Author Topic: FR. RAPHAEL ARIZAGA: ACLARATIONS REGARDING MY EXPULSION (Read 8642 times)

Cristera · « **on:** April 10, 2013, 03:36:18 PM »

Aclarations regarding my expulsion from OLG Monastery in Silver CIty

PAX

I want to answer some questions regarding the events that surrounded my expulsion from my Monastery, and also to unmask false rumors about it.

There is a point I need to make clear and which I never thought was important to explain further, since for me in totally secondary, a point that only could be of interest for those who does not see a doctrinal problem in the whole issue. A doctrinal problem causes a state of necessity and a state of justification in front of the Code of Canon Law and in front of the Rule of St. Benedict. My "permission" to leave the monastery for few days comes from the Rule and from Canon Law. Nevertheless I did inform indeed to Father Cyprian, before leaving, that, due to the scandal, i was forced to look for spiritual direction somewhere else. I told him that I would be absent only for few days and that I would certainly come back, that he should not be worry, that I would come back. Even in the cases in which a monk without justification leaves his monastery, the superior is obliged by the Rule to accept him back until 4 times. For this reason i say that it is a secondary point, since leaving the monastery for any cause, good or bad, never can be a reason to close de door of the Monastery to anyone. To focus only on this issue is to miss the whole point, and it is exactly what the SSPX and Father Cyprian want, in order to avert the attention to the fact, that the reason why they do not accept me back is because there is a very serious doctrinal problem they do not want to fix and therefore, they do not want me to preach. My permanence in the Monastery would "divide" the Monastery, when we know that the only source of unity is the truth. Doctrine and charity were being step upon by the monastery, and therefore by that scandal I was in a state of necessity to act accordingly.

Now I want to refute some false rumors:

"Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko did not accepted the invitation of the Monastery to stay overnight since they were staying overnight with the faithful of Silver City"

This is completely false. They were not offer by the Monastery not even a glass of water which they would not have denied even to a pagan who would have asked for it. Both Fathers had to come back to El Paso that same day, very late.

When they arrive to the Monastery their wish was to stay overnight at the Monastery. For that reason, as Fr. Pfaiffer was taking out his luggage form the car Pablo de Mexican, his driver, told him "Don´t do that Father, since we do not know even if we will be expelled from here the next minute"

"They were not accepted because their bad spirit, one of criticism and attack to the Superior of the SSPX"

When a superior is teaching bad doctrine, whether it be the Pope or our Superior, we have the duty in charity to correct and to warn to flock of the danger against the faith and therefore of their own salvation. When the shepherd sleeps, the dogs must bark.

That "attack is only an appearance, it is rather charity in action.

"Father Raphael left his Monastery during the absence of the community, excusing himself of being sick"

Indeed I was on bed and even with some fever, but the state of necessity, as I have explained, obliged me to act in such a manner, but not without informing beforehand what I was about to do. I had to be discrete for the good of the Monastery and to go on that day since Bishop Willianson only was in México for few days.

"Father Cyprian send an e'mail warning him that if he continue in an position of critique, attack, and rebellion, then the door of the Monastery would be close to him"

I never received such an e'mail. The only e-mail I received from him is dated february 26 in which he said : "Go where you can find peace, for now the doors of the Monastery are close to you". Without further explanations, without asking my opinion, without saying what are the charges against me (crimes?), and without giving to me the opportunity of self-defense. Breaking the laws of charity, Canon Lay and the very Rule of St. Benedict. To his e-mail I answered by 2 e-mails; but I did not receive any answer.

"Father Cyprian tells everybody, the brothers included, that Father Raphael is still part of the Community".

How could I be part of a Community where its doors are close to me and where I cannot enter anymore? This is an strategy to calm down the brothers, since they were told by Fr. Cyprian "We are on talks of reconciliation with Fr. Raphael". Which is totally false!!

Please pray a great deal for this your servant and father, so that I may always may do the will of God. This is precisely the greatest of the advices I received form Mons. WIlliamson: "Always pray to know the will of God, every day, and the grace to follow it and to fulfill it, avoiding precipitation"

I also beseech you, for the love of God, to help me with your prayers and support for the new project of opening a new Benedictine Monastery in Mexico.

