Author Topic: Why wasnt the CT conference more public? I wanted to go (Read 2276 times)

Matthew · « **on:** June 30, 2015, 09:18:07 AM »

Quote from: colombiano

Where was this conference posted? I was in the area with my family and we would have loved to go but never heard anything about it. Was it advertised? I know other people who would have also liked to go.

I'm sorry it couldn't have been more heavily promoted. In the future, that will come. He's just getting started; once he's more established he'll be doing all the good things the SSPX used to do when it was a faithful Traditional organization.

Basically, the answer is: He didn't want the local Media there. Also, the building could only hold so many.

This obviously brings up the topic of "everything public" vs. "prudence".

I don't know if you're suggesting this, or how upset you are about this. But I know that this post has "echoes" of a certain piece of stubborn propaganda coming out of you-know-where.

No one has mentioned this before, to the best of my knowledge: has it occurred to anyone that the two charges leveled by certain "rivals" which shall remain nameless: "He's after the East Coast cash cow" and "He's secretive" are actually contradictory charges? It's like saying "He wastes all his money" and "He's a tightwad" to different people at different times. Is such a person just trying to generally ruin the man's reputation in any way? Throw a bunch of mud on the wall and see what will stick? Because he can't be a tightwad and a profligate spender -- that much is logically impossible.

Likewise, if Fr. Z wanted to be a "sheep stealer" as he has been slandered by a certain organization, he would have advertised and promoted this and every other conference high and wide. He would seek after publicity and conflict in all forms. And if people responded, coming from all over, this rival priest would be upset. He would then retort, "You're trying to steal my parishioners all over the country. You just want to max out your collection basket." See how this rival "has it both ways?"

What I'm trying to say is: Stop and think about it. Don't you suppose these families that didn't know about the conference would have put SOMETHING in the collection? Even if the location had to be upgraded as a result of 50 or 100 more people coming, that would be nothing compared with the "increase" in the resulting collection. So apparently money -- as well as fame/grabbing parishioners -- is not the only consideration. That is the only logical conclusion. If he were a sheep stealer OR a money grubber he would not have been able to refrain from advertising this conference.

Oh, and they have had problems with certain individuals recording conferences and then selectively editing them, and twisting what they say to suit their agenda! I'm not kidding or exaggerating; I wish I were!

But these are my observations, for those with ears to hear -- for those of good will.

St. Matthew's Gospel has a lesson about this:
(St. Matthew, chapter 11)

Quote

[16] But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? It is like to children sitting in the market place. [17] Who crying to their companions say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have lamented, and you have not mourned. [18] For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say: He hath a devil. [19] The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.

colombiano · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2015, 11:43:23 AM »

I know a family who has gone straight to the resistance from the Novus Ordo. Their eyes were opened thanks to the internet.

I know a young man who also has come to the resistance from the Novus Ordo. Again, solely from searching on the internet.

I know others who fit the same scenario, including myself. None of us had any association with the SSPX or any other traditional group before.

I mention all this because common sense tells me that there have to be many more people out there with no connection to the Traditional Catholic Faith equally searching for the truth.

Many of the above mentioned, most of whom don't know who father Zendejas is and have no clue about the rift between him and Fr. Pfeiffer, can easily ask the same questions I asked. Was this important event posted somewhere? How come I did not find out about it?

There is much talk about a coming chastisement (whenever that might happen) and if not, personal judgement for all of us anyway sooner or later so, like most of you, getting the word out and helping people open their eyes.....well, there is a certain urgency.

Therefore, asking these questions for me are not out of place and if there is a clear, logical answer (that does not include the divisions in the Resistance), it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

colombiano · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:09:26 PM »

ok, you said this:

"everything public" vs. "prudence"

So I ask myself....before it's too late, are we not all trying to reach as many souls as possible right now? In which case "everything public" seems to be the way to go so that those who, as I mentioned previously, are searching will have a much better chance of finding the truth?

What are the arguments for "prudence" at this moment?

Thanks

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:11:21 PM »

There is the urgency to reach and save souls, especially with the Chastisement on the horizon. I agree.

But like I said, there is a proper sequence and order of things. You can't act like an adult when you're a child, for example. One step at a time. We must be patient.

