieromonk Angelus Ferrara, whose legal name is Philip Ferrara. Ferrara was later convicted of sɛҳuąƖly abusing a 14-year-old boy, according to the grand jury report.
Years later, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) returned to Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission to serve as its priest. Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) was working out well, until he started a school without permission from the church board, in the basement. The school was in violation of the city code, Drew said.
That caused division in the church because many members wanted the school, but others believed it had to operate in accordance with the law, said Drew, who homeschooled all of her children.
She and her husband sought counsel from their spiritual adviser, as they had in the past, about the division. The adviser told them to fire Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/).
The Drews realized they had made a mistake.
On May 14, 2010, the Board of Directors of Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission fired Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/). That’s when their spiritual adviser told the Drews that he had investigated Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) and learned that he’d been misleading them.
When Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) left the mission, most of the congregation followed him.
Drew said she has no hard feelings toward those people. She’d even welcome them back.
“I don’t blame the people that follow him,” she said, “because we did the same thing.”
‘REBIRTH OF A CHAPEL’
In a book called “Rebirth of a Chapel,” Dave Romeo, a founding member of St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Church, wrote that about 97 percent of the congregation followed Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) to Mass at the Yorktowne Hotel.
Construction soon began on a basement chapel designed to hold up to 60 people in Dover. Within weeks, members began searching for a permanent building, according to the book.
They eventually found one, the former Bittersville United Methodist Church, on Craley Road in Lower Windsor Township, purchasing the building for $100,000, according to York County property records.
On July 17, 2011, St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Church held its first traditional Mass.
In the book, Romeo wrote that the first words he heard Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) say from the pulpit were, “I am at odds with my bishop.”
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) made it clear that he would not offer the new Mass so he became a “persona non grata” with his bishop and diocese. The decision, the book states, “would lead to years of personal assaults one would never wish on anybody.”
“While Our Lord was falsely accused and attacked by ‘chief priests and scribes’ for actions he never committed, Father Tetherow was persecuted by crackpots, hacks, and cowards with their own political agendas,” Romeo wrote.
Romeo wrote he’s never seen Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) act in an inappropriate manner.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) heard confessions while in the Scranton diocese, Romeo wrote. One, he wrote, would change the priest’s life forever.
“Father Tetherow could exonerate himself and fill in the missing pieces, but then he would have to violate the seal of the confessional,” Romeo wrote. “Instead, we wait patiently, praying that the actual party will step forward and clear our priest’s good name.”
The grand jury report was ‘misleading and distorted the record’
Pope Francis dismissed Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) from the clerical state on Jan. 23, 2015. It’s unclear why.
The Vatican did not respond to an inquiry about why it took almost 10 years from the time of his conviction to laicize him.
In August, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) was publicly named in the grand jury report. The docuмent included his response to the investigation.
In an interview, Marc Semke, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s attorney, said his client felt compelled to respond because he believed the report was “misleading and distorted the record.”
“Father Tetherow believed the report gave the false impression he was convicted of child pornography,” Semke said. “As the record, however, demonstrated, he pled guilty to one count of misuse of a communication device and all other counts, including all child pornography counts, were dismissed.”
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) feels that he’s always been open and honest with the congregation regarding the charges, Semke said.
But Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s recollection of his prosecution isn’t easy to follow.
Semke said there was pornography on the church computer but that his client did not specifically remember seeing child pornography. But he was shown there were two pictures of children on his computer through the court process. Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) believes that his attorney at the time “indicated to the court that the basis for the plea was he viewed images he should not have,” Semke said.
“If he knew the factual basis was possession of child pornography, he would not have pled guilty,” Semke said.
Detective Sgt. Ken Lenning, the lead investigator for the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department, said Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/), after initially not telling the truth, was cooperative with the investigation and took responsibility for his actions.
“He’s definitely downplaying things,” Lenning said. “He’s supposed to be this truthful person that people look up to, you know? And that’s not good. That’s not what I look at as a priest or pastor or someone I would go to for guidance.”
Outside St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Church in September, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) spoke with reporters for almost two hours but refused multiple times to talk on the record.
In a Facebook post, St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Church later wrote “it has been called to our attention that a pestiferous reporter has been spamming individuals who are liking our page.”
“It’s not the first time the dubious media has tried to attack the reputation of certain clergy and the ‘independent of any diocese’ status of St. Michael’s,” the post said. “Even at the local level, media is more interested in scandalizing than reporting fairly.”
‘HE’S FREE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW’
Under the plea agreement, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) wasn’t convicted of a crime that resulted in him having to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law. He’s no longer on probation. He can do what he wants, where he wants, without having to report to authorities.
In an email, Sgt. James Thomas, the officer-in-charge at the Lower Windsor Township Police Department, said he’s aware of no problems at the church.
“The simple reality is, if he’s not committing any crimes, then he’s free to do whatever he wants to do within the confines of the law,” York County District Attorney Dave Sunday said.
St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Church is part of the Guild of St. Peter ad Vincula, a loose affiliation of independent priests based in Ohio, providing support to traditional Catholics, said Father Bernard Hall, dean of the guild.
The guild, he said, has no authority over the priests or churches that are part of it.
He said he’s “been aware of accusations made against” Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) for many years but was led to believe it was a set-up because he’s a traditional priest and could be targeted.
Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) described himself as a “neophyte” and stated that he didn’t understand the meaning of the word “download” as it related to the child pornography, Hall said.
Hall was not aware that Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) told police in 2005 that he masturbated to the images of child pornography found on a computer at a Scranton diocese church.
“Yuck, yuck,” Hall said. “Why would he ever admit to doing that? It’s a private act.”
But Hall also questioned whether Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) had broken the law. For example, Hall said, if Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) just viewed it after someone else downloaded it, “and he said, ‘Well, that was kinky,’ and he had a private moment.”
Whatever happened back then, Hall said, Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) has been operating in two parishes in Pennsylvania, the one in Lower Windsor Township and one in Chester County, with “no complaints from the children in the parish, the families in the parish.”
Parishioners trust Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/) and go to his church “to some extent at their own risk, and they all are quite aware of what Father Tetherow’s history is as far as his brush with the law,” Hall said.
He gave no indication that he would break off Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s association with the guild, providing no new accusations come to light.
“The kind of work he’s been doing in these parishes since, is sterling work,” Hall said. “He does a lot of very, very good work. He does so much good that I would hate to see his name being put up on an article or anywhere else, on the internet or whatever.”
Bishop Joseph Kopacz of the Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi, who previously served as the vicar for priests in Scranton, doesn’t buy Tetherow (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francis-tetherow/)’s explanation about not being able to break the seal of the confessional, saying it “doesn’t even connect the dots.”
“That’s a crock,” Kopacz said. “But that’s like, really, he’s scrambling for some kind of credible story here.”
“He was found with the pornography. It was not planted on his computer.”
But once a priest is laicized, Kopacz said, he’s fired. There’s nothing that a bishop or diocese can do - besides make a public announcement.
“He plea-bargained,” Kopacz said, “and then he reinvented himself