Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer needs to spend time - money in San Antonio? (Read 11823 times)

Matthew · « **on:** December 27, 2015, 11:04:23 AM »

We all know Fr. Pfeiffer has people all over the country -- and even all over the world -- that he visits to bring the Sacraments to the faithful resisting the new orientation of the (neo-)SSPX.

Father goes dozens of places on a sporadic basis. I'm OK with that; there's more than one way to skin a cat, as Bishop Williamson says.

However --

I think it's cultish and borderline schismatic to take time/money away from the faithful who need it to travel to a place that HAS a Resistance Mass every Sunday and holy day!

From the latest Mass announcements from SSPX-MC:

Quote

San Antonio, TX December 28th
5:30 p.m.

Holiday Inn San Antonio Airport
77 N. E. Loop 410
San Antonio, Texas 78216

The Mass will be in Room 2A
Holiday Inn is located approximately 1 mile west of the airport on the Loop 410 access road not to be confused with "Holiday Inn Express" which is a block closer to the airport.

He's also wasting time and money on a few holdouts in CT who refuse to go to Fr. Zendejas' weekly Masses there (I wonder who convinced them to stay away?):

Quote

Dec. 25th @ 3:00 pm
Danbury, CT The Hampton Inn Danbury
81 Newtown Rd.
Danbury, CT 06810

He's obviously saying our Mass isn't Catholic, or we aren't Catholic, or something along those lines. Ridiculous. This is another piece of evidence that YES Boston, KY is *still* messed up, it's still a cult, and it still is bad news. Go there if you have no other place for the Sacraments, but be CAREFUL! And just donate enough to cover the Mass (the classic "give the priest enough to eat for a couple days") but don't put Father as a beneficiary on your will. The organization isn't that good or worthy. In other words, you shouldn't be "rah rah" Fr. Pfeiffer. He is a valid priest with a valid Mass, but his sermons are dangerous and often have errors in them.

P.S. I realize that Father is flying in to Dallas and then Martin Doherty is driving him down to San Antonio. But that means the gentle, "Charitable" Martin with his Mr. Rogers avatar is approving of Father's cult-like schismatic behavior. He is rubber stamping the ridiculous nonsense that Fr. Zendejas is not an acceptable priest and/or he is not Catholic.

Well, Martin? How are you going to sugar coat this one?

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2015, 11:07:33 AM »

I certainly won't be there; I can tell you who will be there: One man, his daughter, and up to 5 kids. They haven't been to Mass probably since early May 2015, when they stopped coming to St. Dominic's Chapel. They are the reason Fr. Pfeiffer is coming to San Antonio, and Father is basically forced to come, since the patriarch in question has probably been sending him $300 a month since May 2015.

You gotta give something back eventually; the squeaky wheel eventually has to get SOME token amount of grease...

OHCA · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2015, 11:14:09 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I think it's cultish and borderline schismatic to take time/money away from the faithful who need it to travel to a place that HAS a Resistance Mass every Sunday and holy day!

-------------

Go there if you have no other place for the Sacraments, but be CAREFUL!

In light of the schismatic fraud fiasco, I'm not sure this is an option. I would sooner go to an indult Mass with a priest old enough to have been validly ordained.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** December 27, 2015, 11:15:43 AM »

The main point is that there is regular Mass in this area already, and there are SO many places that actually need a Resistant priest to say Mass for them all around the country.

But it's a little bit worse, because not only does San Antonio "have regular Mass from a faithful, resistant-to-Modernism priest" but we have a particularly good chapel, if I do say so myself. I mean, we have a dedicated building, pews, and all the equipment to properly have High Mass, Benediction, and so forth. We have an organist and small choir. There's a nice large crucifix above the altar. We have cassocks and surplices for the altar boys/men. Someone even recently donated 10 red cassocks and a set of beautiful, very traditional church-sized Stations of the Cross which are currently displayed in the chapel. The chapel is filled with beautiful Catholic statues and art. The chapel gets improved on a monthly basis, thanks to donations from parishioners and a couple of distant benefactors. Deo gratias!

