MORE HYPOCRISY

Background - A "National Rosary March" organized by "Novus Ordo" Catholics in Winona, Minnesota in October '94.

The Story - Bishop Williamson in his letter to "Friends and Benefactors" of 1 October, '94, says that "the Seminary (and therefore, the Society - Ed.) will not be officially taking part." On the second page of that letter the excommunicated Bishop says "that to associate with other 'Christians' on the grounds of a supposed common belief in Christ, is to associate in a lie if these 'Christians' insult God (at least objectively) by their refusal of the doctrine of the Real Presence." A couple of paragraphs later he says that "a Catholic knows (but not by authority - there is the problem [here Williamson sets himself up as the official voice of Church authority while ignoring the Pope - Ed.]) that the Second Vatican Council departed from Tradition, and that to associate indiscriminately with Novus Ordo "Catholics" on the basis of a supposed common "Catholicism" is to associate in a lie and a blasphemy if these "Catholics" insult God (at least objectively) by trampling on Catholic Tradition."

Whew! That says a lot. Williamson is judge, jury and executioner. He insinuates that Catholics in communion with Rome do not believe in the Real Presence. Even Lefebvre wouldn't have gone that far for how can Williamson know what is in their hearts lacking an outward sign - is the rosary not Catholic? Williamson must now be a prophet and in direct communication with the Almighty for he presumes to speak for God (a private revelation maybe?) as he tells us what is, or is not, insulting to Him. ("There is no God but Allah and Williamson is his prophet" - fits doesn't it?). So marching, while saying the rosary in public, with Catholics in communion with Rome, is apparently insulting to God. Williamson implies that associating with Catholics who are within that proper union is to commit blasphemy because such Catholics trample "Tradition." Presumably this union with Rome, which is through legitimate authority rather than the Society's pipedream of such, is "trampling tradition." So, for these reasons, the Society "will not be officially taking part" in the Rosary March. Really!

The Rub - Now we have Fr. Scott's word for it that the Society doesn't flip-flop on issues. But in Chicago, on March 18th, 1995, a contingent from the Society's church in Oak Park, Illinois, Our Lady Immaculate (OLI) marched in the St. Patrick's Day parade in downtown Chicago. Mr. James Sheehan of Chicago's Department of Special Events (Telephone: 312-744-0626) told me this parade had a contingent from the "gay and lesbian" community. Mr. Sheehan was quick to distance his office and the city from the implications of this by telling me that the city of Chicago did not sponsor this parade; it having been so done by Local 130 of the Chicago Journeymen Plumbers Union (Telephone: 312-421-1010). Now the participation in this march by members of OLI, mind you, was an officially sponsored Society event. It seems the poor deluded souls at OLI can march with queers, perverts and other assorted ilk, yet, would not be able to, according to Williamson, participate in a rosary march. Sure am glad the Society doesn't engage in hypocrisy and flip-flopping.

The Conclusion - "...schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (Canon 751). From his letter, excommunicated Bishop Williamson has confirmed (as if we really needed such confirmation) that the Society of St. Pius the Tenth is, indeed, in schism. We already knew that, though, because the Holy Father as the supreme judge and legislator of the Church has told us so. The Society "officially" will have nothing to do with Catholics in communion with Rome, and, they will continue to lie to their patrons about their schism. And so this dismal parody of Catholicism continues.

EVEN MORE HYPOCRISY

The Society has told us time and time again that they have never said that the new order of Mass is invalid. However, if we look at the January 1990 issue of the Angelus, page 29 (Ask Me by Fr. Carl Pulvermacher) we find this old Franciscan* telling his readers that "We must not participate in a Protestant service..." (the Novus Ordo Missae or Mass of Paul the Sixth). As Fr. Carl is calling the "new order of Mass" Protestant, he is saying that it is invalid, for today's Protestant version of the Mass, which traces it roots back to the "Reformation," is invalid. Lest one be tempted to think that this is just the aberrant meanderings of one old priest, it must be remembered that the Angelus is an official publication of the SSPX, which means it speaks for the Society, which means the Society is saying the Mass of Paul VI is invalid. No flip-flopping? It seems the only consistency in the Society is its inconsistency.

*His brother Lucian is now the self-proclaimed Pope Pius XIII.  It's truly amazing how kooky trads can get.  Pope Pius XIII's website is http://www.truecatholic.org if you want to check this out.

AN SSPX DEFECTION

By the end of 1994 Fr. William Scott Allen, 31, had left the ranks of the SSPX. Ordained in 1990 his reasons for leaving, according to Fr. Rizzo, include the Society's state of schism, the lack of charity within the SSPX and the way the faithful are treated by the Society. An obvious question that would be asked of Fr. Allen would concern his thoughts about the future prospects of the Society and their relations with Rome. He feels relations cannot be bettered with the present leadership and he is not optimistic that the Society can be salvaged and may well be irretrievably lost. It had been reported in Society "parishes" that Fr. Allen was on a temporary leave of absence for poor health. Privately some SSPX priests are saying that he is mentally ill to which Fr. Rizzo responds "I know that route!" It seems everyone who's seen the light is "mentally ill."

