Who is Fr. Gerardo Zendejas, the new Bishop Elect?

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Mar 15, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    On many international websites trying to figure out who Fr. Zendejas is, they posted a youtube video of him singing in Spanish Viva Cristo Rey. Ironic, they do not need to look far because that very video passed around is the very video of BW’s scandalous Q&A novus ordo proclamation in 2015 destroying his credibility for Catholic Tradition and his follows -starting officially- the false resistance.

    On Fr. Zendejas’s behalf, who is visible at the head table first hand to this scandal, began his new position under Bishop Williamson’s wing, essentially, to defend all things BW. Not by public or private defense of the truth, but by silence!

    Yes by silence. Fr. Zendejas is the only BW priest known in the false resistance who had not publicly made a statement against BW’s errors; not a peep. Whereas the other priests did say in so many words it is not right but we still need to follow him. (sic) Did it pave the way in favor for Fr. Zendejas to BW and the purple miter? God knows. However, it is known all of BW’s choices had to be one vetted with absolute support or conversion to his paradigm unconditionally to serve his beliefs.

    This isn’t new, as Bishop Aquinas made public statements defending BW’s NOM errors and NO miracles BEFORE he was consecrated, as with post-Bishop Faure's defense, and more, see their quotes here.

    There are other recordings to know who Fr. Zendejas is from an Oct. 2014 hostile takeover in Connecticut (usa) he tried to foster refusing to identify why he left the sspx or if he was kicked out; any clear answer to his position regarding the neo-sspx; and what his doctrinal position is relating to going forward. The only thing he answered was, basically, “you take care of me and I will take care of you”; "I will provide you the sacraments every Sunday and a school and a priest around your children, you provide for me.” (sic) Here is the transcript of that Q&A.

    While he obfuscated the questions regarding his taking over Fr. Pfeiffer’s missions, here is Fr. Pfeiffer addressing what in fact was a true hostile takeover, here. Here too is the report from the driver driving Fr. Pfeiffer that day concurring the same, here.

    Adding to the curiosity and secrecy of Fr. Zendejas, he started to promote a newsletter called “The Blue Paper” thereafter wherein he made some more than unsettling statements (below) needing clarification. Someone wrote to him to clarify; to date, he did not respond. Here is the “Open Letter to Fr. Gerardo Zendejas”.

    Fr. Zendejas believes, The Blue Paper, #300:
    “The apparent conflict between ‘obedience’ and ‘Truth’ rests on AMBIGUITY” [??? Not true. Truth and obedience are not alternatives, they go together. ]; There might be salvation outside the conciliar church; The novelty and false teaching of Vatican II came AFTER. See here, http://www.therecusant.com/fake-resistance-statements

    Also, here is a more in-depth understanding of “Who is Fr. Gerardo Zendejas? “ See TheRecusant, Issue 31 – November/December 2015 (page 38) http://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/?page_id=46

    There is no question Fr. Zendejas supports the three false ‘resistance’ bishops out of utility; and is silent on their errors! In addition, he had recently joined the USML group in France hosting open sedevacantists along with the other three “resistance” bishops. Now [Bishop] Zendejas will make another bishop openly merging with that new “Sedevacantist Line”.

    As Lines come and go, Fr. Zendejas will be the third bishop consecrated within the “Williamson Line” of bishops.

    "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." - Pope St. Felix III​
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
    Vincent, Deus Vult and jbeam like this.
  2. jbeam

    jbeam Active Member

    [There are other recordings to know who Fr. Zendejas is from an Oct. 2014 hostile takeover in Connecticut (usa) he tried to foster refusing to identify why he left the sspx or if he was kicked out; any clear answer to his position regarding the neo-sspx; and what his doctrinal position is relating to going forward. The only thing he answered was, basically, “you take care of me and I will take care of you”; "I will provide you the sacraments every Sunday and a school and a priest around your children, you provide for me.” (sic) Here is the transcript of that Q&A.

    While he obfuscated the questions regarding his taking over Fr. Pfeiffer’s missions, here is Fr. Pfeiffer addressing what in fact was a true hostile takeover, here. Here too is the report from the driver driving Fr. Pfeiffer that day concurring the same, here.