U.I.O.G.D. (May God me glorify in all things)

Yours always in St. Joseph

Father Raphael OSB

Machabees · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2013, 09:25:04 AM »

Cristera said,

Quote

Aclarations regarding my expulsion from OLG Monastery in Silver CIty

PAX

I want to answer some questions regarding the events that surrounded my expulsion from my Monastery, and also to unmask false rumors about it.

There is a point I need to make clear and which I never thought was important to explain further, since for me in totally secondary, a point that only could be of interest for those who does not see a doctrinal problem in the whole issue. A doctrinal problem causes a state of necessity and a state of justification in front of the Code of Canon Law and in front of the Rule of St. Benedict. My "permission" to leave the monastery for few days comes from the Rule and from Canon Law. Nevertheless I did inform indeed to Father Cyprian, before leaving, that, due to the scandal, i was forced to look for spiritual direction somewhere else. I told him that I would be absent only for few days and that I would certainly come back, that he should not be worry, that I would come back. Even in the cases in which a monk without justification leaves his monastery, the superior is obliged by the Rule to accept him back until 4 times. For this reason i say that it is a secondary point, since leaving the monastery for any cause, good or bad, never can be a reason to close de door of the Monastery to anyone. To focus only on this issue is to miss the whole point, and it is exactly what the SSPX and Father Cyprian want, in order to avert the attention to the fact, that the reason why they do not accept me back is because there is a very serious doctrinal problem they do not want to fix and therefore, they do not want me to preach. My permanence in the Monastery would "divide" the Monastery, when we know that the only source of unity is the truth. Doctrine and charity were being step upon by the monastery, and therefore by that scandal I was in a state of necessity to act accordingly.

Now I want to refute some false rumors:

"Father Cyprian send an e'mail warning him that if he continue in an position of critique, attack, and rebellion, then the door of the Monastery would be close to him""Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko did not accepted the invitation of the Monastery to stay overnight since they were staying overnight with the faithful of Silver City"

This is completely false. They were not offer by the Monastery not even a glass of water which they would not have denied even to a pagan who would have asked for it. Both Fathers had to come back to El Paso that same day, very late.

When they arrive to the Monastery their wish was to stay overnight at the Monastery. For that reason, as Fr. Pfaiffer was taking out his luggage form the car Pablo de Mexican, his driver, told him "Don´t do that Father, since we do not know even if we will be expelled from here the next minute"

"They were not accepted because their bad spirit, one of criticism and attack to the Superior of the SSPX"

When a superior is teaching bad doctrine, whether it be the Pope or our Superior, we have the duty in charity to correct and to warn to flock of the danger against the faith and therefore of their own salvation. When the shepherd sleeps, the dogs must bark.

That "attack is only an appearance, it is rather charity in action.

"Father Raphael left his Monastery during the absence of the community, excusing himself of being sick"

Indeed I was on bed and even with some fever, but the state of necessity, as I have explained, obliged me to act in such a manner, but not without informing beforehand what I was about to do. I had to be discrete for the good of the Monastery and to go on that day since Bishop Willianson only was in México for few days.

I never received such an e'mail. The only e-mail I received from him is dated february 26 in which he said : "Go where you can find peace, for now the doors of the Monastery are close to you". Without further explanations, without asking my opinion, without saying what are the charges against me (crimes?), and without giving to me the opportunity of self-defense. Breaking the laws of charity, Canon Lay and the very Rule of St. Benedict. To his e-mail I answered by 2 e-mails; but I did not receive any answer.

"Father Cyprian tells everybody, the brothers included, that Father Raphael is still part of the Community".

How could I be part of a Community where its doors are close to me and where I cannot enter anymore? This is an strategy to calm down the brothers, since they were told by Fr. Cyprian "We are on talks of reconciliation with Fr. Raphael". Which is totally false!!

