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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep  (Read 5663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fanny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
  • Reputation: +248/-408
  • Gender: Female
Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
« on: February 14, 2018, 05:42:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • For anyone still doubting whether or not fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC is quickly becoming SSJ,  part 2, I encourage you to ask fr. Pfeiffer his opinion of fr. Urrutigoity.  

    He recently made comments which support fr. Urrutigoity, saying fr. U is not a pervert and because he has not been convicted of anything, in the lay legal system, fr. U is innocent.

    If you don't know anything about fr. U and the SSJ, of which fr. Marshall Roberts, aka fr. Mary of the pillar, was a founding member and stayed 2 years, Google it.  But do it on an empty stomach because it may make you vomit.

    I was told by a priest recently that, according to st. Plus X: fr. U, laicised fr. Ensey, laicised fr tetherow, fr. Roberts, and their ilk should be put to death for their crimes.

    How many children must suffer at the hands of these perverts before fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko wake up?  Just goes to show how far fr. Pfeiffer believes the end justifies the means, as long as it benefits him.  

    He doesnt think about the safety of children.   How can he care about your soul?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #1 on: February 15, 2018, 08:12:31 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • While I consider the death penalty a bit extreme ...

    :facepalm: to Father Pfeiffer's comments.  Of course, he has to logically extend his defense of Fr. Roberts, so it's only a logical next step for him.
    Logged

    Offline RoughAshlar

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 205
    • Reputation: +153/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #2 on: February 15, 2018, 10:05:09 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • So I've read up on the several priests in questions and the pattern seems pretty obvious with those pedo priests.  So a few questions here.

    1) Is Fr. Pfeiffer trying to stand by fellow priests and rehabilitate?  (naïve but non-malicious)
    2) Is he drawing from the bottom of the barrel because he has no one else to further his version of tradition?
    3) Am i understanding correctly Fr. Pfeiffer truly doesn't believe the accusations, the court docs, conviction/laicized because he views it as an attack on tradition?
    4) SSJ were a group of repeat offending pedos trying to hide each other.  It begs the questions why would Fr. Pfeiffer stake the reputation of Boston on supporting repeat sex offenders?
    5) Out of curiosity, what was done 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago when pedophilia reared its vile head?  Were they transferred and taken in by some other order?  While this isn't pleasant topic, it can't be unprecedented in the history of the Church.
    6) Fr. Hewko is far worse in all this than Fr. Pfeiffer in my opinion.  He desired to be a martyr like the Christeros so bad, he martyred himself with his exit speech.  He has tied his rope to Fr. Pfeiffer like a sycophant.  You can't tell me that he was brave enough to leave the SSPX the way that he did, but he can't leave an even worse situation involving pedos.   Fr. Hewko always gathered boys wherever he went, and tried to make men out of them.  Is he still gathering sheep, while the other priest protects the wolves and pen them together? ...he is complicit. There is no room for pedophilia in Catholicism.
    Logged

    Offline Fanny

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 571
    • Reputation: +248/-408
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #3 on: February 15, 2018, 10:12:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2018, 08:12:31 AM
    While I consider the death penalty a bit extreme ...
    It seems to be, but I am no saint, that the death penalty would actually be more charitable for such people than to let them continue hurting children.  Better that a millstone be tied around his neck and flung into the deepest part of the sea...
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #4 on: February 15, 2018, 10:24:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Fanny on February 14, 2018, 05:42:56 PM
    For anyone still doubting whether or not fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC is quickly becoming SSJ,  part 2, I encourage you to ask fr. Pfeiffer his opinion of fr. Urrutigoity.  

    He recently made comments which support fr. Urrutigoity, saying fr. U is not a pervert and because he has not been convicted of anything, in the lay legal system, fr. U is innocent.

    If you don't know anything about fr. U and the SSJ, of which fr. Marshall Roberts, aka fr. Mary of the pillar, was a founding member and stayed 2 years, Google it.  But do it on an empty stomach because it may make you vomit.

    I was told by a priest recently that, according to st. Plus X: fr. U, laicised fr. Ensey, laicised fr tetherow, fr. Roberts, and their ilk should be put to death for their crimes.

    How many children must suffer at the hands of these perverts before fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko wake up?  Just goes to show how far fr. Pfeiffer believes the end justifies the means, as long as it benefits him.  

    He doesnt think about the safety of children.   How can he care about your soul?

    Is Urruigoity actually going to reside or be associated with OLMC? Or is Fr. Pfeiffer mainly just making a stupid and rather frightening comment about Urrutigoity?