    Adding to the curiosity and secrecy of Fr. Zendejas, he started to promote a newsletter called “The Blue Paper” thereafter wherein he made some more than unsettling statements (below) needing clarification. Someone wrote to him to clarify; to date, he did not respond. Here is the “Open Letter to Fr. Gerardo Zendejas”.]

    Thanks for this Machabees, perhaps his newsletter should be called "The Grey Paper" as there is nothing true blue in them :rolleyes:
     
    Vincent, Deus Vult and immaculata like this.
  3. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

    Analysis of 'Blue Paper' Blog



    Analysis of 'Blue Paper' Blog begins @ 33 min.
     
    Rose, Vincent and immaculata like this.
  4. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2016-04-21-fr-zendejas-ltr.html

    No answer to date (as per the latest Recusant):


    Open Letter to Fr. Gerardo Zendejas
    From: The Catholics at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com

    April 21, 2016
    St. Anselm of Canterbury, Doctor of the Catholic Church

    Dear Fr. Zendejas,

    We are writing a letter whose contents we have long been turning over in our minds.

    There is a great problem among the faithful because of the ambiguity and liberalism in your stance on the problems in the SSPX and regarding the principal errors of our time.

    Perhaps you think you are being clear and uncompromisingly traditional. You are not.

    We are writing to share with you a few representative examples (among countless others) of the ambiguity and liberalism with which you are roiling the faithful and the Resistance movement. We are writing in a constructive effort to help you see objectively what you are saying, with the constructive hope that you will publicly correct your liberal statements and will speak and write differently in the future.

    For example, you say:

    In the days of the Council, the teaching of novelties about humanism (man-centered Church) were [sic] opposed and then silenced by more or less honest means and men, but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period, so that the new system DEMANDS obedience to such “personal” orientations against the whole previous Magisterium of the Church.

    Blue Paper #300 (bold emphasis added).

    Your statement is false for at least four reasons:

    • These novelties (about humanism and countless other things) were not silenced, as you say they were! The plain truth is that the council not only continued to teach error all the way to its end but that the council especially taught error at its end, since the conciliar documents were mostly approved and issued then.
    • Also, it is false that the “adherents” to liberalism were only installed “since” the council. Very many were in positions of power during the council.
    • Further, it is false to say their orientations are merely “personal” instead of also being programmatic and enshrined in the council’s official documents.
    • You confuse real obedience with apparent (false) obedience.
    To take a second example, you say:

    If there could be salvation outside Modern-Conciliar Church, then, is there salvation “outside SSPX” [sic] or other traditionalist groups?
    Blue Paper #300 (bold emphasis added).

    Don’t you see how wrong that first clause is? It is structured as a supposition contrary to fact! You are saying that there is no salvation outside the conciliar church!

    In fact, the truth is not only that there “could be” salvation outside the conciliar church but that it is our duty to stay outside the conciliar church. As Archbishop Lefebvre declared:

    It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.
    Spiritual Journey, chapter 3.

    Regarding the rest of your sentence, viz.:

    then, is there salvation “outside SSPX” [sic] or other traditionalist groups?
    We have no clue what you mean. Are you asking whether persons in the Resistance who are not part of a group, can save their souls? This meaning is suggested by your own comments that: When you jump out of the [SSPX] boat, you swim by yourself. You did it. What are you doing? You’re surviving! Hear your words during your Oct. 26, 2014 YouTube conference.

    If that is what you mean (in the Blue Paper #300 quote above), it is false and misleads the faithful by indicating that their salvation is more certain in the SSPX than “swimming” in the Resistance.

    Or your unclear statement might be asking whether people in the conciliar church—i.e., who are not in a traditionalist group—can save their souls. It is hard to say what you mean.

    You make scandalous statements where you suggest that the problem with Vatican II is merely one of ambiguity. For example, you say:

    Hence, the apparent conflict between “obedience” and Truth rests on AMBIGUITY. For instance, at the time of Vatican II there were those ambiguous terms, which could be understood in one way by Catholics and in another (contradictory) way by Modernists...
    Blue Paper #300 (the emphasis and parentheses are yours).