Please pray a great deal for this your servant and father, so that I may always may do the will of God. This is precisely the greatest of the advices I received form Mons. WIlliamson: "Always pray to know the will of God, every day, and the grace to follow it and to fulfill it, avoiding precipitation"

I also beseech you, for the love of God, to help me with your prayers and support for the new project of opening a new Benedictine Monastery in Mexico.

U.I.O.G.D. (May God me glorify in all things)

Yours always in St. Joseph

Father Raphael OSB

WOW...this is huge news!

In the Doctrinal position of Father Raphael OSB, the Benedictine Monastery in Silver City (U.S.A), and Fr. Cyprian, have officially and publicly capitulated with the N-SSPX modernism to go forward with the scandalous and treasonous "deal" with conciliar Rome.

This scandal reminds me of the treasonous fall with the beginning of the Protestant revolt in Europe. When the Catholics in that part of the world "apostated", God, through His Blessed Mother, then gives the Faith to someone else...back to Mexico in a new foundation of a Monastery.

Magna opera Domini · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:41:53 PM »

Does anybody have contact information for Fr. Raphael, for those who would like to help him financially?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** April 12, 2013, 06:11:36 AM »

Quote from: Magna opera Domini

Does anybody have contact information for Fr. Raphael, for those who would like to help him financially?

See the other thread called Resistance Support Group.

Cristera · « **Reply #4 on:** April 12, 2013, 09:58:28 AM »

Information about the new monastery of Saint Joseph and contact information of father Raphael:

Kazimierz · « **Reply #5 on:** April 12, 2013, 10:45:27 AM »

I had the opportunity to spend time with Father Raphael and the monks during my last stab at monastic vocation visit a few years back. Thanks be to God I dodged yet ANOTHER bullet by not pursuing it further, despite the positive things witnessed. But now, Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary has been lost, unless there will be a major upheaval.
Father Raphael came across as a holy pious soul. I did not realize he was a fairly new ordinand to the priesthood at the time. Quite amazing.

Might have to recount the funny episode with Father Raphael during one of weekly hikes the community made over the mountains to a fishing pond.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** April 12, 2013, 01:31:10 PM »

Quote from: Kazimierz

I had the opportunity to spend time with Father Raphael and the monks during my last stab at monastic vocation visit a few years back. Thanks be to God I dodged yet ANOTHER bullet by not pursuing it further, despite the positive things witnessed. But now, Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary has been lost, unless there will be a major upheaval.

Father Raphael came across as a holy pious soul. I did not realize he was a fairly new ordinand to the priesthood at the time. Quite amazing.

Might have to recount the funny episode with Father Raphael during one of weekly hikes the community made over the mountains to a fishing pond.

Your testimony, Kazimierz, is well received. This sequence of events has
been a serious embarrassment for longstanding and faithful supporters of
the monastery Our Lady of Guadalupe at Silver City. Once again, the problem
is based squarely in the faithfulness of the superior and his dedication to the
principles and doctrine of the Catholic Faith. Fr. Cyprian has defected, as is
shown by several things, most prominent of which are his expulsion of Dom
Raphael Arizaga, OSB, and secondarily, other related items such as how Fr.
Cyprian handled the aftermath. Each and every thing fits the pattern and
description of his abandonment of the True Catholic Faith. It might not yet
be too late for Fr. Cyprian to amend his ways, but his path is definitely off
the 'narrow way.'

Kazimierz · « **Reply #7 on:** April 12, 2013, 01:59:22 PM »

I was so very surprised with Father Cyprian in this matter. From what I read of him before inquiring about a visit to the monastery made me very impressed. That he has become that what he fought against, the foundation of the monastery being the end result, is depressing and profoundly disturbing.

Wither our monasteries, wither our seminaries? Well, better to die on the road to Calvary than to fall off it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2013, 02:08:48 PM »

The puzzling word "ACLARATION" in this thread title and the OP put me on a
search, and it is curiously not found in any reference websites that I've
located. "Not found" is a very common English dictionary response for
aclaration.

But it is apparently a Spanish word, that translates either as "declaration,"
or as "clarification." But apparently a clarification of this is hard to come by.

One of the most prominent HITS in a search is this very thread on CI!

Here is a web page that treats this search empirically:

Jim Cunning jcunning at cunning.ods.org
Mon Jul 11 17:19:59 GMT 2005
On Jul 10 at 9:03am, Lonnie Jordal wrote:

> I am looking for the definition of the word:
> ACLARATION
> I can't find it in any dictionary - but when I do
> a GOOGLE search on it - it finds many many people
> using it.

To my knowledge aclaration is not an English word. From the contexts of
the uses of it Google finds, I think there are two possible
interpretations:

1. Declaration - I found a couple instances of docs listing Aclaration 1,
Aclaration 2, etc., that should have been "Declaration 1" etc.

2. Clarification - This is the more likely intended meaning, as I found
lots of docs where that meaning fit the context.

Jim

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** April 12, 2013, 02:38:16 PM »

FWIW the website where I found that page above is:

https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2005-July/108177.html

I would like to make a legible and credible print of the OP content, but I
would like to use a better English word to replace "aclaration" because
it seems to me that a number of people, perhaps most of them, that I
would like to reach with this would take one look at that word and their
eyes will glaze over, thinking this is not going to be something they
can grasp, so why bother?

You see, the material is not what Catholics want to read in the first
place, so give them a conundrum word like "aclaration" and that might
be all it takes to put them over the edge and not bother reading the
rest of the page.

Word.

This is where it's at today - we have to be particular with details or
we will find our message goes exactly NOWHERE with a lot of people.

So can someone help out with this? Does anyone know if it would

be okay for me to substitute clarification in the place of

"aclaration" in the title and body of the OP article?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** April 12, 2013, 03:14:00 PM »

Quote from: Kazimierz

I was so very surprised with Father Cyprian in this matter.

From what I read of him before inquiring about a visit to the monastery made me very impressed.

That he has become that what he fought against, the foundation of the monastery being the end result, is depressing and profoundly disturbing.

Wither our monasteries, wither our seminaries?

Well, better to die on the road to Calvary than to fall off it.

Take heart, Kazimierz, that you are not alone. I do not know Fr. Cyprian,
but I am aware of several people who know him personally, and over the
past several years have highly recommended his monastery to others.

They have traveled there, visited, gone to Mass, met the brothers, etc.,
and they have come away saying that this is a unique oasis of Faith and
Tradition.

I wanted to know more about it, so I did an Internet search, only to find
that there are several NovusOrdo compounds in the greater vacinity, some
that have very similar or almost identical names. This was an alarming
find. I had to double check and come back to it later. Just using the
computer I did not see a whole lot of difference from one entity to another,
so I wanted to make sure I was onto the right location.

It's funny how my instinct was a kind of harbinger of the future, but I had
no idea that was happening at the time. I thought I must be confused.

Now we know differently.

Some of my friends have been kind of going cold on the OLG Monastery
for the past 6 months. But no one was willing to come out and say
anything definitive. Now the cat's out of the bag. No more can our
independent priests recommend that young men searching for a place to
become a monk should consider OLG in Silver City. They have wiped
themselves off the map.

I have to ask: what does this mean for the other monks who are there?
Certainly there may be one or more others who are very disheartened by
the news. In the OP it explains that Fr. Cyprian attempted damage
control by telling (lying) to the monks that he was having a "dialogue"
with Dom Raphael over his possible return. Now we see that is entirely
false, and that it is a part of a series of DAMNED LIES that this priest has
told over the past few months.

Profoundly disturbing indeed!

He is of the same ilk as Frs. Pfluger, Schmidberger and Bp. Fellay. We are
developing a Rogue's Gallery of miscreants, who are heading our
traditional religious houses. How much worse can this get?

Apparently it can get A LOT WORSE.

Support the Resistance!!

P.S. We can expect some clarification from Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer on
this, in perhaps a sermon this weekend coming up. Fr. Hewko already
gave us a warning in regards to Bishop de Galarreta having swung over
to the bad way last July. So we have lost two of the four SSPX bishops!
Fr. Chazal seems to believe that Bishop de Mallerais is going to make a
grand entrance one day soon into the Resistance. We should pray for
him to have the courage to stand tall where he belongs, and be ready
to welcome him with open arms.

Adveniat regnum tuum: Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.

ancien regime · « **Reply #11 on:** April 12, 2013, 03:22:35 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

FWIW the website where I found that page above is:

https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2005-July/108177.html

I would like to make a legible and credible print of the OP content, but I
would like to use a better English word to replace "aclaration" because
it seems to me that a number of people, perhaps most of them, that I
would like to reach with this would take one look at that word and their
eyes will glaze over, thinking this is not going to be something they
can grasp, so why bother?

You see, the material is not what Catholics want to read in the first
place, so give them a conundrum word like "aclaration" and that might
be all it takes to put them over the edge and not bother reading the
rest of the page.

Word.

This is where it's at today - we have to be particular with details or
we will find our message goes exactly NOWHERE with a lot of people.

So can someone help out with this? Does anyone know if it would

be okay for me to substitute clarification in the place of

"aclaration" in the title and body of the OP article?

Neil -- here is a wonderful online multilingual dictionary source for you: WordReference.com.

According to it, yes,you can use the word "clarification" as a good translation of "aclaración." I use this source everyday, plus a few other print dictionaries, etc.

. . . now you know (one of) my secret(s). :furtive:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** April 12, 2013, 06:52:50 PM »

Thanks to Ancien Regime for the resource. -- NOW, there is MORE to do.....

I would like to have someone approve some

changes I would like to make in the text, to

make it credible and readable in English.

Cristera, can you do this? Or can you ask

Fr. Raphael to take a look at it?

(I went through this and made numerous grammatical, spelling, diction,
contextual, punctuation and adaptive adjustments and now I can't find them
all, so please try to see if what I have here is NOT what Fr. is trying to say!!!!)

[Cristera said]:

Clarification Regarding My Expulsion
from OLG Monastery in Silver City

PAX

I want to answer some questions regarding the events that surrounded my expulsion from my Monastery, and also to unmask false rumors about it.

There is a point I need to make clear and which I never thought was important to explain further, since for me it is totally secondary -- a point that only could be of interest for those who do not see a doctrinal problem in the whole issue. A doctrinal problem causes a state of necessity and a state of justification, consequent to the Code of Canon Law and under the Rule of St. Benedict.

My "permission" to leave the monastery for a few days comes from the Rule and from Canon Law. Nevertheless, I did indeed inform Father Cyprian before leaving, that due to the scandal, I was forced to look for spiritual direction somewhere else. I told him that I would be absent only for few days and that I would certainly come back; that he should not be worried, because I would come back.

Even in the cases in which a monk without justification leaves his monastery, the superior is obliged by the Rule to accept him back until this happens 4 times. For this reason I say that it is a secondary point, since leaving the monastery for any cause, good or bad, can never be a reason to close the door of the Monastery to anyone. To focus only on this issue is to miss the whole point, and this is exactly what the SSPX and Father Cyprian want, in order to avert attention to the fact that the reason why they do not accept me back is because there is a very serious doctrinal problem they do not want to fix, and therefore, they do not want me to preach.

My permanence in the Monastery would "divide" the Monastery, when we know that the only source of unity is the truth. Doctrine and charity were being stepped upon by the monastery, and therefore by that scandal I was in a state of necessity to act accordingly.

Now I want to refute some false rumors:

"Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko did not accept the invitation of the Monastery to stay overnight, since they were staying overnight with the faithful of Silver City."

This is completely false. They were not offered by the Monastery even a glass of water, which they would not have denied even to a pagan who would have asked for it. Both Fathers had to come back to El Paso that same day, very late.

When they arrived at the Monastery, their wish was to stay overnight at the Monastery. For that reason, as Fr. Pfaiffer was taking out his luggage form the car pablo the Amateur Exorcist, his driver, told him "Don´t do that, Father, since we do not even know if we will be expelled from here the next minute."

