Author Topic: The truth about Fr. Raphael Arizaga OSB (Read 8376 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 15, 2017, 10:23:55 AM »

The source wishes not to be named, but I know that it is a completely reliable and trustworthy source.

1. "Fr. Raphael lies a lot."

2. "A few days ago, Fr. Raphael sent a letter to Bp. Thomas Aquinas, asking to be received for six months in the Holy Cross Monastery. The stated purpose was to reflect and amend."

3. "He promised to submit to the authority of Bp. Thomas Aquinas"

4. "We all thought he was sincere"
"Bp. Thomas Aquinas wanted to give Fr. Raphael another chance."
"Fr. Raphael then traveled to the Holy Cross Monastery in Brazil."

5. Bp. Thomas Aquinas said to Fr. Raphael: "In the present situation, you do not have the qualifications to be prior of a monastery".
The problems he cited: 3 monasteries in 3 countries in 4 years, Fr. Raphael's absences and excessive travels, plus in 2015 a grave crisis of sodomy in the monastery (although Fr. Raphael himself was not involved in sodomy), lack of discipline, lack of stability, lack of regularity.

6. "Recently, there has been another lie: Fr. Raphael told Bp. Thomas Aquinas that his father had a serious health problem in Mexico, and that he needed to travel urgently to see him. A monk promptly took him to Rio de Janeiro in a hurry, but they could not find a flight. Then they took him to Sao Paulo. But in the end, Fr. Raphael deceived them all, and did not travel to Mexico at all. Instead, he went to Colombia to meet a friend monk."

7. "That same day, Fr. Raphael wrote to a parishioner to tell her that he had spoken face to face with Bishop Thomas Aquinas, and that he had discovered that Bp. Thomas Aquinas was a heretic, and that henceforth we could not follow the 3 bishops of the Resistance."

8. "Note well: Fr. Raphael 'discovered' that Bp. Thomas Aquinas and the other bishops of the Resistance were heretics at the same time Bp. Thomas told him that he had no qualifications to be a prior. As soon as he was told this, he fled from the monastery and immediately wrote that he had confronted Bp. Thomas."

9. "A parishioner asked Br. Bernardo Arizaga (SSPX, resident in Bogota), brother of Fr. Raphael, if it were true that their father was sick. Br. Bernardo immediately called his family's house, but was soon reassured when he learned that his father was in very good health."

10. "At the moment, Fr. Rafael is hanging around the monastery of San Jose (Colombia) accompanied by a young woman and the friend monk."

11. "It is apparent that Fr. Raphael has no scruples about lying. The worst thing is that he is confusing many souls."

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2017, 10:30:15 AM »

I see a pattern here.

Yes, the Resistance is a legitimate movement. But no one can stop an unscrupulous, bad, vice-ridden, shady, or similar priest from attaching himself to the movement for personal gain.

It's not as though there's a central authority which issues "licenses" to any priest claiming to be Resistance. No, it doesn't work that way. The faithful are desperate, and even if, say, Bishop Williamson had a "red list" of priests to avoid, many Faithful would ignore that warning and seek out those priests anyhow, because THEY ARE DESPERATE.

After all, it's the wild west right now. Everything is in flux, everything is in the germ or seed stage. There is extremely high demand almost no supply.

Just like the Trad world in the 1970's. Just read your Trad history books about what various independent Traditional groups went through in the 70's: lack of priests, fake priests, bad priests, weird priests, Bishop Shuckardt, you name it.

Long story short: the Resistance is basically another beginning for Tradition. Beginnings mean privations, change and lots of OPPORTUNITY. Where there is opportunity, there will be opportunists taking advantage of the situation to enrich themselves. That is how life works.

Priests who wanted more travel will get their travel. Priests who wanted more good food will get their food. Priests who wanted to live in a different part of the country can now move there. Priests who chafed under obedience need not obey any longer.

There are plenty of Faithful desperate for a priest.

Some priests will join the Resistance for noble motives. But unfortunately, for every living Saint who does this, there is another who does it for mixed, or even bad, motives.

