Summary of the current position of Our Lady of the Southern Cross
- Thread starter Michael1
- Start date
Michael1
Member
Apologies.
Fr. Raphael is not the source of the afore-mentioned quote. It was a reasoning process arrived at by a member of another forum that is well worth considering.
Thank you for your understanding
Fr. Raphael is not the source of the afore-mentioned quote. It was a reasoning process arrived at by a member of another forum that is well worth considering.
Thank you for your understanding
E
Ecclesia Militans
Guest
"The Kentucky Fathers must not seek out Bishop Williamson any longer until he returns to the positions of the Archbishop, even it means that all his seminarians leave him and the seminary shuts down. The Kentucky Fathers have no moral obligation to run a seminary because, as simple priests, they don't have the power to ordain."
N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The above was written by me on The Catacombs forum in a thread on the same forum in which Machabees revealed that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko wrote to Bishop Williamson in May 2018 to ask him to come to the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminary to perform ordinations among other things. I found it very disappointing after hearing the Fathers over and over again state that Bishop Williamson departed from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Hewko has even said in his sermons that we should not attend Bishop Williamson's Masses. How then can the Fathers want Bishop Williamson to do those things they asked him to do?
N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The above was written by me on The Catacombs forum in a thread on the same forum in which Machabees revealed that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko wrote to Bishop Williamson in May 2018 to ask him to come to the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminary to perform ordinations among other things. I found it very disappointing after hearing the Fathers over and over again state that Bishop Williamson departed from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Hewko has even said in his sermons that we should not attend Bishop Williamson's Masses. How then can the Fathers want Bishop Williamson to do those things they asked him to do?
It is a good question for Fr. Pfeiffer, EM. I tried to answer you over at the catacombs, but most of my posts were deleted. It seems so many forums are so biased and so brainwashed they won't allow for the possibility that the one they put on a pedestal has fallen.
I believe the answer is that +Williamson was legitimately consecrated, therefore his ordinations are legitimate. It doesn't matter to OLMC how +Williamson has deviated. They believe matter, form, and intent will be there.
I question why Fr. Pfeiffer would continue to bother +Williamson considering he has Moran in his pocket.
The answer to this question, I believe, is because fr. Pfeiffer needs an excuse to bring Moran out of his pocket. "+Williamson won't cooperate so we HAVE to go another route," fr. Pfeiffer will say, even though the young men there SHOULD have AT LEAST three more years of study (assuming they are being taught properly and are learning properly), and Moran is of questionable legitimacy at best. (Do not be surprised if there is an "ordination" of an OLMC seminarian within a year.)
Fr. Pfeiffer has had Moran in his pocket all this time, living nearby with his faithful, even though fr. Pfeiffer clearly, without question, told OLMC faithful he cut ties with Moran.
Now my question is, how will OLMC faithful and benefactors handle this news?
Last edited:
Michael1
Member
A Concern that needs addressing in regard to Father Pfeiffer
Father Pfeiffer is sharing the same chapel with false Resistance priests
The true Resistance Adelaide community/mission shares a chapel with two false resistance priests, namely Frs. Chazal and McDonald
Melbourne is allowed no other true resistance priest apart from the OLMC priests, yet Fr Pfeiffer allows Adelaide community/mission to host not only two other priests, but two priests who belong to the false resistance. One standard for Melbourne, but another for the other Australian communities/missions.
This is evidence that Father Pfeiffer is selling out. To some it may come as a surprise to hear that Fr Pfeiffer is selling out on the one hand while demanding doctrinal purity on the other. Is the smokescreen being lifted?
Father Pfeiffer is sharing the same chapel with false Resistance priests
The true Resistance Adelaide community/mission shares a chapel with two false resistance priests, namely Frs. Chazal and McDonald
- Has Fr. Pfeiffer informed the Adelaide coordinator and community that he is their parish priest, and they are his parishioners as he told OLSC?
- Has Fr. Pfeiffer instructed the Adelaide coordinator community that he disallows priests other than those he chooses to give them the Sacraments as he told OLSC?
- The answer to both questions is NO.
Melbourne is allowed no other true resistance priest apart from the OLMC priests, yet Fr Pfeiffer allows Adelaide community/mission to host not only two other priests, but two priests who belong to the false resistance. One standard for Melbourne, but another for the other Australian communities/missions.
This is evidence that Father Pfeiffer is selling out. To some it may come as a surprise to hear that Fr Pfeiffer is selling out on the one hand while demanding doctrinal purity on the other. Is the smokescreen being lifted?
The OLSC Co-ordinator did mention the question of the lack of thriftiness in the matter of purchasing air tickets. Does Melbourne have the biggest cash reserve when compared to the other chapels?. Perhaps who controls the money is also an issue?. Look at the SSPX. Every penny they have is from the layfolk. Yet, they are now, first and last, a Priestly society who have to come to terms with the Vatican II Church. Layfolk? Who or what are they?
Michael1
Member
To answer your question, Anand, no state had the ‘biggest cash reserve’.