And this one family is rejecting this, along with Fr. Zendejas' incredible, deep, profoundly Catholic sermons, to go sit in a Holiday Inn and play "catechombs" and "we're the last Catholics".

What is wrong with some people?

I just know what they're missing better than most people, since I go to Mass here every week. I know how much good is done for my soul on a weekly basis as I sit up in the sanctuary (I serve Mass almost every week) and listen to Fr. Zendejas or Fr. Garcia give another substantial Catholic sermon. I feel like my soul is being fed. These are real pastors!

JPaul · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2015, 12:13:39 PM »

This is what happens when there is too loose of an association with no organizing force to coordinate. The whole purpose here is to provide coverage to as many of the Faithful as possible as regularly as possible. When one area had been covered by a priest who is doing so reliably then these other priests are free to establish a mission at a location which has none. It is called, working together for the greater good.

That is what the Church does. That is not what is being done here and other places.
As such this whole effort will eventually degenerate into scattered cells of people and priests who are disconnected one from the other, and which produce a broken unity, in regards to the Church and the Divine command to love one another as Christ has loved us from all eternity.

Think of watering the garden, you do not water one or certain plots twice in a day and let go entirely without life sustaining moisture other plots, or water them too infrequently for growth or survival.

This is but one more example of the disorientation of out times, when a very small persecuted minority instead of being cohesive, united, and battling to survive, are instead self interested, fragmented, and stumbling along through time.

So called neo-Tradition seems to have lost that once internalized mode of being united in a universal supernatural Religion which trancends self and replaces all human concerns with the love of God and our co-religionist brethren as the highest ideal.

How many can say that they live for the Church, which is Christ, and that it is their all and their end? Is that not what throughout time the Holy Martyrs and Saints have exhorted us too do, and what they indeed did as an example to us?

This kind of foolishness in San Antonio is proof that unity and the greater good of the faithful is not uppermost in some priest's minds. I have suspicions that largely through the SSPX, Catholic Tradition has become little more than a brand which the faithful pay to buy.

Matthew & Co. have established a stable Chapel and have, it appears a stable clergy to service it, let the others stop wasting the Faithful's money and go and fulfill their priestly mission where there is more need.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2015, 12:13:57 PM »

No valid Mass is ever a waste of money, whether it be said for one or a thousand and one. The man in San Antonio asked for the Mass. Father made this trip part of a larger circuit that he is doing over the Christmas weekend.

Boston is not a cult. Boston may have issues with Father Zendejas, but this does not mean that Father Pfeiffer is doing this as an attack on Father Zendejas. He was asked by some faithful, and he responded.

Father Zendejas has some issues with his theological viewpoint. Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko spent hours trying to understand his position, with no definite answers from Father Zendejas. The verbiage in one of the recent Blue Papers is of some concern, and I would love to hear some explanation for these issues from Father Zendejas.

The Spirit of the Council is not a good phrase to use, as it carries a lot of baggage. It is used to absolve the Council of the heresies and the errors. Those who use this term often are those who defend the Council, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter. That is one issue that can be cause for concern.

That is besides the point I wish to make. I would not recommend redlighting Father Pfeiffer's Mass or Father Zendejas' Mass. Both are Masses, and both are valid.

Please do not forget that you had help with your mission, through Father Pfeiffer, Father Hewko, Father Voigt and myself. You were able to have the Mass and the Sacraments for a good amount of time before Father Zendejas set up camp. You may have issues with these priests now, but do not negate or forget that they have helped once, and that you did benefit from this help.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2015, 12:21:13 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Boston is not a cult.

The Spirit of the Council is not a good phrase to use, as it carries a lot of baggage. It is used to absolve the Council of the heresies and the errors. Those who use this term often are those who defend the Council, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter. That is one issue that can be cause for concern.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.

