Summary of the current position of Our Lady of the Southern Cross

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

There is something not being told here and you sweep it under the rug. The bigger part of this picture is the sentence from your mission statement that said, OLSC put themselves under no priestly authority?
That's the heart of the issue. It disappeared. No explanation.
Reading between the lines in this thread and the locked thread on the mission statement is that problem. Even though it disappeared after poster nick questioned it without explanation. It seems pretty obvious that between your group and Fr. Pfeiffer it did not get resolved. Do you still reject priestly authority or not? If that was unsolved between your group and Fr. Pfeiffer, it stands to reason that he would cancel Mass, because you want to dictate to him and he won't let you.
Just because you erase the sentence on the forum but to Fr. Pfeiffer still reject his authority, then you are being deceitful to say he arbitrarily cancelled Mass. He has a reason and has St. Pius X to back him up.
You write that the ultimatum is the issue, but I think not.

..

 

[Admin]

Scarlet said:
'The ultimatum' you speak of goes for everyone and it's not how you describe and explain it.
I'm reading the new Recusant May issue. I think they are in the situation as OLSC that OLMC is miles away and the priests visit when they can often many months between. Looking at the pictures in England I see other priests of the true resistance offering Mass. OLMC goes there and they have no problems because all are on the same page of the true resistance. Proofs that Fr. Pfeiffer does approve other priests to visit in other groups."


How can it go for "everyone" when OLSC alone are denied other priests of the true resistance you admittingly know exist? OLSC are commanded to reject them!
What Father Pfeiffer approves in GB, is denied in Melbourne???

I don't understand.
How is it the same?

As mere human beings, thoughts and ideas can only be communicated to neighbours/friends/enemies in words. It is unavoidable that each one of us has to interpret first the understanding of what another has written. Then each one of us has to find the words to interpret each others interpretation. It goes on and on so that, as seen above, in the various takes on what was clearly stated in the essay. People from all over the world, who were not present advise us:

• to contemplate this or that passage of scripture
• to help us understand what we experienced first hand
• to trust in God

The only advice I offer is please do not treat the priest as if he is God. It has been said to us:

“if there is a choice between believing you or believing the priest - no question, we believe the priest”.

​

In order to believe the priest, one has to be present to hear what he said and did. Yet, without being there, without knowing what he said and did, those who did see what he said and suffered personally from what he did - they do not matter. You HAVE to obey the priest even though we do not know what he said! Come under his authority and his authority alone, to the exclusion of other good priests.

To sum up:
Words above show that many members have already made up their minds that it is we who have faulted. It has not occurred to them that everything we have said is true because a priest cannot be wrong, so we must be. Having that under their belts they reach out to help us see the light (that they may not have let into their own souls). So they conclude with passages of scripture for us to contemplate.

By judging us and/or our motives, the deadly seriousness of what we are
trying to expose is being covered up.​

We do not care about the personal unjust/malicious attacks we have received. When souls have been placed at risk that is a different matter. In failing to give credence to this, all the misguided loyalty to Father Pfeiffer masks the perilous state of souls that he has left high and dry. Who benefits from that? Our Lord and Saviour or his Enemy? Unless you apply the same test to yourself as you demand of us you will not believe that Father has abandoned souls he remains responsible for.

Automatically we have been disbelieved and judged with the result that more people get into the action with even more interpretations. I am now putting a stop to that, knowing full well that I will be accused of stifling debate. The whole point is that this is not a debate.

Make no mistake about the fact that we are totally biased. It happened. There is only one version.

A priest has abandoned souls for which he remains responsible. Such souls are returning to the situation they were in and from which Father had begun to rescue them. He allows no reasonable questions. Everyone must obey him or he will not hear their confessions or provide them with the Sacraments, thus not merely abandoning them but holding them to ransom as well. They have been punished already by the next Mass arbitrarily cancelled by said priest - punished for a fault not yet committed. This has happened in real time to real people. We tell you about it because the priest continues to get people in with his brilliant doctrinal sermons, then once captured, the trap is sprung.

You are now my parish, I am your parish priest, no other priests are allowed to visit you even good priests. In short he is a loose cannon accountable to no-one. Be warned all who take no notice.

In conclusion
We state that we already belong to a true parish subject to the authority of our local Bishop. whom, as said above, we disobey until Rome returns to the Catholic faith.

Until the priesthood is united under a faithful Pope all of them, without exception, are creating their own little ‘parishes’ with their own flocks who are happy to obey him in order to receive the Sacraments.

We have done our bit. We can do no more. This thread is being closed temporarily. Admin


Post Script:
In a scholarly article on another forum the point being made is that supplied jurisdiction to the traditional priest, and the virtue of recognising that, means that the laity should obey such priests.

So, lets put it to the test -

All SSPX priests are traditional priests
All FSSP are traditional priests
All true resistance priests are traditional priests
All false resistance priests are traditional priests.
All ecclesia dei priests are traditional priests​

So the article is saying that we should obey any one of those priests. Just take your pick. Trouble is people are taking their pick.

..

 

[Admin]

Scarlet Pimpernel said:

There is something not being told here and you sweep it under the rug. The bigger part of this picture is the sentence from your mission statement that said, OLSC put themselves under no priestly authority?

Where in the Mission Statement does it say they 'put themselves under no priestly authority?​

Mission Statement

On Sunday 17th January, 2016 our community, formerly known as "the Victorian Resistance" has been officially renamed "Our Lady of the Southern Cross"​

We are a lay community of Catholics in Victoria who organise our own activities in religious fellowship, group prayers, social and charitable activities. We resist whatever interferes with our faith, supported by the catechism of our childhood. If faced with an order putting our faith in danger of corruption we have an overriding duty to disobey.

We acknowledge and recognise Pope Francis as Vicar of Christ on earth.

We make our own, the statement of
Archbishop LeFebvre who asked Rome:​

“Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, 1988)

We look forward to coordinating and sponsoring priests who are faithful to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Faith and who continue to fight for Rome to be restored to the true faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

________________________________
​

If you are referring to the then subsequently deleted line that said we refuse to put ourselves under the “exclusive authority of one priest” it goes on to say that we are open to all true resistance priests.

It was removed not because it was incorrect. It was removed because I spoke as a member.

It is still our position. We will remain open to other visiting true resistance priests who are doctrinally sound. We have never ceased being open to Father Pfeiffer but not to him exclusively. We cannot accept that ultimatum. We never stopped accepting that priest.

..

 

[Admin]

From my Mailbox:

I feel I have to share my own experience and that of my family with Fr. J. Pfeiffer with you since what you write in your announcement, it all sounds familiar to me.

