18 July 2018
Luke Ross luke@houseofross.net July 18 (1 day ago)
to Frj Pfeiffer <email withheld> bcc: emails withheld

Dear Father Pfeiffer
INTRODUCTION TO MY REPLY TO FR PFEIFFER’S LETTER
The following letter to you serves as both a reply to your letter, and also a response to these endless unfounded allegations which surround your last visit to Melbourne.
Yours in JMJ
Luke Ross
OLSC Coordinator
The OLSC community has been hesitant and cautious in their approach to respond to Father Pfeiffer's broad attacks against them since his last visit to Melbourne (April 2018). These attacks on us have been made not just here in Australia, but also worldwide.
We initially responded to them as we had major concerns that these attacks, which were being made under false pretenses, were caus- ing division amongst our communities in Australia and are harmful to the overall true re- sistance movement. They were also turning people away from OLSC. Fortunately, the Streaky Bay community and other individuals were able to see through Father Pfeiffer's smokescreen, but alas, many others were deceived, and still continue to be.
The attacks against OLSC intensified when Fr Pfeiffer, in conjunction with The Catacombs Forum, made public his letter he had emailed to me (refer page 2). Since then, and for a sig- nificant period of time, the combined forces of Father Pfeiffer, The Catacombs, and Greg Taylor have continued with their attacks against OLSC which have done further damage to the true resistance Movement. Because of this we believe we cannot hold back any longer, as in doing so, we would be guilty of not truly fighting for the faith. Therefore, the time has come for us to state our case publicly, to expose the truth, and to set the record straight.
To enable readers better understand the events as they unfolded which were associated with Father Pfeiffer's last visit to Melbourne, here is a brief summary:
SUMMARY OF EVENTS SURROUNDING FR PFEIFFER'S MELBOURNE VISIT IN APRIL
On Sunday 1st April our group held a meeting to discuss any concerns that may arise associated with Fr. Pfeiffer's upcoming visit.
Father Pfeiffer arrived on the following Saturday morning, (7th April). There was a baptism, which was followed by Mass.
That afternoon Father Pfeiffer requested of me, coordinator of OLSC, that he have a meeting with David and me. No other members of the community were invited. David was unavailable, so it was just me who had a lengthy discussion with Father. What Father revealed to me was very concern- ing. I thought it was imperative that he make these details known to the wider community. I was con- cerned as to why he hadn't already done so earlier in the day when he had had the opportunity to do so. So, I texted Father on late Saturday night to ask for a meeting with the community immediately after Sunday Mass the following morning. He agreed, and after Mass on Sunday, we had a brief im- promptu meeting. Father either did not address the important details or skimped over them. Time was limited, and he had to depart to the airport to catch his flight to Adelaide. The community understood
that they would see Father again in Melbourne on the following Sunday (April 15th) as a Mass and conference were scheduled for that day. This, they hoped, would be an opportunity for Father to discuss the important details and for them to raise their concerns. The opportunity did not eventu- ate as Father proceeded to cancel the following Sunday Mass, and the community did not see him again.
On April 11th, three days after Father Pfeiffer had left Melbourne, but whilst he was still in Australia, he emailed me the following letter:
Frj. Pfeiffer<email address withheld>
April 11, 2018 St. Leo I
Dear Mr. Ross,
The Melbourne Mission was established by me in 2013 at which time none of you of the "Melbourne Group" were even members. The 4 original members are all gone.
Thank you for the work you have done as coordinator for OLMC the last 2 years or so. It appears as though we are not on the same page in the matter of the visiting Priest. You see yourself as the elected representative superior whereas I see the priest as the Superior according to Our Holy Catholic Faith.
Each of the Missions established by OLMC are under OLMC and not lay controlled. Fr. Chazal, The Adelaide and other missions warned me that your Melbourne Group wanted to control Australia and dictate to the priest its wishes as opposed to being another Mass Group. And that you were not fighting for the Faith first. They members of the other groups do not want to answer to your group whom most of them do not even know anyway.