Whilst a ‘lack of thriftiness’ is certainly an important factor in the concerns expressed by OLSC, it is but part of the overall takeover method used by Fr. Pfeiffer to divide the unity and harmony set up specifically to welcome him as a true resistance visiting priest.
Each state raised funds for Fr. Pfeiffer’s visits. If any state had difficulty in that direction then an unknown benefactor rose to the occasion. No true resistance community is wealthier than another. When the money was raised for the house Father Pfeiffer needed for his seminarians everybody pitched in.We all had to dig deeper when Father said he needed more.
Donations were motivated by wanting to stand strong for those priests serving tradition. From the well-heeled to battling pensioners everyone united together for the cause, the spirit and energy to give to Our Lady was amazing and brought out the best in us and bonded us together. Our loyalty to support the cause did not warrant the treatment received in return. It has given our trust in the priesthood itself a bitter blow. Fr. Pfeiffer's efforts have resulted in some of our people doubting what he has taught them. In short he has undone all the hard work that was built not by him but the laity before he was invited. Whilst the whole experience has caused much sorrow, we are grateful that the deception has been uncovered and pray that fellow-Australians will heed our warning. It will all then be worthwhile.
Whilst a ‘lack of thriftiness’ is certainly an important factor in the concerns expressed by OLSC, it is but part of the overall takeover method used by Fr. Pfeiffer to divide the unity and harmony set up specifically to welcome him as a true resistance visiting priest.
Each state raised funds for Fr. Pfeiffer’s visits. If any state had difficulty in that direction then an unknown benefactor rose to the occasion. No true resistance community is wealthier than another. When the money was raised for the house Father Pfeiffer needed for his seminarians everybody pitched in.We all had to dig deeper when Father said he needed more.
Donations were motivated by wanting to stand strong for those priests serving tradition. From the well-heeled to battling pensioners everyone united together for the cause, the spirit and energy to give to Our Lady was amazing and brought out the best in us and bonded us together. Our loyalty to support the cause did not warrant the treatment received in return. It has given our trust in the priesthood itself a bitter blow. Fr. Pfeiffer's efforts have resulted in some of our people doubting what he has taught them. In short he has undone all the hard work that was built not by him but the laity before he was invited. Whilst the whole experience has caused much sorrow, we are grateful that the deception has been uncovered and pray that fellow-Australians will heed our warning. It will all then be worthwhile.
Last edited:
Thank you for this concise explanation. All I can say, from where I am, is that the Australian Resistance faithful have been treated very, very shabbily.To answer your question, Anand, no state had the ‘biggest cash reserve’.
Whilst a ‘lack of thriftiness’ is certainly an important factor in the concerns expressed by OLSC, it is but part of the overall takeover method used by Fr. Pfeiffer to divide the unity and harmony set up specifically to welcome him as a true resistance visiting priest.
Each state raised funds for Fr. Pfeiffer’s visits. If any state had difficulty in that direction then an unknown benefactor rose to the occasion. No true resistance community is wealthier than another. When the money was raised for the house Father Pfeiffer needed for his seminarians everybody pitched in.We all had to dig deeper when Father said he needed more.
Donations were motivated by wanting to stand strong for those priests serving tradition. From the well-heeled to battling pensioners everyone united together for the cause, the spirit and energy to give to Our Lady was amazing and brought out the best in us and bonded us together. Our loyalty to support the cause did not warrant the treatment received in return. It has given our trust in the priesthood itself a bitter blow. Fr. Pfeiffer's efforts have resulted in some of our people doubting what he has taught them. In short he has undone all the hard work that was built not by him but the laity before he was invited. Whilst the whole experience has caused much sorrow, we are grateful that the deception has been uncovered and pray that fellow-Australians will heed our warning. It will all then be worthwhile.
Amen to that, but they are not alone.
Rose
New Member
After keeping silent all this time, I feel compelled to correct some of the misconceptions in Fr. Pfeiffer's letter to the Catacombs where he stated that I told him that only my husband, Luke and the Admin of CM spoke to you "due to prior arrangements amongst yourselves that only the elected officials of the OSLC committee would speak to Fr Pfeiffer".
He has misconstrued what I said.
What I said was that after we left Fr Chazal/Picot's group, we formed OSLC with a simple committee and these officials had the mandate to speak on our behalf. This is an accepted convention in most groups.
I told Fr Pfeiffer that we had a meeting about a week before he came to Melbourne as there was information to be shared with all the members who regularly met for our Holy Hour Prayer meetings. Such meetings are normal to our group when there is information to be disseminated. At the meeting we discussed the following:-
1) The possibility of getting an independent resistance priest.
2) Luke Ross informed us that Fr Pfeiffer had informed him on his previous visit in August 2017 that he wanted to dismiss him as coordinator.
3) We were told about Mrs Mary Collin's letter to Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Pfeiffer's reply to her however the contents were not disclosed.
After this meeting none of us had any plans or intention to have a meeting with Fr Pfeiffer when he came to Melbourne. Since we did not plan to have a meeting with him it would have been ridiculous to appoint the committee to speak at a non-scheduled meeting. So Fr Pfeiffer's statement that I told him that only my husband, Luke and the Admin of CM spoke to him and not the others due to a prior arrangement amongst ourselves is false.
