Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Marlelar on August 04, 2017, 12:27:31 AM
-
We have two priests leaving Phx this summer. Fr. Thomas Scott and Fr. David Phillipson (the one who came from the NO and was not conditionally ordained) are both going to the Benedictine Monastery in Silver City, NM.
Anyone else have priests coming/going?
-
Interesting story Marlelar.
Two comments:
1. Is this the priest you are speaking of?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7dFJn4W9Boc/maxresdefault.jpg)
Father David Phillipson
He used to be at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire.
Didn't trust him after hearing him stand at the pulpit and defend Vatican II's Gaudium et spes.
Now he's infiltrated the SSPX... wow!
2. Two SSPX priests going to the Benedictines, to bring the Sacraments ?
Wonder how they will endure their schedule and rule?
-
It sure looks like him.
-
Why on Earth are they going to Silver City?
-
Here’s what I know:
Fr. Richard Boyle: From Prior at Armada, MI to Prior at Syracuse, NY
Fr. Jaime Pazat: From Assistant at Armada, MI to Assistant at Phoenix, AZ
Fr. Todd Angele: From St. Marys, KS to Prior at Armada, MI
Fr. William Kimball: From Principal at Sacramento, CA to Assistant at Armada, MI
Fr. Joshua Jacobs (new Priest): Assistant at Sanford, FL
Fr. Daniel Dailey: From Assistant at Watkins, CO to Unknown
-
Fr. John Bourbeau, Fr. Alexander Wiseman, and Fr. Joseph Haynos are all being transferred out of St. Marys, KS. I don't know where any of them are going though.
-
Interesting side note on Father David Phillipson... last week there was a CMRI parishoner in Phoenix dying and tried to get their CMRI priest to come to the death bed to give Extremunction but the priest was at the airport getting on a flight and couldn't come so the family called the SSPX in Phoenix.
The SSPX sent Father David Phillipson which caused an uproar because everyone knows that he is not conditionally ordained.
-
Interesting side note on Father David Phillipson... last week there was a CMRI parishoner in Phoenix dying and tried to get their CMRI priest to come to the death bed to give Extremunction but the priest was at the airport getting on a flight and couldn't come so the family called the SSPX in Phoenix.
The SSPX sent Father David Phillipson which caused an uproar because everyone knows that he is not conditionally ordained.
This incident is a Catholics nightmare. Can anyone really trust the decision makers at SSPX.
-
In his case the SSPX claims they have a video of his ordination and everything was done correctly (for a NO ceremony) so he is considered to be validly ordained. This must be new with Bp. Fellay because I know ABL always said men should be conditionally ordained when they come from the NO.
What NO ONE asks is if the NO Bishop was validly consecrated or even validly ordained for that matter.
-
Fr. Stephen Stanich, Fr. Adam Purdy, and Fr. Patrick Mackin are all leaving BVM in Syracuse, NY. I don't know where any of them are going.
-
Fr. Stephen Stanich, Fr. Adam Purdy, and Fr. Patrick Mackin are all leaving BVM in Syracuse, NY. I don't know where any of them are going.
Father Purdy is going? He is the priest at my chapel. He just got here. He didn't mention anything to us about him leaving at Mass on Sunday.
-
Fr Pieroni, another former novus ordo priest, who we do not know if if he was conditionally ordained, is leaving st louis to elsewhere
-
This incident is a Catholics nightmare. Can anyone really trust the decision makers at SSPX.
Yeah, it is sad, but surely Our Lord provided for this soul.
But, Fr. Phillipson... he really strikes me as a newChurch "operative". When I heard him speak in New Hampshire (2009?), I was scandalized and complained to the St. Benedict's Center about him. At the time, they were hard-up for a TLM priest.
I'm a little shocked to see that the SSPX has degenerated to the point where they would allow such a pro "Gaudium et spes" priest in without a conditional ordination?
-
Why on Earth are they going to Silver City?