The world has many bad men working against Christ and His reign. If we are to win the world for Christ, we must be wise as serpents and simple as doves. And extremely prudent. Giving a blood curdling yell and running right into the enemy's camp, guns blazing, will do nothing except throw your life away, and with it your chance to do any real good for Christ the King.

Fr. Zendejas is working as fast as he can to get established -- which includes acquiring a permanent building from which to do his apostolate. It's hard to save someone from a raging flood until you have a secure position yourself, so you can reach out to them and pull them to safety.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:15:14 PM »

Quote from: colombiano

ok, you said this:

"everything public" vs. "prudence"

So I ask myself....before it's too late, are we not all trying to reach as many souls as possible right now? In which case "everything public" seems to be the way to go so that those who, as I mentioned previously, are searching will have a much better chance of finding the truth?

What are the arguments for "prudence" at this moment?

Thanks

Well, the public face is there. Fr. Pfeiffer is all over the Internet. So my answer would be: that role is well covered. And don't think I ignore the good that Fr. Pfeiffer has done and is doing. Let's face it, in the early days, it WAS true and accurate that Fr. Pfeiffer *was* the American resistance. They used to be synonymous.

Even today, I only have a few disagreements with him (red light position, keeping the devil-obsessed Pablo involved, his vilification of Fr. Zendejas and Bishop Williamson). I agree with him on everything else. Let's keep things in perspective, and remember what unites us (the 98%) and not just what divides us.

Think of it as a 2-pronged strategy. Someone has to read "the Art of War" by Sun Tzu and actually win us this war, or at least win us some ground...

That takes a different kind of person than a brave but impatient foot soldier. They have their place, but so do the clever, wise and patient generals and other officers.

Marlelar · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2015, 04:19:23 PM »

Don't be upset Colombiano, it take time and manpower to organize events like this and sometimes things get overlooked or just can't be done, I'm sure "management" has learned a thing or two this go-round and hopefully next time more people will find out well in advance. I also hope that it will not be limited to the east, but given enough time those of us in "fly-over" country may be blessed with the presence of the Bishop.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2015, 05:39:35 PM »

This was only one stop on the Bishop's confirmation route.
He's in Canada presently, but will also be in Colorado, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas in the upcoming days.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2015, 08:43:43 PM »

Quote from: Kyrie Eleison Number CDXII (412)

Meanwhile the structure of his Church, whereby all authority derives from the Pope downwards, has not changed. Therefore since Pope Francis is condemning Tradition whenever he gets a chance, Tradition can only b e struggling to survive. As for Archbishop Lefebvre’s founding and on-going leadership of the Society of St Pius X, the local diocesan bishop’s official approval of its Statutes was of immense importance. That made of the SSPX the emergency lighting of the mainstream Church, and the “Resistance” movement can only be an attempt to repair that emergency lighting of the mainstream Church. The attempt is hindered by both mainstream and emergency electricians? So be it. But somebody has to keep at least a few lights on in the Church. However, against such hindrance from fellow electricians, let nobody expect from the “Resistance” wonders or marvels. Patience. God has everything under control.

Kyrie eleison.

N.B. I should be Confirming this summer: (in France) near Pau June 7, near Vichy June 14; (in Canada) Calgary June 29; and (in the USA) Denver July 1, Nashville July 2, Jacksonville July 5.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:48:23 PM »

I've learned in my short life that some people will never be happy.

If you keep it on the down-low, you're "secretive".
If you advertise it widely, you're "sheep stealing and trying to take away our support" because "every dollar donated at that event, and every dollar spent on airfare, hotels, etc. by parishioners from other states could have been saved to be donated later to Fr. Pfeiffer's local chapels in their home states!"

It's classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

I'd like to point out something else:

I remember saying these same lines of defense recently. Oh, I know when it was! Bishop Faure's consecration. This is *almost exactly* the same situation. 150 people, but it "wasn't advertised much beforehand" and the ceremony was "secret" or at least "not public enough" according to the neo-SSPX. Fr. Pfeiffer supported that gathering though by going himself. He was OK with the whole thing, because he was invited.

Now we have another gathering of 150 people and the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS are being used against it, this time by fans of Fr. Pfeiffer.

Give me a break?