Sermon on the occasion of the Episcopal Consecration, Marcel Lefebvre, June 1988

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2015, 12:38:52 PM »

One must say, that Boston has too many issues with far too many Catholics and they spend an inordinate amount of resources to promote their opinions of these others and indoctrinate their faithful into them. And the evidence of their followers on other fora in their defense is indeed cultish and in many cases blind loyalty to persons. They do not discourage this as they believe in the rightness of their actions.

It is likely that they see themselves embarked upon some Heaven sent, messianic mission to save the Church just as do Bishop Fellay, the SSPX visionaries and their promoters. What they all have in common is that they justify anything which they do as being protected by those perceptions.

I can say one thing, and that is sowing division and confusion between already wounded Catholics is not Heaven's desire. However it is always, the desire of the Serpent.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #8 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:15:20 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

One must say, that Boston has too many issues with far too many Catholics and they spend an inordinate amount of resources to promote their opinions of these others and indoctrinate their faithful into them. And the evidence of their followers on other fora in their defense is indeed cultish and in many cases blind loyalty to persons. They do not discourage this as they believe in the rightness of their actions.

It is likely that they see themselves embarked upon some Heaven sent, messianic mission to save the Church just as do Bishop Fellay, the SSPX visionaries and their promoters. What they all have in common is that they justify anything which they do as being protected by those perceptions.

I can say one thing, and that is sowing division and confusion between already wounded Catholics is not Heaven's desire. However it is always, the desire of the Serpent.

Division is terrible, which is why this issue has been so bad. It seems to have started around the time Father Zendejas took Danbury from Father Pfeiffer, in a manner that was less than ideal. That action made it seem that Father Zendejas was out to take mission sites and their resources away from Father Pfeiffer.

The discussion between Father Pfeiffer and Father Zendejas failed to stem this divisive action, and that has been the case ever since.

It is not as simple as "Zendejas good, Pfeiffer bad". It is more complex than that, and any simplification would only distort the facts.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:16:04 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Boston is not a cult.

The Spirit of the Council is not a good phrase to use, as it carries a lot of baggage. It is used to absolve the Council of the heresies and the errors. Those who use this term often are those who defend the Council, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter. That is one issue that can be cause for concern.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.

Sermon on the occasion of the Episcopal Consecration, Marcel Lefebvre, June 1988

Thank you for injecting some sanity, Centroamerica.

I was going to say something similar. It's fine to use that phrase, as long as you're criticizing it, quoting it, or some such.

Just like a good Catholic author could have theft, murder, etc. in his books -- as long as those actions are done by clear Bad Guys and the actions are cast as evil. In this way, it becomes quite morally instructive.

Any attempt to nit-pick Fr. Zendejas to find some kind of problem will be met with failure, as there is nothing to find. Much less a doctrinal problem. I'm above-average knowledgeable with regards to the Faith; I grew up Trad Catholic, I've read hundreds of pre-Vatican II Catholic books and attended a Trad seminary for 3 1/3 years. And since then I've not exactly been under a rock; I've spent quite a bit of time reading and studying about the Faith. Just being on CathInfo for 9 years has taught me a lot. If there were a problem with Fr. Zendejas, I'd most likely find it.

I found and attacked the problems in the Conciliar Church, the SSPX and most recently Fr. Pfeiffer, didn't I? What makes you think I wouldn't jump ship if I found real problems with Fr. Zendejas? Honestly, ask yourself, am I the type that lets "personal loyalty to a priest" override the truth? Have I ever been known to follow a person rather than the truth?

Use your head.

Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, including about me, but some beliefs simply won't have much real-world evidence to back them up :)
And, in fact, certain beliefs will be outright contradicted by all the facts and evidence.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:33:46 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Division is terrible, which is why this issue has been so bad. It seems to have started around the time Father Zendejas took Danbury from Father Pfeiffer, in a manner that was less than ideal. That action made it seem that Father Zendejas was out to take mission sites and their resources away from Father Pfeiffer.