Scuttlebutt is that Fr. Scott is going for his health and Fr. Phillipson for "more training".
I also heard that Fr. Crane is going to Post Falls, but have not seen/heard that confirmed by the Priory so it may only be a rumor weed.
-
Interesting side note on Father David Phillipson... last week there was a CMRI parishoner in Phoenix dying and tried to get their CMRI priest to come to the death bed to give Extremunction but the priest was at the airport getting on a flight and couldn't come so the family called the SSPX in Phoenix.
The SSPX sent Father David Phillipson which caused an uproar because everyone knows that he is not conditionally ordained.
If I recall correctly Fr. Cordova said that he had given extreme unction the week before so I don't think s/he died without the sacrament.
-
Father Purdy is going? He is the priest at my chapel. He just got here. He didn't mention anything to us about him leaving at Mass on Sunday.
That is at least what it said in bulletin for BVM in Syracuse last week:
BVM Bulletin 7-30-17 (http://www.bvmacademy.org/bulletin/2017-07-30.pdf)
Look at the top left-hand corner of the bulletin.
-
So, the "Valkyries of Menzingen" placating newChurch scrutiny, decide where a priest will make his fight...
(http://www.akg-images.fr/Docs/AKG/Media/TR5/2/8/9/2/AKG2349703.jpg)
And who will live and die... on the ecuмenical battlefield.
-
That is at least what it said in bulletin for BVM in Syracuse last week:
BVM Bulletin 7-30-17 (http://www.bvmacademy.org/bulletin/2017-07-30.pdf)
Look at the top left-hand corner of the bulletin.
I was told that Fr. Purdy is going to Ridgefield Connecticut and will continue saying Mass at Manhattan. I don't know about the others.
-
Marlelar: You are correct. The one "asking" for extreme Unction, had all sacraments on an on going bases. Very strange situation!
-
It seems Fr. David Phillipson is now with Bishop Sanborn's RCI group.
-
It seems Fr. David Phillipson is now with Bishop Sanborn's RCI group.
Good for Fr. Phillipson! 😀👍
-
It seems Fr. David Phillipson is now with Bishop Sanborn's RCI group.
Well, he will certainly be conditionally ordained now.
-
Well, he will certainly be conditionally ordained now.
In the most recent Roman Catholic Institute video, Fr. David Phillipson admitted to being conditionally re-ordained by Bishop Williamson in 2019.
-
In the most recent Roman Catholic Institute video, Fr. David Phillipson admitted to being conditionally re-ordained by Bishop Williamson in 2019.
Oh OK. So, he went from NO to SSPX to Resistance to Sedevacantist.
-
Oh OK. So, he went from NO to SSPX to Resistance to Sedevacantist.
I recommend viewing some of his earlier YouTube appearances. Impressive man.
-
Oh OK. So, he went from NO to SSPX to Resistance to Sedevacantist.
In between the NO and the SSPX he was also with the FSSP.
-
I recommend viewing some of his earlier YouTube appearances. Impressive man.
I would be careful of giving praise. As a teenager, fell from the faith if he even had it. Pursued multiple New Age religions, his tradtional priestly formation was via skype (SSPX). I hope +Sanborn verified he was conditionally ordained. He might be valid,but i question his formation. Not sure if I would get in his confession line.
Incredulous made this comment a few years ago: He used to be at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire.
Didn't trust him after hearing him stand at the pulpit and defend Vatican II's Gaudium et spes.
Now he's infiltrated the SSPX... wow!
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-transfer-this-summer/
-
I hope +Sanborn verified he was conditionally ordained.
Of course he did (or else conditionally ordained him himself). +Sanborn is not one to mess with that. In fact, that was the primary reason The Nine split off from SSPX in the first place.
-
In the most recent Roman Catholic Institute video, Fr. David Phillipson admitted to being conditionally re-ordained by Bishop Williamson in 2019.
I haven't watched it yet but posting it here.
