Have Frs P and H been made aware of the open letter above? Does anyone know for certain?
[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.
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?
Quote from: TKGSThe 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.
Fr. Tetherow is a newpriest ordained in the new Rite of ordination, which is at least doubtful. He has not been conditionally ordained.
When the Conciliar Church thinks a priest needs to be laicized, that really says something about him!
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.)
Tetherow was LAICIZED. He is no longer able to offer any sacraments even privately, only to absolve in danger of death.
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,
_____
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?!
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'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?
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.
QuoteTetherow 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?"
Quote from: MatthewWhen 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.
There are rumors spread by his enemies but who knows what is true.
Quote from: MattoThere 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.
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
From the mailbag:QuoteDear 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
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
Sorry. Instead,search: Off my knees+ Fr. Gabriel.
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.
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 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.
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
Quote from: TiffanyI 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 GreeleyBut 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
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.
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.
Quote from: TheRealMcCoyMA,
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.
:facepalm:
First, Ambrose. Now, Tetherow.
Apparently, somebody has never heard of a screening process.
Quote from: TiffanyQuote from: TheRealMcCoyMA,
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.)
Someone called Fr. Pfeiffer, and regarding the charges against Fr. Tetherow, Fr. Pfeiffer said, "All lies. None of it's true."
Quote from: TheRealMcCoyIsn'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.
Quote from: 1st Mansion TenantAre 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.
Quote from: MotoredeSorry. 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.
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.
We didn't find out he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ until...
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.
He also showed such pictures or/and his "Mr Oregon" pictures to a priest who was visiting and who was greatly disturbed by it.
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.
Next, it doesn't take away his priesthood. That is permanent.
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.
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.
Quote from: thebloodycovenSo 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.
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.
OLMC is very tolerant of queers.
Quote from: TiffanyI 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 GreeleyBut 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
[quoting Tetherow] take care of the farm animals…
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?
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.
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraWhen 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?
Quote from: IncredulousQuote from: Maria AuxiliadoraWhen 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.
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraQuote from: TiffanyI 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 GreeleyBut 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?
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora[quoting Tetherow] take care of the farm animals…
This is a troubling statement.
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraWhen 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?
Quote from: TheRealMcCoyQuote 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
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.
Seriously! What is going on with these accused (and in this case convicted?) priests in Tradition?
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.
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.
Seriously! What is going on with these accused (and in this case convicted?) priests in Tradition?
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 (?).
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
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
Quote from: MatthewFrom the mailbag:QuoteDear 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
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.
I apologize for the comment on Fr. Perricone. It was most imprudent on my part.
I apologize for the comment on Fr. Perricone. It was not prudent on my part.
Quote from: IncredulousQuote from: Maria AuxiliadoraWhen 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
AJNC..
Please....... Your definition of a pedophile..
.
. Your accusation if they are "known".
.
.NAME THEM PLEASE.
.
(not shouting, for effect only)
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.
Quote from: sea leopardAJNC..
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.
OLMC and it's followers must tread carefully. There may come a time when more light must be shed.
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...
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 should repeat that Mr. Tetherow always seemed quite uncomfortable with my husband offering him to pay for a lawyer to clear his name.
Quote from: MatthewAJNC,
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".
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: MatthewMaria, 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
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraQuote from: MatthewMaria, 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?
It is possible that Tetherow is that good of a snake oil salesman, that he has duped everyone in Boston.
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraQuote from: MatthewMaria, 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?
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.
Matthew there is a difference between no longer supporting someone or pointing out errors than saying they want other clergy destitute.
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.
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...
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.
Quote from: ManuelChavezIncredulous 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)
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.
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?
[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.
Long story short, I think His Excellency has been most wise and prudent in his behavior thus far.
Quote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: IncredulousQuote from: ManuelChavezIncredulous 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.
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.
Quote from: TiffanyMatthew 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TheRealMcCoyQuote from: ManuelChavezMatthew, 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.
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.
OHCA and Manuel,
You guys take it outside, please! You're derailing this thread. Put each other on ignore or something.
Quote from: TheRealMcCoyQuote from: ManuelChavezMatthew, 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.