"Father Zendejas took Danbury from Father Pfeiffer"

Not too divisive, now are we? You were saying about charity and being objective? :rolleyes:

It was Fr. Zendejas' "territory" first. He was there for 15+ years building up Ridgefield. If he doesn't have a "mission" or calling from God to work there as a Trad missionary priest, then no one does.

It made -- and makes -- logical sense for Fr. Zendejas to go to the geographic locations where he knows people personally, where he's a known quantity and trusted. A missionary priest can do the most good in this kind of situation.

And where was Fr. Zendejas most recently, say in the last 20 years? Ridgefield, CT and Houston, TX. What do you know! Those are the two places he set up shop first.

By the way, the people in CT chose Fr. Zendejas. He offered them weekly Mass, which they NEED and have a right to as Catholics (no, they aren't greedy, selfish gluttons for wanting weekly Mass as Fr. Pfeiffer called them in one of his sermons!) and 99% of them chose Fr. Zendejas. The faithful called for a priest, and he came.

It's actually Fr. Pfeiffer that wants the $$$ from a rich place like Connecticut. He wants the money to fund A) his pet project (the Boston seminary) and B) his frequent travel habit.

But although there were plenty of people and resources to get a permanent location going in CT, Fr. Pfeiffer was TOTALLY AGAINST looking for a place. I have this from personal testimony from someone in CT. And according to other first-hand testimony, he did this in several other places as well. Fr. Pfeiffer always comes out swinging hard against spending ANY of his precious money on buildings and equipment. He wants 100% to go to his airline tickets and seminary.

And for what it's worth, it also matches my own personal experience. During the 2 visits he was here, he didn't leave so much as a lavabo towel at our (dedicated) chapel. I didn't make a big deal of it at the time (I was glad to have Mass here at all) but later on, I connected a few dots.

That's why the people in CT would be crazy to go with Fr. Pfeiffer. And, as a matter of fact, only a handful (as in 3) holdouts didn't go with Fr. Zendejas. And I think it's safe to assume these holdouts are die-hard fans of the man Fr. Pfeiffer -- completely brainwashed.

The proof is in the pudding.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #11 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:37:23 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Division is terrible, which is why this issue has been so bad. It seems to have started around the time Father Zendejas took Danbury from Father Pfeiffer, in a manner that was less than ideal. That action made it seem that Father Zendejas was out to take mission sites and their resources away from Father Pfeiffer.

The discussion between Father Pfeiffer and Father Zendejas failed to stem this divisive action, and that has been the case ever since.

It is not as simple as "Zendejas good, Pfeiffer bad". It is more complex than that, and any simplification would only distort the facts.

THIS^^ is a distortion of the facts. This thread is really showing how much difficulty Martin has separating reality from what Fr. Pfeiffer tells him to believe.

When the lay people ask a priest (Fr Zendejas) to come and he does so, he hasn't "taken" anything from anyone. They didn't have regular Mass; they didn't have a school for their children. They asked Fr. Zendejas to give them these things and he did so. He even offered to *not* say Mass in the area on the weeks when Fr. Pfeiffer wished to come, but his offer was quickly rejected by Fr. Pfeiffer.

In Martin's world, Fr. Zendejas' only option would have been to tell them "no, I'm sorry, Fr. Pfeiffer is covering the US and Canada and so I must stay with the SSPX or go overseas." :rolleyes:

wallflower · « **Reply #12 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:41:14 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: J.Paul
One must say, that Boston has too many issues with far too many Catholics and they spend an inordinate amount of resources to promote their opinions of these others and indoctrinate their faithful into them. And the evidence of their followers on other fora in their defense is indeed cultish and in many cases blind loyalty to persons. They do not discourage this as they believe in the rightness of their actions.

It is likely that they see themselves embarked upon some Heaven sent, messianic mission to save the Church just as do Bishop Fellay, the SSPX visionaries and their promoters. What they all have in common is that they justify anything which they do as being protected by those perceptions.

I can say one thing, and that is sowing division and confusion between already wounded Catholics is not Heaven's desire. However it is always, the desire of the Serpent.