Shortly after Fr. J. Pfeiffer was kicked out of the fraternity my husband and I invited him to come over to Germany in order to speak about the whole issue and the circumstances of the changes that were going on in the SSPX.

We then informed several other fellow-Catholics of the priory who were somewhat irritated by the rumors and invited them to attend the conference, to get the facts.

Prior to his arrival I informed Fr. J. Pfeiffer, that there was no possibility to say mass in our apartment which was in a mess at the time because of our recent move to the new location. I therefore asked him to say his morning mass before leaving Switzerland where he was staying. When Fr. J. Pfeiffer arrived in the evening he told us to prepare for mass since he intended to say mass before giving his conference. He made it very clear that he would not be willing to give any talk unless the people to attend would show their unity with him by participating in HIS mass. He said that people who wanted to hear his talk had to go to his mass first, demonstrating, that they were in line with him and against the SSPX. Now that was very confusing since he was in our apartment but the meeting was to take place in my office which belonged to the company I worked for. He then insisted to say mass in the office and I could hardly convince him that that was absolutely out of the question.

Being late already we rushed to my office where app. 20 people were waiting, including one SSPX-priest. After the talk I could arrange that our landlords who were also present at the conference, provided a room for Fr. J. Pfeiffer in order to say his mass and I myself told father about the fact, that there would be a room for him on the 4th floor (I told him twice, first, as soon as I had arranged it and second, when he was leaving the conference). After the conference my son went with Fr. J. Pfeiffer to our apartment and wanted to take him to the room which was prepared for holy mass. Instead however, father insisted to go to our apartment, went straight into the kitchen which was in a mess, too, and began immediately saying mass on the kitchen counter, between pots and pans! When my husband and I arrived a couple of minutes later, I was in shock about what was going on. Our landlords who had prepared their living room for the mass were waiting in vain and I had a hard time to explain the situation to them. They never ever got interested in the whole resistance matter again, as a matter of fact, much to the contrary.

The next day Fr. J. Pfeiffer left Germany after having instructed as about how to proceed in this crisis, not going to the priory anymore, etc.

Later I found out (from friends in Great Britain), to my great astonishment, that Fr. J. Pfeiffer had reported to them, that he had to say mass in our kitchen because we did not care to prepare a proper room. I certainly tried to tell them the facts but they would not believe me but rather the priest’s narrative, of course, who wouldn’t?

I actually could go on and on with first-hand-stories like this one (Pablo=huge problem!!!) but I am not in the gossip business. I think however that it is legitimate, to share one’s concern and sorrow with fellow-Catholics who are likewise concerned, offended and scandalized. The difficulties in this unprecedented crisis are getting worse by the day and there is so much confusion about who you can trust, I mean really trust 100%, in order to stay 100% Catholic.

I thank you very much for your apostolate; you are a model of true Catholic warriors. Once again, the wheat gets separated from the chaff.

Let us pray for the priests who mean well but are in a mess themselves, who want to keep up the good work of our dear archbishop Marcel Lefebvre but are being led astray themselves because of their pride and uncatholic arrogance and selfishness, for the priests who are fighting for the Catholic doctrine and tradition but bear no fruit because they lack the love for their sheep.

..

 

[Admin]

Fair enough. I do not mind you telling me your opinion. That is all it is - an opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine and the rest of the laity have theirs. The OP states that the laity are the victims of the priests being at war with one another. Father always said he could only advise. He always said he could not make us do anything - that we all had to decide for ourselves.
Stage 2: He will not say Mass for us any more unless we meet his impossible demands. An official rejection has not been made because we can only speak for ourselves. Read the co-ordinator's final message two posts above.

What you have not asked, and what might interest you, is that the majority of OLSC members believing totally what Father has taught us - break our necks to get to his Masses and conferences. What better attitude to have than being forced by the punishment of committing a mortal sin? I assure you no-one needs force. Such members have grown so much that they come from long distances, some using public transport back and forth. When Father arbitrarily cancelled the scheduled final Mass in Melbourne he left holy people high and dry. They had no part in the decision making. They would have been able to ask if he had kept his appointment with them. The rejection of his ultimatum was made only by those members who were present to hear them - it was made individually by each member deciding for himself. It was never made for absent members obviously because those present could not speak for those absent. Even those present at the time wanted to discuss it further but the opportunity to do so was cut off. Does not Father have a responsibility to those souls he has left high and dry and for whose souls he is still responsible? His close friends have been defending all his actions out of a sense of loyalty, like many people here who have done the same thing. Has anybody at all understood the seriousness of the situation? Doesn't look like it when you look at all the replies and false interpretations made against our poor efforts.

At least we have tried our best.

I have thought about this a bit more. If the essay is read with an open mind the reader would have known the answer to this question without asking it. This thread was closed because people have read what has been said by putting their own interpretations on what happened when they were not even there. At the risk of still being disbelieved yet again I will give you an emphatic answer. I do not speak for anyone else.

No I will not attend a Mass said by Fr. Pfeiffer even if it is next door. He demands I accept him as my parish priest. I already have a parish priest. In my true parish there are assistant parish priests. Father Pfeiffer rejects assistant parish priests bar one - Fr. Hewko. Only Fr. Pfeiffer's priests-to-come (seminarians) will be permitted by him to provide me with the Sacraments and even that depends on whether a Bishop will ordain them. He will only provide the Sacraments for me if I obey these commands. He is using OLMC for his own purposes - to set up mission centres as 'parishes' controlled exclusively by him with assistant priests trained by him. Then he caps the whole thing off by saying it is all Divine Law!

..

 

[Mary]

I, Mary Collins, claim ownership of the first letter in the following post.

 

[Michael1]

Introduction:

From the start OLSC made every effort to deal with matters privately - that is until false interpretations of the facts began to surface publicly. Below is the full dialogue that took place and which is self-explanatory. Already slow to respond to the false information Father Pfeiffer is providing elsewhere we realised that if we remained silent other communities could fall prey to the same tactics.

1. The first letter in this post was originally written to Father Pfeiffer privately to sort out the problems caused when he organised Father Hewko’s Australian time table in early 2018. The Adelaide co-ordinator, author of the first letter, sought advice from Fr. Hewko at the time. Following his advice, she wrote to Fr. Pfeiffer about the chaos that resulted.

2. The second letter is Father Pfeiffer’s response to the first letter.

3. I wrote the third letter when requested by Mary to do so on her behalf.

Previously, there were issues developing between the OLSC and Father Pfeiffer in Australia but what takes place in these three emails brings the problems to the surface.

Future information will get to the heart of the problem.

