The Recusant is back, but...

[MaryM]

http://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Recusant-49.pdf

"Fr. David Hewko’s decision no longer to reside at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Kentucky is less a doctrinal rift than a decision not to live under the same roof. Fr. Hewko himself has described it in terms of “Paul and Barnabas”. What’s more, the entire situation only came about due to the constant pressure caused by the immoral, mafia-like behaviour of Bishop Williamson and his unofficial suffragan bishops, denying confirmations, minor orders and even holy oils to a priest convicted of no canonical crime and guilty of nothing worse than causing offence and incur-ring the unfavourable opinion of certain corners of the internet." -- Greg Taylor

This seems not to agree with statements of Fr. Hewko:

1. "Dear Faithful, we must pray! We all suffer in this diabolical disorientation that Our Lady of Fatima warned about affecting the entire Church. Regarding Bp. Ambrose Moran, I notified Fr. Pfeiffer that if OLMC has not disassociated publicly from him within a week, I will be obliged to leave. For many reasons this is a dead end. Please offer your Rosaries to Our Blessed Mother for Her intercession! [Received from Fr. David Hewko, January 13, 2019]"

2. FEBRUARY 2019
"In the Acts of the Apostles (15:39), we find a dissension arose between the Apostles of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Sts. Paul and Barnabas, who had parted ways and continued spreading the Faith in different regions. Please permit me to draw a similar comparison, given this new situation.

"In 2015 A.D. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in Boston, Kentucky (OLMC) had publicly disassociated from Ambrose Moran, and it should have rested there. But, contrary to the recent Statement of the “second disassociation” (January 23, 2019), rather than a “slow movement forward in this case,” he was hastily reintroduced by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer with the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson, in July 2018. Fr. Poisson had been previously ordained in 1996, by a bishop consecrated in the New Rite, making this first ordination doubtful. So now, poor Fr. Poisson has two doubtful ordinations, yet he continues to be sent out for Masses representing OLMC.

"The moral theology of the Church insists that we are not allowed to be “probabiliorists” with the sacraments, but always take the safest side ensuring validity and legitimacy, that is, the “tutiorist” position. Since the recent Statement of Disassociation also admits not having sufficient proof of the “necessary certificates and real clear authentication” of Ambrose Moran, this merely confirms the doubts of both: this “bishop” and the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson. Nothing demeaning to the good character of Fr. Poisson, but the fact is, he still must be conditionally ordained by a traditional Catholic bishop, without any doubts!

"Furthermore, should the papers proving the validity of Ambrose Moran ever happen to appear, in spite of this, his active participation with the schismatic Orthodox in liturgical ceremonies, the confusion and doubts surrounding his records, photos, documents, (which in normal times would be examined and cleared by the proper authorities of the Church) all dictate, by supernatural prudence, to avoid association with him. Besides, a baptized Catholic seeking holy orders from schismatics incurs suspension, according to Canon Law, and forfeits the right of administering the sacraments, if it happened to be done “in good faith” (c. 2372). Given our present situation, we priests are in no position to rehabilitate such a person. This recent reintroduction and aggressive promotion of Moran has been the cause of much confusion, bad fruits, and scandal to the Faith of clergy and the faithful.

"The second reason for my departure from OLMC is the amount of power given to a layman helping with material concerns, admittedly, and this is much appreciated. But, let it suffice to say, that his self-imposed title of “Chief in Charge” is, by no means, an empty one! Were his influence restrained and his videos (publicly representing OLMC) censored, his leverage would do far less damage to many, many souls. It’s because souls are driven away and harmed that obliges me to counteract this injustice.

"Lastly, all the negative impact the above reasons have had on the seminarians’ formation and my fruitless efforts to correct these negative effects, show me God’s Will is elsewhere. If any good-willing souls were harmed through all this, I beg pardon.

"My whole priesthood, apostolate and future are consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, all is in Her hands! With Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, I stand with the Catholic Resistance against the dissolving of the Faith infiltrating the entire Church and the Conciliar-SSPX by Modernism (cf. Pascendi, St. Pius X).

"The preaching of the integral Catholic Faith, the Mass of All Time, and the salvation of souls must continue. Even after a good pope fulfills Our Lady of Fatima’s demands for the Consecration of Russia, and Rome finally returns to Tradition along with the Virgin Mary’s prophesied Victory, this work must still continue! It is the ardent desire of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to save souls!"

In his piece, Mr. Taylor puffs up both Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer. Is a reconciliation forthcoming?

Mr. Taylor, and all Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer supporters, forget that both the priests support (directly or tacitly) the following (All data is online. I only summarize.):

- "Fr " Tetherow ("Good friend" of OLMC, out of the mouth of fr. Pfeiffer. Ordained NO, confessed and convicted child pornographer, laicised NO, conditionally ordained by b. Macek (Thuc line), who is currently his bishop. According to Tetherow, he is a past "Mr. Oregon" winner.)

- Fr. Roberts (Was in KY for a time. There Is much information about him, his issues, and friends online. (Read on an empty stomach.) He is co-founder of the SSJ with Fr. Urrutigoity (see below) and "Fr." Ensey (at large). He still operates with OLMC, as Fr. Pfeiffer stationed him in either Portales, NM, or Arizona to tend his flock out of sight of the rest of the OLMC faithful.)

- "Fr." Cordaro (continues to work with OLMC and say mass there. He was kicked out of his order in 1988. There is an affidavit against him for inappropriate contact with a minor. His diocese calls him "Mr.", which indicates he was laicised.)