    You are saying that Vatican II’s conflict with the truth is only an apparent conflict because of ambiguity. You talk here just like Cardinals Burke and Mueller who are conciliar revolutionaries! They lament the misunderstandings and lack of unity because of differences in understanding the council! Although there is much ambiguity in the documents of Vatican II, why don’t you mention the very many plain errors that so pervade these documents? One of many examples of plain conciliar errors is the error of religious liberty.

    To take a fourth example, you say:

    As Catholics we are always compelled by necessity to have to choose between Truth and “obedience.”
    Here you use a classic tactic of the enemies of Catholic Tradition, viz., to suggest there can ever be a contradiction between Truth and obedience.

    Someone could wrongly suppose that your quotation marks around the word “obedience” show you mean false obedience. But that supposition is inconsistent with your usage in the same blue paper where you say that the conciliar hierarchy demands obedience (without quote marks) to Vatican II, and also where you say that:

    the apparent conflict between “obedience” and Truth rests on AMBIGUITY.
    Blue Paper #300 (emphasis in original).

    If your quotation marks (around the word obedience immediately above) really indicated false obedience, then in this statement you would be wrongly saying that there is no real conflict between false obedience and the truth. In fact, truth and real obedience are always on the same side—against error and false obedience on the other side.

    Because truth and real obedience are on the same side, as misleading as your statement is, you make it worse by saying that Catholics always must choose between truth and obedience! You are saying there is no occasion—at any time or in any situation—when truth and obedience go together!

    To take a fifth example, you say:

    [Archbishop Lefebvre was] desiring—in spite of many disappointments—that union with the Vicar of Christ can be re-established [sic] as soon as possible without having to compromise on any point of doctrine. No matter what, this is what he stood for!
    Blue Paper #300.

    Your statement is false for at least two reasons:

    1. Archbishop Lefebvre did not seek any “union” as soon as possible; and
    2. Archbishop Lefebvre knew he lacked no true union with the Catholic Church.
    1. Archbishop Lefebvre did not seek any “union” as soon as possible.
    The only thing the Archbishop sought was that the hierarchy regained the Faith as soon as possible. His statement from Spiritual Journey (quoted above) proves this. Also, Archbishop Lefebvre was waiting for the conciliar churchmen to acknowledge Christ as King of all, by which those churchmen would join the True Church:

    When we are asked when we will get an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome re-crowns Our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who uncrown Our Lord. The day they will acknowledge again that Our Lord is king of peoples and nations, this will not mean that they join us, but that they join the Catholic Church, in which we have always been.
    December 1988 Flavigny conference, Fideliter No. 68, March-April 1989.

    2. Archbishop Lefebvre correctly held that there was no true problem nor lack of real union with the pope and the Catholic Church, but only disunion with the conciliar church.
    As the Archbishop said:

    In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the Faith, the primary reason for the Church. There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith.
    Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, by Michael Davies, vol. 1, p.151, quoting the 9-3-75 Letter to friends and benefactors #9.1

    So, as Archbishop Lefebvre correctly reasoned, he and his Society were not deprived of their true union with the pope because law and jurisdiction cannot be used to harm the Faith and the Society which was (supposedly) “suppressed” entirely because it stood almost alone defending the Faith.

    Reverend Dr. Boyd A. Cathey, a canon lawyer, made this same point when he analyzed the SSPX’s canonical case and publicly defended Archbishop Lefebvre at the time. Father Cathey concluded his analysis as follows:

    [T]he multiple irregularities and the obvious failure to render justice to Archbishop Lefebvre can only lead to one conclusion: the Society of St. Pius X continues to enjoy canonical existence; the measures taken against it and its founder lack validity.
    Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, vol. 1, p.450 (emphasis added).

    Real union with the pope was always present—truly and essentially—because a modernist pope cannot destroy any faithful Catholic’s essential unity with the Church and Her vicar. Archbishop Lefebvre lacked unity with the conciliar church and never wanted that unity.2 Therefore, there was no unity that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to re-establish.

