[hugeman]

Hugeman:


BTW, I just received an email forwarded from the "coordinator" of the Danbury, CT to a responsible party in the Post Falls "resistance" chapel.  This person assures everyone that the Danbury chapel members stand "firm" with Fr. Pfieffer and the "TRUTH."  No one, she says, should believe in these internet rumors floating about.  Any comments?

Haven't seen anything of such, so far . Perhsps they lost my address. I am happy they are standing firm for the truth and against rumours; looks like maybe a new coordinator has been appointed, though, because both our
coordinators are male. Management in Boston will not be too happy on finding that
a woman is running the operation.

[hollingsworth]

Hugeman, I'm not so sure that the coordinator is a woman.  I explain in a PM to you.  I may have misspoken.

[Matthew]

I have locked and unpublished the "old" Fr. Zendejas thread, to respect the developing situation. Frankly, the old thread was fine for its time, but it is now obsolete based on new information (in particular, Fr. Zendejas' Q&A which has been posted on Youtube)

Some continue to suggest, albeit subtly, that something is "amiss" with Fr. Zendejas. But think about it: to what great detective work do we owe this revelation?

Allow me to take one of those people to task:

So you (and a few brainwashed others) suggest that the SSPX is sending Fr. Zendejas as a mole to infiltrate the Resistance -- but for some reason the prior is undermining this covert mission by denying Fr. Ze had left and/or leaving the door open for him to return? Why wouldn't the prior have said, "Oh yes, Fr. Zendejas is long gone. He's joined the Resistance."

So the charge doesn't even make sense.

There is absolutely NOTHING amiss with Fr. Zendejas. Even the criticism that he "hasn't been open enough" no longer holds water -- just watch the Q&A. He doesn't go on for 20 minutes, because after all it IS supposed to be +Williamson's Q&A. But he certainly doesn't dodge any questions.

In fact, he cuts right to the heart of the matter -- Fr. Zendejas is for starting a Retreat house, from which he will serve a small number of groups. Fr. Pfeiffer takes the opposite tactic; offering Mass occasionally to a great number of groups. Both attitudes are legitimate, and this is the only source of friction. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

There is nothing wrong with Fr. Zendejas himself or his doctrine.

I think we can put that baby to rest.

At this point, anyone stubbornly opposing Fr. Zendejas either
A) is a totally brainwashed dupe of Pablo "amateur Exorcist" the Mexican
B) has an agenda to smash Fr. Zendejas new apostolate -- sowing doubt, casting mud -- perhaps on behalf of the neo-SSPX?
C) has a hatred or grudge against Fr. Zendejas
D) is extremely dull of mind, to the point they shouldn't have posting privileges here on CathInfo.

So in light of the latest developments (Fr. Zendejas conference at St. Catherine's, ON), I'm going to move the line a little bit.

It is no longer allowed on CathInfo to say ANYTHING negative AT ALL about Fr. Zendejas without some kind of proof.

[Matthew]

P.S. "Xystus", who joined a little too recently, and is mostly interested in smearing Fr. Zendejas, has been banned. Which category was he in? A, B, C and/or D -- take your pick. Either way, I don't want his kind here.

Like the saying goes, "Your droids. They have to leave. We don't serve their kind here."

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

In fact, he cuts right to the heart of the matter -- Fr. Zendejas is for starting a Retreat house, from which he will serve a small number of groups. Fr. Pfeiffer takes the opposite tactic; offering Mass occasionally to a great number of groups. Both attitudes are legitimate, and this is the only source of friction. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Thank you, Matthew.  This is precisely how the good father explained it a few nights ago.  Quite simple, really.

The bolded text?  After Father Z discussed his Retreat house plans, +Williamson likened this all with Apostolates that complement each other, and said, verbatim, "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

Great minds think alike :smile:

[MaterDominici]

In fact, he cuts right to the heart of the matter -- Fr. Zendejas is for starting a Retreat house, from which he will serve a small number of groups. Fr. Pfeiffer takes the opposite tactic; offering Mass occasionally to a great number of groups. Both attitudes are legitimate, and this is the only source of friction. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Thank you, Matthew.  This is precisely how the good father explained it a few nights ago.  Quite simple, really.

The bolded text?  After Father Z discussed his Retreat house plans, +Williamson likened this all with Apostolates that complement each other, and said, verbatim, "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

Great minds think alike :smile:

 

Or perhaps he'd just finished listening to Bp Williamson.