On 7 April Fr Pfeiffer came to Melbourne, baptised a baby followed by Mass and lunch. Most of the attendees left and just a few people were there when Father told Luke that he wanted to have a meeting with Luke and my husband. Luke then informed Father that David had gone home and so Father and Luke had a long meeting.
On Sunday, 8 April we had the Bunyip Hall booked from 8.30 am to 12.00 noon as another Christian group had booked the Hall from 12.00 noon onwards. After our Mass and lunch most of us were busy vacuuming the hall and washing up the dishes when at about 11.50 am just 10 minutes before we were to leave the hall Luke informed us that Father wanted to have a meeting with us.
We were quite surprised that we were to have a meeting so late in the day and we wondered where this meeting would be held. Someone said that it would be at the pub down the road but someone else objected to that. Anyway, Luke rounded us all up for the meeting and as we left the hall Father said we could have the meeting outside the Hall on the grass verge by the roadside.
I looked around and noticed that everyone who was at the Mass was at this so called meeting except for a mother with a toddler and a one month old baby, the 2 altar boys aged 14 and 15 and their father and their 2 cousins aged 15 and 19 and another young lady aged 20.
So Father's accusation that "the meeting which meeting you did not want all Mass attendees to attend" is again another misconstruction of his. As stated earlier it was Luke who announced to all of us that Father wanted to have a meeting with us and it was Luke who rounded us all up for the meeting. He in no way kept the Mass attendees and Father separated neither during the lunch nor the subsequent meeting.
To make matters worse Father went on to accuse Luke, "I did not make you coordinator in order to keep shepherd and sheep separated. This is dishonourable behaviour. We have a policy of openness and honesty". Such statements from Father to malign the reputation of Luke is mendacious and incendiary to say the least. We have also been given an eye witness account of the time Fr Pfeiffer was on the phone calling a coordinator in another state and purporting to be Luke and speaking like him and when she recognised it was Fr Pfeiffer, he had a good laugh with her at Luke's expense.
What is the point of claiming to follow Abp Lefebvre's teaching implicitly but then to treat Luke depreciatingly when he had been so generous with his time, money and efforts in supporting Fr Pfeiffer's work prior to and since he came here in August 2016. "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should . . . etc 1 Corinthians 13 vs 1-5
Let me put Father's statement in perspective. In the first place, Father did not make Luke his coordinator. He was duly elected as the coordinator of our Prayer group, the OSLC and NOT the OLMC. We elected him in Jan 2016 after we split up with Frs Chazal/Picot and formed our prayer group the OSLC. We then looked around for a visiting priest and six months after our group was formed we invited Fr Pfeiffer to come to Australia. After Luke had done all the groundwork Father came in August 2016. The people in Perth made it clear to Luke that they did not want Father to visit them or minister to them.
Soon after Fr Pfeiffer came here he was telling us that he needed funds to buy the house next door to the seminary ( to house the seminarians ) that his brother wanted to sell to him but that the payment must be made by December 2016 otherwise his brother would put the house on the open market. Luke therefore had the task of urging all the people around Australia to be generous to this cause. Needless to say, the people were concerned for the seminarians and generously gave AUD 120,000 for the house by Dec 2016.
There were also many other requests for money for flights for the priests to travel to their missions in the USA and other places. In addition when Fr Pfeiffer needed money for 2 funerals in the USA it was the OSLC with the main contributor being Luke that gave the money. In March this year, Luke was in hospital for a major operation and on the day after the operation he got a call from Pablo asking for money for a court case involving Fr Roberts and Pablo said Fr Pfeiffer had authorised him to call for the money but none was given to them.
Now about the "Meeting" outside the Bunyip Hall.
Most of us know that a meeting is a discussion and respectful sharing of ideas where everyone who wants to speak is listened to. However, in this meeting Fr Pfeiffer was talking about his Global Parishes in Chicago, a 100% Polish Parish, about Fr Raphael, Fr Roberts, Fr (Bp) Zendejas, Connecticut, Reidsville, Minnesota, Toronto, Fr Waugh, Fr Pino, at least 7 priests 3 of them bishops, Rapid City, New Mexico, Regina, Canada, Philippines, Fr Chazal, St Mary's Kansas, New York City, Post Falls, Idaho, Bp Williamson, Fr Ramon Angles etc, etc.
We wondered what this monologue of his had to do with us here in Melbourne. In the noonday heat most of us were getting listless with his litany of issues. It was then that my husband as the President of OSLC spoke up because this "meeting" seemed to be "one-sided" with Fr Pfeiffer holding the floor for almost 25 minutes straight. My husband said, "Use wisdom and listen to us". Fr Pfeiffer then took umbrage at my husband's remarks and stated, "I will not listen to you".
Fr Pfeiffer spoke of his "policy of openness and honesty" but at that meeting Fr Pfeiffer just wanted to have his say and did not want to listen to what we had to say. So how then was it, "open and honest communication"?
We were also concerned with the time as Father had a flight to catch at 2.30 pm for a scheduled Mass in Adelaide at 4.30 pm. We could see that the lady who was driving Father to the airport was getting restless as it would take more than 1 hour to get to the airport from the hall.