- Fr. Urrutigoity (Fr. Pfeiffer said he would bring Fr. Urrutigoity to OLMC "in a heartbeat". There is much information about his homosexual predatory actions online. He was the primary founder of the SSJ (Society of St. John) in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which was notorious for its perversion, under b. Timlin (fraternity of st. Peter).)

"St. John Chrysostom said, that if we wish to know a man's moral habits, we have only to observe the character of the friends with whom he associates; because friendship finds or makes him like his friends." -- St. Alphonsus Liguori

Other things which bother me include (specific or tacit approval by both Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer):

- Fr. Hewko did not understand the problem with Mr. Paul Hernandez (aka "Pablo", married Catholic, civilly divorced) and Mrs. Blaszak (married Catholic, OLMC assisted in divorce) drinking late into the night, spending untold amount of time together, Pablo having his arm around her shoulders as they drove a golf cart around OLMC together, and Mrs. Blaszak's youngest child calling Pablo "daddy".

- Fr. Hewko did not understand the problem with Pablo's married son living with mrs. Blaszak while he worked in the OLMC area. Pablo's son's wife was not living there. Mrs. Blaszak had teen-age daughters at the time, too. Fr. Hewko could not comprehend the scandals associated with these living arrangements on OLMC property (The house Australian faithful purchased for OLMC). That house, by the way, which, to this day, houses Mrs. Blaszak and her children.

- Pablo having free reign of "the Blaszak house", day and night, not even knocking before entering.

- Fr. Pfeiffer "making" Pablo a "lay exorcist".

- A non-cloistered seminary.

- Teens and children, male and female, having full reign of seminary property, 24/7.

- Seminarians taking walks with teenage young ladies and visiting their homes repeatedly, alone.

- Fr. Pfeiffer sending seminarians to the Philippines, alone for two weeks, living alone with a single woman.

- Constantly publicly chiding bishops, only to later ask for their help.

- Creating a spirit of revolution at OLMC.

As for what Mr. Taylor wrote regarding b. Zendejas, I have not found it true that the Faithful who attend mass at b. Zendejas' missions are offensive towards people who have/do attend Fr. Pfeiffer's and/or Fr. Hewko's masses.

Quite the contrary, it was Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, both, who showed up without warning and without notice to b. Zendejas' missions and caused untold trouble. They did the same at Fr. Perez's masses. The last time Fr. Perez hosted OLMC, the priest(s) spoke with the Faithful afterwards and chastised them for attending mass with Fr. Perez et al.

And remember the consecration(s) in which Fr. Pfeiffer attended, when he was asked not to?

It seems to me it is both Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko who cause problems. It is no wonder other priests and bishops are on guard.

We also have Fr. Hewko who says he is not working with Fr. Raphael, yet both visit missions interchangeably.

And I am beginning to wonder if these resistant priests have lost their reason-for-being resistant priests, when most of their faithful attend mass with the SSPX or Fraternity of St. Peter in between the priest's visits.

If Fr. Hewko has been admitting more and more wrong with OLMC, he needs to do so publicly for the sake of the flock and the poor souls left at OLMC who may actually still listen to him. The more time that goes by before he does such an expose', the less effective he will be and the more culpability he will have for people staying with OLMC.

Do not put all trust in one priest, especially a priest without a bishop superior. It is not the nature of Catholicism.


ETA by Admin : Full statement of Fr. Hewko

..

 

[Elenchus]

Fine statement, I guess.

 

[MaryM]

Interestingly, the Admin of the catacombs states:

"It is with these last words in mind that Fr. Pfeiffer's now-bolstering of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, with a focus on their validity, which we know is now always called into doubt, even more than in the 1970's and 1980's at the time of the Archbishop, that gives us grave consternation.

"It lays a foundation, it plants a seed in the minds of the laity, that if the Novus Ordo Sacraments are all valid, then we are free to utilize them. (Doesn't this remind us of a certain bishop who started preaching 'grace in the New Mass' a few years ago?)

"Fr. Pfeiffer does not encourage this as Bp. Williamson does - but his arguments in their favor lead to that as a logical conclusion. That is the danger that many are concerned about. This was not the way of the Archbishop. He clearly saw the dangers of the Novus Ordo, from the Conciliar Church, and always advised souls to stay away from it."

Fr. Pfeiffer encourages the Novus Ordo FAR MORE than does b. Williamson, by allowing "Fr." Poisson to tend Fr. Pfeiffer's flock.

The Recusant 49 - November 2019 | The Catacombs

The Recusant, Issue #49 - November 2019: Issue 49 can also be viewed in its entirety online here:

thecatacombs.org

 

[MaryM]

"Hi Greg, it’s Luke here. Since your recent Recusant Newsletter, I have renewed concern not only for yourself but also for the OLMC seminarians, the laity who currently attend Fr Pfeiffer’s missions, and those also who are likely to be drawn to these missions. I sincerely want to reach out to everyone involved, and so whilst my post is somewhat in response to your recent publication, the main thrust of it is to help all those unsuspecting faithful out there to see Fr Pfeiffer for what he is in an effort to help them save their souls.

"It isn’t how much or how little you wrote in regard to Fr. Pfeiffer that matters but it's what you wrote which is cause for alarm. It misleads the faithful, giving them a false impression of Fr. Pfeiffer. I can only assume that this is why Beth reacted as she did and wrote in saying that she almost gets the impression that you are promoting Fr Pfeiffer. I got the same impression. I have received emails from others who also feel the same way as Beth does.