I was told, not by you my coordinator, but by others that you held a meeting last week in which you discussed among other things some other priest who may come to visit you on condition that you are separated from OLMC. Nick was also told not to speak to his Acting Pastor on any of the group matters when driving me from the Airport. [Ed. Name] told me that only Her husband, Luke and [Ed. Name] spoke to me and not the others due to prior agreement amongst yourselves that only the elected officials would speak to Father Pfeiffer at the meeting which meeting you did not want all Mass attendees to attend. I did not make you coordinator in order to keep shepherd and the sheep separated. This is dishonorable behavior. We have a policy of openness and honesty.
Hence, for the good of Souls and the sake of clarity, you are removed as coordinator of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and the mission which you say is your own lay private prayer group is closed as regards OLMC. I will resume the OLMC mission in Melbourne, outside of the direction of any lay elected parish council or the like. Fr. Cummins dealt with a similar situation in Melbourne in 1974. He established the parish in Hampton which is still there 40 years later. One third of Fr. Cummins parish stayed with a lay group (The Latin Mass Society) under a president which invited another priest from New Zealand to service them instead of staying in Fr. Cummins's parish. The priest stayed 2 years then left. As far as I know that lay group ceased to exist. Other lay groups worldwide have hired and removed priests at will over the last 50 years since the Council.
All Catholics and non-Catholics, members or not are invited to attend any Masses celebrated by myself or any priest associated with me. I do not condemn anyone who goes to any other Masses either. The Truth is immutable, but souls shall be judged by the Good God according to His Mercy and Justice as He sees fit. It is my Hope that the faithful will choose Faith first. Any and each individual rich or not, may speak to the shepherd, and are not to be blocked from their shepherd, period. Also non-members of the flock are welcome to call or speak to me also without the necessity of following the rules of any lay community.
You as well as any and every member of your lay group are most welcome to continue attending the Masses offered by us visiting priests. There should be multiple priests willing to meet your conditions and work for your group, You may inform them that your organization is separated from OLMC and therefore should not be a hindrance to their assisting you. May God bless you in all your endeavors,
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer

18 July 2018
Dear Father Pfeiffer
Father, our trust in you as a Priest has been violated, and the doctrine of the Church distorted when you quote Divine Law to support your fabrication that we, the lowly laity, were trying to control you, and by extension, trying to control the whole network set up throughout Australia.
Well, you have achieved your purpose of dividing us and making an example of us. Let this be recorded here in this letter.
This record is necessary as a warning to the other mission centres in Australia and in your Global Or- ganisation (as you have called it during our conversations).
You made it clear that all Australian mission centres served by you were to come under OLMC. When seeking to apply this stipulation to OLSC the condition was added
that no other true resistance priest would be permitted to visit us or reside permanently in Australia unless that priest is under your control. This is the heart of the problem that exposes your agenda.
We are committed to ensuring that we will keep our fellow-Catholics informed of what you did not tell us until we became dependent on your visits; when you had won our confidence and trust.
Why has OLSC been singled out? At the time of writing, we are aware that:
- The banning of other independent true resistant priests has not been applied to other states of Australia - YET.
- Nor has it been applied to the UK and Canada missions.
- You have accused us of behaving in a protestant manner.
- We have been accused of manipulating you and trying to take control of your duties when we sought to explain the chaos we experienced first-hand regarding air flights and wastage of funds by yourself.
In 2017 we received two visits (three visits if you include the two-day conference that took place from 2016 - 2017) from OLMC priests, of which we were very grateful. We have always endeavoured to seek the services of other independent true resistance priests to come whenever possible. It does not make sense that you would deny us this privilege. Nor does it take into account that visiting priests may wish to remain independent of OLMC.
It is interesting the overwhelming support that is coming to OLSC from true resistance members scattered throughout the world, especially in US, Europe, Asia and Australia.
Red text – Fr Pfeiffer Black text – Luke Ross
Fr Pfeiffer < email withheld> April 11, 2018
St. Leo I
Dear Mr. Ross,
The Melbourne Mission was established by me in 2013 at which time none of you of the "Melbourne Group" were even members. The 4 original members are all gone.
