Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on January 18, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
-
Let's be objective here:
1. The "senior seminarian" with prior SSPX seminary experience, who was placed in charge of "seminary" operations and who Pablo agreed to follow, has now left for France to pursue his vocation there in a real seminary. Who will be in charge now? Pablo.
2. But how many days will Pablo be in charge? Well, Fr. Pfeiffer has decisively chosen "missions" over "seminary" (perhaps due to dwindling support, both numbers and income?). Just look for yourself: if you consult the recent InThisSign Mass listings, you can see that both priests are now gone from Friday through Monday.
3. The fact of Pablo being bad news for the "seminary" is obvious to anyone with an objective eye on the situation. As the first (of many) piece of evidence I would produce the fact that Fr. Voigt (and possibly one other priest) might still be working with Fr. Pfeiffer today, if it weren't for Pablo. When I criticize Pablo, I limit myself to his own writings and videos, and admitted behaviors. (NOT any of the rumors and reports of darker activities.)
By simply adding 2+2, we can conclude "4".
Whatever steps they were taking at the beginning of the school year (remember Martin's "30 days" blog?), and whatever progress they were making, has been completely rolled back. They've fallen off the wagon.
So much for that "seminary". Put a fork in it; it's done. Every man with a horse is fleeing.
-
Caleb's departure is a setback, for sure. I will miss him, for he was a good man, and I pray for his vocation, and that he may be safe, healthy and happy.
-
Martin,
Was Caleb's departure as a result of Pablo's ongoing influence?
-
Martin,
Was Caleb's departure as a result of Pablo's ongoing influence?
I don't know for sure.
-
Your new avatar is such an improvement over Mr. Rogers:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/37/eb/86/37eb867cdefe1df3ce5ad7f11ffc0462.jpg)
.
-
Your new avatar is such an improvement over Mr. Rogers:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/37/eb/86/37eb867cdefe1df3ce5ad7f11ffc0462.jpg)
.
Thank you.
-
Martin,
Was Caleb's departure as a result of Pablo's ongoing influence?
No it wasn't paul the plumber. It had to do with the formation itself and what is being taught there.
-
Does that formation still include geo-centrism as a SUPER dogma? I know that Fr Pfeiffer considers anyone there who doesn't take it as dogma as a heretic. Geo-centrism may well be true, but he cannot make it into a SUPER dogma; but this is OLMC, the HQ of the RC that is 'Resistance Catholic' church, that we're talking about, so anything goes.
Please pray for the remaining handful of seminarians that they receive the grace and strength to leave the place, learn French and travel over to Bishop Faure's seminary which is expanding all the time.
-
Does that formation still include geo-centrism as a SUPER dogma? I know that Fr Pfeiffer considers anyone there who doesn't take it as dogma as a heretic. Geo-centrism may well be true, but he cannot make it into a SUPER dogma; but this is OLMC, the HQ of the RC that is 'Resistance Catholic' church, that we're talking about, so anything goes.
Please pray for the remaining handful of seminarians that they receive the grace and strength to leave the place, learn French and travel over to Bishop Faure's seminary which is expanding all the time.
Great to know that Bishop Faure has a seminary in France.
-
Please pray for the remaining handful of seminarians that they receive the grace to ... learn French and travel over to Bishop Faure's seminary which is expanding all the time.
LEARN FRENCH!? Awww, do we really HAVE to?
.
-
Please pray for the remaining handful of seminarians that they receive the grace to ... learn French and travel over to Bishop Faure's seminary which is expanding all the time.
LEARN FRENCH!? Awww, do we really HAVE to?
.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was said quite some time ago that if there was enough interest from English-speakers, that they would consider offering the courses in English as well.
-
Martin,
Was Caleb's departure as a result of Pablo's ongoing influence?
Yes and no -- to the extent that Pablo's presence affects the ability to run a suitable seminary, then yes. Specifically, Pablo influenced the decisions of priests who might otherwise still be working with the seminary and he also plays a part in the Resistance bishops' decision not to visit / support OLMC.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions. Only time will tell when or if this will help the situation.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions. Only time will tell when or if this will help the situation.
Would Fr. Pfeiffer consider sending Pablo to some other location away from the seminary if that would make a difference with Bishop Williamson?
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Seminarians want some assurance that they will be ordained, God willing. I believe that seminarians also want spiritual growth and development, aided by faithful priests. The seminary in Boston is working on both fronts, while trying to keep up with the mission sites, and bringing the Sacraments to the faithful. It's a tough job, and despite some setbacks, they have managed to get through three years.
If neither Bishop lend their support for the seminary in Boston, it could have an effect on seminarians, current and/ or prospective.
As Father Pfeiffer has said, "God will provide." Only God knows at this point what He will provide, and how it will affect the seminary in Boston. It could be the support of the two resistance bishops, or it could be another, as of yet undetermined Bishop, or it could be plane tickets for all the Boston seminarians to go to France.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions. Only time will tell when or if this will help the situation.
Would Fr. Pfeiffer consider sending Pablo to some other location away from the seminary if that would make a difference with Bishop Williamson?
I think that if this were to make the difference, Father Pfeiffer wouldn't have to send Pablo away. I think Pablo would send himself away, should that make a difference for the seminary.
He may be a thick-headed, machismo Mexican, but I also think he does care about the future of the seminary.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Seminarians want some assurance that they will be ordained, God willing. I believe that seminarians also want spiritual growth and development, aided by faithful priests. The seminary in Boston is working on both fronts, while trying to keep up with the mission sites, and bringing the Sacraments to the faithful. It's a tough job, and despite some setbacks, they have managed to get through three years.