AND STILL ANOTHER DEFECTION

The Society's ranks in England thinned somewhat with the leaving of Rev. Fr. Paul Carr. Fr. Carr, 34, was born in England and ordained in 1991. Fr. Carr's reasons for leaving the Society are basically the same as Fr. Rizzo's. He could no longer abide the schismatic and Jansenistic spirit which seems to permeate the Society.

Fr. Carr, after his flight from England, was met at the airport by Bishop Keleher, of Kansas City, who even waited for more than an hour to meet him. From the airport they went to the Bishop's office and Fr. Carr received faculties from Bishop Keleher. According to Fr. Rizzo "they were mutually impressed with each other."

Fr. Carr was very much mistreated by his SSPX superiors. He is discouraged about the direction of the Society because of their arrogant approach and unwillingness to abide by Rome. Fr. Carr is presently working a Mass circuit from the headquarters of the Fraternity of St. Peter in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania. Needless to say, Fr. Carr is quite satisfied with his present duties and situation.

While in this country Fr. Carr received a phone call, I am told, from Fr. Libietis who was calling on Fr. Scott's behalf to apologize for the way the SSPX treated him in England. It seems Scott was offering him any position at an SSPX location in the US of his choosing. Fr. Carr politely declined the offer saying "Isn't it strange that Fr. Scott would offer me such a position after he wrote a letter to a person in England saying I'm not a good priest and I have no spirituality? How could he offer me such a position?" Fr. Libietis is said to have responded by saying that he never heard of such a letter written by Fr. Scott. Fr. Carr replied that he still had it in his possession.

AND MORE DEFECTIONS

21 June, 1997 -- Priests and Seminarians Leave -- From several different sources I have now been advised that Frs. Fullerton and Urrutigoity have indeed left the Society as well as some seminarians. The exact reasons are still difficult to come by but the main point of contention, again, seems to be the Society's illegal status and lack of faculties. To a lesser degree also indicated are, as in the past with other priests that have left, some of the more strident (read Jansenistic) ideas of the Society, etc. I also understand that only one seminarian was to be ordained at the Society's seminary in Winona, Minnesota in 1997. Invite others who have a need to know to visit this web site for the unadulterated truth about the Society of St. Pius the Tenth.

Yes! As the Society becomes more securely mired in their schismatic state and the building of a counter church more priests will realize that the SSPX is a spiritual dead end. Count on it! There will be more defections in the future. (See immediately below)

DEFECTIONS UPDATE - 1/25/98

Bishop Williamson's December 1997 letter to "friends and benefactors" discussed the defections which occurred during 1997. Typical of the Williamson style, he doesn't relate his comments to specific dates of actual events. From reading the newsletter, either one or two sets of defections occurred and either 2 priests and 2 seminarians left or 4 priests, 2 deacons and 1 seminarian left or 4 priests and more than 12 seminarians left the Society. As if to amplify the problem of loyalty to a renegade sect, Williamson also informed his readers that "Of the 400 priests he [Lefebvre] ordained in and for the Society, some 100 had defected before he died..." Now the Society knows the correct number, to be sure, but, considering those who have left as well since Lefebvre died, we are probably looking at more than 125 priests and Lord only knows how many deacons and seminarians.

AND STILL MORE - 2001

8/10/01

Word has just reached us that another priest has cut his affiliation with the Society (Fr. Benedict Van der Putten) and his brother Angelo (now in India, according to sources) has been considering doing the same.  It has been reported that they may have received much antagonism because of overtures that they've made to Rome.  There is mention also that there is at least one more priest thinking of cutting his ties to this group also.  It has been reported that they all feel "deceived" by the SSPX with respect to the recent attempts by Rome to negotiate and bring about a reconciliation.   Please pray for all these priests and all the others within the SSPX that the Holy Ghost may give them the grace necessary to return to the Church.   There are undoubtedly others.  

THE WAVE

But it's not the one your thinking about. This one is a greeting called the "St. Mary's Wave." What it consists of is the extension of the third digit on either hand in the direction of the person you wish to greet. On January 9th, 1995 Joe Rizzo, Father Rizzo's brother, was at a bank teller's window when who should he find behind him but the rotund figure of one of the Society's leading luminaries in the US who promptly gave Joe the "St. Mary's Wave." I'm told that this form of greeting is very commonplace among traditional "Catholics" at St. Mary's.

April 1996 Update

A POINT OF CLARIFICATION

Apparently, some who read the May 1995 issue drew a different conclusion from what I intended. It appears the confusion centered around the following statement which can be found in the second full paragraph of page five.

"It would seem the reason these two (the sacraments of penance and matrimony) have been excluded is because the mind of the Church most likely intended a penalty upon the laity for adherence to an errant cleric (or schismatic sect) acting beyond authority and, therefore, in opposition to the Church. It is clear from these canons that the laity are not free to adhere to priests lacking faculties."

It should be remembered that the subject under consideration was the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. When I mentioned "an errant cleric" I was speaking of someone that had been censured by legitimate Church authority. I was not speaking of those who are loosely termed "independent priests."