What you state is false as there are
‘present day’ members of the true resistance who did attend the Melbourne meeting in 2013. Also, there was a meeting in Streaky Bay. (The Melbourne event was or- ganised by the present day Streaky Bay coordinator.) I know other people who attended the Melbourne meeting in 2013 who aren’t in the true resistance now, and all are of the same opinion that you never established OLMC when you made this visit. The whole Conference was about the 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay to Rome accepting the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Thank you for the work you have done as coordinator for OLMC the last 2 years or so. It appears as though we are not on the same page in the matter of the visiting Priest. You see yourself as the elected representative superior whereas I see the priest as the Superior according to Our Holy Catholic Faith.
Please do not tell me how I see myself. I am nobody’s superior. I have been requested to organise your visits as smoothly as possible throughout the states of Australia. You are a priest who provided us with the Sacraments until you told the Melbourne community you would no longer provide them.
In addition,
I have never been coordinator for OLMC. This is your invention. I have been elected coordinator of OLSC
by the Melbourne community. The first I ever heard of being coordinator for OLMC was on this April trip 2018. If you refer to any official emails I have written
it clearly shows our emblem as OLSC. (See above).
I am NOT, (and nor have I ever have been) the elected representative superior over the visiting priest.
It is false and dishonest to say I am. Your evident determination to portray OLSC Melbourne into a faith lacking dominating worldly community is a
complete distortion.
Each of the Missions established by OLMC are under OLMC and not lay controlled.
You are the only one who continually refers to ‘lay control’ of whatever.
Fr. Chazal, The Adelaide and other missions warned me that your Melbourne Group wanted to control Australia and dictate to the priest its wishes as opposed to being another Mass Group.
OLSC Melbourne has never controlled or wanted to control any priest. It is curious that Fr. Chazal has warned you about us. He is sure good at warning everyone about everyone else especially when he said we would live to regret the day we got involved with Father Pfeiffer. We were similarly warned by several priests and laity
. I refused to listen to them. The Adelaide coordinator has confirmed she did not warn you against me. The Streaky Bay coordinator has never warned you against me either.
Streaky Bay community stands strong with OLSC.
And that you were not fighting for the Faith first.
The primary reason we left Fr. Chazal was that he became doctrinally compromised.
They members of the other groups do not want to answer to your group whom most of them do not even know anyway.
Not worth a reply
I was told, not by you my coordinator, but by others…
Again, to clear up any misunderstanding here, I am coordinatorfor OLSC. I have never been coordinator for OLMC
……that you held a meeting last week in which you discussed among other things some other priest who may come to visit you…
Correct
……on condition that you are separated from OLMC.
There are many true resistance priests that are
independent.
We seek the visits of any true resistance priests that will travel to Australia.
Nick was also told not to speak to his Acting Pastor on any of the group matters when driving me from the Airport.
So, are we to presume here that you became his Acting Pastor on the way from the airport? This is not a frivolous question because this is the first time you have brought up that anybody had an ‘Acting Pastor’ thus it was impossible that Nick was ever told not to speak to one. (Acting Pastor). Whether Nick was told not to divulge group matters to you I don’t recall, but when you have read further you will realise that it wasn’t appropriate for our community to discuss what transpired at this meeting with you.
Rose told me that only Her husband, Luke and Kathleen Donnelly spoke to me and not the others due to prior agreement amongst yourselves that only the elected officials would speak to Father Pfeiffer….
Rose has confirmed you are misquoting her on this matter – it is another example of you building a case against us by spreading false information. Kathleen Donelly is not on our committee, and Rose knows this, so there is no logic for her to say that.
…..at the meeting which meeting you did not want all Mass attendees to attend. I did not make you co-ordinator in order to keep the shepherd and the sheep separated. This is dishonourable behaviour. We have a policy of openness and honesty.