[hollingsworth]

Matt:

Some continue to suggest, albeit subtly, that something is "amiss" with Fr. Zendejas.

After watching the Q & A session with H.E., and observing how H.E. allowed Fr. Zendejas a lot of time to offer comments over the Pfeiffer/Zendejas imbroglio, I would say that Father, in the bishop's estimation, is a pretty straight shooter.  He trusts him.

[hollingsworth]

Hugeman:

Father  stated clearly that he had requested dismissal from the SSPX; that he was against the new direction of the SSPX;That he was an SSPX priest for 27 years; that he disagreed with the basic theology behind the new code of Canon Law ( eg non-Catholics can and should receive Communion; the ends of Marriage are primarily for the mutual enjoyment of the parties, etc); that he supported the teachings of the Catholic Church as taught by the Archbishop Lefebvre; that he wished to work with Father Pfeiffer in establishing a bulkhead for the Catholic Church in the Northeast; that he sees  (in union with Archbishop Lefebvre and almost all Catholic Orders) that a stable Catholic environment is more conducive to the development of the faith, Catholic families and Catholic communities; Father stated he was prepared to provide regular catechetical instruction ( a point in apposition to Fr. Pfeiffer's concept presented  in his sermon that weekend-- the faith can grow just with the rosary under your pillow and Mass every five or six weeks), because the faithful need to know why they are "Traditional" Catholics.

  This sermon, especially in conjunction with the printed sermon which Father prepared for the faithful, clearly gives father's stance and positions on the current crises in the Church, and the crises in the SSPX. It is just curious how Father Pfeiffer can maintain, as he did in Danbury on All Souls Day, that "after two hours of talking to Father Zendejas, I don't know his doctrine or his theology-- all I got was a headache.." ( I'm sorry for his headache--- but I think its coming from Boston, Ky-- not Fr. Zendejas).

Hugeman supplies some very important information here, IMO.  How Fr. P could say that Fr. Z's doctrine and theology were unknown to the former still bothers me.  How could he not know how Fr. Z thinks and what his positions are?  There is still a very much unresolved issue here.  It is not about two ways of  doing things. It is not about two ways of conducting the "resistance."   It is about a clash of personalities, I'm afraid.  The moderator tells us that there is more than one way to skin a cat.  True! But the way Fr. Z skins his cat I find more attractive, to be honest.  Given a choice between sleeping with a Rosary under the pillow, and a priest every five or six weeks, I'd opt for a priest every week, or almost every week, in a settled parish environment.  The only problem with Fr. Z's approach is a dearth of priests.

[Matthew]

But the way Fr. Z skins his cat I find more attractive, to be honest.  Given a choice between sleeping with a Rosary under the pillow, and a priest every five or six weeks, I'd opt for a priest every week, or almost every week, in a settled parish environment.  The only problem with Fr. Z's approach is a dearth of priests.

Yes, but in many cases there IS a good priest available. Remember, not all (resistance-affiliated) priests are willing or able to live out of suitcases and sleep in airport terminals. That is a special vocation to which NOT ALL PRIESTS are called. Rejecting such a special vocation does NOT indicate selfishness, evil, or mental illness.

Also, we should keep in mind that life isn't fair, and God created a hierarchy. Ever since God created the world, there have been HAVES and HAVE NOTS. Even when it comes to spiritual goods. Think of what % of the world lives in a third world (or non-Catholic) country with little access to the truth, Mass, or Sacraments -- or clean water, for that matter.

Some people live in America in comfort with daily Mass at an SSPX or Resistance priory, while others live in want and starvation both physical and spiritual. Talk about "life isn't fair"!

I can understand subsidizing smaller/less viable groups TO A POINT, but after a certain point you have to give something back to those resource-rich groups. You can't practice some kind of spiritual communism. Nature doesn't like communism. Eventually, a good priest will be found to take care of those people more completely, building them a priory, retreat center, school, etc.

Nature demands a hierarchy -- or to put it another way, an inequality. Whenever you try to "rob from the rich and give to the poor", eventually nature intervenes in some way.

A sparsely populated rural area will never have the same Mass availability as a centralized group of city-dwellers each with ample money to spare and contribute. The two areas might START OUT the same, but I guarantee you they will diverge. Nature and the basic law of economics demands it.