If neither Bishop lend their support for the seminary in Boston, it could have an effect on seminarians, current and/ or prospective.
As Father Pfeiffer has said, "God will provide." Only God knows at this point what He will provide, and how it will affect the seminary in Boston. It could be the support of the two resistance bishops, or it could be another, as of yet undetermined Bishop, or it could be plane tickets for all the Boston seminarians to go to France.
Perhaps they should consider that God has provided. He has provided other seminaries that can actually function as seminaries. Fr. Pfeiffer seems to have a taste for missionary work and that alone could take up all of his time. If only he would drop the unnecessary bans on other Resistance priests and the strange territorial mentality he has developed, he could still be kept very busy and fruitfully so.
I don't think it would help for Pablo to send himself away. Something within Fr. Pfeiffer keeps a person like that around and in charge. Pablo leaving doesn't change whatever it is about Fr. Pfeiffer that allows and fosters this problem and I think Bishop Williamson would see that. I am sure he knows more than we do so I have my reservations about whether it would "simply" take Pablo's departure for +Williamson to be supportive of their organization again. I guess what I am trying to say is that as much as Pablo may be a part of the problem (or so we surmise since +Williamson hasn't said anything) I doubt he is the whole of the problem.
-
As Father Pfeiffer has said, "God will provide." Only God knows at this point what He will provide, and how it will affect the seminary in Boston. It could be the support of the two resistance bishops, or it could be another, as of yet undetermined Bishop, or it could be plane tickets for all the Boston seminarians to go to France.
Yes, God could create a bishop ex nihilo or from the slime of the earth, but He probably won't. (Actually, since Our Lord founded the Church, and the way new bishops are to be consecrated -- in an unbroken line, all connected to the 12 Apostles and Peter -- wouldn't God be contradicting Himself if he created a priest/bishop with no Apostolic succession?)
I personally don't believe in "perfectly good Trad bishops who were just unknown or hiding for all these decades".
No, it's common sense that Traditional Catholics have been looking for good priests and bishops in every nook and cranny for the past 45 years. If any were out there, they'd be found by now. Especially in this age of the Internet.
Another "trad bishop" appearing out of nowhere is what they call TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, which is precisely what happened with the Ambrose Moran situation.
Imagine a lunchroom full of children. A terrorist bursts through the door, and starts shooting the children one by one. Everyone hopes that one of the adults present in the room will heroically try to neutralize the invader. With every passing minute, every additional dead child, the chance of a Hero saving the day goes down exponentially.
Here's why: If a man in the room won't be the hero after 10 dead children, after 15, after 20, what chance is there that he'll do something after 25? He would have to explain to those 20 sets of parents (of the 20 dead children) why he sat and did nothing! Either has "has it within him" to be a hero, or he doesn't. After the first 20 children are dead, it would be MORALLY impossible (not physically impossible) for any of the adults to get up and be the hero. They are already set in their decision.
Replace dead children with dead souls, cafeteria with the Catholic Church, terrorist with Modernist, and a shooting gun with spreading error, and you see what I'm getting at.
Now you might object that maybe the man needed 10 minutes to "steel his nerves" and work up the courage to act -- which unfortunately cost the lives of 50 children in the meantime. True enough; so this comparison limps on that point. However, in reality, any good bishop has had FORTY-FIVE YEARS to think, pray, study, meditate, and make a decision. Think of how many good and bad days, days of energy and days of sickness, he has had during a period of forty-five years.
If he hasn't come out heroically supporting Tradition yet, HE'S NOT GOING TO. Period.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions. Only time will tell when or if this will help the situation.
"Reaching out to him" won't change the situation unless Fr Pfeiffer has remedied whatever problems made the bishop decide to stay away.
-
You may call me crazy, but I don't think this is the end for the seminary in Boston, nor do I think that it is time to abandon Boston. It is a setback, though. I can see several ways this may go, and while some of these paths end up not so well, a few of these potential paths lead towards a better future for the seminary.
It is going to take a lot of work.
Is Fr. Pfeiffer making any effort to mend fences with +Williamson and/or +Faure? If so, what is he doing? If not, won't that be a serious to detriment to any hopes for attracting quality seminarians?
Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions. Only time will tell when or if this will help the situation.
"Reaching out to him" won't change the situation unless Fr Pfeiffer has remedied whatever problems made the bishop decide to stay away.
The bishops have never made their reasons clear. In order for Father Pfeiffer to improve or make changes, he has to know what it is that might be keeping the bishops away.
-
Martin, you have said that Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how Fr Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson over the last year. C.
-
Martin, you have said that Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how Fr Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson over the last year. C.
I did not get the specifics from Father, as there was a limited time this last visit. I can ask.
-
I believe that one occasion dealt with ordinations, including a conditional ordination.
-
Martin, yes do ask. Surely it is the Bishop doing the favor if he does a conditional ordination for Fr Pfeiffer. I would like to know what concrete 'reaching out' that Fr Pfeiffer has done over the last year or so.
-
I personally don't believe in "perfectly good Trad bishops who were just unknown or hiding for all these decades".
. . .
Another "trad bishop" appearing out of nowhere is what they call TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, which is precisely what happened with the Ambrose Moran situation.
Absolutely correct--such just screams fairytale plot. The Ambrose debacle has me extremely suspicious that Fr. Pfeiffer's "God will provide" line has been for the bad faith purpose all along of trying to condition to his followers to buy such a fairytale.
-
Caleb's departure is a setback, for sure. I will miss him, for he was a good man, and I pray for his vocation, and that he may be safe, healthy and happy.
Caleb, today:
https://youtu.be/X_nm3viIoIk
-
Martin, you have said that Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how Fr Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson over the last year. C.