    Lastly, regarding your errors in this fifth example, you say that Archbishop Lefebvre desired union without compromise. But as Archbishop Lefebvre correctly declares (above), there can never be any union with the conciliar church without compromise. This is another reason that what you claim in the quote about Archbishop Lefebvre is utterly false.

    Father, you scandalize the faithful also by what you objectively say about the SSPX. For example, you only refer to the problems with the April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration as being omission, although that document contains glaring affirmative errors as well. You say:

    [W]e must be aware, and accordingly act to [sic], that by omission a leadership can also be astray [sic] from the Apostolic mark in the domain of doctrine, as it was presented [sic] by Bishop Fellay’s declaration on April 15, 2012. In fact, after his declaration Catholic Tradition has crumbling down [sic] instead of building it [sic] up in today’s tragedy [sic] in the Church, by going astray three more episcopal graces [sic] ....
    Blue Paper #305 (emphasis added).

    This false suggestion (that the problem with Bishop Fellay’s declaration is mere omission) fits your very weak criticism of that doctrinal declaration as not of Archbishop’s standards. Here are your words:

    Bishop Fellay, representing the whole SSPX de jure and de facto, handed formally out [sic] to the authorities in the Conciliar Church a doctrinal Declaration, as a step forward for reconciliation, which [sic] their essential elements are not of Archbishop’s standards [sic].
    Blue Paper #303 (emphasis yours).

    The 4-15-12 doctrinal declaration was not merely lower than the Archbishop’s standards but was truly worthy of condemnation! Do you see the difference? Here is an example to illustrate this difference:

    Perhaps in your modesty you think that no sermon you have ever given was up to Archbishop Lefebvre’s standards, because his sermons were so uniquely exceptional. But that does not mean that every sermon you have ever given is worthy of condemnation, does it?
    So your very weak statement about Bishop Fellay’s doctrinal declaration merely says that Archbishop Lefebvre could have done a better job on that declaration than Bishop Fellay did. Do you see the weakness and grave omission in your statement?

    Father, there are countless other things you say in your blue papers and elsewhere, that are frankly incoherent, plainly wrong and leave the reader shaking his head. You leave the reader with the distinct impression that you do not mean what you actually say (since he assumes you mean to teach the Catholic Faith). We take only one more example: you say God instituted two societies: the family and civil society. Here are your words:

    As Traditional Catholics, it is important to re-establish parental authority in the two societies that Divine Providence has instituted for us—the family and civil society.
    Blue Paper #304.

    You know Christ instituted the Catholic Church. Whatever you mean in the quote (above), it “didn’t come out right” objectively. In other words, what you said is false, viz., that God instituted two societies—when God also instituted the Church.

    This is like if you were to say that Divine Providence granted that there would be one bishop faithful to Catholic Tradition: Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer. Such a statement is false and is a calumny to Archbishop Lefebvre, because he is a second bishop faithful to Catholic Tradition.

    Fr. Zendejas, the Catholic Church needs uncompromising priests to guide and sanctify the faithful. In the past you have done much good and you could again do good. We pray that you return from liberalism and incoherence (such as quoted above) and that you assist in this work for Christ the King!

    In Him Who is Truth and hates liberalism,

    You can reach us at: Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com

    HomePriestsResistance
    1. St. Thomas says the same thing in the context of what is true about all law, including all Church law. Summa, Ia IIae, Q. 90.
    2. Archbishop Lefebvre declared:

      To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church—what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.
      Fideliter #70, July-August 1989.

      Back before the SSPX’s liberalism, all of its superiors wrote to Rome on July 6, 1988, asking to be formally excommunicated from the conciliar church:

      We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly....To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church ....
     
    immaculata and Rose like this.
  5. Scarlet Pimpernel

    Scarlet Pimpernel Active Member

    It's well known how Fr. Zendejas likes to work in the dark never allowing his sermons made public on the Internet. That his Mass times and location where his hasn't purchased property for the most part is kept secret. His blue papers are no longer posted on the Blue Papers website for fear of revealing doctrinal errors that have been pointed out as well as how much he and Bishop Williamson are working together to deceive the faithful.
    I'd like to suggest one more question for the Hostile Takeovers Questionaire:
    #8 Does he tell the faithful he will not permit his sermons to be recorded?