(25) Escapes From the Novus Ordo | Ep. 1: Fr. David Phillipson - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS-vwDsqeiA)
-
I haven't watched it yet but posting it here.
(25) Escapes From the Novus Ordo | Ep. 1: Fr. David Phillipson - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS-vwDsqeiA)
I just finsihed watching. He appears very sincere in his conversion story. Very different path than other converts to Tradition.
His comments on the Una cuм is interesting.
-
I just finsihed watching. He appears very sincere in his conversion story. Very different path than other converts to Tradition.
His comments on the Una cuм is interesting.
Agreed. The only thing I found odd about the video was that they would never say "SSPX". They kept saying "organization". Anyone know why? Bishop Sanborn etal has never had a problem saying SSPX. Could it have something to do with the relationship between Fr Phillipson and the SSPX that they can't?
-
Agreed. The only thing I found odd about the video was that they would never say "SSPX". They kept saying "organization". Anyone know why? Bishop Sanborn etal has never had a problem saying SSPX. Could it have something to do with the relationship between Fr Phillipson and the SSPX that they can't?
Because these organizations are not the enemy of Catholics trying to traverse through the rubble of modernist Rome. Why unnecessarily burn every bridge you cross? That tends to shut down all future communications. I understand any group can and will be infiltrated. That's called history and it does repeat.
-
Stark contrast to Fr. Christopher Feeney's response to inquiries on his conditional ordination.
Regarding of the reference of "organization", you can almost tell Stephen Heiner had make deliberate reference when he wanted to say SSPX.
-
Stark contrast to Fr. Christopher Feeney's response to inquiries on his conditional ordination.
Regarding of the reference of "organization", you can almost tell Stephen Heiner had make deliberate reference when he wanted to say SSPX.
Yes, which was odd. They've never done that before (AFAIK).
-
I just finsihed watching. He appears very sincere in his conversion story. Very different path than other converts to Tradition.
His comments on the Una cuм is interesting.
His comments on una cuм are his opinion, he would have done better to have read Pope Benedict XIV's Ex Quo and stayed faithful to it's teaching in the matter.
-
His comments on the Una cuм is interesting.
His was from a different perspective than the sedevacantist-theological one, but I have had these same thoughts. If you actually read the words of the Canon, I absolutely could not insert Bergoglio's name into the Canon with a straight face, or, as Father said, without feeling that I was "lying" in the Sacred Canon of the Mass. Bergoglio is named as a keeper / tender / cultivator of the Catholic and Apostolic faith. He's nothing of the sort. He's a destroyer of that faith. If that phrase had been left out, and just said, "along with the Pope", maybe ... but there's no way anyone can possibly believe that Jorge is a keeper (cultor ... a cultivator / promoter) of the Catholic and Apostolic faith. Untruths do not belong in the Sacred Canon of the Mass.
-
His comments on una cuм are his opinion, he would have done better to have read Pope Benedict XIV's Ex Quo and stayed faithful to it's teaching in the matter.
And your opinion is duly noted and rejected ... as your analysis of just about everything is deeply flawed.
-
And your opinion is duly noted and rejected ... as your analysis of just about everything is deeply flawed.
It's not my opinion, it is the teaching of the Church, taught by a "true" pope. Therefore, Fr.'s opinion and yours regarding just about everything is deeply flawed because you award your opinion authority over the teaching of the Church, which is to say that you have that "set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate," as DL admitted in his last post.
-
It's not my opinion, it is the teaching of the Church, taught by a "true" pope.
It's your interpretation thereof ... which you always attempt to conflate with the teaching itself. Also, it begs the question that Jorge is the pope ... which he's not.
-
It's not my opinion, it is the teaching of the Church, taught by a "true" pope. Therefore, Fr.'s opinion and yours regarding just about everything is deeply flawed because you award your opinion authority over the teaching of the Church, which is to say that you have that "set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate," as DL admitted in his last post.