Reach Out = rants and twistings about the resistance bishops in practically every sermon of late, couched as necessary corrections of the bishop's errors and the blindness of the 'false resistance'; ie, all resistance faithful who do not follow Boston.
-
Your new avatar is such an improvement over Mr. Rogers:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/37/eb/86/37eb867cdefe1df3ce5ad7f11ffc0462.jpg)
.
No way! #bribgbackmrrogers , Manuel! :)
-
If I had seen these problems with the seminary sooner, I would've decided against going awhile before I did. I probably wouldn't have wasted a year of my life
-
Caleb, today:
https://youtu.be/X_nm3viIoIk
I thought about this one, today. Imagine when he is ordained; he will be addressed as, "Father Sons" ! :)
-
Cleaning-out the big Boston rectory bedroom.
(http://www.wfmynews2.com/img/resize/content.wfmynews2.com/photo/2016/04/22/flamethrowers_1461359861174_1857880_ver1.0.jpg?preset=534-401)
-
Cleaning-out the big Boston rectory bedroom.
(http://www.wfmynews2.com/img/resize/content.wfmynews2.com/photo/2016/04/22/flamethrowers_1461359861174_1857880_ver1.0.jpg?preset=534-401)
Isn't this a pic in preparation for when Trump was just about to live in the white house?
-
Actually, when I was there I was not very impressed with Caleb. He seemed just as willing to play politics as the next guy.
Apparently, moving on to the true position regarding the papal situation fixed Caleb up well in other areas. It's what it does.
-
Apparently, moving on to the true position regarding the papal situation fixed Caleb up well in other areas. It's what it does.
It seems to me that you are implying that when one embraces the "sacred" sede position, it covers a multitude of sins... rubbish!
-
It seems to me that you are implying that when one embraces the "sacred" sede position, it covers a multitude of sins... rubbish!
I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you'll want to go to the appropriate sub-forum and explain.
-
I am still waiting for an honest answer as to why Bishop Williamson used Fr Gruner and the Fatima Center as a forum to bash Fr Pfeiffer and present Fr Zendejas as this poor persecuted priest when it was Fr Z who misled Fr P over the New England Mass center. Why didn't Bishop W get the two priests together and work out a solution?
The answer is simple: you don't know what the heck you're talking about. You're getting all your info from Fr. Pfeiffer (& co.) which is not an unbiased, reliable source in this matter.
In America, people "vote with their feet". Bp. Zendejas currently has 130+ Faithful at his Connecticut chapel, with only ONE person/family as a Pfeiffer holdout (who waits for Fr. Pfeiffer to say Mass once in a while, refuses to attend Bp. Zendejas Masses, etc).
We're not talking about pagans.
We're not talking about mainstream protestants.
We're not talking about wishy-washy Novus Ordo attendees.
We're not even talking about worldly SSPX Trads.
We're talking about serious Traditional Catholics here -- the Resistance! Those who are willing to go without Mass, and suffer any inconvenience, for the sake of the Truth and fighting the real fight for Tradition. These are the Traditional Catholics who understood +Lefebvre and know what Tradition is all about.
When 99% of this latter group speaks up loudly in one direction, I listen.
That speaks volumes about who is "in the right" and who is playing politics and bullshit.
Let's face it: Resistance-affiliated Traditional Catholics have to be pretty BS-proof to have survived so long in the fight.
What, do you suppose those 135 parishioners in Connecticut are less well-informed than YOU are about the situation with (then) Fr. Zendejas, Fr. Pfeiffer, and the CT Resistance? Yeah right! I think they know more about it than anyone on CI who doesn't live there.
Remember, the same Fr. Pfeiffer claims that Bp. Zendejas "stole Texas" from him, but the facts are not friendly to Fr. Pfeiffer at all. In fact, they expose him as an opportunist liar.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-pfeiffer-claiming-universal-jurisdiction-again-sigh/
-
That's right... We are Trads!
(http://cdn1.btrstatic.com/pics/hostpics/b0716f7e-9d3a-4551-86fe-b289c3e3e82d_empire_crusader.jpg)
-
Father Pfeiffer has reached out to Bishop Williamson on many occasions. Only time will tell when or if this will help the situation.
Pfeiffer might try reaching out to Fr. Voigt with the $20,000 he still owes him. I don't think that loan has been repaid, and I think Fr. V. is telling the truth about the situation.
-
Pfeiffer might try reaching out to Fr. Voigt with the $20,000 he still owes him. I don't think that loan has been repaid, and I think Fr. V. is telling the truth about the situation.
.
Why would a priest lie about such a thing? But he could settle any question by making the NOTE public. That is, unless he doesn't have any note. That complicates matters.
-
I thought about this one, today. Imagine when he is ordained; he will be addressed as, "Father Sons" ! :)
He has moved around quite a bit! Wonder if he will stick it out here?
-
I am still waiting for an honest answer as to why Bishop Williamson used Fr Gruner and the Fatima Center as a forum to bash Fr Pfeiffer and present Fr Zendejas as this poor persecuted priest when it was Fr Z who misled Fr P over the New England Mass center.
Would you clarify how the Bishop used the Fatima Center, please?
-
White Wolf:
I am still waiting for an honest answer as to why Bishop Williamson used Fr Gruner and the Fatima Center as a forum to bash Fr Pfeiffer and present Fr Zendejas as this poor persecuted priest when it was Fr Z who misled Fr P over the New England Mass center. Why didn't Bishop W get the two priests together and work out a solution? And Fr Chazel was guilty of telling Australia one thing and Fr Pfeiffer another. And Fr Voight got Pablo all riled up and then just dropped the ball on the seminarians. So it is not all Pablo this and fr Pfeiffer that, but a real team effort. And I was caught in the middle of much of it.