The first we knew about this Sunday community meeting was when you agreed to my suggestion to have a meeting, which I sent to you by text, as up until our private discussion on Saturday there were no plans for the community to meet with you about anything.

Text Message
Sat, 7 Apr, 10:10 pm
Dear Father Pfeiffer,
Would you like to have a 20 min meeting tomorrow
after mass about what you and I discussed. But not
everyone but the ones you suggested. We don’t want
to lose anyone or include talkers
JMJ Luke

Text Message
Sun, 8 Apr, 1:56 am
(Fr.) Yes let’s do so
Sun, 8 Apr, 8.11 am
(Luke) Somehow not everyone
The text clearly shows it was
my suggestion to have the Sunday meeting with the wider community, because alarm bells were ringing with me. I was very concerned with what I heard at the private meeting you had with me (at your request) on Saturday. I considered it crucial that the wider community be privy to this information.
Past experience has shown youngsters – and especially teenagers who have friends at the SSPX (and for that matter, adults who are not fully convinced of the resistance) can be easily put off attending resistance masses altogether if they are exposed to underlying prob- lems within the resistance. This was the last thing I wanted to happen to our young people.
On the Sunday morning I approached the parents and explained there was going to be a meeting with serious issues being raised that may
not be suitable for everyone namely children, and an adult who had come to Mass for the first time after a long absence from the resistance. There was also another adult of similar circumstances whom I was potentially concerned for, but this person didn’t end up coming to Sunday mass anyway. Also, two people who have been known to discuss our private issues with the false resistance had come to mind, but l quickly realized l couldn’t prevent individuals from attending a public meeting if they attended Sunday Mass.
So, parents favourably agreed not to bring their youngsters, especially teenagers. I considered it prudent to take this approach. That is why I wrote in the text message to you
"somehow, not everyone."
Details of how the private meeting unfolded
On Saturday afternoon, 7th April when most people had left the Bunyip Hall after Mass, you asked me to have a meeting with David and me. (Note: only David and I were requested to attend your meeting, the rest of the community were omitted). I responded that David had gone home so he could not attend. You and I then had a private 1.5-hour discussion and you told me of your plans to establish OLMC in Australia.
It was only after I questioned you as to why you chose not to have a community meeting after Saturday Mass to discuss these issues (when there was ample opportunity for you to do so), that you very hesi- tantly said you had actually wanted to have a meeting with everyone. You didn't elaborate or make clear as to why you did not go ahead and do this. I was intensely keen for you to have a meeting but could sense that you were not so motivated. Hence the wording in my text that I sent to you later that night "but not everyone but the ones you suggested". In other words I was encouraging you to have a meeting with everyone as you had indicated that you had wanted to do, but I didn’t want to include the youngsters at this meeting. (As previously explained).
So, in reality the truth is
I suggested that you have a public meeting with our community, whilst it was your suggestion to have a private meeting with only David and me. My suggestion is the exact oppo- site to what you stated in your letter.
The finer details of what you discussed with me at the private meeting/discussion
- You said that even if a full time priest came to Australia you would still visit our shores.
I asked you why would it be that you would continue to come here if we had a full time permanent priest in Australia?
- You replied that people would still want you to come.
I put it to you that if another priest came, would it not open the opportunity of allowing you to visit areas that didn’t already have a visiting priest.
I mentioned that if an independent or permanent priest visited us then both he and you would be operating in Australia at the same time whenever you came to visit.
- You replied saying that if both priests were in Melbourne then they would each have separate places. You gave an example of the Dominicans and Jesuits both having their own buildings in Melbourne. You added that if a priest visited us permanently or monthly to Australia, that priest would come under you.
I pointed out, once more, that another visiting priest might not choose to be under you, and it would have to be the visiting priest's choice. Many priests in the true resistance are independent.
- You said you didn’t want to set something up (meaning mission) and keep it going for a while only for another priest (meaning true resistance priest) to come in and take it over.
You repeated several of these points again.
My comments
- False resistance priests will take over from true resistance priests and vice versa. But a true resistance priest will share the load with other true resistance priests and work together as a team to best save souls.