Their situations will eventually be as different as $300 is different from $30,000.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

In fact, he cuts right to the heart of the matter -- Fr. Zendejas is for starting a Retreat house, from which he will serve a small number of groups. Fr. Pfeiffer takes the opposite tactic; offering Mass occasionally to a great number of groups. Both attitudes are legitimate, and this is the only source of friction. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Thank you, Matthew.  This is precisely how the good father explained it a few nights ago.  Quite simple, really.

The bolded text?  After Father Z discussed his Retreat house plans, +Williamson likened this all with Apostolates that complement each other, and said, verbatim, "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

Great minds think alike :smile:

 

Or perhaps he'd just finished listening to Bp Williamson.

that's funny!  Here I was amazed at the coincidence and thought he was sympatico in thinking, due to seminary.

[John Grace]

I am happy to accept Fr. Zendejas is a solid priest. I have always maintained resistance apostolates compliment each other. If Fr. Zendejas was to say it is ok to attend the SSPX then I won't support this. Hopefully he can build an independent apostolate. His approach seems sensible and reduces priests getting burned out travelling on airplanes all over the place.

His new apostolate should be supported.

[John Grace]

No doubt Fr. Zendejas will acknowledge that Fr Pfeiffer took a principled stance when the majority of Society priests equivocated. It's understandable laity are asking why now to Fr Zendejas.

Fr Pfeiffer, Fr Hewko, Fr  Girouard and others have principle. The majority of Society priests just sat or sit on the fence. I would rather support these priests than the likes of Fr Paul Morgan or Fr David Sherry.

[John Grace]

I am not disputing Fr. Zendejas lacks principle and he is a welcome addition to the resistance. It is important to acknowledge the principled stance Fr Pfeiffer and others have taken.

[JPaul]

What is apparent from this entire affair is that Father Zendejas actually has at least a formative plan to begin a tangible restoration and defense of the Faith. Modest perhaps,but sound, nevertheless.

Father Pfieffer has tied his wagon to the ill formed opinions and proclamations of his long time man Friday. With the long history recounted by others, such actions themselves judge the padre to have exercised faulty judgement and ethics.

On the larger issue of the resistance so called, there is no firm strategy that is coherent and workable to achieve any specific goal.

For the concept of a loose association to work, the "associates" would need to have some overarching common principle of operation which would allow them to at times work together or coordinate, so as not to work at cross purposes  relating to the ultimate purpose in which they should all be united.

Loose is one thing, entirely unconnected and without organization is quite another.
First order, all ( as many as possible), resistance priests should convene together
And find agreement and unity on their purpose and desired good end.

If they wish to operate as independent cells, so be it.  But a successful cell structure has to have at least, a rudimentary protocol which is understood so that when they all agree on what constitutes north, then they will all be traveling north when working together, or when working alone and unconnected.
There will be consistency even in separation or isolation.

It goes without saying that they need to establish a purpose to resist something much larger than Bishop Fellay and the SSPX.

Perhaps drop the whole resistance thing, and become instead, The Restoration.

As it has always been in the Church, priests need to be given a mission, to be sent.
This should be done by a Bishop. If Bishop Williamson is not the man, he should consider consecrating another to don the Mitre of the Church Militant, and who will send these priests upon the spiritual quest of Restoration, and attend to their needs.
I believe that that would be a most pious and justified invocation of Ecclesia Suplet, which would surely have the blessing of Heaven.

 Then all together or apart would have the same mission and end unaltered by the lack of a formal structure.

[John Grace]

What is apparent from this entire affair is that Father Zendejas actually has at least a formative plan to begin a tangible restoration and defense of the Faith. Modest perhaps,but sound, nevertheless.

Indeed and it is excellent and sound.

Loose is one thing, entirely unconnected and without organization is quite another.
First order, all ( as many as possible), resistance priests should convene together
And find agreement and unity on their purpose and desired good end.

To be fair the priests meet and convene as often as possible. There is agreement and unity and an objective.A loose organisation is the way forward with apostolates complimenting each other.

Perhaps drop the whole resistance thing, and become instead, The Restoration.

The resistance is the restoration.

As it has always been in the Church, priests need to be given a mission, to be sent.
This should be done by a Bishop. If Bishop Williamson is not the man, he should consider consecrating another to don the Mitre of the Church Militant, and who will send these priests upon the spiritual quest of Restoration, and attend to their needs.
I believe that that would be a most pious and justified invocation of Ecclesia Suplet, which would surely have the blessing of Heaven.

Bishop Williamson is not the only traditional Bishop but the subject of consecrations was discussed in a conference posted to the forum. I believe the Bishop has the blessing of heaven. We should pray for him.