Consider refugees from a tyrannical dictatorship: many good people will leave for good reasons. But many criminals with nothing to lose and everything to gain, trying to evade the authorities, will happily blend in with the refugees as well, looking forward to a new start in another country.

The Faithful must be careful.

Any crisis brings out the worst in some, the best in others.

Meg · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2017, 11:33:51 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I see a pattern here.

Yes, the Resistance is a legitimate movement. But no one can stop an unscrupulous, bad, vice-ridden, shady, or similar priest from attaching himself to the movement for personal gain.

It's not as though there's a central authority which issues "licenses" to any priest claiming to be Resistance. No, it doesn't work that way. The faithful are desperate, and even if, say, Bishop Williamson had a "red list" of priests to avoid, many Faithful would ignore that warning and seek out those priests anyhow, because THEY ARE DESPERATE.

After all, it's the wild west right now. Everything is in flux, everything is in the germ or seed stage. There is extremely high demand almost no supply.

Just like the Trad world in the 1970's. Just read your Trad history books about what various independent Traditional groups went through in the 70's: lack of priests, fake priests, bad priests, weird priests, Bishop Shuckardt, you name it.

Long story short: the Resistance is basically another beginning for Tradition. Beginnings mean privations, change and lots of OPPORTUNITY. Where there is opportunity, there will be opportunists taking advantage of the situation to enrich themselves. That is how life works.

Priests who wanted more travel will get their travel. Priests who wanted more good food will get their food. Priests who wanted to live in a different part of the country can now move there. Priests who chafed under obedience need not obey any longer.

There are plenty of Faithful desperate for a priest.

Some priests will join the Resistance for noble motives. But unfortunately, for every living Saint who does this, there is another who does it for mixed, or even bad, motives.

Consider refugees from a tyrannical dictatorship: many good people will leave for good reasons. But many criminals with nothing to lose and everything to gain, trying to evade the authorities, will happily blend in with the refugees as well, looking forward to a new start in another country.

The Faithful must be careful.

Any crisis brings out the worst in some, the best in others.

Well said, and a good summary of the situation, from my limited understanding of what it was like in the Trad world in the 70's. The Resistance is indeed another beginning for Tradition, though it seems likes it has been a bumpy road, and will continue to be so. Especially agree that there will be privations, change and lots of opportunity. I take it that by opportunity, that the laity can be involved by helping the process along as best we can.

I'll offer a few prayers for Fr. Rafael, even though I find his stance rather distressing.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2017, 05:00:35 PM »

This is very depressing. Fr Raphael gave me a lot of hope in a personally distressing situation and now I find out he is not trustworthy. How can I count on his advice? I guess I can't.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2017, 10:38:52 AM »

Quote from: josefamenendez

This is very depressing. Fr Raphael gave me a lot of hope in a personally distressing situation and now I find out he is not trustworthy. How can I count on his advice? I guess I can't.

Why do you dump him so quickly? You can get good advice from anyone, no matter what their faults.

The question you have to ask yourself is; was the advise he gave me what I wanted to hear? If it was what you wanted to hear, then it may not be the truth, but just what you wanted to hear, and that is why you liked it.

I do not know that priest, and never heard of him, but on the other hand I do not know any of the people speaking against him. I keep all these warnings in mind, and will judge for myself when I meet him, but I will be on the alert. Any faults will reveal themselves quickly, as long as one is not blinded by the false idea that all priests are wise, infallible holy men to be followed blindly. In my experience that is exactly what practically all traditionalists think of SSPX and other trad groups priests, that they are wise, infallible holy men to be followed blindly on any subject of life, not just religion.

In my experience, they are all (with VERY few exceptions) the complete opposite, they are unwise, fallible, worldly men, not to be followed on any subject.

Knight · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2017, 11:57:10 AM »

Fr. Rafael responds to accusations:

Quote

Earlier this morning, Matthew of CathInfo posted a thread on his forum in which he listed several accusations made by an unnamed source, but an alleged “completely reliable and trustworthy source”, against Fr. Rafael, O.S.B. You may found the initial post of this thread here. The link to the thread is the following:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-truth-about-Fr-Raphael-Arizaga-OSB

Note how Matthew titled the thread “The truth about Fr. Raphael Arizaga OSB”. Fr. Rafael is guilty in Matthew’s eyes simply based on this “completely reliable and trustworthy source”.