- Father Pfeiffer doesn’t have to set up any missions in Australia. After OLSC was founded in 2016 the true resistance movement was established before Father Pfeiffer was invited.
My thoughts and reaction to what I heard
It goes without saying that what you told me spelt danger. I could see that your intentions of having complete control over what priest ministered to our community would have serious implications. You knew from previous discussions that OLSC was open to coordinating and sponsoring any true resistance priests who were faithful to the true traditional teachings of the Catholic faith, and who would continue to fight for Rome to be restored to the true faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.
There was never before any mention of the intention by you of imposing this new direction upon our community; of your wanting to establish OLMC in Australia; of dictating and having control over which priest/s ministered to us. You had no right to impose this on our community, and our community had every right to be made aware of your intentions.
After the meeting, I pondered over what you had told me and it raised further questions
:
- Would that mean all missions weren't to share their chapels with other true resistance priests?
- Would you try and prevent the laity under OLMC attending other true resistance priest's Masses? The answer is yes!
- Where would all the funding for the two priest's buildings and airfares come from if there were two priests doing the Australian circuit at the same time?
- How would the laity decide which of the true resistance priest's masses they would attend?
- It would be impossible for any true resistance independent priest either permanent or visiting, to come here because Father Pfeiffer wants sole control.
The implications of what you disclosed to me needed addressing. It was imperative that our community be made aware of your plans, and I was very keen for you to reveal them, face to face with community members. Sunday morning after Mass was a good opportunity to have a short meeting (as time was limited) and on Saturday night I sent you a text requesting this.
The Community Meeting we had (at my request)
When you did have the meeting with our community on Sunday immediately following Mass, you knew that time was going to be limited, but you chose to deviate and talk in detail about irrelevant matters that were of no consequence and you did not focus on the real crux of the matter. It was only after
we tried to ask some questions that you revealed negligible bits and pieces of your intentions for OLSC and the other Australian communities. On your having to depart to catch the scheduled flight to Adelaide the community was left having gained almost no knowledge of your plans, and without the opportunity to further question you.
The Community Meeting that we didn’t have
There was still more of your plan to be revealed, issues to be raised, and concerns to be discussed, but we did not see you again. We thought we would have had the opportunity to talk further with you on the following Sunday, (April 15th) where Mass and conference were scheduled for that day.
But you aban- doned us, you proceeded to cancel this scheduled Mass and we did not see you again. Why conceal the information from the Melbourne laity and other communities throughout Australia – communities that trusted you as we once did?
If you had returned to Melbourne on the following Sunday (as was scheduled), I would have had the opportunity in the presence of the community, to again ask you the questions that I had asked you during our private discussion on Saturday afternoon (the discussion which prompted me to call for a meeting on the following Sunday morning). This way, your agenda could be made clear to all of the community.
TO SUM IT UP
There would not have been a meeting with the wider community and you had I not requested it. It needed to be with the wider community so they could be informed of what you had told me privately. It was obvious for some reason that you did not want to reveal to the wider community what you had told me privately. Why? Then to claim that it was I keeping the Shepherd from the sheep; that my behaviour was dishonourable does not hold up in the face of evidence.
The fact is Father Pfeiffer, you were actually doing what you were accusing me of doing.
The Community Meeting prior to you arriving
It is correct that our community did have a meeting prior to your visit. At that meeting we discussed the possibility of an independent true resistance priest coming to visit us in Australia, (a priest who wanted his name withheld at that point in time (which we respected)). This was welcome news to the community and should have been welcome news to you too. After all,
I had previously discussed with you that OLSC's main aim from the very beginning has been to get a true resistance priest to visit the Australian faithful regularly, or to even permanently reside in Australia.
Other concerns needing to be discussed
One of the concerns was about Pablo's recently established OLMC Australian website, something that came as a surprise to us and which we, the laity, had not been informed about. After all, Australia already had the well-established worldwide true resistance forum. So why all of a sudden establish an OLMC website specifically targeted for Australia, yet not have one for the other countries you minister to, particularly the UK and Canada?