I have become very suspicious of, and disappointed with, vocal men in black cassocks running around and representing to anyone who will listen what true "Resistance" is or might be. Having said that, I am not certain that White Wolf's outburst brings much clarification, much less, any helpful enlightenment. Matthew claims that WW does not know what the heck he is talking about, and that, apparently, he gets his information from Fr. P. Well, maybe.
What do you mean, WW, that +W "used" Fr. G and Fat. Ctr. to "bash" Fr. and to defend Fr. Z? I don't claim that you don't know what the heck you are talking about, simply, that I, (and probably a number of others), have idea what you're talking about.
You say that Fr. Chazal told Fr. P one thing, and the whole continent of Australia another. Really? What exactly was this double tongued language of which you accuse Fr. C?
Fr. V, you assert got Pablo "all riled up." Oh? How so? Fr. V., you add, "just dropped the ball on the seminarians." How many of you on this forum know what WW means here? I certainly don't. But I know Fr. V pretty well, and was not aware that he had dropped the ball on anyone. Please explain. And if you are unwilling to explain yourself, perhaps it is better that you not post these kinds of comments. They serve only to confuse and not to enlighten the situation.
-
the Bishop Williamson Fan club, but we'll strap on those helmets and, for the glory of Our Lady and the good fight, here we go... :popcorn:
First off, I deal with facts, and try to give criticism where it is due. I have never been a part of anybody's fan club, and don't look to any group or person as having dealt effectively with the present apostasy.
Now, so far as I know, the then Fr Zendejas made an agreement with Fr Pfeiffer to man the New England chapel and then he was going to do a circuit to Resistance chapels in the area. Fr P had already done the legwork to set up those chapels and times and etc. But Fr Z went rogue, organized a bunch of people who knew him from when he was at Ridgefield [I went on retreat there when he was prior, and we had some good talks, and saw 100% eye to eye. (This was back in 2006 or thereabouts, when you could see the cracks in the SSPX but it had not broke apart yet.)] I know for a fact that Fr Z was a latecomer to the Resistance, and that Fr P and Fr Chavez were the pioneers back in the Pacific rim when they were locked out of the SSPX for their criticism of the SSPX party line. Fr P came to the US and Boston and, after a period of convalescence, took on the mammoth work of organizing and servicing the USA Resistance. So, you basically have Fr Z agreeing with Fr P, then reneging, and deciding to do his own thing. That is fine as far as it goes. But then he should have set up his own chapel on his own terms.
Enter Bishop W. It was in Nov 2014 while we are coming back from a Chicago excursion that We're listening to this podcast from Canada where Bishop W is defending "poor Fr Z" from the evil Fr P. Now I would not have a problem with that either, except that apparently Bishop W made no attempt to arrange for Fr Z and Fr P to sit down and talk face to face and iron out all their differences and bring all grievances to the fore, so to speak. After all, that is how I used to sort out disputes at the steakhouse. Employee X would tell one version, Employee Y another, factions would form, and I would be in the middle of it. Well, I found out the way to nip misconceptions and skulduggery in the bud was to sit everybody down with the witnesses and get to the facts. It just seems to me that Bishop W, rather than honestly seeking peace, sometimes enjoys stirring the pot.
Why doesn't Bishop W take his big guns in Eleison Comments and discuss the problems in Kentucky, beginning with the #1 scandal of Pablo the Mexican being too intimate with a married woman and her children, and that woman living apart from her husband for reasons I can't fathom (I know this woman from another SSPX venue, and perhaps at some point her name will have to be dragged through all this, but I am not going to do it here or now because this is not about juicy gossip...). That I think is his job. Like Fred the lion, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it, an leadership has consequences...
Same thing with Fr Chazel. Why can't he come out and say he has formally broken with Fr P because of the Pablo debacle, rather than quietly distancing himself and letting the faithful know through osmosis.
Now I will elaborate about Fr Voight. (Pardon my lousy spelling.) The climax to the whole Pablo affair was May 2015 after Dr Senele left to return to India and get ordained. Apparently Fr V and Pablo had a fight over who was going to be "chief in charge" during Fr P's trip to the Philippines. Pablo threw a big hissy fit and said he was not going to cook. So Fr V said fine, had the seminarians cooking (which was sometimes quite the penance. Imagine digging all day and coming in to one of Paulo's Medi dishes of 7 types of peppers and 11 types of beans...) and Pablo in exile across the way. But things were just going to well, and Pablo ordered one of the seminarians to break into the rectory, and would not let me explain the situation to Fr P over the phone. And Fr V assure all of us that when Fr P and Fr Hewko got back, Fr V and Fr H were going to confront Fr P over Pablo. Well, that never happened, and for most of the seminarians I think that was the final disillusionment. (I also think Paulo was a "plant" who was giving information to Argentina about Boston that was then alluded to in other newsletters, as well as spreading rumors about animal sacrifices and that nonsense.)
In summation, a lot of "Trads" out there seem to have forgotten all about that part of the Gospel where we will have to give an account for every idle word, and let your speech be yes, yes and no, no. I for one did not enjoy Bishop Fellay's circuмspections when it came to discussions that we were assured were not negotiations that suddenly became negotiations but with the assurance that not one jot or tittle of Archbishop L's policies would be comprised to... train wreck. And now I see the same thing happening in the "Resistance" where various parties are trying to minimize their sins while maximizing select offenses of others.
How 'bout we start building monasteries and seminaries and communities and stop with all the roundtable bashing. If any of you out there are in need of a cook or janitor or ditch-digger or just need somebody to drive the Zamboni or the Mog, just let me know.