It seems some readers have assumed that if the sections of Canon Law I quoted applied to priests of the SSPX, then, they must automatically apply to all priests. Well, yes and no. While this may be true in many instances, I had not researched the law with respect to these priests, and, I was not referring to them. The sections of the law I quoted were to be understood within the context of the discussion of Society priests. These canons may, or may not, be applicable to "independent" priests. Their situation may change from month to month and what applies now may not apply a week from now. The best solution is for Catholics to steer clear of priests whose status is in doubt. Catholics need to be more discerning and circumspect; acting in a manner which will not expose their faith to danger.

AND THEN THERE'S FR. CHESTER

To demonstrate how things can change with respect to "independent" priests, we have the example of Fr. Chester Przyblo. At the time I met him in January of '96, he was serving a group of "traditional" Catholics at the Shrine of Christ the King, in Winfield, Illinois. In answering my questions, Fr. Chester claimed that he had valid faculties, which, upon investigation, I found to be true. However, I also found out that sometime earlier he had been ordered to return to Poland where he had been ordained. When he did not return, his bishop came from Poland to try to persuade him to do so. Still Fr. Chester refused. Because of his irregular situation, his faculties were pulled in March of 1996 by the Archdiocese of Chicago. So here's a situation where at the beginning of the year an "independent" priest had faculties, and three months later he doesn't. Hence, the confessions he hears are invalid, and there are no valid marriages where he is involved. For this reason, I didn't include the subject of independent priests. There are too many variables which may be at work. With regard to this website, I must reiterate that the focus of my attention has been the SSPX; not "independent" priests. This, again, shows that Catholics, for their own spiritual well-being, should not patronize so-called "independent" priests or priests whose legitimacy is doubtful. The law of the Church is that if you are in a doubtful situation, you leave it. To do less may well be gravely sinful.

[I have been in contact with the Diocese of Joliet, Bishop Joseph L. Imesch, (Winfield, Illinois itself is in the Joliet Diocese) and was informed by the Chancellor, Sister Judith A. Davies, OSF, that "Father Chester Przyblo does not possess faculties from the Diocese of Joliet to minister in the name of the Church." Letter of April 15, 1997]

[As of April of 1999, I've been advised verbally that Fr. Przyblo's bishop in Poland has now washed his hands of him.  As he refuses the lawful commands of his superiors, it would seem that Fr. Przyblo is now in an official state of schism.   More on this as it develops.]

THE POINT DEMONSTRATED

The lack of faculties for Society priests has serious consequences for people who patronize the SSPX. As if to reinforce this point there is the case of a woman I know, in Missouri, who was "married" in the Lefebvrite church some years ago. Because of an estrangement which developed between her and her "husband" she had reason to approach the local diocese to question if there might not be grounds for an annulment. When the diocese found out that the Society had been involved in her "marriage," she was informed that a Decree of Nullity (annulment) was not necessary, for she had not been married in the first place as Society priests have no jurisdiction for the Sacrament of Matrimony. This woman has now been properly married in the Catholic Church.

Here we had the spectacle of people who believed that they were married when, in fact, they were not. And, as it is with Matrimony, so it is with penance. People are walking around with mortal sins on their souls which subject them to immediate damnation should they lack sufficient contrition for their transgressions. These are the things laymen suffer for adhering to such a reprobate (degenerate, scoundrel, rogue) and unprincipled group (the SSPX) which is in rebellion against the Church.

ANOTHER CASE OF HYPOCRISY

Former members of OLI, may remember Fr. Richard Gonzales, who served the Chicago mission in the mid eighties. Father had two brothers who were also priests, Albert and David.  Richard, the rumor went, and the Society never clarified it, developed a brain tumor, which condition then changed to him suffering a nervous breakdown (so we were told when inquiries were made to find out why he was no longer serving Chicago). For a short while afterwards it appears Richard was in the southwest somewhere and finally left the Society.

David had been stationed at LeBarroux, France and is now gone. Finally, Albert has, not long ago, left, we are told, variously, because of a nervous breakdown (the usual reason the Society gives for someone leaving their ranks - after all, who in his right mind would leave the SSPX which tells us that if you're outside of it you cannot save your soul), or he's on a sabbatical or something like that. But we've heard no more about him.

If I'm not mistaken, for I do not have a copy of it, I am told that praise was heaped on Albert, in the Regina Coeli Report, this after he had already left. Of course this is nothing new. The Society has used this tactic before; Scott used it in Chicago.

Months after Doc Novak had broken with the Society, the Regina Coeli Report deceitfully published a photo of Doc at the installation of the statue in the front of the Society church in Oak Park, Illinois. This gave the impression that the Society had nothing but the best intentions toward Doc, though he, along with at least 150 others, had already been driven away. Which is what the Society Pharisees wanted people to believe so that when people find out certain individuals have left, "well, it can't be the Society's fault, look how they patted him on the back. This guy must have been a real troublemaker." So when you see someone getting a pat on the back, like Fr. Gonzales, he's probably already left and the Society is performing damage control, or, he's been marked for elimination. Hypocrisy you say. But of course! That's the Society's middle name.