Parents of young children had also contacted me concerned about the ’Cesspool of Iniquity' sermon. Given that you were soon to visit, it posed a worry that children be exposed to it. One or two members also expressed their opinions about your sermons – saying they thought some of them were 'too dark’, (e.g. a particular sermon given at a wedding) and negative, however, other members did not think this was so.
Member, Nick may have falsely interpreted these concerns as being attacks on you, but that was far from the case. (I will respond to Nick's post at a later date).
The reason for the community meeting prior to your arrival was to put our minds to rest because as you can see, there was speculation & stories happening,
not only in Melbourne but other states too, and we wanted to make your visit smooth running and problem free. Members left the meeting, having decided that no prior arrangement would be made to discuss these concerns with you during your upcoming visit. Little did we know what you were about to unleash on us.
Hence, for the good of Souls and the sake of clarity, you are removed as coordinator of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and the mission which you say is your own lay private prayer group is closed as regards OLMC. I will resume the OLMC mission in Melbourne, outside of the direction of any lay elected parish council or the like.
You call a simple prayer group a lay elected parish council? More of your fabrications. Our com- mittee is very simple as there is no parish council or company. We have about thirty-five laity who attend the visiting priest’s masses.
I am the coordinator you never had.
In August 2017 you made it clear to me personally that you intended for me to be removed from the position of coordinator (in spite of the fact that I had been elected by OLSC community). No reason was given for this. In hindsight, and especially after the events of your recent visit to Melbourne, I now realise this was the first indication that there was a problem.
Now it is clear that when you, Father Pfeiffer, took over the flight situation [early in 2018] that it was the beginning of a complete takeover of all the work that had already been established. And so it proved to be. It's like a cuckoo that takes over the nest of another bird. It is exactly the same method that you decried when so many of your own mission centres in U.S have been taken over by false resistance clergy under Bishop Williamson.
In Australia, your actions will result in eradicating visits from other true resistance priests that God may wish to send us.
Australia needs visiting priests - plural. We are a vast country. It is not only a mistake to suppose that we do not know our faith but to imply that we are untrue to it because we refuse to be dominated by one priest; that only that priest knows his doctrine; that other true resistance priests have to submit to his authority -
all this kind of thinking is plainly dangerous. It is not only dangerous but also destructive to the communion of the faithful - to the faith itself.
We sincerely appeal to our fellow Australian Catholic friends to exercise prudence when plac- ing trust unquestioningly in a singular priest whoever he may be. Takeovers do not start im- mediately. It takes time to lure the fly into the spider's web. OLSC is not the first to recognise Father Pfeiffer’s dangerous motives. I was warned by priests and laity but I wouldn’t listen. Having experienced Father Pfeiffer’s aggression and plotting first hand it is a surprise, and a complete contrast to the initial camaraderie OLSC community shared with him, and with fellow Catholics throughout this country.
Regrettably, it has become necessary to speak on a personal note about the tactics you used to undermine OLSC as a whole in order to justify to the true resistance faithful in Australia why they need to separate themselves from us. Since August 2017, having been forewarned by you, Father Pfeiffer, of your intention to ‘sack’ me, false stories about my integrity began cir- culating that were traced back to you with the obvious intention of discrediting OLSC as a whole.
The priest is in a very powerful position because the faithful depend on him for the Sacra- ments. They believe every word he says. It is a sad day indeed when, without question, a priest can use that trust to bring about such obvious destruction.
Our soul hath been delivered as a sparrow out of the snare of the fowlers. The snare is broken, and we are delivered. Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth. (Ps. 124 : 7-8)
Fr. Cummins dealt with a similar situation in Melbourne in 1974. He established the parish in Hampton which is still there 40 years later.
It is still there because Fr. Cummins only started it. He then left it to the SSPX.