Yours in JMJ,
Luke Ross
OLSC Coordinator

________________________________

Email 1

I, Mary Collins, wrote the following letter to Father Pfeiffer:
On Mar 8, 2018, at 5:22 PM, Mary Collins <email withheld > wrote:

Dear Father

Thank you for allowing Father Hewko to visit our shores recently. It was a delight to have him back in Australia, and we would dearly love to have him visit again on a regular basis.

Whilst it was such a blessing to have Father Hewko here, the organisational side of Fathers' visit was far from satisfactory. In fact it was an utter mess. It caused a lot of unnecessary worry and angst, and quite simply, did not work. Whilst I understand the funeral in Brisbane caused an unpreventable and unexpected change to the schedule, the remainder of the visit could have been run in a much smoother manner. And besides, the anguish of not knowing what was going on had set in even well before the funeral even became an issue.

In Adelaide for example we did were not able to confirm Mass times until the morning of Father's arrival, as we were not advised of his airline schedules until that morning. This is not conducive to attracting newcomers to Mass, and nor can people plan ahead to set time aside for Mass. Not only that, people were not able to attend Mass because of the late start time. Father flew in to Adelaide from Canberra on a later flight - there were earlier flight options in from Canberra which could have been more accommodating to our requirements. I was receiving calls from Streaky Bay folk wondering what was going on...I could not tell them . I shudder to think what the expense would have been for booking a late ticket for Fathers' onward journey to Port Lincoln from Adelaide. There would have been another cheaper alternative (airport) for Father to fly on to in lieu of Port Lincoln given the lateness of the booking of tickets....of course you would not have been aware of this, but if the bookings were done using local knowledge, then it could have been applied.

Prior to Father's arrival in Australia I had been in contact with our Coordinator Luke Ross to ascertain what was happening. Luke advised that he had not heard from you. I phoned Brisbane - (name witheld) who said she had been in contact with you. She explained she was trying to organise motel rooms for accommodation for Mass goers. Now we have had trouble collecting funds from the Brisbane group to put towards airfares (can't afford it has been the reason given), yet they are able to afford motel rooms? Surely renting a cheap hall would be a much more sensible arrangement. I agree with your policy that if group can't fund the priests visits, then this needs to be covered, as the priest still needs to visit them. This is something that Australia aims to do, however, if certain groups say they can't pay, when in actual fact they can pay, then that is a total different story.

At the end of the day, as a visiting priest, it's the spiritual things that you need to be in charge of Father, not the practical. You and any other priest who come are visiting priests. We need the organisational and practical aspects of these visits to be done locally, using local knowledge. We have an honest and fair Australian coordinator in Luke Ross who has my full support - he is a valuable asset has done so much good, and we cannot not afford to lose him. He is very mindful of putting into place as best he can an itinerary which suits all groups requirements (taking into account advice received from each State Coordinator).

Having the practical side of things done locally here in Australia will prevent unnecessary disgruntlement and disillusionment, (which is currently happening) , and it also will be conducive to attracting new comers, freeing up more time for you to do your spiritual duties, and also will help free up funds for your seminary.

I hope this is helpful to you Father and will assist with the building of your missions.

God Bless you and all the good work that you do.

Kind Regards
Mary Collins
Adelaide
Australia

_________________________________

Email 2

From: Frj Pfeiffer [email address withheld]Sent: Friday, 30 March 2018 8:11 AM
To: Mary Collins
Subject: Re: Reply to Feedback Australia

Dear Mrs. Collins,

Thank you for your note of concern of a few weeks ago. You may not be aware of it but you touched on matters more important than you may realize. In fact it is a matter noted by Pope Leo XIII in his dream of the late 19th century when he saw that Satan would have an much greater power to destroy souls in the 20th century for around 100 years. We must be at the end of that period now. Leo XIII introduced a simple exercism prayer that could be used by any priest or faithful against the devil and he introduced the prayers after Low Mass including the invocation at the end of the St. Michael prayer “. . .and for the freedom and exsaltation of Holy Mother Church.” The word “freedom” refers to the Church being freed from Lay control.

The Church has become more and more shackled in the last 500 years first by kings and governments and now by anyone. St. Thomas Becket was martyred because he would not accept lay interference into his diocese. One of his priests raped and murdered a girl. The Duke representing the king put him to death without Ecclesiastical trial. St. Thomas Becket excommunicated him for not waiting for the Church trial and Judgement. The Priest would have been executed anyway but by the Church not the State.

The Catholic Church has always insisted on its autonomy from Lay control. The problem of Lay investiture and Caeseropapism was a battle of centuries. Pope Gregory II wrote “For as the priest has not power to enter the palace, and to distribute royal honors, so the prince has not power to enter the Church to make decrees amongst the clergy, to offer sacrifice, or to touch the symbols of the sacred mysteries, nor to participate thereof, without the priest. Let each of us remain in the calling in which we have been called by God [1 Cor 7:20].

You mention in your letter a few points on which to comment.
1. Orgnanization of the trip was mess
- Commication was lacking The Coordinator was not properly informed but Brisbane was informed. The Trip was arranged only 2 weeks in advance, had to be adjusted due to funeral as well. This late scheduling happens most often here in USA due to lack of funds to buy tickets untl shortly before and complexity of scheduling 40 to 50 locations for Masses at least once every six or seven weeks. Having no repeatable schedule yet nescessitates myself still arranging the circuits with the interest of all the sheep in mind. OLMC also has the policy of charging no one and asking nothing from the souls we freely visit to help them keep the Faith and get to heaven. These policies have been an inconvenience for some and a great relief for many others. Our Lady has assisted us to date and it is my hope that she will continue to do so.

- We have had trouble collecting funds from Brisbane for airfares due to their “lack of funds” Brisbane rented hotel rooms for the visit when they could have rented a cheap hall. Who is

this “we”? The closest parishioner with a house for Father to stay in is only two and half hours drive from the Mass Venue. Should Father drive the 5 hours at night and in early morning to save funds for airfare that is not charged to them anyway? Should Father sleep outdoors to save funds instead of the drive? How much money do they have in Brisbane anyway? If a local can coordinate the details in Adelaide, Melbouurne etc. then why not Brisbane? Who should the donor(s) that paid for the motel and conference rooms report to for approval of their anonymous donation? You see the problem of one Mass group interfering with another. This is one reason it is wise to let each Mass Group coordinate with the Priest or his representative on these matters. Luke is My representative for the overall cross coordination of schedules and the like for Australia. He is doing a fine job. The individual coordinators works with Father for their respective places as well.