In all Father spoke for almost 40 minutes and we were wondering when we would have an opportunity to say something.
In any case, my husband persisted in asking Fr Pfeiffer questions and then others joined in, namely the Admin of CM ( who is not a committee member ) who asked him, "What would be required of us as a parish?". Instead of answering her question Fr Pfeiffer asked her in a confrontational manner, "Are you asking this for yourself or for the others"? We were taken aback by his question as all of us also wanted to ask him the same question.
He then spoke for another 15 minutes explaining about various groups in the USA and how other priests took over his "parishes" and he also said that if we had independent resistance priests they must come under him. Something that came across clearly to us was that Fr Pfeiffer was afraid that after he had "pioneered" and set up a "church" another priest came and took over his church in the USA. But a clear and concise answer to the question, "What would be required of us as a parish"?, was never given to us.
There were 6 other people who asked Fr Pfeiffer questions and made comments at the meeting and they were not committee members of OSLC, hence Fr Pfeiffer's claim that I told him that only my husband, Luke and Admin of CM spoke to him and not the others due to prior arrangements is totally incorrect. When my husband said, "Use wisdom and listen to US" he meant anyone who wanted to speak. No one was prohibited from speaking or asking questions. Father had therefore misconstrued what I had said.
By the way, Fr Pfeiffer seems to have an aversion to lay people like Luke Ross taking on simple and mundane tasks like booking flight tickets and Mass venues. However, he seems to have no problems with a lay man who is not even a practising Catholic taking charge of the OLMC Seminary and Seminarians when he, the Rector and his confrere go on missions every weekend and also when they went to the UK, Asia or Australia for more than a week. I also wonder what Pope Leo xiii would have said if he knew that such a laymen was in charge of the Seminary in the absence of the Rector and his assistant.
By the way, in his reply to Mrs Mary Collins, Fr Pfeiffer stated that, "The word "freedom" refers to the Church being freed from Lay control.
The reason why the Leonine Prayers had been instituted is as follow:-
During the pontificate of Pope Leo xiii, St Pius x and Benedict xv the Church faced a volatile and complex political situation in Italy. Little progress was made toward resolving the Roman Question. It was only after the election of Pius xi that the negotiating process began and in 1929 in article 26 of the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See declared "the Roman Question definitely and irrevocably settled and therefore eliminated". The purpose for which the Leonine Prayers had been instituted was therefore achieved.
The Supreme Pontiff, however, had another important intention that he wished to recommend to the prayers of the faithful. The communist Government in Russia had begun a systematic persecution of Catholics. In 1930 Pius xi dedicated a Day of Prayer for the Church in Russia and implored Jesus Christ, the Redeemer to permit tranquillity and freedom to profess the faith to be restored to the afflicted people of Russia.
What a crisis and chaos the Church is going through in these times. Many in the OSLC have journeyed with the Church from its pre-Vatican ll days to the Norvus Ordo, to the SSPX, to the False Resistance, to the so called "True Resistance" of Fr Pfeiffer. Looks like we need to keep praying harder for the Lord's guidance to persevere in our faith. This whole episode has been quite upsetting and many in our group feel that we have been deceived.
He has misconstrued what I said.
What I said was that after we left Fr Chazal/Picot's group, we formed OSLC with a simple committee and these officials had the mandate to speak on our behalf. This is an accepted convention in most groups.
I told Fr Pfeiffer that we had a meeting about a week before he came to Melbourne as there was information to be shared with all the members who regularly met for our Holy Hour Prayer meetings. Such meetings are normal to our group when there is information to be disseminated. At the meeting we discussed the following:-
1) The possibility of getting an independent resistance priest.
2) Luke Ross informed us that Fr Pfeiffer had informed him on his previous visit in August 2017 that he wanted to dismiss him as coordinator.
3) We were told about Mrs Mary Collin's letter to Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Pfeiffer's reply to her however the contents were not disclosed.
After this meeting none of us had any plans or intention to have a meeting with Fr Pfeiffer when he came to Melbourne. Since we did not plan to have a meeting with him it would have been ridiculous to appoint the committee to speak at a non-scheduled meeting. So Fr Pfeiffer's statement that I told him that only my husband, Luke and the Admin of CM spoke to him and not the others due to a prior arrangement amongst ourselves is false.
On 7 April Fr Pfeiffer came to Melbourne, baptised a baby followed by Mass and lunch. Most of the attendees left and just a few people were there when Father told Luke that he wanted to have a meeting with Luke and my husband. Luke then informed Father that David had gone home and so Father and Luke had a long meeting.
On Sunday, 8 April we had the Bunyip Hall booked from 8.30 am to 12.00 noon as another Christian group had booked the Hall from 12.00 noon onwards. After our Mass and lunch most of us were busy vacuuming the hall and washing up the dishes when at about 11.50 am just 10 minutes before we were to leave the hall Luke informed us that Father wanted to have a meeting with us.
