Author Topic: Someone starting rumors, starting trouble about Fr. Zendejas (Read 37904 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #30 on:** November 02, 2014, 04:38:51 PM »

Personally, the American resistance is overdue to have a more prudent leadership. This isn't only my opinion but respectable, notable figures' opinions as well.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #31 on:** November 02, 2014, 05:37:15 PM »

The whole thing is a little weird. Suddenly a respectable priest joins the resistance and begins offering Mass where another certain priest has been offering Mass. Then suddenly Pablo the chicano begins posting comments online about how the priest is attacking our Lady and calling out the priest for alledging only going after rich gringos (as well as being a Puerto Rican!). He attacks the priest for not building his own church. Why would Pablo care about that?

Let's not forget some of the imprudent things said in the past, like "+Fellay the sede" or prohibiting the faithful from attending SSPX Masses. Pablo the chicano guy has a reputation of being close to Fr. P. also. Was it not Pablo that drove him across the country to the 2012 ordinations? And now Pablo is slandering the good bishop! The resistance priests should look a bit further into this situation. If it hasn't harmed the growth of the resistance in the US it has at least harmed the growth of Fr. P. I would be pleased if Fr. P visits Brazil for the ordination on Palm Sunday of Hmo. André. I'd like to ask him what the heck is going on back there.

Matthew · « **Reply #32 on:** November 02, 2014, 09:34:11 PM »

I trimmed up the thread a bit -- got rid of the "rumor" that was posted, etc.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #33 on:** November 03, 2014, 01:50:21 AM »

Quote from: hugeman

There is no factual basis for thst story; Father Zendejas offered Mass today in the
Ridgefield area ; as did Fr. Pfeiffer.

So, what happens next week?

It seems apparent that Fr. Zendejas went about this whole thing in the wrong manner, but the end result is still the same. He's there, he's offering Mass, and no one of the Resistance mindset has any real reason to stay away. And, it follows that Fr. Pfeiffer has no reason to return with any sort of regularity.

Even the yellow light position of Fr. Zendejas is a non-issue because he'll be offering Mass every week and so there's no temptation to go to the SSPX on the "off" weeks.

Ekim · « **Reply #34 on:** November 03, 2014, 05:12:55 AM »

I've had the opportunity to listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's thoughts on the matter and he does make a good case. I do believe in transparency. It would be nice to know all the who, what, and why's of Fr. Zendejas's decision. Ultimately however, he is a good (maybe even great) priest to have in ones community offering the sacraments on a daily basis.

Second thought, is Fr. Pfeiffer assuming a juridical power that he has no authority to take on? I think Fr. Zendejas finds no need to "report or prove" himself to Fr. Pfeiffer. After all, he is not his superior.

I do understand and even agree with what Fr. Pfeiffer said. I wish Fr. Zendejas would be more transparent. Ultimately, the people will speak. They will support one or the other. Sad, that it has turned into a turf war. So much for a loose network of Priests. I guess that only applies if you do it the way Fr. Pfeiffer agrees with (again I do agree with his thoughts. It's not what Fr. Zendejas is doing but how he is doing it that is bothersome). I hope and pray they can work it out.

Ekim · « **Reply #35 on:** November 03, 2014, 05:26:47 AM »

Also, the way that this is presented on the O.L.M.C. website is very inflammatory and IMHO in poor taste. It appears to be attacking Fr. Zendejas in a very uncharitable manner. Who are they to decide where Father should go (south west or New England)? And to call him a wolf in sheep's clothing is in poor taste.

Pablo the Cicano / Exorcist should NOT be a front man for Fr. Pfeiffer!

Bartholemew · « **Reply #36 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:36:03 AM »

In my opinion, by Pablo posting the "wolf in sheep's clothing" webpage, which is obviously with Father Pfeifer's approval or it wouldn't still be up, they have both gone to the bottom of the barrel by attempting to ruin the reputations of both Father Zendejas and Bishop Williamson. There is no excuse for this and I now see clearly the true colors of these men and will no longer associate with either Pablo or Father Pfeifer. It is never ok to ruin another person's reputation, especially a priest or a bishop and especially not when there is so much at stake with the current crisis in the church.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like Father Pfeiffer but he totally blew it on this one.