    Fr. Pfeiffer brings to light the fact that sermons have been recorded going back hundreds and thousands of years.
    quote is from
    http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?thr...playing-mind-games-in-his-ecs.5114/#post-9461
     
  6. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Just realized today (May 11) is the day Fr. Zendejas will be consecrated a bishop drawing himself deeper in commitment to the independent "church" of Bishop Williamson and his errors.

    It's so sad to see the work of the [saintly] Archbishop Lefebvre who exhausted himself in a missionary spirit to teach and train priests, bishops, and people to fight the bigger battle of sin, its yearn for independence, and progressive modernism in all trying to distort and dethrone Christ; and these same priests, bishops, and people reverse that order in society to placate a democracy of thought and independence to "nourish" whatever you feel is right for you.

    Even the local diocesan bishop of Virginia recognized the independent nature of Bishop Williamson penning a warning to his novus ordo crew (independent too), to stay away from the competing pendulum.

    If it was that important to the public and "Catholic Church" in whole to consecrate another bishop for their independent cause, Bishop Williamson's official website didn't even bother to put it on their calendar of events; nada; nothing.

    I guess official is relative to an independent mind; isn't it.
     
  7. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member


    Here's more "work in the dark."

    Someone at Cathinfo just posted the following about the Consecration of Bishop Zendejas.

    cath4ever said:

    "Just FYI: I had planned to take extensive video of the consecration, but there were signs there saying no video or audio recording allowed. While I could have covertly still videotaped parts of it, when that type of request is made I always respect it, and so did not take any video or audio. I took a good number of photos though."
     
  8. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Quote:
    Here's more "work in the dark."

    Someone at Cathinfo just posted the following about the Consecration of Bishop Zendejas.

    cath4ever said:

    "Just FYI: I had planned to take extensive video of the consecration, but there were signs there saying no video or audio recording allowed. While I could have covertly still videotaped parts of it, when that type of request is made I always respect it, and so did not take any video or audio. I took a good number of photos though."​

    Astounding! What do they have to hide? Is this a Catholic ceremony or Masonic?

    Yet someone did break the independent bishops rule and took some anyway on a cell phone posted on CI.

    But, and that is a big BUT, the world had to realize the consecration the next day by some OFFICIAL photographs given by them.

    Below are some photos from the Reconquista site. And on the NonPossumus site they attribute the alike photos to one of their "official" lackey priests who took them: "Thanks to RP Juan Carlos Ortiz for the photos". No photoshop here to give the accurate account without censoring, emphasizing, without CENSORING, right?

    These people are more than silly.

    And the blackout continues...


    ----------------------------------------------------------


    http://translate.googleusercontent....r.html&usg=ALkJrhhrBXKkzeFq3EXrfW3K8WJO5VhZRQ


    Friday 12 May 2017

    The first photos of the coronation of Archbishop Zendejas.

    Tradition is reinforced again with a fourth bishop. Here are the first photos of this important event that took place yesterday in the United States.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Can anyone point out the priests who were present?

    It is my understanding that some sedevacantist priests were present and ASSISTING in the mass for this consecration to happen.

    Trad-ecumenism at its [best]!
     
  10. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member


    Fr. Pierre Roy (sedevacantist/unacum petro) is in the photo with the communion rail in front and red curtain in the back. He is in front of Fr. Ballini and you can see his head between the heads of Bishop Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Zendejas. He is in a black cassock and white surplice
     
  11. sarto

    sarto Member

    In the last picture, second from the right, appears to be Fr. Denis McMahon - an associate of Fr. Ringrose, who abandoned +Lefebvre a few hours after pledging his loyalty to him (apparently with his fingers crossed) at his ordination. Very nice.
     