• - Earlier flight from Canberra to Adelaide could have been caught which would have avoided making Mass too late for Adelaide and the Port Lincoln flight must have unbeknownst to Father been too expensive due to late purchasing of ticket. I purchased the ticket as early as I could and remember looking at the price before purchasing the ticket, the cost of which is charged to no one. I am sorry if it is excessive charge. If you need reimbursement for any expenses please let me know.. Father Hewko missed his flight that morning and had to purchase another on the spot to make it for a Mass at all. But remember that Fr. Hewko travels more than 100 days a year in Airports involving more than 250 connections a year. Do he or his superior have the right to pick the flights that he will take often in sickness or after little sleep? Or should that too be left to the judgement of whomever is chosen by whomever? If you fly somewhere do you have others arrange your flight travel, sleeping schedule etc.?

- “At the end of the day, as a visiting priest, it's the spiritual things that you need to be in

charge of Father, not the practical. You and any other priest who come are visiting priests.” Here is the crucial point. Are the Fathers of OLMC just visiting priests? If so than they will be under the direction of someone in charge. Who is that lay superior? In the Protestant churches the people elect superiors vote in and vote out pastors, vote by committee on new Church building, major church decisions—all of which is condemned by the hierarchical Catholic Church. St. Peter only said Masses in Cemeteries (Catechombs) and private houses that he did not own. Were his practical affairs run by the home owners, cemetery caretakers and groups for whom he, the pope, said Mass and to whom he preached? All the history of the early Church indicates otherwise. You say that the priest should not be in charge of the practical matters of the Church but only the spiritual ones. Fathers timing of Mass, his travel to and from it, is that beyond his competence. That was the opinion of Henry II of England against St. Thomas Becket, of the Masons who imprisoned Pius IX stealing from him the Papal States, and of many lay folk who have expelled SSPX and many other Traditional priests from their chapels since Vatican II. St. Jerome says that a priest, not under the Church, is like a unowned street dog, who wanders about head bowed in fear of all unable to bite or even bark. I have seen many such priests floating in Tradition, afraid, waiting for some strong faithful to take them in, own and control them. Remember, that in prison, the police only control the praciical matters of the prisoners, their spiritual side is completely up to themselves.
-
As regards the tickets, should I have purchased the tickets for seminarian to fly over to Australia, only to Sing for a funeral and then to encourage the faithful of Australia? Did you remember to think of the fiscal irresponsibility of those unnecessary practical choices made for spiritual motives? Note that Church matters are all matters related to the operation of Church, including Mass times, Travel of Priest, rectories Church building etc. On the day of the late Adelaide Mass, Fr Hewko traveled more than 10 hours to get there for Mass in the midst of a journey of more than 24,000 miles or more than 39,000 kilometers. That is the equivalent of circumnavigating the entire globe in a mere two week trip. When Father Hewko finished that trip he has had to continue traveling until now, since then. As I write it is midnight and Fr. Hewko is arriving from a small 2,000 kilometer weekend. I am sorry about travelers in late buses may be inconvenienced. Some of our souls wait months for the Mass and gladly receive an 11PM Mass without complaint from a traveling Padre, exhausted bringing Christ to souls.

Now some days have Passed, it is now Holy Thursday, traveling again, I must just send this letter on to you with copy to Luke Ross. Please forgive any sense of my being disturbed in anyway and take this note in Charity. As you sent me this note, we have had to move out from another Mass venue due to Owner of house chapel dissaproval. We continue, having been barred from rental halls, having vestmnents and Mass implements taken away etc. Fr. Zendejas encouraged me keep up Mass in New York City area in nearby Connecticut for more than 2 years. He then set up a lay organization, committee, with bank accounts and new tax exempt corporation and then in one week took over most of Parish, leaving me with less than 10 faithful in the immediate are and about 50 altogether.. In late 2014. He kept about 60 faithful of the notheast all in one place, promising them weekly Masses and school. They are now around the same size and with only one place and we are back up to around 80 in the northeast area,

God Bless
In Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer

__________________________________________

Email 3: Mary Collins requested me, Luke Ross, to reply on her behalf

27th April 2018

Dear Father Pfeiffer,

Due to various interpretations of recent events occurring in OLSC prayer community, I need to address for the record, your reply to Mary Collins, Adelaide co-ordinator who requested me to help resolve matters raised. Now there are more important issues at hand. Mary’s letter and your response are significant in getting a true understanding of the situation in Melbourne Australia. It is worth noting that another community/mission, Streaky Bay, South Australia stands with OLSC .

To simplify reading, your comments are in red. My own are in black.

Thank you for your note of concern of a few weeks ago. You may not be aware of it but you touched on matters more important than you may realize. In fact it is a matter noted by Pope Leo XIII in his dream of the late 19th century when he saw that Satan would have an much greater power to destroy souls in the 20th century for around 100 years. We must be at the end of that period now. Leo XIII introduced a simple exercism prayer that could be used by any priest or faithful against the devil and he introduced the prayers af- ter Low Mass including the invocation at the end of the St. Michael prayer “. . .and for the freedom and exsaltation of Holy Mother Church.” The word “freedom” refers to the Church being freed from Lay control.

Father Pfeiffer, we had hoped that you would have addressed the main concerns regarding the chaos that resulted when you arranged the flight schedules for Fr. Hewko's visit. Whilst it escapes me what exorcism has to do with our concerns, it is disturbing that you even think this way. The St. Michael's prayer to which you refer seeks the freedom of Mother Church to deal with the Church's enemies; freedom to practice our faith; freedom from the attacks of heretics and infidels; freedom from false priests. I suggest that the latter is Pope XIII's particular concern where Scripture tells us that the great red dragon’s ‘tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth’. (Rev.12 : 4) The church has taught that this passage refers to a third of priests being swept away.

It concerns us deeply that you misrepresent this prayer and lay it to our charge simply because we wanted to sort out the flight chaos and wastage by you of donated funds.

Previous schedules operated smoothly with your approval up until the last time.

Why did you change it? A clear, direct answer would be appreciated. With Father Hewko’s visit you told me you lost a lot of money with the airfares. In the past where you have minor involvement into the flight schedules and organisation the results are mayhem and costly wastage.

You speak about lack of funds yet insisted on the priests paying their own way. Doesn't make sense. You worried about losing a lot of airfare money. We worried that some people could not attend in Adelaide due to last-minute bookings/ changes by you in the itinerary.

The Church has become more and more shackled in the last 500 years first by kings and governments and now by anyone. St. Thomas Becket was martyred because he would not accept lay interference into his diocese. One of his priests raped and murdered a girl. The Duke representing the king put him to death without Ecclesiastical trial. St. Thomas Becket excommunicated him for not waiting for the Church trial and Judgement. The Priest would have been executed anyway but by the Church not the State.