-
WW, I don't think you're intentionally attempting to push false narratives, but I think you need to reevaluate the events of the past years from a perspective which is outside Boston, KY. Having parted with both the SSPX and Pfeifferville, you can obviously think for yourself. I recommend you consider other testimonies of these events. Many can be found on this site.
-
Would you clarify how the Bishop used the Fatima Center, please?
His assertion is a complete misrepresentation of the actual event. There was a Bp Williamson conference (confirmations?) scheduled to take place among a Resistance group in Canada near where Fr. Gruner resides. Bp Williamson arranged to stay with Fr. Gruner while there. He also invited (then) Fr. Zendejas to attend the conference with him. Since they were staying with Fr. Gruner, the bishop invited him to attend the conference as well. Fr. Gruner did not speak/sponsor/etc this event. He merely attended and sat to eat at the head table with the other priests. IIRC, the "issue"* of Fr Pfeiffer was brought up during the Q&A session and Bp Williamson also took the opportunity to introduce (then) Fr. Zendejas and Father's plans for a Resistance apostolate including a retreat center.
WW's interpretation of the CT situation is also an overly dramatic and/or inaccurate version of the events, but that is another matter altogether.
*I say this as I don't recall the exact nature of the issue ... there are so many issues with Fr. Pfeiffer's work that I don't recall which one was the main topic at that point.
-
*I say this as I don't recall the exact nature of the issue ... there are so many issues with Fr. Pfeiffer's work that I don't recall which one was the main topic at that point.
I somewhat recall the aftermath of this conference. Fr Pheiffer was at my home just a short time after the time of this conference. His biggest gripe at that time was a few things that Bp Williamson said... the couple quotes that I remember were, "There's more than one way to skin a cat," and "It's time to put away your toys." I reminded Fr. that he and the Bishop have been at odds since his seminary days and that he shouldn't take it so personal. I believe at the time, he agreed.
But unfortantly, the snowball continues to gain speed and size.
-
Who is the bishop who will be ordaining the priests who finish their studies at this seminary?
-
Who is the bishop who will be ordaining the priests who finish their studies at this seminary?
One or more from here:
-
One or more from here:
Interesting piece of info AJNC.
Seems like NSSPX +Fellay is the only one left out.
+Tissier and +Galarreta at least, did consecrate a bishop ;) hmmmh!
-
That is a nifty little tree!
-
One or more from here:
If the question is concerning the Kentucky seminary, then you may be off on this, AJNC. I have been told that the highest ranking seminarian currently there will be finishing his studies later this month, but will be receiving orders from Ambrose Moran later this year. The seminarian in question reported this.
-
Lefebvre's model has worked for about 45 years, and some would argue that after ABL's death things began to go south pretty quickly. So it has not been working very well for at least 15 of those 45 years. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that SSPX is DOA. It's over! I think, maybe, it is time to depart from the thinking of the archbishop. He had his run. So let's move on.
BTW, just to offer an example of the times we're in. The largest SSPX chapel west of the Mississippi has just appointed (gulp!) Fr. Crane as its prior. My, my! Let's get over it, folks, we're in serious doo-doo.
Pray 15 decades of the Rosary and read the Poem.
-
If the question is concerning the Kentucky seminary, then you may be off on this, AJNC. I have been told that the highest ranking seminarian currently there will be finishing his studies later this month, but will be receiving orders from Ambrose Moran later this year. The seminarian in question reported this.
.
:facepalm:
-
I thought Fr Pfeiffer stuck a fork in that one. I was there when "Bishop" Moran offered his first Mass. Trust me, I was really whistling past the proverbial graveyard that day. He claimed that he had grown up with the old rite at a Latin Seminary on Long Island in the early sixties. But it was obvious he had never said a Traditional Mass. He forgot the Credo after giving a stilted homily and did more things wrong than right. Internet researchers discovered that half the photos he had were fakes... If Fr P touches this guy with a ten foot pole that will be the MOAB for Boston. Or at least it should be.
Now for my $ .02 on the SSPX...
The main reason the SSPX declined was that it was not monastic at its core. The Archbishop emphasized the 5 Day Retreats and envisioned a whole network of retreat houses to teach those confused by the Councilear Church. But somewhere on the way to the forum a funny thing happened. The "Fifties Fogies" who saw the pontificate of Pius XII and the American parish system as the epitome of Catholic Culture used their $ and :fryingpan: to get the priests in line, and the emphasis became schools and more schools, which attracted the suburban soccer moms like moths to a flame, and after that Catholic restoration was drowned in a sea of balloons and ice cream, and the desert fathers never had a chance, as they were overrun by the dessert mothers. The Syllabus and Fatima moldered along with the forgotten encyclicals on Americanism and July 4th became bigger than St John the Baptist and STS Peter and Paul. (Once upon a time they were Holy Days of Obligation, before Pius X came to town.) I was there at KCMO and watched it all happen. I saw the SSPX become a version of the FSSP and slowly but surely head down the road to ruin. By 1998 I knew it was only a matter of time; the priests were neglecting the Rosary and embracing the spirit of the world. Can you believe the parents actually complained to Fr Dean because there were two many High Masses???? And can you believe that the prior actually celebrated low mass on the feast of the Immaculate Conception????
So please don't tell me Archbishop Lefebvre's model was a failure. It was never tried. In retrospect I can see that the top echelons of the SSPX had their own agenda and slowly turned the bulk of the priests in their direction, and dumbed down the spirituality of the organization in tandem with the desires of the faithful...