Stubborn, I've noticed that you repeatedly quote DL to support your own views. Do you think he would be okay with you continuing to use his "last post" to do this? How do you even know that he still thinks the same way? I find it ironic that you quote him given you're only quoting another person's "opinion".
Has any other poster ever done this? I can't think of any other poster who uses a former member's comments in this way.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard from DL? How is he?
-
His was from a different perspective than the sedevacantist-theological one, but I have had these same thoughts. If you actually read the words of the Canon, I absolutely could not insert Bergoglio's name into the Canon with a straight face, or, as Father said, without feeling that I was "lying" in the Sacred Canon of the Mass. Bergoglio is named as a keeper / tender / cultivator of the Catholic and Apostolic faith. He's nothing of the sort. He's a destroyer of that faith. If that phrase had been left out, and just said, "along with the Pope", maybe ... but there's no way anyone can possibly believe that Jorge is a keeper (cultor ... a cultivator / promoter) of the Catholic and Apostolic faith. Untruths do not belong in the Sacred Canon of the Mass.
Yes, his perspective seems to have come from his sensus catholicus not even knowing what others have written about it.
-
It's your interpretation thereof ... which you always attempt to conflate with the teaching itself. Also, it begs the question that Jorge is the pope ... which he's not.
Again, that is nothing but your opinion which you conflate to dogmatic certainty, which btw, is one of those things (aka "beliefs") DL was referring to.
-
Stubborn, I've noticed that you repeatedly quote DL to support your own views. Do you think he would be okay with you continuing to use his "last post" to do this? How do you even know that he still thinks the same way? I find it ironic that you quote him given you're only quoting another person's "opinion".
Has any other poster ever done this? I can't think of any other poster who uses a former member's comments in this way.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard from DL? How is he?
I don't know whether he is still a sede or not, or anything else about him these days, but none of that matters because what he stated is the truth whether it was him who said it or somebody else. What he essentially said is that in order to maintain sedeism, sedes *must* reject what Catholics have always believed, then embrace new and different beliefs and practices. This is done in order to maintain their sedeism as there is no other reason for it.
Watch at the video (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/interesting-video-from-1996/msg903825/#msg903825) someone posted from one of the Dimond bruthas before he turned sede as further proof of what DL said. The video demonstrates that pre-sede, he believed what Catholics have always believed, but after turning sede, he had to actually reject as heresy what he and all other Catholics have always believed, and embrace a different set of beliefs and practices, why?- in order to maintain his sedeism. There is no other reason for it.
I am not intending to insult any sede, I am merely pointing out a fact, one that DL stated so clearly, namely that there is a lot more involved in sedeism than only believing the Chair is vacant.
-
Fr. David Phillipson (the one who came from the NO and was not conditionally ordained)
I heard he left the SSPX and was conditionally ordained in the Resistance. (He petitioned to be conditionally ordained in the SSPX, but the SSPX wouldn't do it.)
-
" I heard..."
Someone mentioned back on this thread, about infiltrators (how about 'infiltraitors!) in the neoSspx.
http://wordpress.catholicapedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-06-12_L.abbe-Michel-KOLLER_FSSPX_Confirme-le-CATHOLICAPEDIA-qui-fait-une-colere.pdf
Google translate.
From Fr. Koller 's sermon, 2012..
"...that I lived for many years with a holy priest named Father La Praz, who offered his life and all his suffering, not only for the Church but for the SSPX. And I know with conviction, having spoken about it many times with this holy priest, who was also a friend, that he would never have signed anything other than the anti-modernist oath. Already in 1990, Father La Praz and I had noticed that there were people who had been infiltrated into the SSPX, as had been done at the Second Vatican Council. We warned the appropriate authorities. The only thing we received in return was blows from rifle butts. But this is of no importance because we will continue this fight since we signed it, since we love the Church, the true one. We will continue this fight with all those who wish to follow it.
So please, dear faithful, we are working for Heaven..."