"Although you acknowledged Fr Pfeiffer had made mistakes, you still promoted him as a great priest who has done so much good when in reality his own self-destructiveness has brought about his own demise and caused endless harm and shame to the True Resistance movement. If the OLMC seminarians and laity who currently attend Fr Pfeiffer’s missions read this latest Recusant Newsletter No. 49, they could easily come to the conclusion they are still in the right camp. Fr Pfeiffer’s change in direction clearly puts him outside the True Resistance and he truly needs our prayers. In the same vein Bishop Williamson had potential to do great work until his real motives became apparent and put him outside the True Resistance.

"What you wrote about Fr. Pfeiffer does affect me also as it has brought back all the memories of the damage and double standards that was done by Fr. Pfeiffer and associates. It is a painful can of worms that has been re-opened and needs to be dealt with. I don’t ever want to go back down that path again, and nor do I wish to see other souls heading that way.

"It’s important to note that Fr Pfeiffer has been spiralling downwards for several years and not just since this most recent Moran debacle. Just ask Fr. Voigt as the injustices done to him happened years ago. Like Fr. Voigt, how many priests have been driven away from us due to Fr Pfeiffer’s ruthlessness? How many priests wouldn’t consider joining us due to Fr Pfeiffer’s cruel and irrational behaviour?

"The truer version of why Bishop Williamson won’t visit OLMC is because he told Fr Pfeiffer that he would come if Fr Pfeiffer got rid of Pablo and stayed at OLMC to be a proper rector. The other version of why Bishop Williamson won’t come to OLMC isn’t the true reason although it seems to suit the situation.
How can these seminarians be formed to be priests under the instructions of Pablo who has a dislike for Catholic Tradition and sets a bad example in many ways.

"It’s just that websites and other sources camouflaged, hid and justified the ongoing corruption of Fr Pfeiffer, Pablo and OLMC. In the past 469 fitter did promote the true message but like any offshoot group evil was (and still is) being used under the guise of good to attract many poor unsuspecting souls. Again this can be likened to Bishop Williamson smoke and mirrors.

"It is thanks to Our Lady’s and St Joseph’s intercession that the more recent Moran catastrophe has made it clear for all to see Fr. Pfeiffer (and OLMC) for what he really is as he continues on his downwards spiral, going from bad to worse. Prior to these latest Moran incidents different missions, communities and individuals were experiencing the unfair wrath of Fr. Pfeiffer as he was pushing hard with his agenda and ideas of grandeur to become the emperor of the Resistance world. However, it is very worrisome and very sad indeed to see that he is still being promoted as being the backbone of the resistance movement (as was stated in the latest Recusant Newsletter No. 49).

"Previously the rest of us would have believed this type of information that was being fed to us, but not anymore. We now know better. The Recusant website and newsletter is supposed to be one of the voices of the True Resistance. The True Resistance has been and is still recovering from the massive caustic experience at the hands of Fr. Pfeiffer, something which cannot be dismissed lightly.

"If the Recusant is driven to condemn Bishop Williamson’s and the fake resistance errors, and also the SSPX & Novus Ordo errors (and all rightly so), then the equivalent action must also be taken with Fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC as they have ALL departed from the message of Archbishop Lefebvre.

"The fact that, Fr. Poisson looks after Fr. Pfeiffer's missions clearly shows us that Fr. Pfeiffer encourages the Novus Ordo mentality into his missions. Even the Fake Resistance haven't taken that step yet.

"Things need to be balanced and reflect the truth. It worries me because this latest edition of The Recusant is a continuance of the same type of thing that has previously happened in past Recusant Newsletters, where a selective blind eye has been turned towards Fr Pfeiffer and the scandalous events which were simultaneously going on at OLMC.

"Take for example:
1.The character of Pablo and how the seminary was being run. When I joined the Resistance in 2014, I was very ignorant and one of my main sources of information was the Recusant Newsletter. I had never met Pablo and am never likely to as I live on another continent so when I read in The Recusant that Pablo was a good man albeit a rough diamond (or similar) and he was not a troublemaker and nothing like he was being depicted by his enemies. At the time this made sense to me... (sorry I can’t remember the exact words).
Now when I look back through the past Recusant Newsletters with more of an understanding of the true situation at OLMC it is clear that much of what was written about this subject was false propaganda which was portraying Fr Pfeiffer and Pablo as being good upstanding people who were running a top seminary, and that OLMC was being attacked by the devil and readers were not to believe any of those crazy stories. But the reality is very different and there have been scandals after scandals associated with Fr Pfeiffer, Pablo & OLMC over many years that are backed up with evidence (and not gossip) Eg Frs. Tetherow, Roberts & Cordaro, Mr. Paul Hernandez/Pablo & Mrs. Blaszak and more.

"2. The Recusant was contemptuous on Father Abraham to the point of detraction but when it came to Father Roberts, a priest working at OLMC, with a history of past and recent problems there was not one mention made of his problems even though he was working at the seminary. There were priests, contacts and recorded information available at the time for anyone to investigate Father Roberts. Were any of these people contacted prior to The Recusant coming to the conclusion that Fr Roberts was innocent? Good publications do not run on double standards, and the faithful need to hear truth in order to save their souls.

"It is no secret that Mr John Pfeiffer of the Catholic Candle (no relation to Fr Pfeiffer) did his research on Father Roberts. During this saga I chose to believe Fr. Pfeiffer over Mr John Pfeiffer. I made a serious error of judgement as Mr John Pfeiffer was correct all along. The true Resistance movement should be grateful to John for this work.

"In Australia, all of our communities have been through a massive and destructive experience as Fr Pfeiffer went about to crush those who were in the way of him taking over the Australian Resistance.