Matthew · « **Reply #37 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:52:22 AM »

Quote from: Bartholemew

In my opinion, by Pablo posting the "wolf in sheep's clothing" webpage, which is obviously with Father Pfeifer's approval or it wouldn't still be up, they have both gone to the bottom of the barrel by attempting to ruin the reputations of both Father Zendejas and Bishop Williamson. There is no excuse for this and I now see clearly the true colors of these men and will no longer associate with either Pablo or Father Pfeifer. It is never ok to ruin another person's reputation, especially a priest or a bishop and especially not when there is so much at stake with the current crisis in the church.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like Father Pfeiffer but he totally blew it on this one.

As much as I admire Fr. Pfeiffer's zeal, and what he has done for the Traditional movement (especially his front-line missionary activity since 2012), I do agree with you.

The website "Our Lady of Mount Carmel USA" is a complete joke now.

I can understand his criticism about Fr. Zendejas not going into detail about his position, and I can understand the struggle over a chapel that provides quite a bit of resources to the priest who serves it. Priests need money for their apostolates, I understand that. I also think Fr. Zendejas could have used a bit more tact and diplomacy in this situation.

But THIS POST, this emotional outburst, is completely beyond the pale.

This website -- which is directed by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and webmastered by Pablo -- is LITERALLY calling Bishop Williamson and Fr. Zendejas "children of Hell"!

Sometimes conflict is inevitable. Especially with fallen human beings. But good men, ESPECIALLY CATHOLIC MEN, should do their best to make peace or at least limit the conflict, rather than escalate the situation!

Just look at it:
(The only thing I couldn't capture in one screen is the little trademark Pablo asterisk * which appears below the Fr. Zendejas picture. Other than that, this is the whole abominable post.)

I'm not going to let Bishop Fellay and Fr. Rostand unjustly smear good, holy Traditional priests and bishops -- why should we let Fr. Pfeiffer and "Pablo" do the same?

Sorry, they don't get a free pass to be Bad Guys, or to use the Bad Guy handbook on a temporary basis. No one gets a free pass. All men are subject to the laws of Catholic morality. That includes priests!

Matthew · « **Reply #38 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:02:09 AM »

Fr. Zendejas is more of a true Cristero that Pablo the amateur Exorcist will ever be.

Anyone who knows Fr. Zendejas knows how often he talks about Christ the King, "Viva Cristo Rey!" and being apostolic in general.

That's the irony of this whole fight. Pablo has this "Cristero" theme, yet he HATES Fr. Zendejas.

The devil can't control himself he's laughing so hard right now. I, however, am NOT laughing. This can do no good for the Catholic Church.

Francisco · « **Reply #39 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:20:31 AM »

Quote from: Bartholemew

In my opinion, by Pablo posting the "wolf in sheep's clothing" webpage, which is obviously with Father Pfeifer's approval or it wouldn't still be up, they have both gone to the bottom of the barrel by attempting to ruin the reputations of both Father Zendejas and Bishop Williamson. There is no excuse for this and I now see clearly the true colors of these men and will no longer associate with either Pablo or Father Pfeifer. It is never ok to ruin another person's reputation, especially a priest or a bishop and especially not when there is so much at stake with the current crisis in the church.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like Father Pfeiffer but he totally blew it on this one.

More than once in recent videos Fr Joseph Pfeiffer has claimed that Fr Karl Stehlin, the SSPX Asia District Superior is his superior. The November 2nd audio posted on OLMC-USA also has him saying so. He has previously stated that he's from Asia and that he hates wearing the white cassock and red sash but has to because "he's from Asia".
Why does he keep bringing up this SSPX-Asia thing and if Fr Stehlin is really his superior then what role is he playing in this Pfeiffer/Zendejas entanglement?

hugeman · « **Reply #40 on:** November 03, 2014, 09:59:40 AM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: hugeman
He also stated, erroneously,
that Archbishop Lefebvre also ( eg: just like Fellay) accepted 95% of the Vatican Council!