We were quite surprised that we were to have a meeting so late in the day and we wondered where this meeting would be held. Someone said that it would be at the pub down the road but someone else objected to that. Anyway, Luke rounded us all up for the meeting and as we left the hall Father said we could have the meeting outside the Hall on the grass verge by the roadside.
I looked around and noticed that everyone who was at the Mass was at this so called meeting except for a mother with a toddler and a one month old baby, the 2 altar boys aged 14 and 15 and their father and their 2 cousins aged 15 and 19 and another young lady aged 20.
So Father's accusation that "the meeting which meeting you did not want all Mass attendees to attend" is again another misconstruction of his. As stated earlier it was Luke who announced to all of us that Father wanted to have a meeting with us and it was Luke who rounded us all up for the meeting. He in no way kept the Mass attendees and Father separated neither during the lunch nor the subsequent meeting.
To make matters worse Father went on to accuse Luke, "I did not make you coordinator in order to keep shepherd and sheep separated. This is dishonourable behaviour. We have a policy of openness and honesty". Such statements from Father to malign the reputation of Luke is mendacious and incendiary to say the least. We have also been given an eye witness account of the time Fr Pfeiffer was on the phone calling a coordinator in another state and purporting to be Luke and speaking like him and when she recognised it was Fr Pfeiffer, he had a good laugh with her at Luke's expense.
What is the point of claiming to follow Abp Lefebvre's teaching implicitly but then to treat Luke depreciatingly when he had been so generous with his time, money and efforts in supporting Fr Pfeiffer's work prior to and since he came here in August 2016. "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should . . . etc 1 Corinthians 13 vs 1-5
Let me put Father's statement in perspective. In the first place, Father did not make Luke his coordinator. He was duly elected as the coordinator of our Prayer group, the OSLC and NOT the OLMC. We elected him in Jan 2016 after we split up with Frs Chazal/Picot and formed our prayer group the OSLC. We then looked around for a visiting priest and six months after our group was formed we invited Fr Pfeiffer to come to Australia. After Luke had done all the groundwork Father came in August 2016. The people in Perth made it clear to Luke that they did not want Father to visit them or minister to them.
Soon after Fr Pfeiffer came here he was telling us that he needed funds to buy the house next door to the seminary ( to house the seminarians ) that his brother wanted to sell to him but that the payment must be made by December 2016 otherwise his brother would put the house on the open market. Luke therefore had the task of urging all the people around Australia to be generous to this cause. Needless to say, the people were concerned for the seminarians and generously gave AUD 120,000 for the house by Dec 2016.
There were also many other requests for money for flights for the priests to travel to their missions in the USA and other places. In addition when Fr Pfeiffer needed money for 2 funerals in the USA it was the OSLC with the main contributor being Luke that gave the money. In March this year, Luke was in hospital for a major operation and on the day after the operation he got a call from Pablo asking for money for a court case involving Fr Roberts and Pablo said Fr Pfeiffer had authorised him to call for the money but none was given to them.
Now about the "Meeting" outside the Bunyip Hall.
Most of us know that a meeting is a discussion and respectful sharing of ideas where everyone who wants to speak is listened to. However, in this meeting Fr Pfeiffer was talking about his Global Parishes in Chicago, a 100% Polish Parish, about Fr Raphael, Fr Roberts, Fr (Bp) Zendejas, Connecticut, Reidsville, Minnesota, Toronto, Fr Waugh, Fr Pino, at least 7 priests 3 of them bishops, Rapid City, New Mexico, Regina, Canada, Philippines, Fr Chazal, St Mary's Kansas, New York City, Post Falls, Idaho, Bp Williamson, Fr Ramon Angles etc, etc.
We wondered what this monologue of his had to do with us here in Melbourne. In the noonday heat most of us were getting listless with his litany of issues. It was then that my husband as the President of OSLC spoke up because this "meeting" seemed to be "one-sided" with Fr Pfeiffer holding the floor for almost 25 minutes straight. My husband said, "Use wisdom and listen to us". Fr Pfeiffer then took umbrage at my husband's remarks and stated, "I will not listen to you".
Fr Pfeiffer spoke of his "policy of openness and honesty" but at that meeting Fr Pfeiffer just wanted to have his say and did not want to listen to what we had to say. So how then was it, "open and honest communication"?
We were also concerned with the time as Father had a flight to catch at 2.30 pm for a scheduled Mass in Adelaide at 4.30 pm. We could see that the lady who was driving Father to the airport was getting restless as it would take more than 1 hour to get to the airport from the hall.
In all Father spoke for almost 40 minutes and we were wondering when we would have an opportunity to say something.
In any case, my husband persisted in asking Fr Pfeiffer questions and then others joined in, namely the Admin of CM ( who is not a committee member ) who asked him, "What would be required of us as a parish?". Instead of answering her question Fr Pfeiffer asked her in a confrontational manner, "Are you asking this for yourself or for the others"? We were taken aback by his question as all of us also wanted to ask him the same question.
He then spoke for another 15 minutes explaining about various groups in the USA and how other priests took over his "parishes" and he also said that if we had independent resistance priests they must come under him. Something that came across clearly to us was that Fr Pfeiffer was afraid that after he had "pioneered" and set up a "church" another priest came and took over his church in the USA. But a clear and concise answer to the question, "What would be required of us as a parish"?, was never given to us.