In order to give Fr. Rafael an opportunity to defend himself, I sent him an e-mail with the list of accusations and asked him to affirm or deny each accusation. Fr. Rafael responded and gave me permission to publish his responses. Fr. Rafael’s responses are in quotes and red font.

“Before God I assure that all is false except point # 9. My Father got better. It is a diabolical attack. A proof we are in the truth. Because they cannot refute with doctrine, with charity or with God’s weapons.”

I asked Fr. Rafael to clarify his response to point #10 because Father himself informed me last week that he was in Colombia.

“yes I am with my 2 monks in Colombia. There is not lady here and never was”

Let Fr. Rafael’s accuser come forth, show himself, and prove his accusations with evidence!

Meg · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2017, 12:37:04 PM »

The response is very brief, and doesn't really address the accusations adequately, except the accusation that he was in the company of a woman; and he also addressed #9, in which Fr. Raphael says that his father got better. Did he inform anyone in charge that his father got better? That would be the appropriate thing to do.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2017, 10:23:19 AM »

I have a few points to make, with regards to Fr. Raphael's response:
A) His rebuttal is essentially a big "nuh-uh!" with an exaggerated head-shaking gesture. As Meg pointed out, he doesn't say much.
B) see point 1 in the post above, "Fr. Raphael lies a lot."
C) when I say a reliable source, I mean a very reliable source! I know who it is, and he is plenty close to the situation.
D) I trust my confidential source more than I trust Fr. Raphael at this point.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2017, 09:03:22 PM »

Quote

Why do you dump him so quickly? You can get good advice from anyone, no matter what their faults.

The question you have to ask yourself is; was the advise he gave me what I wanted to hear? If it was what you wanted to hear, then it may not be the truth, but just what you wanted to hear, and that is why you liked it.

I do not know that priest, and never heard of him, but on the other hand I do not know any of the people speaking against him. I keep all these warnings in mind, and will judge for myself when I meet him, but I will be on the alert. Any faults will reveal themselves quickly, as long as one is not blinded by the false idea that all priests are wise, infallible holy men to be followed blindly. In my experience that is exactly what practically all traditionalists think of SSPX and other trad groups priests, that they are wise, infallible holy men to be followed blindly on any subject of life, not just religion.

In my experience, they are all (with VERY few exceptions) the complete opposite, they are unwise, fallible, worldly men, not to be followed on any subject.

Thank you for your comments. The advice was given on a serious matter and gave me much hope which I hadn't had. Of course, I did want to have that hope. I know we are not supposed to have a "cult of personality" in regards to anyone, especially priests, but I only met him twice and he left me with a great impression of holiness. Of course I can be fooled and usually am. Remember in the resistance ,priests are pretty sparse so I do cherish any access I have for any priestly advice. Like you said I have been disappointed by almost all priests ( I'm sure it wasn't always their fault) but I must admit I still look for holiness and authority in a priest and when I hear these things my heart sinks. If a priest tells me something pointed and with seemingly holy assurance, then I find out that "he lies", it lessens my faith in what he had originally said. I think that is normal.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2017, 09:28:10 PM »

Quote from: josefamenendez

Quote
Why do you dump him so quickly? You can get good advice from anyone, no matter what their faults.

The question you have to ask yourself is; was the advise he gave me what I wanted to hear? If it was what you wanted to hear, then it may not be the truth, but just what you wanted to hear, and that is why you liked it.

I do not know that priest, and never heard of him, but on the other hand I do not know any of the people speaking against him. I keep all these warnings in mind, and will judge for myself when I meet him, but I will be on the alert. Any faults will reveal themselves quickly, as long as one is not blinded by the false idea that all priests are wise, infallible holy men to be followed blindly. In my experience that is exactly what practically all traditionalists think of SSPX and other trad groups priests, that they are wise, infallible holy men to be followed blindly on any subject of life, not just religion.