"In 2015 we formed what is named today the Australian True Resistance. This came about when we separated ourselves from the Fake Resistance. When we separated from the Fake Resistance, we had no prospects of any priest to come and give us the sacraments. So OLSC, Melbourne, approached Father Pfeiffer because it seemed at the time that we were on the same page. Father Pfeiffer responded to this request.

"It wasn't long before he had caused a large split throughout our Australian communities. Before the divisions came, we had raised AU$125,000 because Father Pfeiffer told us that he needed to purchase a particular house for OLMC due to an increase in the number of seminarians. So, the Australian communities dug deep to raise as much money as possible. Now, we realise this house was never intended for seminarians as Mrs. Blaszak and her children have lived in this house before and after the house was purchased. All those who donated funds to Father Pfeiffer were conned by him. To top this off this house is a place of scandal. In Australia, albeit it shakily, we are getting on our feet again, some better than others, and some poor souls have even returned to the SSPX as a result of the tumult.

"In the Recusant Newsletters Greg, you have claimed to have so much in common with Fr. Pfeiffer, whereas in reality much of the relevant content seems to have been the voice of Father Pfeiffer. The Recusant Newsletters have created an illusion that OLMC was a truly holy place when in reality the quicker OLMC is closed down the better for the sake of the seminarians who will need rehabilitation to recover from the years of abuse and brainwashing by Father Pfeiffer and Pablo. They will need deprograming as OLMC has gradually become a sect.

"Father Pfeiffer has caused more harm and destruction to the resistance than any other priest, yet you are saying there's been no priest in the resistance like him. Why are you saying these things? Are you looking at him through rose tinted glasses?

"Greg, I hope and pray you will get over Father Pfeifer. You are correct, there's been no priest in the resistance like him, but my reasons for saying this are obviously different from yours. I am sure Father Voigt, who spent time at the seminary, would agree. This good priest gave much of himself and his personal finances to help support OLMC, and was then given a cruel rejection, leaving him empty handed. Check out his account of how long the scandals have been going on at OLMC if you want the true story.

"We need to raise the bar with honesty and integrity if we are to inform and protect the faithful who have survived the Fr. Pfeiffer onslaught and also to attract others to the true faith.

"May the Mother of God and St Joseph protect us in these dark days as we battle on.

"JMJ,
Luke"

The Recusant 49 - November 2019 | The Catacombs

The Recusant, Issue #49 - November 2019: Issue 49 can also be viewed in its entirety online here:

thecatacombs.org

 

[MaryM]

Absolutely excellent!

A few notables, given in the spirit of clarity and charity:

1. "...although it seems to suit the situation." This is Fr. Pfeiffer's main motto: the end justifies the means.

2. "It’s just that websites and other sources camouflaged, hid and justified the ongoing corruption of Fr Pfeiffer, Pablo and OLMC.." The Catacombs, Cathinfo, and other websites, continue to refuse to allow comments and data which are directly opposed to whichever priest they have on a pedestal at the time. How many people have been "banned" thusly? In these dark days, I believe priests should be treated as an alter Christus, with our eyes wide open to Truth.

3. "...then the equivalent action must also be taken with Fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC as they have ALL departed from the message of Archbishop Lefebvre." This action should be applied to Fr. Hewko as well because, according to Fr. Hewko, Fr. Hewko = Fr. Pfeiffer except in regards to Mr. Hernandez's (Pablo's) excessive power, the association with Moran, and the use of "Fr." Poisson.

4. "...there have been scandals after scandals associated with Fr Pfeiffer, Pablo & OLMC over many years that are backed up with evidence (and not gossip) Eg Frs. Tetherow, Roberts & Cordaro, Mr. Paul Hernandez/Pablo & Mrs. Blaszak and more." In the many years of OLMC, Fr. Hewko has never denounced any of these scandals. To the contrary, he has excused or given tacit approval to them.

5. "The true Resistance movement should be grateful to John [Pfeiffer] for this work [regarding Fr. Roberts]." We should also be grateful for Mr. Pfeiffer's list of priest recommendations (catholic candle), and note that he strongly red-lines Fr. Hewko and Fr. Raphael Arizaga (who now works with Fr. Hewko and Fr. Vargas).

6. "...Fr Pfeiffer went about to crush those who were in the way of him.." This is Fr. Pfeiffer's second motto: If you are not with me, you are against me.

7. "...All those who donated funds to Father Pfeiffer were conned by him." We have all been conned not only by Fr. Pfeiffer, but also by Fr. Hewko, Mr. Hernandez (Pablo), Mrs. Blaszak, Fr. Raja Pancras, Fr. Roberts, and Moran.

8. "...To top this off this house ["the Blaszak house"] is a place of scandal." Scandals which Fr. Hewko turned a blind eye to and which both priests have taught the seminarians to turn a blind eye to.

9. "...the quicker OLMC is closed down the better for the sake of the seminarians who will need rehabilitation to recover from the years of abuse and brainwashing by Father Pfeiffer and Pablo," and by Fr. Hewko.

10. "This good priest...[Fr. Voigt]". I have a different experience with Fr. Voigt, but that is another story...

St. Joseph will continue to enlighten all who seek Truth. God bless you.

 

[tommy]

"Hi Greg, it’s Luke here. Since your recent Recusant Newsletter, I have renewed concern not only for yourself but also for the OLMC seminarians, the laity who currently attend Fr Pfeiffer’s missions, and those also who are likely to be drawn to these missions. I sincerely want to reach out to everyone involved, and so whilst my post is somewhat in response to your recent publication, the main thrust of it is to help all those unsuspecting faithful out there to see Fr Pfeiffer for what he is in an effort to help them save their souls.