There were 6 other people who asked Fr Pfeiffer questions and made comments at the meeting and they were not committee members of OSLC, hence Fr Pfeiffer's claim that I told him that only my husband, Luke and Admin of CM spoke to him and not the others due to prior arrangements is totally incorrect. When my husband said, "Use wisdom and listen to US" he meant anyone who wanted to speak. No one was prohibited from speaking or asking questions. Father had therefore misconstrued what I had said.
By the way, Fr Pfeiffer seems to have an aversion to lay people like Luke Ross taking on simple and mundane tasks like booking flight tickets and Mass venues. However, he seems to have no problems with a lay man who is not even a practising Catholic taking charge of the OLMC Seminary and Seminarians when he, the Rector and his confrere go on missions every weekend and also when they went to the UK, Asia or Australia for more than a week. I also wonder what Pope Leo xiii would have said if he knew that such a laymen was in charge of the Seminary in the absence of the Rector and his assistant.
By the way, in his reply to Mrs Mary Collins, Fr Pfeiffer stated that, "The word "freedom" refers to the Church being freed from Lay control.
The reason why the Leonine Prayers had been instituted is as follow:-
During the pontificate of Pope Leo xiii, St Pius x and Benedict xv the Church faced a volatile and complex political situation in Italy. Little progress was made toward resolving the Roman Question. It was only after the election of Pius xi that the negotiating process began and in 1929 in article 26 of the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See declared "the Roman Question definitely and irrevocably settled and therefore eliminated". The purpose for which the Leonine Prayers had been instituted was therefore achieved.
The Supreme Pontiff, however, had another important intention that he wished to recommend to the prayers of the faithful. The communist Government in Russia had begun a systematic persecution of Catholics. In 1930 Pius xi dedicated a Day of Prayer for the Church in Russia and implored Jesus Christ, the Redeemer to permit tranquillity and freedom to profess the faith to be restored to the afflicted people of Russia.
What a crisis and chaos the Church is going through in these times. Many in the OSLC have journeyed with the Church from its pre-Vatican ll days to the Norvus Ordo, to the SSPX, to the False Resistance, to the so called "True Resistance" of Fr Pfeiffer. Looks like we need to keep praying harder for the Lord's guidance to persevere in our faith. This whole episode has been quite upsetting and many in our group feel that we have been deceived.
Some years ago in India Fr Pfeiffer had a meeting with three people - I believe they were sedevacantists - to thrash out certain issues. It seems that for the whole duration of the meeting they had no real chance to speak. It was a one way street. They ended up by publishing this article which has circulated even on some forums:
https://www.scribd.com/document/33365146/Open-Response-to-the-Confused-Sspx
https://www.scribd.com/document/33365146/Open-Response-to-the-Confused-Sspx
Michael1
Member
Anand, you're correct Fr Pfeiffer believes his opinion is the only one as far as he's concerned.
I just want to add so there is no confusion that OLSC or Cor Mariae has no affiliation with the sedevacantist movement. Full stop
Admin
Administrator
"I have learned from sources on the Internet as well as from private reliable sources that Fr. Poisson, former FSSP priest, has recently been conditionally ordained by Ambrose Moran with the approval of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of Boston, Kentucky. With this approval, the Kentucky Fathers have in effect reversed their public statement of November 7, 2015 in which they declared that they would not associate with Ambrose Moran. This reversal is very disappointing to those of us who have either stayed with the Fathers or left and then came back predicated on the Fathers’ adherence to their November 7, 2015 statement. I thank the Fathers for the good work they have done in keeping alive the mission and memory of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, but the procurement of ministerial services from Ambrose Moran is a red line for me. Therefore, Ecclesia Militans no longer supports the work of the Kentucky Fathers.
See : Ambrose Moran
..
Last edited:
Michael1
Member
Another concern in regard to Father Pfeiffer and other Resistance priests having "ownership of properties, finances and bank accounts"
In 2015 Frs. Chazal and Picot told us, the resistance movement in Melbourne, that unless we agreed to them owning any purchased church property plus full control of our finances and bank accounts they would not give us the sacraments. Father Pfeiffer has made it quite clear, on a number of occasions to a number of people that on that principle, he agreed with Fr. Chazal. He stated that his position was exactly the same. SSPX communities have always been set up that way. It is how the SSPX priests were trained.
Due to the doctrinal comprises of Frs. Chazal and Picot when they joined the false Resistance OLSC did not have to deal with these conditions and we parted company.
Before Vatican II Council there was no question that the Church owned the properties. Post Vatican II Council presents an entirely different scenario familiar to all of us as we struggle to sort out first of all which priest to follow - let alone building a community around him. Even then, it is obvious that a community is not built round a singular priest.
In 2015 Frs. Chazal and Picot wanted to take control of Melbourne. Their move to secure a property came about because Melbourne was looking at buying a deserted church. So the priests knew there was a real possibility of purchasing church property eventually. Under their demands, if the laity had purchased a property before Frs. Chazal and Picot joined the false Resistance, is it likely that they would return the property to the laity if the laity didn’t attend their compromised Masses after they joined Bishop Williamson? No way – we, the laity would have been out in the street!