The Catholic Church has always insisted on its autonomy from Lay control. The problem of Lay investiture and Caesaropapism was a battle of centuries. Pope Gregory II wrote “For as the priest has not power to enter the palace, and to distribute royal honors, so the prince has not power to enter the Church to make decrees amongst the clergy, to offer sacrifice, or to touch the symbols of the sacred mysteries, nor to participate thereof, without the priest. Let each of us remain in the calling in which we have been called by God [1 Cor 7:20].

It is quite extraordinary that you imply a non-existent motive to us.

Of course 'the Catholic Church has always insisted on its autonomy from Lay control'. And quite right too! Does it say that lay people cannot pay for air fares for visiting priests? Frs. Chazal/Picot did not tell us we were guilty of breaking the law of the Church when we funded their airfares. We knew they had become doctrinally compromised, but thank God they didn’t go THAT far! We asked if you preferred to pay from your end and we send you the funds. Was that a form of 'Caesaropapism'? We simply feel it is an obligation on OUR part to offer payment as it is the least we can do. It’s all part of being in the true resistance to support the clergy. We know funds are required and scarce.

Being simple laymen we had to look up the meaning of' Caesaropapism which is:

a political theory in which the head of state, notably the emperor ("Caesar", by
ex- tension a "superior" king), is also the supreme head of the church (papa, pope
or analogous religious leader). ​

You must have a lot on your mind since the above comment has no relationship to the subject in hand. These implications are very confusing. You may not be aware of the role of the co-ordinator in this country

The Co-ordinator:

i) coordinates travel arrangements
ii) State co-ordinator books the hall
iii) organises accommodation for the visiting priest
iv) liaisons between the priest and the state community coordinators
he knows not only what are any special needs of the visiting priest but has access to local knowledge

v) as circumstances can change within a community he checks with each community coordinator before each visit. Something the visiting priest can’t do and isn’t expected to know.
vi) Local information is essential for booking domestic plane flights and mass times because needs vary from State to State.
​

A few examples:

• People willingly catch two trains to reach a particular mass centre but catching trains to get home late at night presented a problem.
• When the priest has to take Communion to the sick it requires proper timing.
• An 80-year old gentleman willingly drives three hours each way to pick up the priest, so choosing the right time is important.
• Interest from local SSPX laity has been shown to one community necessitating that they advertise in the local newspaper and rent a hall.

Regarding payment
Each community pays its share towards international & local airfares. It is common knowledge that if any community can’t pay their way others in OLSC will step in and help out. One community has had some financial support every time the priest visits. The system works well. Tickets can be purchased weeks ahead - as early as when the priest first tells us his arrival and departure dates. Tickets are purchased at cost-effective prices when purchased early. Australians have a track record of being very generous with their money and their funds can be paid to the Australian Coordinator as soon as required.

Please see Mission Statement. It will clarify our 'reason-for- being'. The current situation in the Church has forced us into choosing which priests to trust with passing on what was received from the first Apostles a la Archbishop Lefebvre. We have already had the experience of being required to become a'parish' under OLMC Kentucky (SSPX-MC)* pastored by Fr. Chazal (SSPX-MC)* who had separated from Kentucky under your pastorship (SSPX-MC).*

We had to face the fact that we had no visiting priest from that moment on. Maybe we never would.
Gradually other states did likewise and we linked up with the result that we became a loose federation of prayer groups that, after several months, welcomed Melbourne's efforts to contact you Father. Each State was happy to allow Melbourne coordinator arrange schedules for flights.

Up until now that has worked harmoniously albeit informally. Then Adelaide co- ordinator thought it her responsibility to inform you of the chaos that resulted from your having arbitrarily undertaken to book flights yourself - hence her feed- back to you.

Our community in Melbourne gather to pray regularly and we invite visiting priests who teach sound doctrine to come and provide us with the Sacraments when, and if they can squeeze us into their busy schedules. We pay for all costs such as:

• priests’ airfares,
• venue,
• hire accommodation,
• and have a generous donation for the priest to take home.

1. Orgnanization of the trip was mess
Commication was lacking The Coordinator was not properly informed but Brisbane was informed. The Trip was arranged only 2 weeks in advance, had to be adjusted due to funeral as well. This late scheduling happens most often here in USA due to lack of funds to buy tickets untl shortly before and complexity of scheduling 40 to 50 locations for Masses at least once every six or seven weeks. Having no repeatable schedule yet nescessitates myself still arranging the circuits with the interest of all the sheep in mind.

The above understanding of the Australian set-up confirms the necessity of leaving the co- ordination between states to one resident Australian co-ordinator for the reasons listed below:
Australia has only 6 locations – not 40 or 50.

• We have funds available ahead of time. We have more funds available be- cause the priests visit us less often so we can save more between visits.


• Australian old age pensions are high compared to the US. We have eighty- year-old pensioners who save $50 per week to put on the plate. There are the same high pensions and subsidies for families with many children, un- married or separated mothers and so on.


• In Australia you only have to give the coordinator the dates of your in- ternational flights. We can book these flights or express the funds to your bank account so you can pay for them immediately and upfront. All too easy and stress free ​

OLMC also has the policy of charging no one and asking nothing from the souls we freely visit to help other laity keep the Faith and get to heaven. These policies have been an inconvenience for some and a great relief for many others. Our Lady has assisted us to date and it is my hope that she will continue to do so.

Let us get real, if you remember, financial top-ups and large donations were re- quested by you for yourself and Fr. Hewko for various flight tickets and to pay for two funerals in the US and so on.
Was the condemnation of us as Caesaropapists lifted for that time?

Also, OLSC received feedback from someone that they received a request from you for a donation. Then recently Pablo rang me and asked for donations for Fr. Robert’s court case as well as to finish a building project at the seminary. He said he had your permission to ask. Our Lady has assisted you when you asked OLSC for donations. It is our privilege to provide funds to you as always.

We mention these things as it takes time to raise funds for so many projects such as when Australia raised $120,000 AUD for the purchase of your brother’s house in the US. In Australia, other money is raised and given to other true resistance priests throughout the world.

We have had trouble collecting funds from Brisbane for airfares due to their “lack of funds” Brisbane rented hotel rooms for the visit when they could have rented a cheap hall. Who is this “we”? The closest parishioner with a house for Father to stay in is only two and half hours drive from the Mass Venue. Should Father drive the 5 hours at night and in early morning to save funds for airfare

that is not charged to them anyway? *​

Should Father sleep outdoors to save funds instead of the drive? How much money do they have in Brisbane anyway? (If a local can coordinate the details in Adelaide, Melbouurne etc. then why not Brisbane?) Who should the donor(s) that paid for the motel and conference rooms report to for approval of their anonymous donation? You see the problem of one Mass group interfering with another. This is one reason it is wise to let each Mass Group coordinate with the Priest or his representative on these matters. Luke is My representative for the overall cross coordination of schedules and the like for Aus- tralia. He is doing a fine job. The individual coordinators works with Father for their re- spective places as well.