A CHANCE MEETING

I had occasion to talk to a priest from Europe in the spring of 1995 and I found his comments about the SSPX interesting. Having requested anonymity, I cannot say who this priest is; but, here is what he told me. As chance would have it, he had an encounter with the Superior General of the Society, the excommunicated Bishop, Bernard Fellay. One thing led to another and when he asked about a possible accommodation with Rome, he was told that the Society was not looking for any accommodation most especially since Rome has not come around to the Society's way of thinking. So take that for what it's worth, but, it merely confirms to me that the Society is, indeed, creating its own church. As if to give further proof of that, just look at the August '95 Regina Coeli Report and you'll see what I mean.

ANOTHER SCHISMATIC STEP

In 1993 I related the story of the granting of a Decree of Nullity (annulment) by the Society. Some did not want to believe it was true; but, in the August 1995 Regina Coeli Report, the Society confirms that it definitely takes such matters into its own hands. And, again, we can see why they keep hitting on the phantom of supplied jurisdiction so hard. That such jurisdiction for the Society does not exist is without question. You know it, I know it, and the hypocrites of the Society know it, but, they can still fool some of those in the pews.

From the letter of August 1995 to "friends and benefactors" it is even more evident that the SSPX considers the official organs of the Church as without validity. The Society is now reexamining such Decrees rendered by the Catholic Church which concern patrons of Society missions seeking marriage through their auspices. This is just some more of the Society's double-speak for while they claim they are not establishing a parallel church they nevertheless set up tribunals to judge the legitimate decisions of the Catholic Church concerning marriages and annulments. Though they lack the authority and jurisdiction to render such Decrees, they do nevertheless, and, then, pretend to "marry" people though lacking faculties for valid marriages.

A "SCHOOL" IN CHICAGO

In case you hadn't heard, the Society has opened a school (naturally) in Chicago. The push had been intense from the pulpit during the late spring and early summer of '95. It seemed, from the tenor of the sermons, that Fr. Libietis had really been pressured to get results by Reichleiter Scott.

What had been relatively innocuous sermons became much more strident when it turned out that support for a school among the faithful was lagging. Where Scotty could see as many as 90 souls to brainwash for the Society's new religion, it had become apparent that they couldn't even get the 50 they were hoping for (and which they still did not have as of February '96 : As of September '98 they've only got two dozen).

You might remember that I have commented on other occasions what an imprudent and dumb idea this was, and, in fact, doubted they could get more than 20 kids signed up for their reeducation center (well, I was wrong - they've now got about forty, maybe forty-five). But, whereas the Society gurus wanted just a grade school, it seems, because of the lack of support from the parish, they had to up the ante to a high school curriculum, and, bring in boarding students from out of state as well, in order to get enough malleable minds signed up for the Society Jugend Corps.

But they will continue with their "school" no matter the cost. My estimate is that they have poured at least $100,000, and more probably $150,000, into our building so they can brainwash those poor kids. And now they've apparently just bought a Montessori school about a block north of their church for about $250,000.00. But what's other people's money to the Society when they use Limoges china at the seminary.  (Having driven past this new acquistion, the Montessori School, in March of 1999, it seems the Society's name was now conspicuously missing from the property.   What did that fiasco cost the people in the pew at OLI?)

It also seems that the Society is trying to claim a legitimacy, in time, back to the start of the mission, with respect to the current cadre laboring for the SSPX at OLI, by claiming that at least one of their "teachers" had been involved in catechism classes in the mission since 1982.

In the Academy News last year (1995) Fr. Libietis published brief biographies on the people who conduct the Society's reeducation classes there. Mentioned was one Dr. Frederick Meccia who, we're told, "has also taught Catechism in the Our Lady Immaculate Sunday Catechism Program since 1982." There's only one problem with this, it isn't true. This guy was not only not around in 1982, he wasn't even around in 1992 when Fr. Scott came in to spread his lies about gossip, which finally revealed the true side of the Society for us to see.

I wrote Libietis a letter informing him of the error and the possibility someone had lied to him about this person's status. As usual, no reply was forthcoming, and, in the January/February '96 issue of the Academy News I found the same biography repeated. So it appears Libietis has no more regard for the truth than Scott does. But, then, do we any longer expect something else from these people?

A RELUCTANT BAPTISM

I have also been told that a young man was recently to have been baptized at the Society usurped church, Our Lady Immaculate, in Oak Park, Illinois. As relayed to me, when it was time for Fr. Libietis to baptize this individual, the young man had a change of heart and decided he'd rather not. At which point Libietis supposedly said something to the effect that "you will thank me some day for this," and then literally threw, or poured, the baptismal water all over this person which was accompanied by the raucous laughter of those in attendance. What's next? An immersion pool in the front lawn? Ah! yes. Real Catholic stuff going on there.

I received an email recently wherein the writer tried to mitigate the import of this event with the comment that they had heard from a third party that the "young man" in question was only five years old.  Even if this were so, it cannot justify the actions as related above.