Now, in 2018, OLSC and all Australian communities were deliberately being kept in the dark when Father Pfeiffer sidestepped saying what was required of us if we became an OLMC parish. Since Fr Pfeiffer has admitted to having the same viewpoint and intended to follow the same procedure as Frs. Chazal/Picot, it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the way it would all end in the circumstances we now find ourselves. We would have been out in the street again!
Theoretically we would have lost our church properties in 2015 and again in 2018. At present all permanent chapels in Australia are established on the owner’s house block or farming properties, so these circumstances prevent any priest owning the church properties. But it is the principle that matters because if any church properties were purchased Father Pfeiffer would attempt claim them for his own.
There is no rationale in agreeing for Fr. Pfeiffer, or any priest from the other side of the world, to take control of any communities/missions in Melbourne when there are so many reasons that could prevent him from returning. To name a few: he already visits 50-60 missions in US; he has a seminary to run and visa controls are tightening up etc.
If OLMC owned properties here in Australian states, and another true Resistance priest came to visit or reside here permanently, it doesn’t take much imagination to foresee the beginnings of World War Three. The same principle would apply to any priest who used the same tactics of gaining our trust before making demands.
And most importantly, don’t forget the heart of the problem that Fr. Pfeiffer stipulates, namely that he doesn’t want any other true resistance priest to visit us or reside permanently in Australia unless the priest is under his control. This prerequisite is unacceptable to OLSC.
We ask this question of the other Australian communities/missions: Is this in principle acceptable or unacceptable to your community/mission?
So to sum up, in normal times the traditional Catholic Church functioned under the Pope and the parish priest had control of his parish. The parish came under the diocesan Bishop who in turn came under the Pope. Since Bishop Fellay signed the 2012 Declaration things are much different. In today’s fragile circumstances there is barely any possibility of having a permanent priest in Australia.
In 2015 Frs. Chazal and Picot told us, the resistance movement in Melbourne, that unless we agreed to them owning any purchased church property plus full control of our finances and bank accounts they would not give us the sacraments. Father Pfeiffer has made it quite clear, on a number of occasions to a number of people that on that principle, he agreed with Fr. Chazal. He stated that his position was exactly the same. SSPX communities have always been set up that way. It is how the SSPX priests were trained.
Due to the doctrinal comprises of Frs. Chazal and Picot when they joined the false Resistance OLSC did not have to deal with these conditions and we parted company.
Before Vatican II Council there was no question that the Church owned the properties. Post Vatican II Council presents an entirely different scenario familiar to all of us as we struggle to sort out first of all which priest to follow - let alone building a community around him. Even then, it is obvious that a community is not built round a singular priest.
In 2015 Frs. Chazal and Picot wanted to take control of Melbourne. Their move to secure a property came about because Melbourne was looking at buying a deserted church. So the priests knew there was a real possibility of purchasing church property eventually. Under their demands, if the laity had purchased a property before Frs. Chazal and Picot joined the false Resistance, is it likely that they would return the property to the laity if the laity didn’t attend their compromised Masses after they joined Bishop Williamson? No way – we, the laity would have been out in the street!
Now, in 2018, OLSC and all Australian communities were deliberately being kept in the dark when Father Pfeiffer sidestepped saying what was required of us if we became an OLMC parish. Since Fr Pfeiffer has admitted to having the same viewpoint and intended to follow the same procedure as Frs. Chazal/Picot, it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the way it would all end in the circumstances we now find ourselves. We would have been out in the street again!
Theoretically we would have lost our church properties in 2015 and again in 2018. At present all permanent chapels in Australia are established on the owner’s house block or farming properties, so these circumstances prevent any priest owning the church properties. But it is the principle that matters because if any church properties were purchased Father Pfeiffer would attempt claim them for his own.
There is no rationale in agreeing for Fr. Pfeiffer, or any priest from the other side of the world, to take control of any communities/missions in Melbourne when there are so many reasons that could prevent him from returning. To name a few: he already visits 50-60 missions in US; he has a seminary to run and visa controls are tightening up etc.
If OLMC owned properties here in Australian states, and another true Resistance priest came to visit or reside here permanently, it doesn’t take much imagination to foresee the beginnings of World War Three. The same principle would apply to any priest who used the same tactics of gaining our trust before making demands.
And most importantly, don’t forget the heart of the problem that Fr. Pfeiffer stipulates, namely that he doesn’t want any other true resistance priest to visit us or reside permanently in Australia unless the priest is under his control. This prerequisite is unacceptable to OLSC.
We ask this question of the other Australian communities/missions: Is this in principle acceptable or unacceptable to your community/mission?
So to sum up, in normal times the traditional Catholic Church functioned under the Pope and the parish priest had control of his parish. The parish came under the diocesan Bishop who in turn came under the Pope. Since Bishop Fellay signed the 2012 Declaration things are much different. In today’s fragile circumstances there is barely any possibility of having a permanent priest in Australia.