    Hopefully, Urrutigoity is not going to be associated in any way with OLMC. I recall reading the details (on the old Angelqueen forum many years ago) about as to why Urrutigoity was booted out of the SSPX. It's quite unpleasant. I don't see how Fr. Pfeiffer can defend him in any way at all.

    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Fanny

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 571
    • Reputation: +248/-408
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #5 on: February 15, 2018, 10:31:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RoughAshlar on February 15, 2018, 10:05:09 AM
    So I've read up on the several priests in questions and the pattern seems pretty obvious with those pedo priests.  So a few questions here.

    1) Is Fr. Pfeiffer trying to stand by fellow priests and rehabilitate?  (naïve but non-malicious)
    2) Is he drawing from the bottom of the barrel because he has no one else to further his version of tradition?
    3) Am i understanding correctly Fr. Pfeiffer truly doesn't believe the accusations, the court docs, conviction/laicized because he views it as an attack on tradition?
    4) SSJ were a group of repeat offending pedos trying to hide each other.  It begs the questions why would Fr. Pfeiffer stake the reputation of Boston on supporting repeat sex offenders?
    5) Out of curiosity, what was done 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago when pedophilia reared its vile head?  Were they transferred and taken in by some other order?  While this isn't pleasant topic, it can't be unprecedented in the history of the Church.
    6) Fr. Hewko is far worse in all this than Fr. Pfeiffer in my opinion.  He desired to be a martyr like the Christeros so bad, he martyred himself with his exit speech.  He has tied his rope to Fr. Pfeiffer like a sycophant.  You can't tell me that he was brave enough to leave the SSPX the way that he did, but he can't leave an even worse situation involving pedos.   Fr. Hewko always gathered boys wherever he went, and tried to make men out of them.  Is he still gathering sheep, while the other priest protects the wolves and pen them together? ...he is complicit. There is no room for pedophilia in Catholicism.
    Good for you to have taken the initiative.  I hope you did your research on an empty stomach.

    You will have to address your questions to fr. Pfeiffer himself for his answers.  

    In lieu of that, I can give it a shot:
    1. No.  He stands by no priest/bishop/monk  who is "against him", rehabilitatable or not.
    2. Yes.
    3. I don't know if he views it as an attack on tradition, but he believes unless convicted in a court of law they are innocent.
    4. The end justifies the means.
    5. I don't know.  I was recently told that st. Pius X said such priests should be put to death.
    6. Fr. Hewko is not complicit.  He wrote a public letter explaining his support of fr. Roberts.  Fr. Hewko has either been in a barrel with bad apples too long or he has been cursed.

    You are right, there is absolutely no room for even an accusation of pedophilia in Catholicism, even as Christ Himself said so: Better for a millstone to be tied around his neck and thrown into the deepest part of the sea than for someone to scandalize even one of My little ones.
    Logged

    Offline Fanny

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 571
    • Reputation: +248/-408
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #6 on: February 15, 2018, 10:35:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on February 15, 2018, 10:24:31 AM
    Is Urruigoity actually going to reside or be associated with OLMC? Or is Fr. Pfeiffer mainly just making a stupid and rather frightening comment about Urrutigoity?

    Hopefully, Urrutigoity is not going to be associated in any way with OLMC. I recall reading the details (on the old Angelqueen forum many years ago) about as to why Urrutigoity was booted out of the SSPX. It's quite unpleasant. I don't see how Fr. Pfeiffer can defend him in any way at all.
    Perhaps fr. Pfeiffers supportive comment about fr. Urrutigoity is his way of preparing his followers for fr. Urrutigoitys arrival to OLMC?  I don't know.  Time will tell.

    No sane person can understand how fr. Pfeiffer can defend any pervert.  
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #7 on: February 15, 2018, 10:47:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Fanny on February 15, 2018, 10:12:15 AM
    It seems to be, but I am no saint, that the death penalty would actually be more charitable for such people than to let them continue hurting children.  Better that a millstone be tied around his neck and flung into the deepest part of the sea...

    Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life.  Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.
    Logged

    Offline 1st Mansion Tenant

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1765
    • Reputation: +1446/-127
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #8 on: February 15, 2018, 11:10:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Fanny on February 14, 2018, 05:42:56 PM
      

    He recently made comments which support fr. Urrutigoity, saying fr. U is not a pervert and because he has not been convicted of anything, in the lay legal system, fr. U is innocent.


    To whom did Fr P make these comments? Are they in one of his Youtube sermons?
    Logged

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #9 on: February 15, 2018, 11:19:15 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2018, 10:47:50 AM
    Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life.  Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.