In my experience, they are all (with VERY few exceptions) the complete opposite, they are unwise, fallible, worldly men, not to be followed on any subject.

Thank you for your comments. The advice was given on a serious matter and gave me much hope which I hadn't had. Of course, I did want to have that hope. I know we are not supposed to have a "cult of personality" in regards to anyone, especially priests, but I only met him twice and he left me with a great impression of holiness. Of course I can be fooled and usually am. Remember in the resistance ,priests are pretty sparse so I do cherish any access I have for any priestly advice. Like you said I have been disappointed by almost all priests ( I'm sure it wasn't always their fault) but I must admit I still look for holiness and authority in a priest and when I hear these things my heart sinks. If a priest tells me something pointed and with seemingly holy assurance, then I find out that "he lies", it lessens my faith in what he had originally said. I think that is normal.

FWIW, I wouldn't just shrug off any advice that Fr Rafael gave you. Granted, I don't know the circuмstances surrounding your experiences, but I know as frail human beings we can fall at anytime. Fr Rafael was a great gift to me and my family for many years. For example, I was very close with Fr Pfeiffer for at least 20 years. He contributed greatly to my spiritual wellbeing over the years. But now, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Does that mean that I totally disregard everything good that I obtained from him in the past?

josefamenendez · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2017, 10:06:28 AM »

I think there was an "evolution" (excuse the term) with Fr Pfeiffer that one could see over time....
This was a very abrupt revelation for me, and the time frame very narrow.
But of course, good advice is good advice, but deeper spiritual direction demands complete trust, or at least I think it should. Prayers for Fr Raphael

Meg · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2017, 12:42:00 PM »

Quote from: Pilar

Quote from: Matthew
I have a few points to make, with regards to Fr. Raphael's response:
A) His rebuttal is essentially a big "nuh-uh!" with an exaggerated head-shaking gesture. As Meg pointed out, he doesn't say much.
B) see point 1 in the post above, "Fr. Raphael lies a lot."
C) when I say a reliable source, I mean a very reliable source! I know who it is, and he is plenty close to the situation.
D) I trust my confidential source more than I trust Fr. Raphael at this point.

Nevertheless, the accusation is damning and made by an anonymous source.

The accusations are not unwarranted. Did you read the OP of the thread which led to this one? Here it is.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Raphael-OSB-speaks-out

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2017, 03:34:12 PM »

Pilar,

Actually, it was not made by an anonymous source.

I will dispel some of your ignorance for you (I can't dispel all of it; we would be here forever!): anonymous comes from the Greek, and means "without name". An anonymous person doesn't have a name, or in other words, he is "unknown".

But that is not true in this case. I know very well who the source is; but I'm not going to post his name because he asked that his name be kept confidential.

Confidential and anonymous are not the same thing, though they SEEM or FEEL like the same thing from a reader's perspective.

AJNC · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2017, 06:57:26 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Pilar,

Actually, it was not made by an anonymous source.

I will dispel some of your ignorance for you (I can't dispel all of it; we would be here forever!): anonymous comes from the Greek, and means "without name". An anonymous person doesn't have a name, or in other words, he is "unknown".

But that is not true in this case. I know very well who the source is; but I'm not going to post his name because he asked that his name be kept confidential.

Confidential and anonymous are not the same thing, though they SEEM or FEEL like the same thing from a reader's perspective.

:thinking:

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2017, 08:42:25 PM »

The local SSPX priest could call me up, and tell me that Bishop Fellay will sign a deal this Saturday, setting up a Personal Prelature. This hypothetical informant would give me his name and position (pastor of the San Antonio SSPX chapel, for example). But he might request that he not be named (i.e., that the source be kept confidential) so he doesn't get in trouble with his superiors for leaking the information.

I would post something similar to this thread -- giving the news, but withholding the name.

Now if that happened, no one could accuse me of passing on "anonymous whispers", "internet rumors" or anything of the like. I would be passing on definitive news from a verified person close to the events in question.

I just wouldn't be giving YOU and YOU and YOU his name. That doesn't make it anonymous, nor does it make it unreliable, much less false.

For those who get bothered when this happens: You're just jealous because I know who it is, and you don't :)