"It isn’t how much or how little you wrote in regard to Fr. Pfeiffer that matters but it's what you wrote which is cause for alarm. It misleads the faithful, giving them a false impression of Fr. Pfeiffer. I can only assume that this is why Beth reacted as she did and wrote in saying that she almost gets the impression that you are promoting Fr Pfeiffer. I got the same impression. I have received emails from others who also feel the same way as Beth does.

"Although you acknowledged Fr Pfeiffer had made mistakes, you still promoted him as a great priest who has done so much good when in reality his own self-destructiveness has brought about his own demise and caused endless harm and shame to the True Resistance movement. If the OLMC seminarians and laity who currently attend Fr Pfeiffer’s missions read this latest Recusant Newsletter No. 49, they could easily come to the conclusion they are still in the right camp. Fr Pfeiffer’s change in direction clearly puts him outside the True Resistance and he truly needs our prayers. In the same vein Bishop Williamson had potential to do great work until his real motives became apparent and put him outside the True Resistance.

"What you wrote about Fr. Pfeiffer does affect me also as it has brought back all the memories of the damage and double standards that was done by Fr. Pfeiffer and associates. It is a painful can of worms that has been re-opened and needs to be dealt with. I don’t ever want to go back down that path again, and nor do I wish to see other souls heading that way.

"It’s important to note that Fr Pfeiffer has been spiralling downwards for several years and not just since this most recent Moran debacle. Just ask Fr. Voigt as the injustices done to him happened years ago. Like Fr. Voigt, how many priests have been driven away from us due to Fr Pfeiffer’s ruthlessness? How many priests wouldn’t consider joining us due to Fr Pfeiffer’s cruel and irrational behaviour?

"The truer version of why Bishop Williamson won’t visit OLMC is because he told Fr Pfeiffer that he would come if Fr Pfeiffer got rid of Pablo and stayed at OLMC to be a proper rector. The other version of why Bishop Williamson won’t come to OLMC isn’t the true reason although it seems to suit the situation.
How can these seminarians be formed to be priests under the instructions of Pablo who has a dislike for Catholic Tradition and sets a bad example in many ways.

"It’s just that websites and other sources camouflaged, hid and justified the ongoing corruption of Fr Pfeiffer, Pablo and OLMC. In the past 469 fitter did promote the true message but like any offshoot group evil was (and still is) being used under the guise of good to attract many poor unsuspecting souls. Again this can be likened to Bishop Williamson smoke and mirrors.

"It is thanks to Our Lady’s and St Joseph’s intercession that the more recent Moran catastrophe has made it clear for all to see Fr. Pfeiffer (and OLMC) for what he really is as he continues on his downwards spiral, going from bad to worse. Prior to these latest Moran incidents different missions, communities and individuals were experiencing the unfair wrath of Fr. Pfeiffer as he was pushing hard with his agenda and ideas of grandeur to become the emperor of the Resistance world. However, it is very worrisome and very sad indeed to see that he is still being promoted as being the backbone of the resistance movement (as was stated in the latest Recusant Newsletter No. 49).

"Previously the rest of us would have believed this type of information that was being fed to us, but not anymore. We now know better. The Recusant website and newsletter is supposed to be one of the voices of the True Resistance. The True Resistance has been and is still recovering from the massive caustic experience at the hands of Fr. Pfeiffer, something which cannot be dismissed lightly.

"If the Recusant is driven to condemn Bishop Williamson’s and the fake resistance errors, and also the SSPX & Novus Ordo errors (and all rightly so), then the equivalent action must also be taken with Fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC as they have ALL departed from the message of Archbishop Lefebvre.

"The fact that, Fr. Poisson looks after Fr. Pfeiffer's missions clearly shows us that Fr. Pfeiffer encourages the Novus Ordo mentality into his missions. Even the Fake Resistance haven't taken that step yet.

"Things need to be balanced and reflect the truth. It worries me because this latest edition of The Recusant is a continuance of the same type of thing that has previously happened in past Recusant Newsletters, where a selective blind eye has been turned towards Fr Pfeiffer and the scandalous events which were simultaneously going on at OLMC.

"Take for example:
1.The character of Pablo and how the seminary was being run. When I joined the Resistance in 2014, I was very ignorant and one of my main sources of information was the Recusant Newsletter. I had never met Pablo and am never likely to as I live on another continent so when I read in The Recusant that Pablo was a good man albeit a rough diamond (or similar) and he was not a troublemaker and nothing like he was being depicted by his enemies. At the time this made sense to me... (sorry I can’t remember the exact words).
Now when I look back through the past Recusant Newsletters with more of an understanding of the true situation at OLMC it is clear that much of what was written about this subject was false propaganda which was portraying Fr Pfeiffer and Pablo as being good upstanding people who were running a top seminary, and that OLMC was being attacked by the devil and readers were not to believe any of those crazy stories. But the reality is very different and there have been scandals after scandals associated with Fr Pfeiffer, Pablo & OLMC over many years that are backed up with evidence (and not gossip) Eg Frs. Tetherow, Roberts & Cordaro, Mr. Paul Hernandez/Pablo & Mrs. Blaszak and more.