Hampton
The church in Hampton used to be St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church; but became
redundant when the Presbyterians joined the Uniting Church. It still bears the Cross
of St. Andrew in the brickwork on the front wall of the church. We successfully negotiated
a lease of the church and the adjacent hall for $150 a week in October 1980, and continued
leasing it during the next four years when the Uniting Church authorities notified us that
they intended selling it. They offered the whole complex (Church and Hall) to us for
$180.000.
Since we, at the time, were not in a position to buy it, I passed the offer on to Fr. Hogan,
who was at that time the District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X. The Society eventually decided to buy it for $15,000. I agreed to remain on as parish priest until the Society had
enough priests available to take it over. They took possession of the complex in October 1985;
Bro Alban and I then moved on to Adelaide.
One third of Fr. Cummins parish stayed with a lay group. (The Latin Mass Society) under a president which invited another priest from New Zealand to service them instead of staying in Fr. Cummins's parish. The priest stayed 2 years then left. As far as I know that lay group ceasedto exist. Other lay groups worldwide have hired and removed priests at will over the last 50 years since the Council.
We are not hiring and removing – only inviting visiting priests.
In your sermon at Streaky Bay in April, you read from a booklet, which was a documentary on Father Cummins. John Cash had given you that booklet. You were comparing your own visits to the faithful in Australia to that of the visits made to the Australian faithful by Fr. Cummins.
John Cash has told me:
"I and my family knew Fr Cummins very well when he visited us at Streaky Bay,
South Australia. Have many stories to tell”
John went on to say:
“Fr. Cummins was more than happy to work with other priests in his endeavours to keep the true Mass and Sacraments for those brave souls willing to disobey the modernist Bish- ops back then. He was always a visiting priest going to great lengths to respond to requests from Catholics wherever they may be. There was never the slightest suggestion of him wishing to limit visiting priests only to those accepted and approved by him. Fr. Cummins & several other priests at that time were interested in providing Mass & sacraments to anyone anywhere without offensive demands.”
All Catholics and non-Catholics, members or not are invited to attend any Masses celebrated by myself or any priest associated with me.
Important to note:
Father Pfeiffer, the only priest associated with you is Father Hewko. What you have written confirms that you will tolerate no other true resistance priest giving us the Sacraments.
It needs repeating yet again that you will not tolerate any other true resistance priest to visit us or reside permanently in Australia unless the said priest is under your control. This is the heart of your agenda that has been concealed from the other mission communities you claim as your own.
I do not condemn anyone who goes to any other Masses either.
Why is it necessary to say this? Obviously, Father Pfeiffer, you would have no right to condemn anyone for going to other Masses. But OLSC was condemned by your cancelling a scheduled Mass. And you say you condemn no-one? Re-read the bold text in above two paragraphs.
The Truth is immutable, but souls shall be judged by the Good God according to His Mercy and Justice as He sees fit. It is my Hope that the faithful will choose Faith first.
Is doubt being cast on our faith because we want other true resistance priests to provide the Sacra- ments as well?
Any and each individual rich or not, may speak to the shepherd, and are not to be blocked from their shepherd, period.
It is not only a gross distortion and insult to insinuate that I, as coordinator, would block the laity from the Shepherd. It is a plain contradiction to say that one who plans and works for priests’ visits, gathering as many people as possible in every state to attend - that such a one would keep the shepherd from the sheep!
Also non-members of the flock are welcome to call or speak to me also without the necessity of following the rules of any lay community.
Then it is incumbent upon you to remove the block placed between yourself and the community by failing to disclose what you have said to me privately and which you decided to keep secret from all the Aus- tralian communities. This was evident when you gave the laity no time to discuss any concerns they had, then proceeded to cancel the only date left on your agenda to clarify matters openly and shepherd-like.
OLSC has no rules. It cannot be used as a decoy to arrive at your false charge that we are in control of the priest.
You as well as any and every member of your lay group are most welcome to continue attending the Masses offered by us visiting priests.
So now you are a visiting priest(?). The only other visiting priest that you accept is Father Hewko.
There should be multiple priests willing to meet your conditions and work for your group, You may inform them that your organization is separated from OLMC and therefore should not be a hindrance to their assisting you. May God bless you in all your endeavors.