Heaven forbid that you actually researched what Archbishop Lefebvre thought. Here, let me help you:

Abp. Lefebvre:

"I do not reject it [Vatican II] altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition." (France-Soir, Aug. 4, 1976)

"I am fully in agreement ... that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church." (Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, 1980. Quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. XLV)

As to the Council, I reaffirm that I subscribe to what the Holy Father said, asking that it should be received "in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church." (Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, 1981. Quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. LII)

"The necessity of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, so as to correct the texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal." (Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1982. Quoted in CFN:Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions)

"We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of docuмents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecuмenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion." (Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre

to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1985. Quoted in CFN:The April 15 Deadline)
and
"The New Mass can fulfil the Sunday obligation." (Lefebvre to Michael Davies. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre" Vol 2, p. 367, May 9, 1980)

"As to the reform of the Liturgy, I personally signed the conciliar decree, and have never said that its applications are in themselves invalid or heretical." (Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, 1981. Quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. LII)
How about (then Fr.) Bp. Williamson:

"The Archbishop's central position is that the docuмents of Vatican II are acceptable on condition that they are sifted according to Tradition (what text would not be acceptable, on such a condition?)" (Letter to Friends and Benefactors #80, 1985)

From your quotes, it would seem as if the Archbishop died in 1985. However, as we know, he did not. In June, 1988, he consecrated four bishops WITHOUT the permission of the Wolves in Rome. Why? Because he realized that he had gone too far in his conciliatory negotiations with these non-Catholics. In fact, at the Consecrations which my family attended, the Archbishop actually admitted that "he had gone too far"! He knew that these "Catholics" were not planning to return to the true faith, and that it was up to him to help preserve the Church. He clearly saw that the Council was the manifestation of their wallowing in the new humanistic religion.
You would do well to read up on ALL of the Archbishop's writings, especially "I Accuse the Council!"

B from A · « **Reply #41 on:** November 03, 2014, 10:01:38 AM »

As long as we're off-topic, here are some more quotes by +ABL on VII for completeness:

Quote

More Archbishop Lefebvre quotes on Vatican II:

Quote
It is impossible to comprehend this profound crisis without taking into consideration the central event of this century: the Second Vatican Council. My feelings with regard to that are well enough known, I believe, so that I can express from the outset the essence of my thoughts: without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church. In this, I am doing nothing but judging it by its fruits, making use of the criterion that Our Lord gave us.

Quote
If we are to understand fully and to measure the harm done by Vatican II, we must study this Council in the light of the Pontifical docuмents which, for nearly two centuries, put bishops, clergy and faithful on their guard against the conspiracy of the enemies of the Church acting through Liberalism and Modernism.

It is also essential to know the docuмents of the opponents of the Church, and especially of the secret societies which had been preparing for this Council for more than a century.

Finally, it will be very instructive to follow the reactions of Protestants, Masons and Liberal1 Catholics during and after the Council.

Quote
Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter’s true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.

We are left with only one solution: to abandon these dangerous examples and cling firmly to tradition, i .e., to the official Magisterium of the Church throughout 2,000 years.

Quote
...Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church!
From I Accuse the Council!

Quote
But it is impossible to maintain it is only the later applications of the Council that are at fault.
From Open Letter to Confused Catholics

Quote
“You will recognize the tree by its fruit.” The fruits are before us, evident, clear. The fruits which come from the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar reforms are bitter fruits, fruits that destroy the Church. When someone tells me, “Do not touch the Council; speak, rather, of the postconciliar reforms,” I reply that those who made the reforms- it was not I who made the reforms – say themselves: “We are making them in the name of the Council. We made the liturgical reform in the name of the Council; we reformed the catechism in the name of the council.” And these are the Church’s authorities. It is they, consequently, who legitimately interpret the Council.

Quote
Fortunately this operation of exploding the erroneous ideas of the Council has already begun, and begun satisfactorily with the work of Professor Salet in the Courrier de Rome on The Declaration on Religious Liberty. His conclusion is that this declaration is heretical.
From I Accuse the Council!