"2. The Recusant was contemptuous on Father Abraham to the point of detraction but when it came to Father Roberts, a priest working at OLMC, with a history of past and recent problems there was not one mention made of his problems even though he was working at the seminary. There were priests, contacts and recorded information available at the time for anyone to investigate Father Roberts. Were any of these people contacted prior to The Recusant coming to the conclusion that Fr Roberts was innocent? Good publications do not run on double standards, and the faithful need to hear truth in order to save their souls.

"It is no secret that Mr John Pfeiffer of the Catholic Candle (no relation to Fr Pfeiffer) did his research on Father Roberts. During this saga I chose to believe Fr. Pfeiffer over Mr John Pfeiffer. I made a serious error of judgement as Mr John Pfeiffer was correct all along. The true Resistance movement should be grateful to John for this work.

"In Australia, all of our communities have been through a massive and destructive experience as Fr Pfeiffer went about to crush those who were in the way of him taking over the Australian Resistance.

"In 2015 we formed what is named today the Australian True Resistance. This came about when we separated ourselves from the Fake Resistance. When we separated from the Fake Resistance, we had no prospects of any priest to come and give us the sacraments. So OLSC, Melbourne, approached Father Pfeiffer because it seemed at the time that we were on the same page. Father Pfeiffer responded to this request.

"It wasn't long before he had caused a large split throughout our Australian communities. Before the divisions came, we had raised AU$125,000 because Father Pfeiffer told us that he needed to purchase a particular house for OLMC due to an increase in the number of seminarians. So, the Australian communities dug deep to raise as much money as possible. Now, we realise this house was never intended for seminarians as Mrs. Blaszak and her children have lived in this house before and after the house was purchased. All those who donated funds to Father Pfeiffer were conned by him. To top this off this house is a place of scandal. In Australia, albeit it shakily, we are getting on our feet again, some better than others, and some poor souls have even returned to the SSPX as a result of the tumult.

"In the Recusant Newsletters Greg, you have claimed to have so much in common with Fr. Pfeiffer, whereas in reality much of the relevant content seems to have been the voice of Father Pfeiffer. The Recusant Newsletters have created an illusion that OLMC was a truly holy place when in reality the quicker OLMC is closed down the better for the sake of the seminarians who will need rehabilitation to recover from the years of abuse and brainwashing by Father Pfeiffer and Pablo. They will need deprograming as OLMC has gradually become a sect.

"Father Pfeiffer has caused more harm and destruction to the resistance than any other priest, yet you are saying there's been no priest in the resistance like him. Why are you saying these things? Are you looking at him through rose tinted glasses?

"Greg, I hope and pray you will get over Father Pfeifer. You are correct, there's been no priest in the resistance like him, but my reasons for saying this are obviously different from yours. I am sure Father Voigt, who spent time at the seminary, would agree. This good priest gave much of himself and his personal finances to help support OLMC, and was then given a cruel rejection, leaving him empty handed. Check out his account of how long the scandals have been going on at OLMC if you want the true story.

"We need to raise the bar with honesty and integrity if we are to inform and protect the faithful who have survived the Fr. Pfeiffer onslaught and also to attract others to the true faith.

"May the Mother of God and St Joseph protect us in these dark days as we battle on.

"JMJ,
Luke"

The Recusant 49 - November 2019 | The Catacombs

The Recusant, Issue #49 - November 2019: Issue 49 can also be viewed in its entirety online here:

thecatacombs.org

Unfortunately I wasn't able to post a reply to Michael1/Luke's post on The Catacombs website before the thread was locked, so please allow me to do so on your forum.

I have listened to one of Father Hewko's recent sermons and in it he states "if it's not charity in the truth then its not real charity"

I took this quote and applied it to what was written in Michael 1/Mr Luke's post.

It is evident that Michael1/Luke wasn't trying to bring anyone down in his post, but in the spirit of true charity he was clearly pleading for the whole truth to be known to all in an effort to help readers make good informed decisions in order to keep away from danger (in this instance Fr Pfeiffer/OLMC). That's all it boiled down to. Now that's not a case of sour grapes on his part, that really is charity in the truth. Michael1/Luke wasn't encouraging anyone to support Bishop Williamson, Fr Abraham or any priest outside the True resistance for that matter, but he was clearly asking for The Recusant Newsletter to be a balanced publication and report the whole truth.

Granted, the Recusant Newsletter does contain many good articles, and I am grateful to Greg Taylor for that, but if Greg hadn't written what he did about Fr Pfeiffer in the latest Recusant Newsletter No 49, then this debate would not have been started in the first place. He brought it on himself. It's also sad to see Greg has misread what Michael1/Luke has quite clearly stated, and this is reflected in his response on the Catacombs website.

Pray that a lot of good can come out of this.

Thank you Michael1/Luke from Australia, (and also to Beth) for the courageous stances you both took in defending the truth.

 

[Admin]

Having permitted this matter to be brought to our attention it is our responsibility, in justice, to give named parties a right to reply. That can only be done on the forum whence it originated HERE.

In regard to OLMC specifically - it is our hope and prayer that Bishop Williamson and his fellow-Bishops will accept the responsibility of publicly supporting, approving Fr. Pfeiffer by Instructing and finally ordaining his seminarians; approving the young women's vocations to religious life -

OR

• denouncing OLMC outright by publicly declaring it a danger to souls
• personally instructing the young men and women involved, and their parents of the danger to their own and their children's souls
• unceasingly doing everything in his power to remove them.

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. (Matt. 5: 37)​

..

 

[catherine1]

This action should be applied to Fr. Hewko as well because, according to Fr. Hewko, Fr. Hewko = Fr. Pfeiffer except in regards to Mr. Hernandez's (Pablo's) excessive power, the association with Moran, and the use of "Fr." Poisson.