Last edited:
http://thecatacombs.org/thread/849/happened-olsc-cor-mariae
"Upon which, all the SSPX priests are valid and legal as a true branch of the Church. This includes the priests of OLMC who have repeatedly stated they STILL are SSPX priests canonically illegally dismissed by their General Superior Bishop Fellay, ironically, in the SAME manner of corruption as the novus ordo Cardinals tried to suppress and deny the canonical rights of Archbishop Lefebvre. How history repeats itself."
Membership in a canonically recognized society must be received by the bishop in charge of the society. If the bishop refuses to accept the applicant, the applicant is not a member. If a current member, for whatever reason, is kicked out of the society, he is no longer a member. He can claim whatever he wants, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't so.
Regardless of what the cardinals tried to do to ABL, the fact remains that the SSPX was established legitimately and canonically. OLMC has not been.
...
"They hold still, of course, their General Superior of the SSPX as their legal authority; and too pray for him. They hold still, of course, their district superior as their next is order to their legal authority; and pray for them too. And visit them when they allow."
Again, one can claim to be under the authority of whomever, but if that authority refuses to be your superior you are out of luck. Furthermore, many a priest are expelled from their society/order/diocese for refusing a direct order. Refusing a superior is nothing new for Fr. Pfeiffer.
...
" But they keep going like their founder Archbishop Lefebvre to those who thirst for our Lord and His grace..."
I beg to differ. I urge anyone who believes this to review the SSPX rules for seminaries and the rules of the SSPX.
...
From OLSC: "We reject submitting ourselves exclusively to the authority of any priest, or group of priests, being independent of priestly groups or religious orders."
I don't see how this is a problem. When a chapel receives mass two or three times a year from a particular priest but is able to receive mass additional times from other independent or resistance priests, what is the problem? All the priests involved should be glad for those laity.
....
"... there is no role for lay authority in the Church."
This is taken out of context, as I see it. Of course there is no role for lay authority over a religious in the Church. However, no priest should hamper the efforts of a chapel wishing to have mass more frequently. On the contrary, any good priest would welcome it.
----
" One would think that is a good understanding of events; but now there is a conflict of two opposite interpretations. Which is it?"
This does not surprise me in the least. I have had similar instances with fr. Pfeiffer, his saying one thing, me hearing it, others hearing something different, and his later saying he said something entirely different than either person heard. Taking notes or recording all conversations avoids this problem but, alas, fr. Pfeiffer allows no one except his elite to take notes during meetings.
---
" Presented below is a April 11, 2018 letter (with permission to post publicly) from Fr. Pfeiffer sent to Mr. Ross, the acting coordinator of the OLMC mission ..."
It is clear Mr. Ross has always believed himself to be coordinator for OLSC, and never for OLMC.
-----
" As far as who are of the True Catholic Resistance, believe me, we know who they all are and you can count them on your hands. The rest follow the false resistance of Bishop Williamson, and the neo-tradition of Bishop Fellay assumed in the conciliar Ecclesia Dei."
It is comical to listen to groups declare themselves the "true Resistance" and the others the "false Resistance". This notion of "we are the Catholic Church and no one else is," is a fallacy. There are many legitimate independent priests who, by the way, are canonically legitimate, whereas the OLMC priests are canonically illegitimate.
----
" Those who have been witnesses to those events that OLSC insists happened and that 'no one should judge them because they weren't there,' who offer proof to the contrary of what is being erroneously put forward are silenced and banned."
The Catacombs chastises other forums for doing exactly the same thing they do. Such hipocracy.
---
" To unjustly accuse a priest of blocking Masses and Sacraments is a serious issue."
It seems to me, OLSC has done nothing of the sort. Fr. Pfeiffer told them they can go to another location to attend a non-OLMC mass, but fr. Pfeiffer said he would not return to their location if they had a non-OLMC priest bring them sacraments. This is nothing new, as fr. Pfeiffer has done this before. He expects people to establish two mass locations simply because he wants to be able to call this one or that one "his". It is irrational and illogical.
---
" But by their repeated and insistent false accusations and silencing of those who fraternally point out their errors, we must clarify the situation."
All forums I have seen which speak of the Resistance or the resistance, do exactly the same thing. The Catacombs is no exception. How the catacombs lied about me is nothing short of calumny.
Last edited:
Admin
Administrator
He is of the same lineage as +Adamson, who ordained Fr. Mbadugha, the same lineage as Malachi Martin:
https://cubacatolica.wordpress.com/...e-mons-dinhthuc-1897-1984/mons-datessen-1934/
So many options would be better than Orthodox, non-Catholic (he may have been baptized Catholic), Moran.
Fr. Pfeiffer does not believe the Thuc line is legitimate, but Moran is legitimate?
That's a head-scratcher....
Last edited:
OK. I may have even heard about this Bishop Peter H. from the old thread you have dug up. I feel that either here or elsewhere in the past I had heard he was an Australian who wrote an historical article either about Australia or Japan. The only thing I could find on the net yesterday was his review on Amazon. If Australian, I felt maybe he could help OLSC.
OLMC was not in my picture.
OLMC was not in my picture.