A PHONE CALL

I received a call in mid-July '95 from one of the many good people with whom I have come into contact since starting Agenda. This person had talked to a Society priest (possibly Fr. Pfeiffer) at Ridgefield, Connecticut, about an item mentioned in an early issue of Agenda. A friend of mine, "Bob from Schaumburg" (Schaumburg is a community northwest of Chicago), drafted a series of questions and suggested who to contact for the answers about Society quirks; one of which noted that the Society withholds Communion from retreatants until they have made a general confession even though they are in the state of grace and otherwise able to receive. This priest told my caller that it is true that Communion is withheld until the retreatant is able to "more worthily receive Our Lord." My caller told the priest that attitude smacked of the heresy of Jansenism. The Society priest just brushed aside the comment.

This priest also said that the "highest" form of music is Gregorian Chant, and, that all other forms are but stepping stones to it. He branded Classical music as that which is only emotionally appealing, but Chant uplifts the spirit. He said that listening to a steady diet of, for instance, Mozart, would tend to make one effeminate. Really! Now they're music critics as well. One can see the Society's Jansenistic spirit in this as well.

COMPUTER POLICE

The aforementioned priest also said that if any Society patrons are able to access the Internet from their computers, that, in the future, Society priests may not be able to give them absolution because pornography can be accessed through the Internet. This begs the question, do they now withhold absolution from those known to have a television in their homes? It was Fr. Lafitte who proclaimed (erroneously) that having a television set in the home is a proximate occasion of mortal sin. This from a paragon of virtue who, it is alleged, left the Society to run off with a woman (thank God, at least it was a woman -- as of November, 1996, I have been told the he has returned and is somewhere in France). And now, as of July 1997, the hypocrites of the Society have again demonstrated their aversion to truth by instituting the Society's own domain name web site just as was done for St. Mary's (see immediately below). They don't want you have a computer because it might pose a danger to your salvation and yet they do not hesitate to use it for their own ends, just as they use videotapes and television to toot their own horn. Their web addresses are below. Hypocrisy, thy name is SSPX!

SOCIETY EMBRACES AMERICANIST HERESY

True to form the hypocrites of the Society have again flip-flopped. On Saturday, May 10th, 1997, I was moving files from one location to another when I noticed an e-mail address for St. Mary's. Noting the domain name I put the "www" address into my web browser and, low and behold, guess what I found. Only one guess now. You got it! A Society web site for St. Mary's Academy and College (and shortly thereafter, found one for the Society in general). According to the form of Americanism defined and condemned by Pope Leo XIII, the Society will apparently use whatever means it sees fit to lure in the unsuspecting to their schismatic cult, even if it is, according to the Society, a "sinful" thing which they have said ordinary mortals must not use. To gain converts by the use of things which are compromising of the faith, improper or sinful, by the definition of Leo XIII, is to practice Americanism. So now, by its own actions and words, the Society stands convicted of dabbling in the heresy of Americanism that it had falsely led many to believe certain patriotic Americans were guilty of. So it seems that besides the heresies of Jansenism, Manicheism and Gallicanism we can apparently add Americanism. St. Mary's web address is http://www.smac.edu. The Society District's web address is http://www.sspx.org

FEAR INSTILLED - A DIFFERENT MIND SET

The letter below is typical of comments I have heard any number of times. Again that such a feeling can be engendered in people is a clear sign that the SSPX is less than Catholic. Please keep all these poor souls in your prayers.

November 27, 1995

Dear Fr. Rizzo,

I got your address from the church. I have attended St. Vincent's church for a number of years and would like to quit going there. I came to church in Kansas yesterday to see you and to get your help. I left when I saw it wasn't you up on the altar. I have never seen a Mass start out like that before. Where were you?

Please excuse my writing to you like this. I am afraid to write as I know that the Society can try to match up handwriting and make your life a living you know what and I don't want to call as I don't trust them either. My typing isn't very good either, so please forgive me.

There are many of us at St. Vincent's who would like to leave, but you know the lies that the Society tells everyone. Fr. Scott is especially mad that you are coming to Kansas City. He has told everyone that you will never make it here since you are not around all the time and that you have sold your soul to the devil to make these compromises to get to say Mass just to get at him.

I can't believe that I am so stupid. I have tried talking to other priests and they do not understand the Society and what they do to your mind. I thought if I could talk to you that you would understand and might be able to help. I do remember all the things they said about you when you left. I imagine that all of that was a lie too.

Does the church in Kansas know your schedule? I would like to come back when you are there, but I am afraid to show up and not find you again. Could you ask to be sent here more often? Please help us who want to come back to the church. Please help us get out of the Society.

As I told you I can't say who I am. I'm afraid of them.

ANOTHER RUMOR

This one concerns the Society's excommunicated US bishop, Williamson. I have been told this one was all over St. Mary's during the summer of '95 and was rapidly making the rounds in this country. On July 25, 1995 I wrote to Williamson and asked him to either confirm or deny the following rumors.

Bishop Williamson is planning on leaving the Society of St. Pius the Tenth, and, or, Bishop Williamson is planning to join with Bishop Pivarunas.