It's always the same story. As a protestant church opined... apostasy is rarely a blowout, much more often it is a slow leak...
And the air seems to be going out of the tires of the Resistancemobile even faster...
-
White Wolf, I've had it with your negativity on the Resistance. This is more like the fatalism and negativity I have come to expect on the tiny Pfeifferite forums. (Maybe Fr. Pfeiffer has caused this negativity with all his propaganda, in an effort to destroy the Resistance? At any rate...)
I also take issue with your charge that Bishop Williamson has departed from the ways of Archbishop Lefebvre. The whole of reality is against you on this one. Who is consecrating Bishops as a continuation of Operation Survival (1988 Consecrations)? Bishop Williamson.
He is completely holding to the Archbishop's position 100%. You can like or dislike Archbishop Lefebvre (though most LIKED him) but you can't argue that +Williamson is any different.
I, for one, loved the old SSPX position, which is why I'm with the Resistance today. I still think it's the best, most courageous, most prudent, safest lifeboat to be in to ride out this Crisis.
Anyhow, having read your last few posts, you seem to still have more Pfeiffer poison to work out of your system. Maybe in a few more months your brain will have recovered clarity and you can re-join us.
I'll give you a hint, to help you recover your clarity: Fr. Pfeiffer has LIED on many occasions in the past. He has been known to call evil "good" and good "evil". This is a grave disorder.
Until then --
Matthew
P.S. This is a Traditional Catholic forum, with an "official position" leaning towards the SSPX Resistance.
What this forum ISN'T:
* general malcontent's forum,
* "The Novus Ordo sucks, we're all doomed!" forum
* "The Novus Ordo AND the Traditional movement are awful!" forum
* "All bishops/priests in Tradition have gone off course, but I alone know how to fix it!" forum
* Forum for those with delusions of grandeur
You and Franciscan Solitary should go start a 2-man monastery, and leave the rest of us alone to be Traditional Catholics.
-
If the question is concerning the Kentucky seminary, then you may be off on this, AJNC. I have been told that the highest ranking seminarian currently there will be finishing his studies later this month, but will be receiving orders from Ambrose Moran later this year. The seminarian in question reported this.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/11j7j0n.jpg)
Pablo's Cardboard Bishop resurrected ?
-
Does that formation still include geo-centrism as a SUPER dogma? I know that Fr Pfeiffer considers anyone there who doesn't take it as dogma as a heretic. Geo-centrism may well be true, but he cannot make it into a SUPER dogma; but this is OLMC, the HQ of the RC that is 'Resistance Catholic' church, that we're talking about, so anything goes.
I don't know what seminarians exactly thought at the Boston Seminary but you should be very careful with your statement regarding geocentrism without the correct knowledge of Church teachings and modern physics theory. Even the partial, informal, and ambiguous rehabilitation of Galileo by Pope JPII hasn't solved this issue.
I'm not a supporter of Fr. Pfeiffer anymore but not geocentrism is the reason.
-
One or more from here:
Does that mean that Fr. Pfeiffer has lined up a validly ordained bishop to do the ordinations?
-
Does that mean that Fr. Pfeiffer has lined up a validly ordained bishop to do the ordinations?
Most likely. And I may just offer to drive that bishop to the event in my Porsche.
-
As evidenced by this thread and many others, the sects remain at war, one with the other.
As Hollingsworth has observed, the old theory/formula has long since expired on the shelf and neo-tradition remains locked within replicating the Catholicism of the forties and fifties.
-
As evidenced by this thread and many others, the sects remain at war, one with the other.
I had to chuckle at this one. Of course, J Paul, is right. The ("traditional") sects do remain at war with one another. The so-called "Resistance" and most of the other traditional or semi-traditional expressions have turned into a good old fashioned 'food fight.' When I read that one of the forum's denizens would drive "Bishop" Moran to the prospective ordinations at Boston in his own Porche, then there is really nothing left to do but have a prolonged belly laugh.
I took a year off CI, and made no posts during that period. But now I see. upon my return, that the situation grows even more confused and discombobulated than it was when I left. This is, to quote a favorite phrase of a family friend, a "real pig's dinner."
-
If the question is concerning the Kentucky seminary, then you may be off on this, AJNC. I have been told that the highest ranking seminarian currently there will be finishing his studies later this month, but will be receiving orders from Ambrose Moran later this year. The seminarian in question reported this.
Where did you hear this? Some evidence or source would be helpful, please.
-
Most likely. And I may just offer to drive that bishop to the event in my Porsche.
Please reassure us that the above was just another sample of your sense of humor.
-
From White Wolf: But things were just going to well, and Pablo ordered one of the seminarians to break into the rectory, and would not let me explain the situation to Fr P over the phone.
I was there for this particular situation. Pablo called Father Pfeiffer, who told him to wake a seminarian to open up the rectory, because I had my bags in the rectory and needed to access my stuff so I could settle down for the night. My stuff was all packed for an early flight out of Boston the next morning. That is why Pablo forcibly entered the rectory, after I attempted to reach Father Voigt via cell phone.
It was not a big deal. I wanted to clarify this one event...
-
It was not a big deal.
It wouldn't be a big deal if it were a one-time, odd occurrence. But this sort of thing is the norm in Boston.
-
Please reassure us that the above was just another sample of your sense of humor.
I hasten to reassure you! But if Poche really wants to help Fr Pf. out, then he could place his vehicle at Father's disposal ....
-
When I read that one of the forum's denizens would drive "Bishop" Moran to the prospective ordinations at Boston in his own Porche, then there is really nothing left to do but have a prolonged belly laugh.