Feedback from people in Brisbane have informed me that there are halls to be hired that cost around $30 per day. A motel room for the priest is essential of course. Compared to hiring a conference room, bedrooms in motels/hotels for elderly ladies who live in nearby suburbs is beyond my ability to understand. If Brisbane was genuinely broke there would be no concern whatsoever. Melbourne has been financially supporting Brisbane when, they could have easily supported themselves.

*This can only mean that you paid for this with donated funds from other Masses.

Adelaide could have been caught which would have avoided making Mass too late for Adelaide and the Port Lincoln flight must have unbeknownst to Father been too expensive due to late purchasing of ticket. I purchased the ticket as early as I could and remember looking at the price before purchasing the ticket, the cost of which is charged to no one. I am sorry if it is excessive charge. If you need reimbursement for any expenses please let me know.. Father Hewko missed his flight that morning and had to purchase another on the spot to make it for a Mass at all. But remember that Fr. Hewko travels more than 100 days a year in Airports involving more than 250 connections a year. Do he or his superior have the right to pick the flights that he will take often in sickness or after little sleep? Or should that too be left to the judgement of whomever is chosen by whomever? If you fly somewhere do you have others arrange your flight travel, sleeping schedule etc.?

More evidence Father of the chaos caused when you took the co-ordinator's job upon yourself, due to not understanding the best deals and not having the required knowledge. The local co-ordinators knew of another flight which was available at the time to an alternative airport which was a far more cost effective option. To say this is not taking into consideration the priest’s requirements is ludicrous.

At the end of the day, as a visiting priest, it's the spiritual things that you need to be in charge of Father, not the practical. You and any other priest who come are visit- ing priests.” Here is the crucial point. Are the Fathers of OLMC just visiting priests?

Yes Father you are visiting priests. We are not an extension of OLMC 'parish' as you can see from our Mission Statement. In the past we have had Fathers Chazal, Picot, MacDonald, Ortiz, Vallen and Suneel visit our shores. They were all visiting priests because that is what they were doing - visiting. They were not permanent nor even acting as parish priests that is, until the Fathers Chazal/Picot revealed their expectations of us as related earlier in this reply.

To suggest below that a visiting priest has to be under a lay superior is bizarre to say the least.

If so than they will be under the direction of someone in charge. Who is that lay superior? In the Protestant churches the people elect superiors vote in and vote out pastors, vote by committee on new Church building, major church decisions—all of which is con- demned by the hierarchical Catholic Church. St. Peter only said Masses in Cemeteries (Catechombs) and private houses that he did not own. Were his practical affairs run by the home owners, cemetery caretakers and groups for whom he, the pope, said Mass and to whom he preached? All the history of the early Church indicates otherwise. You say that the priest should not be in charge of the practical matters of the Church but only the spiritual ones.

Fathers timing of Mass, his travel to and from it, is that beyond his competence. That was the opinion of Henry II of England against St. Thomas Becket, of the Masons who impris- oned Pius IX stealing from him the Papal States, and of many lay folk who have expelled SSPX and many other Traditional priests from their chapels since Vatican II. St. Jerome says that a priest, not under the Church, is like a unowned street dog, who wanders about head bowed in fear of all unable to bite or even bark. I have seen many such priests float- ing in Tradition, afraid, waiting for some strong faithful to take them in, own and control them. Remember, that in prison, the police only control the praciical matters of the prison- ers, their spiritual side is completely up to themselves.

As regards the tickets, should I have purchased the tickets for seminarian to fly over to Australia, only to Sing for a funeral and then to encourage the faithful of Australia? Did you remember to think of the fiscal irresponsibility of those unnecessary practical choices made for spiritual motives? Note that Church matters are all matters related to the opera- tion of Church, including Mass times, Travel of Priest, rectories Church building etc. On the day of the late Adelaide Mass, Fr Hewko traveled more than 10 hours to get there for Mass in the midst of a journey of more than 24,000 miles or more than 39,000 kilometers. That is the equivalent of circumnavigating the entire globe in a mere two week trip. When Father Hewko finished that trip he has had to continue traveling until now, since then. As I

write it is midnight and Fr. Hewko is arriving from a small 2,000 kilometer weekend. I am sorry about travelers in late buses may be inconvenienced. Some of our
souls wait months for the Mass and gladly receive an 11PM Mass without complaint from a traveling Padre, exhausted bringing Christ to souls.

Now some days have Passed, it is now Holy Thursday, traveling again, I must just send this letter on to you with copy to Luke Ross. Please forgive any sense of my being dis- turbed in anyway and take this note in Charity. As you sent me this note, we have had to move out from another Mass venue due to Owner of house chapel dissaproval. We con- tinue, having been barred from rental halls, having vestmnents and Mass imple ments taken away etc. Fr. Zendejas encouraged me keep up Mass in New York City area in nearby Connecticut for more than 2 years. He then set up a lay organization, committee, with bank accounts and new tax exempt corporation and then in one week took over most of Parish, leaving me with less than 10 faithful in the immediate are and about 50 altogether.. In late 2014. He kept about 60 faithful of the notheast all in one place, promising them weekly Masses and school. They are now around the same size and with only one place and we are back up to around 80 in the northeast area.

Nothing in your reply answers the genuinely worried letter sent you about flight schedules and money wastage. Fr. Hewko has congratulated us on the way Australia co-ordinates priests' visits.

The implications you apply Father to our endeavours is distorted out of all proportion.

Re-evaluating our role:
Taking stock of where we stood at the moment when you decided to stop your visits to Melbourne it became evident that we had to take a step back and base our new knowledge/experience in the resistance movement.

Out of the blue we were told that we would be members of OLMC. Until this visit no-one has ever heard you mention that important fact. Surely, it is something about which we needed to be informed.

Father, it would have been good if we could have discussed the above things with you calmly without deviating from the matters in hand. However, you laid down the very same conditions as did Frs. Chazal and Picot! So unless we join OLMC you won’t provide us with the Sacraments. Thus we were presented with joining YOUR branch of OLMC/SSPX-MC. From what you said it closes the door to any future true resistance priest in Australia unless he joins OLMC. In other words he is under your control. If a new true resistance priest visits us and chooses to remain independent of OLMC it is not an option for you.

Summary
In the end, our decision is that OLSC community gathers to pray regularly as usual. We are prepared to keep praying our Rosaries together and offering Spiritual Communions, leaving it to our dear Mother in Heaven which priest or priests she may choose to visit us with the Sacraments (or not visit us for that matter). After all, you have preached loud and clear that we, the true resistance movement, could become priestless in many parts of the world.