You are absolutely correct. That may be the reason why thecatacombs quickly shut down the thread and got Fr. Hewko to give a supposedly final response on this matter.

Just wait, there will be sequel thread in another month or so, and another supposedly final response from Fr. Hewko.

 

[catherine1]

I have a different experience with Fr. Voigt, but that is another story...

Cathinfo says that Fr. Voigt hid his first conditional ordination from the laity. Fr. Hewko says that the Bishop who conditionally ordained Fr. Voigt for the first time was a Bishop Machek.


But oddly, Fr. Voigt did not need conditional ordination because Bishop Fellay saw his documents and said it was not necessary.

1) Does anyone know the date of his first conditional ordination? If Bishop Fellay said a conditional ordination was not needed, it is very possible that Fr. Voigt was already working as a priest with all the SSPX priests in the USA before his first conditional ordination.
2) If Fr. Voigt needed to be conditionally ordained, why did he not get it from Bp. Fellay or the other SSPX Bishops, but why he go to Bishop Machek?
3) After his conditional ordination by Bishop Machek, he goes to Bishop Williamson for another conditional ordination, instead of Bishop Fellay who said it was not needed or the other SSPX Bishops.

 

[Admin]

Cathinfo says that Fr. Voigt hid his first conditional ordination from the laity. Fr. Hewko says that the Bishop who conditionally ordained Fr. Voigt for the first time was a Bishop Machek.


But oddly, Fr. Voigt did not need conditional ordination because Bishop Fellay saw his documents and said it was not necessary.

1) Does anyone know the date of his first conditional ordination? If Bishop Fellay said a conditional ordination was not needed, it is very possible that Fr. Voigt was already working as a priest with all the SSPX priests in the USA before his first conditional ordination.
2) If Fr. Voigt needed to be conditionally ordained, why did he not get it from Bp. Fellay or the other SSPX Bishops, but why he go to Bishop Machek?
3) After his conditional ordination by Bishop Machek, he goes to Bishop Williamson for another conditional ordination, instead of Bishop Fellay who said it was not needed or the other SSPX Bishops.

Catherine - Who is Bishop Machek and what is his background?

..

 

[MaryM]

Cathinfo says that Fr. Voigt hid his first conditional ordination from the laity. Fr. Hewko says that the Bishop who conditionally ordained Fr. Voigt for the first time was a Bishop Machek.


But oddly, Fr. Voigt did not need conditional ordination because Bishop Fellay saw his documents and said it was not necessary.

1) Does anyone know the date of his first conditional ordination? If Bishop Fellay said a conditional ordination was not needed, it is very possible that Fr. Voigt was already working as a priest with all the SSPX priests in the USA before his first conditional ordination.
2) If Fr. Voigt needed to be conditionally ordained, why did he not get it from Bp. Fellay or the other SSPX Bishops, but why he go to Bishop Machek?
3) After his conditional ordination by Bishop Machek, he goes to Bishop Williamson for another conditional ordination, instead of Bishop Fellay who said it was not needed or the other SSPX Bishops.

Please clarify the order.

Did Fr. Voigt ask +Fellay for conditional ordination before or after Fr. Voigt's conditional ordination by +Macek?

If before, the order would be:
NO ordination
Ask +Fellay, he said no need
Conditional ordination by +Macek
Conditional ordination by +Williamson

If after, the order would be:
NO ordination
Conditional ordination by +Macek
Ask +Fellay, he said no need
Conditional ordination by +Williamson

The second scenario seems more probable to me.

Whether or not +Williamson knew about the conditional ordination by +Macek prior to performing another conditional ordination remains a mystery.

 

[MaryM]

Catherine - Who is Bishop Machek and what is his background?

..

+Macek (pronounced Machek) is a NO consecrated bishop, conditionally consecrated the same day +Taylor was consecrated, by +Merrill Adamson of the +Datessen line under Archbishop Thuc. He currently works with Fr. Tetherow, identified in the OP above, who's chapel is in Windsor, PA, which is around the corner from "Fr" Cordaro, also mentioned above, who is in Scranton, PA.






Read more about him here:

OLMC and their pervert and laicised priests "friends"

CORDARO http://dioceseofscrantonarchive.org/clight/CatholicLight4-13-17.pdf NOTICE This notice is to inform the Christian faithful that John J. Cordaro, formerly a priest of the Oblates of Saint Joseph, was dismissed from the Oblates by their Superior General on August 8, 1989. He...

cor-mariae.com

 

[catherine1]

Catherine - Who is Bishop Machek and what is his background?

..

Bishop Machek is a Thuc line bishop.

 

[catherine1]

Please clarify the order.

Did Fr. Voigt ask +Fellay for conditional ordination before or after Fr. Voigt's conditional ordination by +Macek?

If before, the order would be:
NO ordination
Ask +Fellay, he said no need
Conditional ordination by +Macek
Conditional ordination by +Williamson

If after, the order would be:
NO ordination
Conditional ordination by +Macek
Ask +Fellay, he said no need
Conditional ordination by +Williamson

The second scenario seems more probable to me.

Whether or not +Williamson knew about the conditional ordination by +Macek prior to performing another conditional ordination remains a mystery.

Great analysis.
First scenario: Fr. Voigt asked +Fellay if he needed to be conditionally ordained. +Fellay said he didn't need Fr. Voigt to be conditionally ordained after looking at his paperwork.

Could Fr. Voigt have hidden his conditional ordination with +Macek from +Fellay before working at SSPX chapels from 2005 till maybe 2011?