You dont mean dinosaur instead of denizen?. Its obvious my attempt at humour fell flat! I intended a sarcastic reply to a post from Poche. I live in India. I drive an Indian made variant of a Suzuki 800cc vehicle. I am 5'10" tall and weigh 200lbs. If either Fr Pfeiffer or Bishop Ambrose get into this vehicle with me, the axle will most likely give way.
-
You dont mean dinosaur instead of denizen?. Its obvious my attempt at humour fell flat! I intended a sarcastic reply to a post from Poche. I live in India. I drive an Indian made variant of a Suzuki 800cc vehicle. I am 5'10" tall and weigh 200lbs. If either Fr Pfeiffer or Bishop Ambrose get into this vehicle with me, the axle will most likely give way.
:laugh1:
-
You dont mean dinosaur instead of denizen?. Its obvious my attempt at humour fell flat! I intended a sarcastic reply to a post from Poche. I live in India. I drive an Indian made variant of a Suzuki 800cc vehicle. I am 5'10" tall and weigh 200lbs. If either Fr Pfeiffer or Bishop Ambrose get into this vehicle with me, :o the axle will most likely give way.
I got your Porsche joke right up front, AJNC. It must be because we come from the same "region" - Austrasia. Now if you lived in Napoli, all three of you could get on.
-
I got your Porsche joke right up front, AJNC. It must be because we come from the same "region" - Austrasia. Now if you lived in Napoli, all three of you could get on.
Absolutely! In one of those old Fiat 600s ( or maybe even 500s?). I actually saw one of these here some months ago. But seriously, you should see how many people can get into a single car out here. Unbaptized vehicles?
-
Does that mean that Fr. Pfeiffer has lined up a validly ordained bishop to do the ordinations?
Most likely. And I may just offer to drive that bishop to the event in my Porsche.
AJNC, I appreciate your sarcasm and sense of humor. You don't have a Porche, and the vehicle which you do own now would not accommodate both Bp. Moran and your large frame. That aside, you were asked if Fr. P. had "lined up a validly ordained bishop."
Your answer was, "Most likely ."
So hypothetically, were you living in the US, and not India, would you agree to drive "Bishop" Moran to the event, say you owned only an old Volkswagen Rabbit or a dilapidated Mercury Comet?
-
Most likely. And I may just offer to drive that bishop to the event in my Porsche.
AJNC, I appreciate your sarcasm and sense of humor. You don't have a Porche, and the vehicle which you do own now would not accommodate both Bp. Moran and your large frame. That aside, you were asked if Fr. P. had "lined up a validly ordained bishop."
Your answer was, "Most likely ."
So hypothetically, were you living in the US, and not India, would you agree to drive "Bishop" Moran to the event, say you owned only an old Volkswagen Rabbit or a dilapidated Mercury Comet?
No I would not. And, as an aside when the two Resistance priests were in India I did several airport runs for them, and I concluded that they found my driving to be funny. The butt of jokes. I've been driving since '69. I would like to drive a Volkswagen Rabbit or a Mercury Comet but not with those priests, their associates or their attack dogs sitting inside.
-
If the question is concerning the Kentucky seminary, then you may be off on this, AJNC. I have been told that the highest ranking seminarian currently there will be finishing his studies later this month, but will be receiving orders from Ambrose Moran later this year. The seminarian in question reported this.
He was ordained this past Saturday, but not by moran as fr. Pfeiffer wanted. Please pray for our new priest..
-
He was ordained this past Saturday, but not by moran as fr. Pfeiffer wanted. Please pray for our new priest..
May God bless him abundantly!
-
You mean there was a secret "ordination" by a secret "bishop" who was an even less desirable celebrant than Bill for the fake redistance in Boston?
-
Also interesting this news is reported nowhere on the Pfeifferian forums.
Is the news bunk, or just secret?
-
You mean there was a secret "ordination" by a secret "bishop" who was an even less desirable celebrant than Bill for the fake redistance in Boston?
Why assume they had any part of it?
He left OLMC earlier in the year and Fr. Pfeiffer had no influence or role in his ordination.
IOW, he is a "defector" from the "OLMC party".
-
That's right... We are Trads!
(http://cdn1.btrstatic.com/pics/hostpics/b0716f7e-9d3a-4551-86fe-b289c3e3e82d_empire_crusader.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pJcAAOSw~y9ZG2pE/s-l400.jpg)
Let us pray for the cleansing of the KY situation, amongst other things.
(I own these morale patches and others, worn on surplus military jackets/shirts!)
-
Why assume they had any part of it?
He left OLMC earlier in the year and Fr. Pfeiffer had no influence or role in his ordination.
IOW, he is a "defector" from the "OLMC party".
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the Boston seminary.
Are you saying, therefore, that some seminarian was ordained by one of the 4 Resistance bishops this last week?
-
Here’s what the “children” (that’s what you call them here on CI, I believe) have said about all this:
No, that's what I called them on ABLF3.com.
You should let Macaroni know that the asking of a question is antithetical to the formation of a rash judgment (which supposes a firm, but ill-founded conviction of the evil of another).
Not that it will penetrate his thick coconut, however.
You could make the argument that the OP ought to have checked his facts before having made the post he did, but chalking up the existence of the thread itself as proof of CI's evil intent is.....rash.
-
No, that's what I called them on ABLF3.com.
You should let Macaroni know that the asking of a question is antithetical to the formation of a rash judgment (which supposes a firm, but ill-founded conviction of the evil of another).
Not that it will penetrate his thick coconut, however.
You could make the argument that the OP ought to have checked his facts before having made the post he did, but chalking up the existence of the thread itself as proof of CI's evil intent is.....rash.
I’m assuming your making fun a poster who goes by Machabees in that thread with the reference to Macaroni and his coconut...
