Concerning Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko
4 March 2017

I want to preface what I am about to state that I, Tony La Rosa, speak only for myself.

 

The last Mass I attended with either Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer or Fr. David Hewko was with Fr. David Hewko on Sunday October 25, 2015 (Feast of Christ the King).  Shortly thereafter, the Our Lady of Good Success Mission (now defunct) separated itself from these two Fathers because of the Ambrose Moran issue.  On November 7, 2015, the Fathers issued a public statement in which they declared that their association with Ambrose Moran was severed.  However, no reasons were provided.  This public statement brought relief to many of the faithful, but not to me.  It was not sufficient for me that the association was severed; rather, I wanted the Fathers to make public the reasons for the sudden disassociation after they had promoted Ambrose Moran as a bishop who would possibly help with the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminary.  Furthermore, I wanted the Fathers to acknowledge that Ambrose Moran was a fraud.  I had suspicions that the Fathers knew that Ambrose Moran was a fraud, but that they did not want to publicly admit it; they did not want to admit that they were fooled.  With these thoughts in my head, I collaborated with Fr. Juan Ortiz in helping him write his paper called “A Theological and Canonical Study on the Case of William Edward, a.k.a. Ambrose, Moran-Dolgorouky”, published on December 19, 2015.  This paper was a first step in a potential two-step process.  The purpose of this paper was to show the Fathers (and the world) that Ambrose Moran was indeed a fraud and also a schismatic.  There was hope that by presenting solid evidence the Fathers would be either awakened to the truth of Ambrose Moran or at least pressure them to come clean.  Unfortunately, what was hoped for was not achieved.  The second step was now activated; part 2 of 2 of the paper was written called “A Theological and Canonical Study on the Case of William Edward, a.k.a. Ambrose, Moran-Dolgorouky”, published on March 17, 2016.  The purpose of this second part was to convince the priests and faithful to stop associating and attending the Masses of the Fathers on account of their involvement with a schismatic, until they publicly repented.  Many people took heed of this and stopped doing so.  The Fathers, however, did not budge.

 

After the publication of the second part, I continued listening to the Fathers’ sermons and conferences.  I thought to myself that if the Fathers were just trying to sweep Ambrose Moran under the rug because of embarrassment, then God would stop blessing their work.  Perhaps this would take the form of the Fathers getting caught up in some other serious scandal, moving away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on some essential matter, or even worse, adopting grave doctrinal errors.  Another thought that came into my mind (really since the November 7, 2015 public statement) is that perhaps the Fathers were waiting for a more opportune time to re-introduce Ambrose Moran back into the picture after the backlash had settled down.  However, to this very day, the Fathers continue to publicly stand by their position that Ambrose Moran is a true Catholic bishop, but there have been no sightings of Ambrose Moran near the Fathers for well over a year; they have kept true to their public statement of disassociation.  Furthermore, and more importantly, the Fathers continue to be valiant defenders of the Archbishop’s work despite the criticism and persecution they have faced from their confreres for opposing the three Resistance bishops in their sliding away, by commission and/or omission, from the Archbishop’s work.  The Fathers have faithfully defended the Archbishop’s work by, for example, publicly and forcefully opposing attendance at the New Mass, attendance at Sedevacantist and “non una cuм” Masses, and Bishop Williamson’s errors regarding attendance at these Masses.  Furthermore, the Fathers continue to reject Vatican II wholesale and continue to maintain the red light position, which is ever so vital to the true Resistance.  What then am I to make of all this?  I have come to the conclusion that the Fathers’ past involvement with Ambrose Moran has not been a debilitating obstacle preventing them from keeping alive the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.  I cannot answer for certain why despite the fact that the Fathers have not recanted their position regarding Ambrose Moran and have not made public reparation.  I can only tell you what I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears over the past year, that is, that the Fathers have shown themselves to continue to be true spiritual sons of the Archbishop.  Therefore, as I myself am a staunch defender of the Archbishop, I have decided that I will return to attending the Masses of the Fathers, if they will have me.  I am making this public statement in justice and charity because I had previously publicly and privately tried to convince others to stay away from the Fathers’ Masses.  For those of you who didn’t listen and stuck with the Fathers, time has shown in my estimation that you were right and I was wrong.  For those of you that did listen, I apologize.  I can only tell you that I did what I thought was most prudent at the time.  Perhaps the reasons I have presented for returning to the Fathers are not sufficient for you.  I am sorry if this is the case, but in the end we each have to decide for ourselves in this time of confusion in which the Church authorities are not doing their job in weeding out the wolves from the sheep.  And the mess that exists in the Resistance is not making it any easier.  I can only ask you that if you truly consider yourself a faithful follower of the Archbishop, please pay close attention to who is most keeping his memory alive and well.