The upshot of all this is that a few of the laity pray together regularly for the following intentions:

• to keep the Faith unsullied and uncompromised
• to reject and fight the heresies now emanating from Rome
• to give us the strength to fight courageously for the present Vicar of Christ to pray for the Pope to return to the true faith

To make things more workable OLSC intends to establish a fund allowing people to donate to true resistance causes either locally or internationally.

In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that there is a discrepancy to imply in no uncertain terms that we are ordering you around (to put it in our own words) when we believe it our willing obligation to finance airfares and accommodation smoothing the way for priests who go to so much trouble to visit us. Then acting in a contradictory way, you request us to repeat the action for which we have been condemned!

It is repugnant to us that we are forced into having to defend ourselves from a priest whom, when carrying out our duties, we are chastised!

The times we live in dictate how we have to respond in a given situation. Obstacles arise that seem insurmountable at the time but new paths open up eventually. At present, in Australia there are only 'conciliar' parishes and the fake resistance. So we were grateful when you and Fr. Hewko visited us. It troubled us when you revealed that you had the same expectations as Frs. Chazal/Picot.

Since you have chosen to leave us one door has closed, but by the grace of God another will open. Wishing you all the best Father.

Yours in JMJ,
Luke Ross, Coordinator Email: luke@houseofross.net




* SSPX-MC: Priests who left SSPX, some of whom were expelled because of their opposition to 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay. Thus, began what is known as the 'resistance movement.'

 

[daro]

Now that all the stones have been cast, I would like to thank you all for sharing the eye-opening information in this forum. The administrator is right, many people would rather believe the words of a priest, right or wrong, he is always right and he does not have to listen to the laity as Fr, P himself said. The shepherd leads the sheep, the sheep or the lay people are simply useful idiots who must obey the priest, as the priest must obey his bishop and the bishop his Pope.

Unfortunately, this is precisely one of the root causes for the present crisis in the Catholic Church, namely priests do not listen to the laity, bishops do not listen to priests, and the Vatican does not listen to any of them. Why do they have such arrogance and throw their weight around? No wonder the Church is crumbling everywhere and with so many court cases to answer to and the people are leaving the Church in droves.

… learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart … (Matthew 11: 29)

Thank you to the coordinator of OLSC for organising regular group prayers and fellowship especially in Victoria, for producing the regular Newsletter of OLSC and for inviting the so-called resistance priests to Australia. You have also been instrumental in raising desperately needed funds for the priests and their seminary, and now being labelled as “Protestants” for questioning OLMC's global parish and total submission to them.

No doubt we have been very generous “Protestants” in raising AUD120,000 to buy the property for the traditional Catholic seminary and this within 4 monthsof Fr. P coming to Australia. Since then the group has also provided financial assistance on various occasions for various causes as requested.

Thank you to father P and the resistance priests who answered to the group’s invitation to come to Australia as visiting priests. Rest assured that this group never intended to interfere or influence you in your priestly duties as priest to the group.

He who is greatest among you shall be your servant, whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Matthew 23: 11-12).

Just hope when the dust has settled, there won’t be another round of stoning.

..

 

[Admin]

You have painted a picture of the overall situation in the Church of of which we are a mere michrochosm. Thank you.

..

 

[Admin]

Father Cummins was as free as a bird. He flew everywhere there was want of the true Mass. The whole world was his parish so that he could call everyone his 'parishioners' without setting up a parish of his own that excluded other visiting priests.
The closest he ever came to setting up a parish was at Hampton which he started then handed over to the SSPX's
Fr. Hogan. He never ever claimed exclusive ownership of any property whatsoever depending on the charity of his 'parishioners' wherever they happened to live. Unlike Frs. Chazal/Picot when it was made plain that they would own the church and property.

When Father Pfeiffer made it plain that OLSC was his parish, and when he supported Fr. Chazal's version of a parish, OLSC could not go down the same path as when we were members of the resistance movement in its early stages.

..

​

 

[Admin]

This is my interpretation of what Father said:

OLSC’s trust in Father Pfeiffer was total. That is why our community was shaken to its foundations. Out of the blue an ultimatum was put to OLSC members that if Father Pfeiffer was not accepted as our Parish Priest that:

• he would not visit us again
• we would not be permitted to receive the Sacraments from any other priest unless that priest was prepared to work under Fr. Pfeiffer.
• excludes other true resistant priests from visiting us.
• excludes any refugees that may want to escape the clutches of neoSSPX or FSSP priests wishing to be free of saying indult Masses.
• excludes the opportunity for Father spreading his doctrinal wings to visit more confused Catholics because there would be at least two priests to provide the Sacraments.
• we would be protestant.

This is all tantamount to requiring a makeshift yet compulsory vow of obedience to someone who has no superior, who is under no authority thus answerable to no-one above himself. Yet we are accused of recognising no authority.

Yes, that is uncatholic.

..

 

[Admin]

Below is a copy of Luke Ross's reply to the letter Fr. Pfeiffer's made public on The Catacombs forum. Two technical glitches surfaced: (a) Some followers received an incomplete version of this letter via email. Please disregard that version. (b) Technical problem made it necessary for Admin to post it. The full, correct copy sent to Fr. Pfeiffer is as follows ....

​

18 July 2018

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 causing division amongst our communities in Australia and are harmful to the overall true resistance 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 significant 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 concerned 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 impromptu 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 eventuate 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
Organisation (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 organised 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
coordinator 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 problems 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 favorably 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 opposite 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.

• You did not respond.

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 abandoned 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 committee 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 Sacraments. 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.

​

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 Bishops 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 Sacraments 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 Australian 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

Conclusion
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 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 selective 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

______________________________


..

 

[Michael1]

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.

• You did not respond.

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

..

 

[JillMcFaul]

Below is a copy of Luke Ross's reply to the letter Fr. Pfeiffer's made public on The Catacombs forum. Two technical glitches surfaced: (a) Some followers received an incomplete version of this letter via email. Please disregard that version. (b) Technical problem made it necessary for Admin to post it. The full, correct copy sent to Fr. Pfeiffer is as follows ....

View attachment 1261​

18 July 2018

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 causing division amongst our communities in Australia and are harmful to the overall true resistance 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 significant 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 concerned 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 impromptu 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 eventuate 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

View attachment 1257​

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
Organisation (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 organised 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
coordinator 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.

View attachment 1259​

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​

View attachment 1260​

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 problems 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 favorably 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 opposite 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.

• You did not respond.

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 abandoned 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 committee 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 Sacraments. 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.

View attachment 1262​

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 Bishops 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 Sacraments 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 Australian 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

Conclusion
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 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 selective 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

______________________________


..