    St. Peter Damian said something to this effect back in the XI century when he was warning the Church of the dangers of the vice of sodomy which "cannot in any way be compared to any others, because its enormity supersedes them all. Indeed, this vice causes the death of bodies and the destruction of souls. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of reason, and expels the Holy Ghost from His temple in the heart of man, introducing in His stead the Devil who is the instigator of lust". 


    Quote
    “Thus, as soon as someone has fallen into this abyss of extreme perdition, he is exiled from the heavenly motherland, separated from the Body of Christ, censured by the authority of the whole Church, condemned by the judgment of all the Holy Fathers, despised by men on earth and rebuked by the society of heavenly citizens. He creates for himself an earth of iron and a sky of bronze.

     "On the one hand, laden with the weight of his crime, he is unable to rise; on the other hand, he is no longer able to conceal his evil in the refuge of ignorance. He cannot be happy while he lives nor have hope when he dies, because here and now he is obliged to suffer the ignominy of men’s derision and, later, the torment of eternal condemnation."
    Logged
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Fanny

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 571
    • Reputation: +248/-408
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #10 on: February 15, 2018, 01:28:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant on February 15, 2018, 11:10:05 AM
    To whom did Fr P make these comments? Are they in one of his Youtube sermons?
    I am not at liberty to reveal, but I heard it from 2 people who are very close to Fr. Pfeiffer.
    Logged

    Offline Fanny

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 571
    • Reputation: +248/-408
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #11 on: February 15, 2018, 01:36:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2018, 10:47:50 AM
    Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life.  Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.
    But what if they continue to sin by wilfully dwelling on the subject in their mind?  Perhaps, in st. Pius X judgement, such people regularly dwell on it and that that part is not rehabilitatable.  In other words, actions are preventable by locking them up for life, but thoughts are not preventable.  As such, the death penalty would be more charitable to help them stop sinning and reaching a deeper pit of hell when they die.
     
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #12 on: February 18, 2018, 11:22:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Fr.Pfeiffer supports Fr. Urritigoity


    Quote
    Fr. Hewko is far worse in all this than Fr. Pfeiffer in my opinion.  He desired to be a martyr like the Christeros so bad, he martyred himself with his exit speech.  He has tied his rope to Fr. Pfeiffer like a sycophant.  You can't tell me that he was brave enough to leave the SSPX the way that he did, but he can't leave an even worse situation involving pedos.   Fr. Hewko always gathered boys wherever he went, and tried to make men out of them.  Is he still gathering sheep, while the other priest protects the wolves and pen them together? ...he is complicit.
    Weird and wild stuff! All I know is that it smells like there is something seriously wrong there with both of them.

    By now, Fr. Urritigoity should be repulsive to any real man.
    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #13 on: February 18, 2018, 11:26:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Fanny on February 15, 2018, 01:36:17 PM
    But what if they continue to sin by wilfully dwelling on the subject in their mind?  Perhaps, in st. Pius X judgement, such people regularly dwell on it and that that part is not rehabilitatable.  In other words, actions are preventable by locking them up for life, but thoughts are not preventable.  As such, the death penalty would be more charitable to help them stop sinning and reaching a deeper pit of hell when they die.
    Good observation Grasshopper.
    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer supports fr. Urrutigoity -- yep
    « Reply #14 on: February 18, 2018, 12:41:20 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Fanny on February 15, 2018, 01:36:17 PM
    But what if they continue to sin by wilfully dwelling on the subject in their mind?  Perhaps, in st. Pius X judgement, such people regularly dwell on it and that that part is not rehabilitatable.  In other words, actions are preventable by locking them up for life, but thoughts are not preventable.  As such, the death penalty would be more charitable to help them stop sinning and reaching a deeper pit of hell when they die.
     

    There are lots of people in habitual sin.  So, are sins of thought now worthy of the death penalty?  In that case, you could safely execute 95% of the earth's population.  You can't make decisions about capital punishment based on considerations like stopping them from reaching a deeper place in hell.  That's up to God.  God could strike them down whenever He chooses.  And, if He doesn't, maybe it's because He feels the person does in fact deserve a greater eternal punishment.  We are not in a position to make those kinds of decisions.  Using criteria like that to argue for capital punishment opens up a nightmarish can of worms.  Why can't I take it upon myself, then, to execute my neighbor who's a chronic blasphemer or adulterer?  Ah, he's never going to change, so let's just execute him.  But, you know what, people CAN change?  Or do you not believe in the power of God's grace?  Even the most hardened sinner can be converted.  Even if their sinful INCLINATIONS and temptations to sin never go away, they could still get to the point of regretting their actions and having sincere contrition and at least FIGHTING their sinful condition.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »