We were talking about bishop Williamson not having a "plan of action", and about our own "plan of action". As far as I am aware, nobody in the Resistance is associating with these characters you mentioned, and neither does any of us have any control over them. They are Pfeifferite "assets" now.

Samuel, when you use the term "resistance", to whom do you refer?
I think there is confusion with that term sometimes.

There is no question as to the perversion of fr. Roberts, currently working in KY with fr. Pfeiffer at olmc, and is on circuit for them.  The data is overwhelming.

There is no question as to the laicization and perversion of Mr. Cordaro who fr. Pfeiffer let say mass at olmc in KY recently.  The data came from his own diocese and ex-order.

There is no question to the laicization, confession and conviction of Mr. Tetherow, who Fr. Pfeiffer referred to as "our friend", "taking care of our faithful in his neck of the woods" (or something similar).

To which bishop does a person report such "priests"?  

It seems to me fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko have a history of not performing their due diligence before exposing the Faithful, seminarians, and brothers to perverts and laicised priests.  And once the Faithful inform fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko of such, they not only do not correct the situation but they dig their heels in and make futile attempts to defend their decision.  

To which bishop do we report the actions of fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko?  Moran?  Fr. Pfeiffer put him out of the way, temporarily, because Moran claimed jurisdiction over OLMC.  Fr. Pfeiffer will NEVER work with a bishop.  Ever.  He may convince Moran to ordain when the time comes, as he planned to do with Fr. Mbadugha, but that is not working WITH a bishop.  

The only things OLMC listens to is money and bodies.

Talk like that is cheap.

If you have the evidence to accuse and/or convict a priest in their charge, did you pass it on to the bishop?

But if you don't have such evidence, why are you accusing them? Since when did Catholic Action include gossiping and slandering?

The 'best' evidence I have ever seen of such a case you are trying to smear onto the bishops is the insinuations and the "take my word for it" of a London drama queen.

Is it slander to show the evidence?
Is it gossip to try to protect the Faith or the Faithful.
No pervert priest or ex-priest shoild have a public presence.

Samuel, when you use the term "resistance", to whom do you refer?
I think there is confusion with that term sometimes.

There is no question as to the perversion of fr. Roberts, currently working in KY with fr. Pfeiffer at olmc, and is on circuit for them.  The data is overwhelming.

There is no question as to the laicization and perversion of Mr. Cordaro who fr. Pfeiffer let say mass at olmc in KY recently.  The data came from his own diocese and ex-order.

There is no question to the laicization, confession and conviction of Mr. Tetherow, who Fr. Pfeiffer referred to as "our friend", "taking care of our faithful in his neck of the woods" (or something similar).

To which bishop does a person report such "priests"?  

It seems to me fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko have a history of not performing their due diligence before exposing the Faithful, seminarians, and brothers to perverts and laicised priests.  And once the Faithful inform fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko of such, they not only do not correct the situation but they dig their heels in and make futile attempts to defend their decision.  

To which bishop do we report the actions of fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko?  Moran?  Fr. Pfeiffer put him out of the way, temporarily, because Moran claimed jurisdiction over OLMC.  Fr. Pfeiffer will NEVER work with a bishop.  Ever.  He may convince Moran to ordain when the time comes, as he planned to do with Fr. Mbadugha, but that is not working WITH a bishop.  

The only things OLMC listens to is money and bodies.

The point was that you cannot blame the Resistance bishops for all the perverts that are roaming the face of the earth. If they show up in your chapel, and you have absolute proof of their guilt/danger, chase them out with pitchforks, but if (or when) these perverts decide to join OLMC, then there is nothing one can do about it because the Pfeifferites are a law unto themselves.

 Hmmm, the definition of "RESISTANCE"?  


For this forum, it seems there are nuances for the term:

Resistance 1: The original, independent TLM/SSPX break-off groups that intuitively opposed any and all 
                       neo-SSPX compromises with newChurch.

Resistance 2: The "first public shot-fired" SSPX Pfeiffer Resistance, gone off the rails.

Resistance 3: Bp. Williamson's Broadstairs (SSPXers thrown out of the ѕуηαgσgυє) resistance, 
                      including the 3 Bishops, Fr. Chazal and other alliances.


Any other suggestions for this trad nomenclature?

>> NOWHERE is it written that priests must organize in a group. The idea that we can create some kind of parallel Church is nonsense and total fantasy. Fantasy in that it is refusal of the mind to face up with reality.
The Resistance priests do not need to create some kind of parallel Church because they never left the Catholic Church. And that Catholic Church has always been hierarchical, with every single priest being subject to a bishop. Nowhere does the Church teach that priests can go freelancing, for whatever reason. And the reality is that we have four bishops in the Resistance, who have at least moral authority.
>> What I find perverse and insidious also is the condescension used by those who believe in this fantasy towards priests who chose not to join a group. As if they are some kind of inferior foolish beings. In some cases it is quite the contrary!
Take OLMC as an example, are they the kind of 'superior smart' beings you are referring to? Their intentions "may be" good, but their techniques are revolutionary, protestant and not Catholic at all. They have become a law unto themselves now. For that reason the Catholic Church has never condoned such 'superior smart' beings to go solo. Ironically, they end up making the mistakes they think they have seen in others. (Moran, SV associates, Tetherow, Roberts, ..)
>> Fantasy also in that it is a refusal to learn the lessons from history. We have seen what a monolith like the SSPX can do. How one man can destroy everything. This doesn't mean all organization is bad, nor that everyone should be independent. A balanced approach is needed.
History has shown that a monolith like the Catholic Church has survived more than 2000 years of persecutions of all sorts. Why can't the Resistance if it is part of that Catholic Church? It's like saying that we should all refuse to drive a car because they can break down or crash.
>> Fantasy also in that there is a cultish type worship around the SAJM by some, now developing in the Resistance. These proud people will only get more arrogant as the years go on because the SAJM has the seminary, and it will be used to hang over faithful who want priests to keep them quiet. By certain priests and faithful, not all of course, but the arrogant ones tend to be those who make the most noise.
I have not seen that "cultish type" worship you refer to, but I do know that all the revolutionaries talk like that about people wishing to remain loyal to the Catholic Church.

You're confusing hierarchy with a religious group. Independent priests in the resistance are in a hierarchy. That of the Church. The Bishops by virtue of being bishops have a moral authority over them.

This is not the same as a religious group where priests live a common life with a religious superior etc. etc. This is what is optional. It is the obsessive behavior of some who believe that is compulsory, which I am attacking.

Hmmm, the definition of "RESISTANCE"? 


For this forum, it seems there are nuances for the term:

Resistance 1: The original, independent TLM/SSPX break-off groups that intuitively opposed any and all
                       neo-SSPX compromises with newChurch.

Resistance 2: The "first public shot-fired" SSPX Pfeiffer Resistance, gone off the rails.

Resistance 3: Bp. Williamson's Broadstairs (SSPXers thrown out of the ѕуηαgσgυє) resistance,
                      including the 3 Bishops, Fr. Chazal and other alliances.


Any other suggestions for this trad nomenclature?

Resistance 3 is the answer. Because the Church can't live without Bishops AND doctrine.

You're confusing hierarchy with a religious group. Independent priests in the resistance are in a hierarchy. That of the Church. The Bishops by virtue of being bishops have a moral authority over them.

This is not the same as a religious group where priests live a common life with a religious superior etc. etc. This is what is optional. It is the obsessive behavior of some who believe that is compulsory, which I am attacking.

I disagree. When a priest is expelled from the SSPX, he simply HAS TO find another bishop to be subject to (if possible), otherwise he becomes a vagus priest. And when a priest refuses to be subject to any bishop, then all he can claim is lip service to some "imaginary hierarchy in the sky", like the protestants do.

I disagree. When a priest is expelled from the SSPX, he simply HAS TO find another bishop to be subject to (if possible), otherwise he becomes a vagus priest. And when a priest refuses to be subject to any bishop, then all he can claim is lip service to some "imaginary hierarchy in the sky", like the protestants do.

Re read my post then.

The official hierarchy is in heresy. Wake up to that. If you call independent resistance priests vagus, then vagus they are, but not by their own doing, and so they do nothing wrong. Please stop insinuating they are.

A religious group is not a moral necessity. It is wrong of you to say it is.