All you insinuate here and elsewhere is deliberately creating a false impression of OLSC. We don’t want any priest to work for OLSC. It is you that has separated OLMC from OLSC because we dare to want to invite other true Resistant priests to Australia.
It is our modest hope to find perhaps one good priest to provide us with the Sacraments when he realises that he is not under the control of OLMC.
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Father, you have spread many untruths and derogatory comments about OLSC and me personally, not only throughout Australia, but throughout all parts of the globe, especially in the US, UK and Europe. I have received feedback from people far and wide that this has happened.
That a priest should say such things about anyone, whether true or false, speaks volumes about the character of the priest himself, but why do you specifically single me out? Is the answer because I have had the 'audacity' to question your practices and motives? Why? Is it because you see me as a threat to your ambitions that exclude any accountability on your part? Also, did I 'push your buttons' because I had to draw your attention to your wasteful and excessive spending from donations by self-sacrificing laity which was cause for concern? Luke Ross's reply email 3
You applied the same technique when Mary Collins, the Adelaide coordinator raised concerns to you via her letter
(email 1) which highlighted the chaos and resultant waste of money that occurred when you arbitrarily took the flight bookings into your own hands. It was clear that you were not happy with what the Adelaide coordinator had to say, despite the fact that it was written with the best of intentions to help.
Father Hewko was also concerned about the situation, and it was at his prompting that the letter was written.
At the risk of being accused once more that my motives are personal and that I should just get over them,
the OLSC team will continue our efforts to uncover the scenario of what happened to OLSC so that others, especially in our beloved country Australia, will not fall prey to your deceitful tactics, used by you and your mouthpieces to promote yourself as the only solution to the Church’s problems. If you had your way, there would be independent priests being denied access to desperate souls who need their ministrations because of the ambitions of one priest, namely yourself. We welcome these priests and continue to welcome them for as long as we exist.
Since your letter found its way onto Catacombs Forum [with your permission], OLSC has had endless attacks from The Catacombs, led by Machabees and Greg Taylor (Recusant). However, they refuse to deal with the main problems that OLSC has stated loud and clear and prefer to focus on issues of a lesser concern that are based on hearsay, and in in doing so, they are masking the truth. They are misleading readers and are purposely perverting the course of justice so as to take the spotlight off your most serious errors and put the spotlight on OLSC and myself, using your false claims. For The Catacombs Forum and Greg Taylor to support your false claims without any investigation to see if your claims are justified, proves they are biased to your accusations against OLSC. When it comes to defending you, they have selec- tive hearing. So much for Greg Taylor being the “objective” one.
OLSC respects the decision of any true resistance priest who chooses to be independent and is open to supporting them. OLSC knows that you, Father Pfeiffer, have no control over visiting priests and permanent priests anywhere, (except in your own mind and possibly at Kentucky); and OLSC knows that, as the current situation in the Church stands, no resistance priests have any authority whatsoever to establish their own parishes.
It is of grievance to me personally, and also to OLSC members that this exposure has become necessary when confidence and trust in the priesthood itself is at an all-time low. Should we let this go unreported we would be sharing in the resulting chaos and isolation. My loyalty and honesty have been questioned so I have given my reasons for the sake of this record, and to expose the tactics used by you Father Pfeiffer, against individuals who dare to question you.
Public perception about OLSC has been falsely distorted due to the fabrications you have spread. Those once fully supportive of us are asking what has happened to OLSC, why has OLSC taken a different direction? The answer is simple. Nothing has changed, we are a simple prayer community continuing to do what we have always done.
We were peaceful, and you have created trouble without cause. Your tactics have been unjust. Our aim is to serve the true Australian resistance, and in one swipe, you have demolished what has been built. This behavior makes no sense. We invited you here, offered friendship and financial support, but now our communities are all divided, and you refuse to give us the sacraments.
Yours in JMJ,
Luke Ross, OLSC Coordinator Email:
luke@houseofross.net
..