I make it a habit to not pass messages for other people.
I guess I am very much making the argument that before rash posts are made and represented as fact, a little research would serve truth better.
Thanks for clarifying my point.
-
I’m assuming your making fun a poster who goes by Machabees in that thread with the reference to Macaroni and his coconut...
I make it a habit to not pass messages for other people.
I guess I am very much making the argument that before rash posts are made and represented as fact, a little research would serve truth better.
Thanks for clarifying my point.
Agreed.
-
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the Boston seminary.
Are you saying, therefore, that some seminarian was ordained by one of the 4 Resistance bishops this last week?
No, not that party either.
BTW, The content linked from the other forum is complete garbage. Fr. Pfeiffer wanted badly for Billy-Bob Moran to simulate this ordination, but the subject priest (then seminarian) is very insightful and arranged to be ordained elsewhere.
-
No, not that party either.
BTW, The content linked from the other forum is complete garbage. Fr. Pfeiffer wanted badly for Billy-Bob Moran to simulate this ordination, but the subject priest (then seminarian) is very insightful and arranged to be ordained elsewhere.
How did you come by this information?
-
No, not that party either.
BTW, The content linked from the other forum is complete garbage. Fr. Pfeiffer wanted badly for Billy-Bob Moran to simulate this ordination, but the subject priest (then seminarian) is very insightful and arranged to be ordained elsewhere.
C'mon... give us a hint... was it a Thuc line Bishop?
-
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pJcAAOSw~y9ZG2pE/s-l400.jpg)
Let us pray for the cleansing of the KY situation, amongst other things.
(I own these morale patches and others, worn on surplus military jackets/shirts!)
These are nice Kazimierz! Do you have any patches like this for sale?
-
C'mon... give us a hint... was it a Thuc line Bishop?
According to the CM forum:
"We found out the ex-seminarian of OLMC in question was recently ordained on his own Nov. 4, 2017 by a Bishop Adamson."
Presuming this is "Bishop" Merrill Adamson, I found this:
"Don't know anything about his "politics", but it'd be a nightmare sorting out his validity.
He's nested into three or four "sub-consecrations" of Thuc bishops, coming from the Dattessen line. Gaston-Lopez and Jose Urbina are involved in that lineage."
http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=137.0
-
He was ordained this past Saturday, but not by moran as fr. Pfeiffer wanted. Please pray for our new priest..
.
Is this going to become the norm from Boston, Kentucky?
.
A priest is ordained, but his name is not mentioned, nor is the identity of the bishop who ordained him, nor where.
.
We only have a day, "this past Saturday" -- and we get to figure out what the date was.
.
Perhaps this way, rumors can circulate that give various names to the new priest and/or the bishop and/or the location.
.
-
The sectarians of neo-tradition leaping to chew on each others tails........................ :laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:.....again!
-
One monster, one tail, though it is very "traditional".
-
One monster, one tail, though it is very "traditional".
Indeed!.................. :fryingpan:
The Traditional "Laying on of hands".........................
-
These are nice Kazimierz! Do you have any patches like this for sale?
I found almost all on ebay. The one below is one of my favourites.I discovered also just recently chant related to the Crusades.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ncMAAOSw~V9Z1nFR/s-l400.jpg)
-
Here’s what the “children” (that’s what you call them here on CI, I believe) have said about all this:
Macabees, shame. All lies, and both priests know it.
-
Macabees, shame. All lies, and both priests know it.
Please provide us with the correct information.
It’s not enough, Fanny, to just call someone a liar - with nothing to back up what you’re saying.
Otherwise how are we to judge who is lying? Not liking someone (publicly) is not the same as proving they are false.
So please do provide us with additional facts in this regard. This was exactly the point made by Sean Johnson’s post yesterday.
-
Please provide us with the correct information.
It’s not enough, Fanny, to just call someone a liar - with nothing to back up what you’re saying.
Otherwise how are we to judge who is lying? Not liking someone (publicly) is not the same as proving they are false.
So please do provide us with additional facts in this regard. This was exactly the point made by Sean Johnson’s post yesterday.
Yeah, doesn't the "liar" accusation sound like a the standard reflex-comment from a Mexican soothsayer :confused:
-
According to the CM forum:
"We found out the ex-seminarian of OLMC in question was recently ordained on his own Nov. 4, 2017 by a Bishop Adamson."
Presuming this is "Bishop" Merrill Adamson, I found this:
"Don't know anything about his "politics", but it'd be a nightmare sorting out his validity.
He's nested into three or four "sub-consecrations" of Thuc bishops, coming from the Dattessen line. Gaston-Lopez and Jose Urbina are involved in that lineage."
http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=137.0
I believe Fr. Pfeiffer approached some US Thuc line Bishops for ordinations, but was rejected.
-
I found almost all on ebay. The one below is one of my favourites.I discovered also just recently chant related to the Crusades.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ncMAAOSw~V9Z1nFR/s-l400.jpg)
"Time for another Crusade", is most appropriate theme to rally the Catholic faithful.
Only this time, take out not only the muslims, but suppress the тαℓмυdic judaic tribe too.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IELf3D5p2Vg/hqdefault.jpg)
This will soon happen, but it will likely be newly converted Russian Crusaders, this time around.
-
"Time for another Crusade", is most appropriate theme to rally the Catholic faithful.
Only this time, take out not only the muslims, but suppress the тαℓмυdic judaic tribe too.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IELf3D5p2Vg/hqdefault.jpg)
This will soon happen, but it will likely be newly converted Russian Crusaders, this time around.
No.
Rome. Remind those monsters what those colors were supposed to be for.