Division is terrible, which is why this issue has been so bad. It seems to have started around the time Father Zendejas took Danbury from Father Pfeiffer, in a manner that was less than ideal. That action made it seem that Father Zendejas was out to take mission sites and their resources away from Father Pfeiffer.

The discussion between Father Pfeiffer and Father Zendejas failed to stem this divisive action, and that has been the case ever since.

It is not as simple as "Zendejas good, Pfeiffer bad". It is more complex than that, and any simplification would only distort the facts.

If Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko are as spread thin as they are they should be happy for another priest to take up the fight and ease their burden a little bit so they can focus on all their other places. They should be encouraging that last man and his daughter to attend Fr Zendejas' Mass. Getting territorial is evidence of a deep-seated problem with priorities. Not only that but it's another priest in the fight!! The only pure reaction to that is joy!

Instead it's all about money, money, money. The more people they can manipulate into thinking they can only attend their own Masses, the more resources they can rake in. You admit it yourself. "was out to take... their resources." I keep thinking this is it, this is the bottom and they can't sink any lower. But then they do. It's quite sickening.

Chavez, Fr was asked, yes, how great of him to acquiesce, isn't it? Except, why is the man asking in the first place? Because Fr Pfeiffer told him not to attend Fr Zendejas' Mass. Matthew knows this first hand, it isn't speculation. So if someone intentionally deals you a fatal blow so they can swoop in and save your life, that's heroic to you??

Edit: Matthew and MD beat me to it but I have a feeling he could hear it 100 times and still refuse to see.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #13 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:55:14 PM »

There is always something to find, as no one is perfect. We all make mistakes, and these mistakes vary in severity.

This is one example of something that can be analyzed and found to be less than perfect:

"As Catholics we are always compelled to choose between Truth and “obedience.” Moreover, we must likewise choose between practicing the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” and the present ecclesiastical orientation, which thinks and believes otherwise—between the immemorial teaching of the Church, which states that schismatics and heretics are “outside the Catholic Church,” and the modern ecclesiastical orientation, which started with the spirit of the council (Aggiornamento). This Modernist spirit has been continued nowadays by the New Evangelization’s fever, and is being promoted by the attitude of the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” in traditionalist groups."

Firstly, no one has to choose between truth and obedience. We only choose between truth and error. We either obey the truth or obey errors. I am curious as to why he chose this analogy, as it seems to be incomplete, and could use more explanation.

Secondly, the usage of the Word "orientation", which is used a ton of times in this blue paper, can be confusing. The modernists do not have an " orientation". It should be said plainly that the modernists are in error, and that by saying it is an "orientation", reduces the gravity of the errors of modernism.

There is one more section I wanted to highlight:

"In the days of the Council, the teaching of novelties about humanism (man-centered Church) were opposed and then silenced by more or less honest means and men, but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period, so that the new system DEMANDS obedience to such “personal” orientations against the whole previous Magisterium of the Church."

This seems like Father is excusing the Council for the modernist heresy and errors we have faced for more than 50 years. The teachings of the Council are infused with modernism and humanism. These errors within the Council were manifested by the modernists in the Church. This quote seems to blame the "adherents... In key positions", rather than the Council itself, for the manifestation of modernism and humanism.

I find that Father should be clearer and more direct with his writing, as any ambiguity can lead to misunderstanding. This particular blue paper could use some clear and concise explanation, as it seems to remove the blame off the Council and reduce the modernist heresy to an " orientation ".

MaterDominici · « **Reply #14 on:** December 27, 2015, 01:55:30 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Edit: Matthew and MD beat me to it but I have a feeling he could hear it 100 times and still refuse to see.

I thought the same thing when I saw Matthew had posted already!

Martin, I know very balanced and sane people who still support Fr. Pfeiffer ... they do so cautiously and do not try to understate the magnitude of the problems. I do not take any issue with that as we all want every aspect of the Resistance to succeed. But, ignoring or refusing to mention falsehoods, manipulation, schismatic behavior, etc coming from Boston, KY is NOT the way to achieve that success.