This situation is so very difficult and upsetting. You all shall be in my heart and prayers. May God bless and keep you.

 

[Anand]

Bishop Fellay and his cohorts are taking great advantage from the inertia and infighting among those of its members who quit post 2012. Virtually nothing has been achieved by the so-called Resistance. Fr Joseph Pfeiffer has tried to service as many former SSPX faithful as he can, unlike Fr Chazal who seems to be on a mission to take Tradition to the Phillipines while former SSPXers are left high and dry. And this latter priest is now diverting attention onto sedevacantism as though that is the problem confronting those who are worried about the direction the SSPX is taking. And recall the time wasted on Archbishop Ambrose. Are Bishops Fellay, Faure, Williamson etc. so way up there and Archbishop Ambrose so way down here?
Think unity. Go forward.

 

[ambrose]

Father Pfeiffer spoke here in Melbourne on April 2013 at which I was present and where Admin of this forum was also present. There were about 30 other guests present. . My friend Liam Firmager in Pakenham generously offered to host this event in his cinema room. There was no Mission established by Father Pfeiffer. About thirty people were in attendance in April 2013. This must be made clear to anyone following, or interested in, the recent events that are occurring in Melbourne.

 

[MaryM]

God bless Australian Faithful.

Fr. Pfeiffer has one modus operandi:
The end justifies the means.

"You will live to regret the day you ever got involved with Fr. Pfeiffer." -- Fr. Chazal. Truer words have never been spoken.

It is just a matter of time.

18 July 2018
Luke Ross luke@houseofross.net July 18 (1 day ago)

to Frj Pfeiffer <email withheld> bcc: emails withheld

View attachment 1269​

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

View attachment 1270​

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.

View attachment 1271​

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​

View attachment 1272
​

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.

• You did not respond.

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.

View attachment 1273
​

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 char- acter 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 de- nied 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 sac- raments.

Yours in JMJ,

Luke Ross, OLSC Coordinator Email: luke@houseofross.net

..

 

[Admin]

Bishop Fellay and his cohorts are taking great advantage from the inertia and infighting among those of its members who quit post 2012. Virtually nothing has been achieved by the so-called Resistance. Fr Joseph Pfeiffer has tried to service as many former SSPX faithful as he can, unlike Fr Chazal who seems to be on a mission to take Tradition to the Phillipines while former SSPXers are left high and dry. And this latter priest is now diverting attention onto sedevacantism as though that is the problem confronting those who are worried about the direction the SSPX is taking. And recall the time wasted on Archbishop Ambrose. Are Bishops Fellay, Faure, Williamson etc. so way up there and Archbishop Ambrose so way down here?
Think unity. Go forward.

The harmony and unity we had in Australia has been shattered. Careful reading of the above Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer outlines the systematic destruction of the true resistance that was spreading throughout our country.

“Well, you have achieved your purpose of dividing us and making an example of us.
Let this be recorded here in this letter.” (Para 2 of Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer)​

All our resources now are directed at restoring unity.

..

 

[4olsquatter]

I was heavily involved in 2013 helping Melbourne organize flights for Father Pfeiffer’s visits. In fact he would not have had an opening in Melbourne or Streaky Bay without me. All we needed was a visiting Priest willing to keep us from the clutches of the SSPX. All Fr. Pfeiffer’s talk about us belonging already to the OLMC is rubbish. He never made claim to establish OLMC here in 2013. Fr. Pfeiffer sought my assistance in getting a contact in Melbourne as there was none there at the time.

In 2013 I had begun to realise there was something going wrong in the SSPX so I contacted Fr. Ortiz at the time who then was on good terms with Fr. Pfeiffer as he was helping to organise the 2013 meeting in Pakenham Melbourne. I said things like we may have to start the fight we had with the NO again. He said, yes, but this time from an unexpected source-the SSPX itself. Fr. Ortiz said ‘there are priests willing to help & I hope to take my turn’. He never mentioned any organization - just that priests would visit us. For 40 years we had celebrated Mass here with a priest from the SSPX. Due to circumstances I had to find a new site for the resistance priests' visits. A shearing shed and my brother’s house served for a while until I restored an old school property into a chapel.

We had Frs. Chazal, Ortiz, Picot, Vallan & Suneel, McDonald. You know what happened to all of them. None of the above ever mentioned to me anything about an organization. They just visited us.

I live in South Australia and have worked for two years in harmony with Melbourne’s coordinator arranging Father Pfeiffer’s visits here so what happens to them happens to me too. When he refused to say the last scheduled Mass it was because they could not in conscience refuse other true resistance priests. Since I agree with this principle Father Pfeiffer won’t come here either.

If other true resistance priests come I understand Fr. Pfeiffer suggested they each set up their own chapels, which is ridiculous.


John Cash
Streaky Bay
South Australia

..

 

[Admin]

The following is copy of a post I made on Cath Info about two weeks after Father Pfeiffer's conference in 2013.

My son and I attended Fr. P's talk in Pakenham, Vic. about two weeks ago. There were about 30 people
present from Tynong SSPX. Some of them assisted at his Mass prior to the meeting. Last Sunday, however, a priest at Corpus Christi gave a rather frightening sermon after which many people are closing ranks against any suspect that attended the meeting, or promoted 'resistance' literature. I made a brief summation of how it appeared to me.

Father -
i) gave his personal view on what he considered to be correct community behaviour.
He listed ten points, then elaborated on each point with additional points. I was horrified by all the adjectives used to describe his judgement of the behaviour of the 'dissidents.' I cannot remember them because they were so horrible. I actually tremble when I try to remember them.

ii) did not clearly identify what seems to be troubling him, but spoke obliquely about 'dissidents'.

iii) gave this view from the pulpit as priest to a captive audience quoting passages from selected saints. Generally they amounted to being 'obedient'.

iv) spoke down to us in the pews - laypeople not under the vow of obedience.

In sum, he presented a non-religious view of correct 'community' behaviour but as a PRIEST instructing a religious community (if you can make sense of that.)

Four questions came to mind.

(a) Specifically, what particular community was he addressing?
(b) Lay people cannot listen to both sides of an argument?
(c) Afraid to test the spirit?
(d) Blind obedience!​

https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/donkath/?area=showposts;start=195​

It was not possible to establish an OLMC mission centre when nearly all those present were from the SSPX. Some were from Fraternity of St. Peter, others were diocese trads that lived in the area.

My above-quoted post demonstrated how the SSPX dealt with it from the pulpit the following Sunday. The priest's sermon there was meant to scare us 'dissidents' away. I was horrified at the time because it was obvious he as addressing those who attended with veiled threats. Some people were very angry indeed.

..