As of August '96, I have yet to receive a reply. So take it for what it is worth. Bishop Pivarunas (if he really is a bishop) is one Mark Pivarunas who was "consecrated" bishop through the Old Catholic / Mount St. Michael / Schuckardt group. He is also, I am informed, the one who consecrated Fr. Daniel Dolan as bishop. (As well, I had written a letter to "Bishop" Dolan, and, as with the Society, I received no acknowledgment). As for Williamson - time will tell.

However, by the middle of August I have had word that Scott, Angles, and Williamson were all supposed to be reassigned to other locations. Faxes were apparently sent informing them of this development by Econe, but, that these orders are being ignored. It is difficult to verify this as, again, the Society won't talk and won't answer my inquiries. Kind of looks like a schism within the schism.

AND ANOTHER ONE

As in other instances, the party involved won't answer my letters. This one concerns the "pending" publication of a book by TAN. Fr. John Rager wrote an excellent book, Bellarmine and Democracy, in which Bellarmine shows the correct relationship of God and authority to people and the creation of governments. As you are probably well aware of the SSPX's vehement anti-American attitude, it should come as no surprise to you that the Society has little use for a publication about a Doctor of the Church which is in direct opposition to the Society's Protestant notion of power, authority, and government. Bellarmine destroys the Society's Protestant - monarchistic idea of the Divine Right of Kings. TAN had been advertising this book for some time.

However, be that as it may, rumors are circulating that pressure is, and has been, put upon Thomas A. Nelson, the publisher, not to print this book. Now the only people I could think of that might apply this pressure would be with the SSPX leadership. As Society luminaries are too good to write to me, I knew it would be a waste time trying to get at the truth through that source, which, reduced me to writing to Mr. Nelson. To that end I penned a letter in August and sent it off to him seeking a denial or confirmation of this rumor. To date (April '96) I have received no response, and in the last TAN catalog I saw, the book was no longer listed. That being the case, I called TAN on 4/7/96 and inquired about the publication of this book and was told that there were "editing" problems. I'll bet there are. I asked if they were planning on canceling the publication of this book, but, the lady I spoke to said she didn't think so. But, then, she said "'they' haven't told me" anything. As of November, 1996, the book is listed as "Out of Stock" on the invoice if you try to order it.

"BELLARMINE AND DEMOCRACY" UPDATE

April 1st, 1997 -- called TAN Books and spoke with a woman in Sales -- asked about several books TAN is showing as "Out of Stock" including "Bellarmine and Democracy" -- was told by the lady that TAN was experiencing a financial crunch, but, that of the five books on my list all would at some time in the future, be back in stock -- all except "Bellarmine and Democracy" which she said TAN "wasn't going to do." So there you have it. After advertising this book for so long, it appears that Tom Nelson will not be publishing it. Do you really wonder why? You might call Tom at (815) 226-7777 and asked why. [As of the 1st of August, 1997, the book is still "out of stock."]

A few years ago, a Society priest wrote a refutation of the bizarre political theories of a writer the Society finds to its liking - Solange Hertz. Now the Society, obviously, doesn't want to see TAN publish this either. As you can well imagine, TAN's credibility is at stake, but, as of now it looks like Mr. Nelson has knuckled under.

(As of November, 1998, when I received the TAN 1998-99 Winter Catalog, this book was no longer even in TAN's complete listing of its publications. Did Tom Nelson finally cave in to the rumored pressure from the SSPX? You might write and ask him, and then let me know his response. When I last wrote to him on this matter, he failed to respond to my inquiry. His address: Mr. Thomas A. Nelson, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105. Or visit their website and send him an e-mail: http://www.tanbooks.com )

MORE "CHARITY," SOCIETY STYLE

Below is a letter from Society sycophant and hanger-on, the "Reverend" Carl Pulvermacher (a brother of the new Pope, Pius XIII), to Fr. John Rizzo, who was reconciled with the Church after he decided he could no longer abide the anti-Catholic nature of the SSPX. You may note the similarity of mind set in this letter with that of "Fr." Ed MacDonald, to Fr. Rizzo, in June of '94.

Davie, Florida / August 19, 1995

Fr. John Rizzo / St. Mary's, Kansas

Formerly dear Fr. Rizzo,

You might think of me as a rather easy going, peaceful and humble priest.(*1) That may be true, but I am also one who can get angry when I see things that ought not to be. I have been a worker in the vineyard of the Lord, faithful and true to the Archbishop and to his Society of ST. Pius X (sic), and that is something I cannot say for you.