Second scenario: Fr. Voigt is conditionally ordained by +Macek, and +Fellay says it didn't matter anyway.

Why did +Williamson need to conditionally ordain Fr. Voigt if he was already conditionally ordained by +Macek, and +Fellay didn't require it?

 

[Admin]

Bishop Machek is a Thuc line bishop.

Thuc Line (i)

Thuc Line (ii)​

..

 

[MaryM]

Great analysis.
First scenario: Fr. Voigt asked +Fellay if he needed to be conditionally ordained. +Fellay said he didn't need Fr. Voigt to be conditionally ordained after looking at his paperwork.

Could Fr. Voigt have hidden his conditional ordination with +Macek from +Fellay before working at SSPX chapels from 2005 till maybe 2011?

Second scenario: Fr. Voigt is conditionally ordained by +Macek, and +Fellay says it didn't matter anyway.

Why did +Williamson need to conditionally ordain Fr. Voigt if he was already conditionally ordained by +Macek, and +Fellay didn't require it?

We now know Fr. Hewko said Fr. Voigt was conditionally ordained by +Macek before being conditionally ordained by + Williamson.

Assuming Fr. Voigt did not hide his paperwork from either bishop:

Scenario 1 would indicate
+Fellay accepted Fr. Voigt's NO ordination.
In today's SSPX, this is the likely scenario.

Scenario 2 would indicate
+Fellay accepted Fr. Voigt's +Macek conditional ordination.
In old SSPX, this is the more likely scenario.

In both scenarios, +Williamson accepted neither the NO ordination nor the +Macek conditional ordination. We do not know why.

However...

We know that the conditional ordination by +Williamson was performed in 2012/2013 at OLMC.

Could it have been a Poison/Moran-type conditional ordination at the behest of Fr. Pfeiffer? Consider that Fr. Pfeiffer used to reject NO ordinations and still rejects the Thuc lineage. It is possible +Williamson cooperated with Fr. Pfeiffer. After all, 2012 was a time when Fr. Pfeiffer and +Williamson worked together.


If Fr. Voigt hid his paperwork from anyone, all bets are off.

We know too little to make definitive heads or tails.

 

[catherine1]

This Bp. Macek and Fr. Voigt saga is confusing. Why would Fr. Voigt want to work with Bp. Fellay if he got ordained by Bp. Macek? And if he worked with Bp. Fellay without conditional ordination, why get it from Bp. Macek?

We have another confusion raised about the ordination of Fr. Kramer on Cathinfo. And then someone said Bp. Williamson and Fr. Chazal didnt see it necessary to conditionally ordain Fr. Kramer.

Now catacombs quoting Archbishop Lefevbre insists that all new rite priests have to be conditionally ordained and say that this was old-SSPX procedure, yet the SSPX Bishops Fellay and Williamson are doing the opposite of Archbishop Lefebvre by deciding who should and should not be conditionally ordained.

 

[Admin]

This Administration has always had great respect for Fr. Hesse. He was ordained in the new rite and many regard him as a non-priest. In a video which has now been removed from You Tube (see here) the following is a section of what Fr. Hesse said about his ordination:

@ 1:04 "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...."

So - more confusion

..

 

[MaryM]

This Bp. Macek and Fr. Voigt saga is confusing. Why would Fr. Voigt want to work with Bp. Fellay if he got ordained by Bp. Macek? And if he worked with Bp. Fellay without conditional ordination, why get it from Bp. Macek?

We have another confusion raised about the ordination of Fr. Kramer on Cathinfo. And then someone said Bp. Williamson and Fr. Chazal didnt see it necessary to conditionally ordain Fr. Kramer.

Now catacombs quoting Archbishop Lefevbre insists that all new rite priests have to be conditionally ordained and say that this was old-SSPX procedure, yet the SSPX Bishops Fellay and Williamson are doing the opposite of Archbishop Lefebvre by deciding who should and should not be conditionally ordained.

You will have to ask Fr. Voigt to answer the questions you pose.

It is not surprising that the catacombs is vehemently quoting ABL on this matter when they, and Fr. Hewko, completely accepted Fr. Cordaro and Fr. Poisson (for seven months), both of whom were ordained NO and neither were conditionally ordained. The catacombs and OLMC (including Fr. Hewko), will defend whichever priest is their latest flavor of the month regardless of the evidence against such (for example, Fr. Roberts).

Another interesting note is that OLMC accepted "our good friend" "Fr" Tetherow who was ordained NO, laicised NO, then conditionally ordained by +Macek, yet Fr. Voigt had to be conditionally ordained by +Williamson after having been conditionally ordained by +Macek.

These are all cases of the end justifying the means, which it never does.

I was told by several bishops and priests that whether or not a conditional ordination of a priest is needed rests solely on the shoulders of the bishop evaluating the situation. I was also told each case must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

I, for one, am glad such evaluation is outside my state of life.

 

[MaryM]

Taking Of The Cassock And Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – In This Sign You Shall Conquer

www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com

Of the six new "seminarians" receiving the cassock in February of 2019 and 2 tertiaries, only three individual photos are posted (at the bottom of the page).

All three of these photos are of Blaszaks.








The website clearly states:
"A pablo The Mexican Productions in Affiliation With Big Rhino Productions"

Pablo the Mexican = Paul Hernandez


Big Rhino Productions = Anthony Blaszak


10-year-old girl productions = Claire Blaszak


The Blaszak family, who live in the house across the street from OLMC, the house Australian faithful purchased for OLMC seminarians.


Something is not right.