Quote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: TheRealMcCoyQuote from: ManuelChavezMatthew, 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.
Quote from: obscurusLet'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).
Quote from: St IgnatiusQuote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: TheRealMcCoyQuote from: ManuelChavezMatthew, 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.
Quote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: St IgnatiusQuote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: TheRealMcCoyQuote from: ManuelChavezMatthew, 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?
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
Quote from: manuelI 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?Quoterather than hemorrhage funds
You definitely don't know the ways of Fr Pfeiffer! Trust me... I know!
Quote from: St IgnatiusQuote from: manuelI 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?Quoterather 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.
Quote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: St IgnatiusQuote from: manuelI 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?Quoterather 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!
Quote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: St IgnatiusQuote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: St IgnatiusQuote from: manuelI 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?Quoterather 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?!
Quote from: ManuelChavezI 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.
Quote from: OHCAAside 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People need to stop mincing words.
Quote from: MatthewOHCA 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.
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."
I was asked to post this, taken from a magazine article:
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.
Quote from: MatthewI 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:
Just like all the clear evidence presented against Moran? Don't be naive!Quote from: ManuelChavezQuote from: MatthewOHCA 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.
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 believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.
Quote from: ManuelChavezI believe that Boston will listen to the facts in this matter; that Tetherow is not trustworthy.
Why do you think he's not trustworthy?
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.
This sworn testimony of a priest perhaps might make an impression on Fr. Pfeiffer.
Ask Fr Pfeiffer some time who is the Prelate of Our Lady of Quito. His answer should be very interesting.
Father Hewko said he would not want to associate with Tetherow, due to the scandal it would cause, and has caused.
Quote from: ManuelChavezFather 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?
Quote from: ManuelChavezFather 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?
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: ManuelChavezFather 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?!!!!!
Father Pfieffer or any other priest has no duty to post on cathinfo and IMO is wise to avoid doing so.
Do you folks honestly think that Pfeiffer and Tetherow are worth devoting 47 pages of comments to?
Quote from: obscurusQuote from: OHCAQuote from: ManuelChavezFather 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?
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: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?
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.
Just look at the photo of "pablo" sitting in the Rectory. Does it not give you the creeps?
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]
(https://i.imgflip.com/10xu3x.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/10xu3x)
Oh, that's an easy one.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.
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 can see why no one will want to join the "Resistance".........resistance to what?
If he lied about someone, I must have missed it.
youve been advized what to do for the good of your soul.... good luck at your Judgement
“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
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.
Quote from: MatthewRecusant 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.
So is there enough to say that Fr. Pfeiffer is associating himself with convicted child porn harborers? Is there a concisae explanation for this?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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, PhDQuote from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, i.e.: a sociopath or psychopathSociopath (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
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.
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraThat 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!
----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.
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.
Fr. Relyea has never worked with Tetherow! I will send you a PM.
Update:
I sent you a message.
Quote from: CroixalistQuote from: Maria AuxiliadoraThat 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.
And please don't tell me Urri-guru is a bishop? :facepalm:
Will this insanity ever end???
Quote from: AlexandriaAnd 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.
I hope this was simply satirical. If not it is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read. Minds are gone....
Why is he promoting Protestant material AND Bishop Williamson?
The mind reels...
Are these the people Fr. Pfeiffer attracts?
Quote from: obscurusQuote from: CroixalistQuote from: Maria AuxiliadoraThat 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.
Perhaps she was just an R rated star?
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*.
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
Quote from: drewTo 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: IncredulousDrew 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.
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.
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora2- 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.
Quote from: onewhoknowsQuote from: Maria Auxiliadora2- 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.
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.
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
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 TetheauxMmmm ... ¿pedophile doing self-defense?...
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 WolfAnd 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
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.Correction: Should be 2005 and not 1995.
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
"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 WolfQuoteAnd 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
Found this online.Where did you find 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
Found this online.Nevermind. Found it:
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
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.
Massive truth bombs ahead.Fr. Pfeiffer said he would welcome fr. U with open arms if fr. U would come to KY.
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.
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)
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.I just read this...
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.
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.
Article on Tetherow by the York Daily Record with the police statements included:
11/14/2010
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/