You are playing right into the dirty hands of the enemies of the Archbishop and the Society. What a scandal to have an article such as was written about you in the Triumph.(*2) You so easily hand them what they consider a great victory. You have positioned yourself in the midst of people who are hateful to the true Mass(*3), and who use it with the Indult only as a trap for those who are still faithful Catholics.(*4)

Wait till you have them ask you for the Sacrament of Confirmation, or for Baptism for their children. Do you think it will be very long before your Indult people will have to go to their home parishes to receive these? (Unless you do it yourself and do it underhandedly)(*5)

Perhaps you have heard what has happened with Dom Gerard when he went to Rome to ask for a few more privileges. To obtain these he had to and did concelebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with the Pope. He was so ashamed of himself that he did not reveal this to his monastery for some time.(*6)

Your Ecclesia Dei superiors in the Commission are really not Catholic, and still you act as though everything is just fine.(*7) You are acting out a lie.(*8) The poor people who follow you, I pity them.(*9) You are a Judas Priest, a Judas Goat, and even an enemy of Christ's holy Church all wrapped up into one.(*10) Most of the people who follow you are innocent of what you are doing to them. What will they do to you when they find out?(*11) The Holy Ghost says of Mary: "You are the glory of our people." It will be just the opposite for those who do such things as you have done.(*12) May Our God, the Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on your soul.(*13)

Sincerely,

(Signed)Fr. Carl Pulvermacher

1. Boy, nothing like blowing your own horn.
2. Fr. Rizzo never heard of "the Triumph" - he believes Pulvermacher meant "Fidelity" or, was it a Freudian slip betraying Pulvermacher's subconscious belief that the Society really is in error and that the Church will triumph even as the Society fades into oblivion?
3. The "true Mass?' It's either a Mass or it's not. Pulvermacher betrays his neo-heretical bias.
4. Well, at least he gives us credit for being faithful Catholics, a role Pulvermacher has personally rejected by his schism and refusal of obedience to the Vicar of Christ.
5. There you have it. In one fell swoop Pulvermacher has confirmed that the Society believes all the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid and that valid sacraments can only be found in the new church and religion of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth which they've created in opposition to Our Lord's Church.
6. My what a big secret that must have been; or, not having the Society's conspiratorial mind set, Dom Gerard didn't think it was of any significance. But the larger question is, does Pulvermacher, and hence the Society, believe that the Mass was invalid? If they didn't, what advantage is there in mentioning it. Flip-flopping again, the Society, through Pulvermacher insinuates that all New Order Masses are invalid.
7. Self-righteously Pulvermacher claims a special insight as to whether people are, or are not, Catholic; this from someone belonging to a schismatic, and neo-heretical organization; and how does one "act" like all is fine?
8. Pulvermacher fails to specify what that lie is. Fr. Rizzo is in the Church established by Christ, and Pulvermacher and the SSPX are outside that Church; just who is acting out a lie "Fr." Carl?
9. They could probably use his prayers, but all Pulvermacher can give them is pity!
10. Someone once said that the last refuge of a scoundrel, because he has not the truth, is name calling.
11. A better question is what is Pulvermacher talking about? I suspect if they don't know what Fr. Rizzo is doing they will not possess the mental faculties to do anything either for or against Fr. Rizzo.
12. Question. What will be just the opposite? The Holy Ghost will say that Mary is not the glory of our people to Fr. Rizzo; now Pulvermacher is the official interpreter for the Holy Ghost.
13. This is the only really nice thing Pulvermacher had to say in his whole letter though he apparently wouldn't consider praying for Fr. Rizzo.

As I have it, a young lady (35 - in 1996) by the name of Barbara was allegedly told by Fr. Pfeiffer, at Ridgefield, that she did not have a vocation.  Now Barbara is a black woman from South Africa and it has been said that Pfeiffer ordered her to return to South Africa.  She was, apparently, not too keen on that idea.  It seems that in the area to which she would return, the local Mandela goon squads actually herd people to meetings for indoctrination, etc. (In case you've been on another planet, things have not been going all that well in South Africa since the phony elections caused by pressure from the international community forced the nominally Christian whites to turn their country over to the anti-Christian, Communist, Mandela-led blacks)

So Barbara got in touch with a woman she knew (whose family happens to be connected with the Society), to seek advice and assistance.  This woman then got in touch with a priest (Novus Ordo, says the Tridentine Mass - Indult, of course), who had been friendly with her family for a number of years.  This good priest wished to do what he could so Barbara could remain in the US of A, and, therefore, arranged to have a meeting with her to that end.

Now the story is that the father of the husband of the woman Barbara called was supposedly told by Fr. Pfeiffer to pick up Barbara and hold her incommunicado so she couldn't keep the meeting with the priest and then to get her on the flight to South Africa.  This is what I have been told has happened.  This woman's husband, I'm also told, forced his wife to call Fr. Pfeiffer and apologize for... "interfering."  Obviously this woman is not a good Catholic because she clearly doesn't know her place.  She tried to help someone in need, but, she failed to clear her actions with her lord and master (her husband) or the Society.

Now, again, I wrote to Fr. Pfeiffer to get his angle on the story, and, guess what, he didn't deny it.  So you tell me, has the Society entered into a new phase of its existence or what?

RELIGIOUS FRANCHISES?

Over the past few years a clearer picture of the Society has emerged.  After Scott drove us out of the Chicago mission, with his unsubstantiated charges of gossip, I wondered for a while why the Society didn't try to talk some of those who left into coming back.  At least in my case, maybe they did, but, only after I published the first issue of the AGENDA.  We really began to see what kind of a group this really was because of the contacts "Bob from Schaumburg" was making all over the country (Bob and his wife were my point men as it were).