 

Finally, to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, I am sorry for the grief I have caused you.  I hope you will forgive me.  I will make reparation by promoting your work on the Ecclesia Militans website.

Absolutely. Pathetic.

A man with no principles is a pathetic sight to behold.

Here is the real question: What does he make of the very serious other criticisms of Fr. Pfeiffer, elucidated by none other than Fr. Voigt and Fr. Chazal?

Those priests don't go off on tangents. They stick to the worst, clear-cut problems with Fr. Pfeiffer and his organization. I tend to agree with them: Let's forego the speculation, the many unproven "possible" or "probable" problems, and the numerous side issues and minor faults, and stick with publicizing the CORE ISSUES that are undeniable.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Open-Letter-from-Fr-Voigt-about-Boston-KY-mess

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Chazal-what-went-wrong-with-Fr-Pfeiffer

Pablo is still there, and in a position of power no less. Fr. Pfeiffer is still ambitious and power-hungry. He has slandered Fr. Voigt, Bishop Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, and many other GOOD, HOLY, FAITHFUL PRIESTS. Fr. Pfeiffer is undisciplined, plus he is belligerent toward all 3 Resistance bishops, so his "seminary" is a joke.

And the Ambrose debacle is still a huge issue. Fr. Pfeiffer never came clean about that. You can't PUBLICLY promote someone for months and then QUIETLY break off ties. If you truly discovered something bad (which you didn't know about before) you are obligated IN JUSTICE AND CHARITY, for the good of souls, to make a PUBLIC statement to that effect.

The very fact that so many on CathInfo speculated that "perhaps Ambrose will be brought out again later" proves just how inconclusive Fr. Pfeiffer's "dismissal"  statement was. Fr. Pfeiffer very much left things open for a sequel. He didn't burn any bridges with Ambrose Moran. He didn't offer the first criticism of Ambrose Moran, much less any damning facts or evidence against him.

Their reasons for breaking off with Ambrose must be as decisive and public as their constant promotion of him was for the previous 6 months!

When you follow orders so blindly as to go after long time supporters just because they "got on the bad side" of your Dear Leader...

If you are prepared to forget everything good they did for your Empire, as soon as your Dear Leader issues orders to throw them in the dungeon...

then Congratulations! You're an expendable, third-rate stormtrooper or lackey of a tyrant, a villain.

And your Dear Leader has more in common with a comic book villain than a Catholic priest.

Capricious changes of mood are what you'd expect from an unstable dictator, or a power-mad, megalomaniacal villain -- not a Catholic priest.

Might as well be a comic book villain, like the bad guy in Flash Gordon. You know, he was pretty clever and shrewd as well...

Who cares. Let's not give Tony La Rosa a captive audience. We don't need any more lay "theologians".

I agree. That's why I sat on this "news" for a full day before someone else posted it. He's not that important; just a good example of a poor, deluded, desperate Pfeifferite.

It would be great if Tony were one of last 3 or 4 disciples of Fr. Pfeiffer -- but, unfortunately, the number of blind and desperate Trads is much greater.

I will say this: most people with a brain have already bailed from that sinking ship. At this point, we can pretty much give up hope for those who choose to remain. Anyone who can ignore SO MANY and SUCH GREAT scandals is pretty much hopeless.

[Topic: Tony La Rosa (Ecclesia Militans) comes out in favor of Fr Pfeiffer]

Concerning Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko
4 March 2017

I want to preface what I am about to state that I, Tony La Rosa, speak only for myself.

The last Mass I attended with either Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer or Fr. David Hewko was with Fr. David Hewko on Sunday October 25, 2015 (Feast of Christ the King).

Excuuuse me!   Thanks for creating or perpetuating so much [expletives deleted] confusion!   For those readers among us who don't have access to the SSPX Resistance game-day program, how's 'bout answering some basic questions?

· Is "SeanGovan" the same person as "Ecclesia Militans"?
· Is "SeanGovan" the same person as "Tony La Rosa"?
If neither is true, why is there no obvious textual separator provided for the benefit of readers who have have been provided with no basis for figuring out who wrote what?

· Is "SeanGovan" just a totally unrelated bystanding blabbermouth?
· Did "SeanGovan" write everything in the original posting in this CathInfo topic?
· Who is "Ecclesia Militans", and why should readers care?
· So who is "Tony La Rosa", and why should readers care?

Many readers have never been SSPX insiders, and thus not privy to whom in [expletives deleted] these names identify,  and why we should give a [expletives deleted]?