Quote
Our Declaration of Faith

This Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

Quote
The evil of the Council is the ignorance of Jesus Christ and of His Kingdom. It is the evil of the bad angels, the evil which is the way to Hell.
From Spiritual Journey - his "last will and testament"

Now, carry on with the thread topic…

B from A · « **Reply #42 on:** November 03, 2014, 11:20:08 AM »

Quote from: peterp

...That Achbishop Lefebvre accepted 95% of the council. To prove such an assertion wrong you need to show either he rejected the Council all together or that he rejected more than 5%.

This is your problem B from A, you have numerous quotes from the archbishop but you simply don't know how to use them.

So, you're saying that he accepted 95% of " greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church"? He accepted 95% of the "French Revolution of the Church!"?

Maybe we need to edit some of the quotes:

Quote

The evil of [5% of] the Council is the ignorance of Jesus Christ and of His Kingdom. It is the evil of the bad angels, the evil which is the way to Hell.

Quote

The [95%] good texts have served as cover to get those [5% of the] texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.

Ok; if you say so.

Matthew, still need that eyeball-rolling emoticon!

Quote from: Matthew

PeterP, you miss the point.

Even if Vatican II was technically "95% true", that doesn't mean it isn't SATANIC, THE HANDIWORK OF SATAN, DANGEROUS and worthy of the BURN PILE out back.

The devil can use truth, too, you know.

If I had a copy of Vatican II docuмents, I wouldn't hesitate to deface and commit outrages against them (use your imagination). Up to and including throwing them in my septic tank. Even though they have the name "Jesus" on countless pages.

Now that the shock has passed, think about it: Don't you suppose there are holy names written in satanic works as well? Wouldn't you burn them? Of course! They're misusing Our Lord's holy name. You're hatred is only for the lies-truth mixture, not the element of truth contained therein.

In fact, my hatred for the lies and evil is only increased because of the audacity of these docuмents masquerading as Catholic doctrine.

Don't you know that "95% truth" is PRECISELY how satan works? What do you think the devil does, give out 100% lies? Who would fall for them? How would he get anywhere?

No, for millennia the devil works by giving out healthy dollops of TRUTH mixed with just a small percentage of poisonous LIES. The truth in the mixture is what makes it appealing to the human intellect, and makes it palatable. It's the spoonful of sugar that helps the poison go down.

As Bishop Williamson pointed out, you don't praise an airplane with only 1 engine working (out of 4) because it has great upholstery. That would be foolish and ludicrous.

A glass of $200 wine is worthy of the sink drain if someone put in a small amount of arsenic. What, are you going to praise the quality of the wine "if the arsenic weren't there", when you can't really separate them?

Vatican II as such defined no new dogmas, and did no useful work. If the Church chucked the whole thing into the septic tank (where it belongs), the Church would lose nothing useful or true. All it would lose is a bunch of dangerous ambiguous statements.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #43 on:** November 03, 2014, 11:23:17 AM »

Quote from: peterp

You actually, highlight another issue I have with resisters. The first one is that they rarely reference their claim, but when the do (as in your case), they are either (i) not capable of reading a source or (ii) unable to comprehend the assertion that is supported (or refuted) by the reference.

Like most Fellayists, Peter wastes an exorbitant amount of time attacking the resistance on its own forum because he has very little to do with his time and has no life. We could suggest that he read a good book like this one.....

http://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/operation-ѕυιcιdє-published-20121029.pdf

...but it´s no use. People these days, in general, suffer from a lack of motivation, sense of purpose, and an ability to think. Certainly he will respond to my comment with more dribble without realizing that I use the third person because I´m not interested in dialoguing.

John Steven · « **Reply #44 on:** November 03, 2014, 11:26:33 AM »

Here is a quote for ya:

Quote

"Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter's true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purpose by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed."

I Accuse the Council
"A Note on the Title"
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Paris, France
1976

Does any of that sound like "95% of VII is acceptable"?

I like Bp. Williamson's example. If you had a book of trigonometric tables and someone told you there were errors in that book, would you keep the book or would throw it out and ask for a new one?