  12. Scarlet Pimpernel

    Scarlet Pimpernel Active Member

    Here's a perfect example of a useful idiot from cathinfo - one who respects the wishes of covert freemasonsry and one who does not realize he helps them.
    For this was a huge event in the U.S. for tradition, but it was not openly shown.
    No one's surprised since that has been Fr. Zendejas' distinguishing characteristic since his entrance with the fake, subverting resistance. His first move was to work in secret behind the back of Fr. Pfeiffer with a few useful idiots who helped him to make a hostile takeover - a real coup d'état. How becoming of a priest to make a move on a brother priest that way. And how foolish for those who helped him to do it. Though the laymen who cooperated with him most likely are not freemasons, their loyalty to a man above God's laws and what is right, blinds them to the fact.

    So many of us have attended ordinations in Econe and Winona and never, ever were such signs posted. I myself have videos taken in the past at SSPX ordinations . A consecration is all the more to be proud of and show the world! A public ceremony.
    I'm sure the person who wrote the comment on the subversive cathinfo site, is not a freemason but simply one who is ignorant of how communism/freemasonry works. That's what makes them so very useful.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
    Martius likes this.
  13. immaculata

    immaculata Well-Known Member

    These 'useful idiots' still dont get it. nor do they want to......they are too much of personality cult follower
     
  14. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    Pics on cathinfo show a woman with a knee length ?jean skirt...says a lot. No respect for the solemnity of an episcopal consecration and certainly no respect for the bishops and priests...fruits of that apostolate I guess.

    Between that and the no video-taking signs, I've seen and heard enough.
     
  15. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    No Video and no Audio allowed!

    Well the vanity is finally out of the bag. Matthinfo stated that ONLY their official version is allowed, and for a DVD sale. You need to pay for it to see it.

    Here's another kicker. A different posted added that Fr. Ringrose said to the entire congregation just prior to the consecration Mass:

    "..."this is a sacred religious ceremony and not to be treated irreverently or like some media spectacle. [They] didn't want folks who were supposed to be prayerfully assisting to instead be standing up or entering the aisles to take videos and photos, thereby distracting themselves and others." Unfortunately, several people disobeyed this, and some even entered the processional aisle during the consecration to take videos. Sad."​

    So their own media is not "irreverent" and distracting to the participants? I guess every joyful wedding, baptism, and prior ordinations, hey, even the 1988 consecrations of four bishops was not "reverent" either. Censoring seems to have its own alibis. But hey, they are going to make money from it. Opps...

    On top of it, the same person said they had terrible audio problems. Looks like they will have to do the whole thing all over again...or maybe they really do not want the audio out to hold them responsible for what they say. After all, they are trying to bring in donations.

    So much for transparency.

    Yet, the insignificant catholic world will have to go through the trad-ecumenist website cathinfo to get his filtered version, what Fr. Hewko calls a sewage quite appropriately. It's all about the ratings...and secular advertisement money.

    Not many options to be a catholic in the faux-pas resistance.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
    immaculata and Martius like this.
  16. smiley

    smiley Member

    Matthew's wife posted this picture of him at airport on CI for those going to the event so they would know him.
    Did anyone get to meet to him?

    mathinfo.PNG
     
  17. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Old saying, "Show me who your friends are and I'll show you who you are."
     
  18. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Like state-controlled media :)
    It's a blackout of information except for the party-approved messaging.
     
    Scarlet Pimpernel and immaculata like this.
  19. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Here is a laughable moment of video "reverence" they deem appropriate. The "official" man recording is in front of everyone with his big cam-recorder. I guess the "reverence" is wearing the altar boy cassock... lol.



    .
     
  20. TheRecusant.com

    TheRecusant.com Well-Known Member

    This is nothing new. Fr. Zendejas's sermons are not allowed to be recorded or published. His newsletter is also top secret. Who knows what he's been writing and preaching lately?! So why would his consecration be any different?

    I wouldn't be one bit suprised if the people who'd travelled all that way were treated to a sermon about grace in the new Mass, Mgr. Bergoglio's totally authentic miracle in Buenos Aires, or the virtues of being able to work with people from other groups (sedes, Feeneyites...) and the evil of those who are too rigid (hint hint). All mixed in with a bit of Putin/Syria/the price of gold... and top it off with some throwaway remarks about how "Fellay is a rat!" - just to keep the hardliners in the congregation happy.