"They were not accepted because of their bad spirit, one of criticism and attack toward the Superior General of the SSPX."

When a superior is teaching bad doctrine, whether it be the Pope or our own Superior, we have the duty in charity to correct, and to warn the flock of the danger against the faith, and therefore against their own salvation. When the shepherd sleeps, the dogs must bark.

That "attack" is only an appearance, it is rather charity in action.

"Father Raphael left his Monastery during the absence of the community, excusing himself for being sick."

Indeed, I was in bed and even with some fever. But the state of necessity, as I have explained, obliged me to act in such a manner -- but not without informing beforehand what I was about to do. I had to be discrete for the good of the Monastery, and I had to leave on that day since Bishop Williamson was only to be in México for a few days.

"Father Cyprian sent an e-mail warning him that if he continues in a position of critique, attack, and rebellion, then the door of the Monastery would be closed to him."

I never received such an e-mail! The only e-mail I received from him is dated February 26th, in which he said: "Go where you can find peace, for now the doors of the Monastery are closed to you," -- without further explanations, without asking my opinion, without saying what the charges are against me (crimes?), and without giving to me the opportunity for self-defense -- breaking the laws of charity, Canon Law and the very Rule of St. Benedict!

To his e-mail I answered by 2 e-mails, but I did not receive any answer.

"Father Cyprian tells everybody, the brothers included, that Father Raphael is still part of the Community."

How could I be part of a Community where its doors are closed to me and where I cannot enter anymore? This is a strategy to calm down the brothers, since they were told by Fr. Cyprian, "We are having talks for reconciliation with Fr. Raphael," -- which is totally false!!

Please pray a great deal for this your servant and father, so that I may always do the will of God. This is precisely the greatest advice I received form Mons. WIlliamson: "Always pray to know the will of God, every day, and the grace to follow it and to fulfill it, avoiding precipitation."

[Avoiding precipitation means to stay out of the rain!!
Did +W tell Father, "avoiding procrastination?"
or, "...prognostication?"
or, "...capitulation?"
or, "...presupposition?"
or, "...predetermination?"
or, some other word I'm not imagining????
Because precipitation makes NO SENSE!!!]

I also beseech you, for the love of God, to help me with your prayers and support for the new project of opening a new Benedictine Monastery in Mexico.

U.I.O.G.D. (May God be Glorified in All Things)

Yours always in St. Joseph

Father Raphael OSB

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** April 12, 2013, 07:24:53 PM »

Using a search engine --

It seems to me they're getting confused with the Jesuit motto, AMDG,
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (all for the greater glory of God), and thus "Dei" below.
When it should be Deus for the Benedictine motto.

UIOGD - Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Dei (Latin: so that in all things ...
www.acronymfinder.com/ Ut-In-Omnibus-Glorificetur-Dei-(Latin%3A-so-that-in-all-things-God-ma y-be-glorified%3B-Benedictine-motto)-(UIOGD).html -
Acronym Finder: UIOGD stands for Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Dei (Latin: so that in all things God may be glorified; Benedictine motto). This definition appears ...

U.I.O.G.D. -Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus - The Monastic Channel ...

May 6, 2010 ... U.I.O.G.D. -Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus - The Monastic Channel - 06-05-2010 . OCist33·328 videos. SubscribeSubscribedUnsubscribe ...
UIOGD - Acronyms and Abbreviations - The Free Dictionary

acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/UIOGD
Acronym, Definition. UIOGD, Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Dei (Latin: so that in all things God may be glorified; Benedictine motto) ...

An online translator renders "Ut glorificetur Deus per omnia" as the Latin
for "That in all things God may be glorified."

The same translator renders "Ut glorificetur Deus in omnibus" as the Latin
for "So that in all things God may be glorified."

Therefore, it seems the second one is best, "Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus,"
and the English is okay, "so that in all things God may be glorified."

Magna opera Domini · « **Reply #14 on:** April 12, 2013, 11:21:09 PM »

Thank you, Cristera and Neil Obstat for your replies to my question re contact information for Father Raphael.