I thought to myself, how is it that Scott and company would want to drive 70% of the people away from the Chicago mission?  The overall answer has been a little slow in coming.  Fr. Kenneth Novak visited me in April of '93; several weeks after the first AGENDA came out.  He told me that Fr. Scott realized the Society (Scott) had made a mistake in Chicago.  My reaction was, "Really!"  I said something to the effect that time would tell.

Ostensibly, Fr. Novak made his visit to, in his words, "See if I was still welcome" at my home.  He is also the Godfather of my daughter number six, Sharon.  I told him that as a friend he would always be welcome which is still true.  The conversation began to drift all over the place, but, in my mind, it seemed he was trying to dissuade me from publishing any more AGENDAs.  Now, after three years, I feel confirmed in that impression because, #1, he never acknowledges my letters, and, #2, he has had no contact with his Goddaughter.  So it appears that Fr. Scott was probably using him for damage control; although I suppose it is possible he took it upon himself to see what he could do.  In any event, no one else, that I'm aware of, was contacted in an effort to cajole them into returning to the SSPX.

I had mentioned in an earlier issue that a priest I had met had a chance meeting with the new Superior General of the Society, Bishop Fellay, in Europe.  Fellay, when asked about the number of vocations the Society was getting had supposedly replied to the effect that while their numbers were not increasing the Society really was not looking to increase the number of priests over what they already had because they were managing just fine, thank you.

Essentially, this all makes sense to me; especially if your objective is to carve out a religious niche in history and provide yourself with a relatively comfortable bailiwick in the process.  It would seem that the reason they are comfortable with the number of priests they have is because #1, so many have left, and, #2, few candidates are coming in, and, #3 the prospects are not good for them gaining any more the longer their schism continues.

Now word comes to me that some of the old-timers in the Chicago mission (that is, people that have now been there four or five years) no longer have the "input and influence" they apparently craved before the rest of us left.  As new people have come into the mission, they give the Society more to choose from.  Rather than allow any laymen to become too prominent in the mission, changes are made.  They are not about to let laymen have the decision taking power that existed in the mission for ten years before Scott came in and stirred up trouble.

The Society doesn't really care about the spiritual welfare of laymen, or even if they stay with the Society; there are always more disaffected souls, who don't know what the Society is all about, waiting to take the places of those who leave.  And these will be all too ready to do the Society's bidding (without question), to work for long hours, donate theirs savings, or provide whatever the Society can use.  This pattern has been repeated over and over and over again in Society locations all over the country.  It could be called a sort of "religious perpetual motion" and it is the engine, whose fuel is an abundance of ignorance, which keeps the Society running.

So it seems that the Society is pacing itself with the number of priests it has.  Anymore and the workload might be such that its priests would end up with too much free time which might allow some of them time to really think about the Society and that would be dangerous.  So they keep running their priests ragged which keeps them too tired to do much of anything but recuperate.  Those who do find a little time to think and do the unthinkable - question Society activities and/or status, and, God forbid, legitimacy - suddenly become "mental cases" and are either shuffled off to no man's land, or their life becomes unbearable and they're forced out.

I think it's safe to say that people who initially sign on with the SSPX are hoping that through negotiations with Rome this group can become either a Personal Prelature, or, an order of Pontifical Rite, or, some such thing, which will assure the continuation of the so-called Tridentine Rite of the Mass (Count Capponi feels it is more correct to call it the Carolingian-Gregorian Mass) and associated liturgical functions; it was ostensibly for this that the Society was founded.  But to preserve the Tridentine Rite is now a moot point with the Holy Father's actions in 1984 and 1988 which assure the use of this rite.  Therefore, as the Society will not submit to Rome, its prime objective now is to build permanence for their new church.

When we signed on with them in 1982, there was no talk of establishing schools all over the place as the Society does now, or spending money like a drunken sailor to build retreat houses everywhere for their indoctrination sessions where they play mind games with those foolish enough to attend.  They never did tell us the whole plan up-front, which, in my book, constitutes clear-cut fraud.  And just as fraudulently, the Society never explained, or explains, to laymen the significance of a lack of jurisdiction, or, why it is so important; namely invalid marriages and confessions.  Deceitfulness by omission, in this instance, to go along with regular doses of deceit by commission.

And, there are no negotiations.  None!  They know Rome is never going to bow to them so the Society is about building a church in its own image.  They are the tail trying to wag the dog, but, it matters not if Rome does not come around to the Society's way of thinking.  So they have no hesitation about spending large sum of monies for churches and schools and what nots.

They no longer truly recognize Rome as the legitimate seat of authority, though they pay lip service to that concept and will tell you that they "pray for the Pope" to keep their followers in the pews.  Yes!  "By all means, pray for John Paul II, but do not give him your loyalty or your obedience, as is befitting the Vicar of Christ."  Essentially, then, all the Society's missions are nothing more than something akin to, as an acquaintance of mine has put it, religious franchises.  So, caveat emptor!