Skip to main content

Response to Mac's "Humble Admonition"

Empty Barrel

After my recent open Letter to Greg Taylor one of the cult members (hiding behind the name of "Machabees") went into overdrive to analyse my letter and to find as many splinters as he could possibly find (or make up) in order to "prepare" minds for Mr. Taylor's upcoming response, which somehow Mac already knew and assured all the cult members was going to be "very good". So rather than waste more time on writing a reply to this "empty barrel", I dug up an old post (published on ablf3 on 6 August 2016) in which I replied to Mac's accusations of changes he claimed to have noticed. It is still very much relevant today.

In response to Macs ‘humble admonition to Samuel to find doctrinal clarity again’ (on Cor Mariae).

1. When did my alleged ‘betrayal’ begin ?

In public, it began in the thread “Attend Mass Or Not ?” where it became very clear to me that Mac and his friends were advocating an extreme red light position, encouraging, almost demanding that Traditional Catholics do NOT attend Mass from any other Traditional Catholic priest or bishop, except Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko, and possibly the handful that are to some extent in communion with them (bishop bashing is one criteria to be in communion with them). And given that they based this unbalanced position on exaggerations and superficial and deficient arguments, this extreme refusal to have communion with other Catholics is so wrong and contrary to the Sensus Catholicus, that I could not go past that one. This was for me the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

In private it started happening a little before that, when I noticed the way in which big Mac was constantly working behind the scenes to impose his own agenda onto the admin of Cor Mariae, and the ‘committee’ in Melbourne. It is now to the point where these dupes will not be able to see this any more, thinking they got where they are by their own efforts. Such is the way a cult works. To this day, I still see them as dupes, being led astray by a pied piper, but I am not able to give Mac the same benefit of being a dupe, on the contrary. He’s a malicious ringleader, on a par with Pablo and Greg. They know full well what they are doing, and which ‘truths’ they can use, and which ones they reject.

2. Was I involved then with Cor Mariae ?

Yes, for a very short time I was involved with them. One of the things I regret the most though is having helped Cor Mariae as much as I did in the past. I believed that they had some good points and strengths, and I was happy to overlook a few concerns in the hope of being of a good influence and steer them a little bit the other way. For example, I quickly noticed that on Cor Mariae the censors are extremely heavy handed, and that no discussion is allowed, unless it supports Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko. When I pointed that out the Admin really got her knickers in a knot !! At that point, I started thinking about the need for a forum where both sides can have their say, without the heavy one sided censure.

3. But some say that I am just as heavy handed and ban everyone that disagrees with me..

It is clearly documented whom I banned from ABLF3 and for what reason. If you fail to see the sense in banning liars, then that is not my problem. You may also notice that as soon as I banned Mac for lying, his whole clique fell silent and left in a huff. They simply left, because the ringleader was no longer welcome. That is cult mentality at work and has nothing to do with censure. To this day, most of the cult members are still registered on ABLF3 and able to post if or when they want to (eg Deus Vult, Immacuata, The Recusant, ruthy). But they won’t, simply because they can no longer think or speak for themselves. Most of them can only ‘like’ and agree with whatever big Mac comes up with next. And the others cannot handle being contradicted and running the chance of being proven wrong.

4. Did I support Fr Pfeiffer ?

Yes, and to some extent I still have some sympathy for him. But I have come to see that underneath this aparant zeal for souls lies a dangerous pride. Fr Pfeiffer is very generous with handing out criticism, but I have never EVER seen any evidence of him humbly accepting criticism himself. One who thinks (and says) he is always right, and everyone else is always wrong, is called a proud man. And God does not give his graces to the proud man. Bishop Williamson on the other hand always speaks with a little bit of salt, and is willing to admit he could be wrong. And while Fr Pfeiffer stretches anything he does not like into a heresy, bishop Williamson is more willing and able to make distinctions and keep everything in perspective, and encourages us to give each other a bit of slack in these confusing times.

While I’m on the topic of Fr Pfeiffer, there is one more thing that put me on my guard a long time ago. When he visited us many years ago, he always used to RACE through prayers, mumbling and stumbling. And a sign of the cross could have been mistaken for being annoyed with some flies buzzing around his face. Likewise, his Mass is always a race against time, EXCEPT for the sermon. It betrays an unbalanced mindset, that is focused more on self and showbiz, rather than on piety, pure doctrine and the interior life. I see the same traits now appearing in his followers : all for the outward show, but underneath nothing but fluff.

5. Did I really change my position 180° ?

First of all, whenever someone realizes he is wrong, it is strongly advised to change 180° asap (anyone wanting to advance in the spiritual life better get used to that idea). So what does it prove that I have changed on certain things ? Does it prove that I was right back then and that I am wrong now ? Or does it prove that I was wrong back then and that I am right now ? Or something else ? I’m sure Mac knows.

So yes, I did change my mind on certain things, but to call my whole position in this crisis a 180° change is yet another exaggeration of a binary mind. I did learn to relativate certain errors in others, and to focus on what’s more important. For example, I still disagree with the Poem, but I won’t make it into a reason to shun the bishop. I still wish the bishop would do more to unite the Resistance, but on the other hand I realize that he is getting older too, and probably very tired and discouraged of seeing grace go to waste all around him, and especially that he is much more wise and experienced than I could ever hope to be, and that I simply could be wrong in my own ideas and expectations. And I can see for example that Fr Pfeiffer would be the LAST person on this planet to submit his will to anyone else, even a bishop or a Pope. So how could bishop Williamson possibly be expected to herd such wild cats as that ? And I have come to see how Fr Pfeiffer’s so called ‘zeal’ is pushing people into cult like behavior and endangering souls on the other side of the scale. And that errors (alleged or true) are just as common (in fact more so) and often much graver in Fr Pfeiffer’s camp. The difference is that one side is constantly waffling and milking the same old cows, while the other side quietly goes on with more important things.

Look for example at the issue of a loose association. Despite all the boohaha about it, the three bishops are quietly going around doing their job, their seminaries are flourishing and their priests are helping each other out if and when needed. This shows a true Christian spirit (by this they will know that you are my disciples..). All the Kentucky club of two has to offer is how to fulfill your ‘Sunday criticism obligation’.

So yes, all these things are changes indeed. But again, what does this change prove ? That I am alive and kicking maybe ? I would be more concerned if ever I found myself in a position (here on earth) where I would not want to change any longer. What matters is not what we used to be or think, but rather what we are and think the moment we die. That will decide our eternity.

6. Most importantly..

Through my close association with big Mac and his puppet forum, I came to see that for them the truth is not really as important as they would like you to believe, but rather a lofty and convenient slogan to hide behind, just as the father of lies is trying to hide his tail. For example, when I pointed out to Mac and his Admin last year that Fr Jacqmin was a sedevacantist, it was conveniently brushed aside. But at the same time, they attacked Fr Chazal for daring to associate with Fr Kramer on account of his opinion about the two popes (which is NOT even sedevacantism), and Mac and his Admin encouraged others to red light Fr Chazal and Fr Picot based on this exaggerated association. That is pure hypocrisy. When Fr Peiffer made some serious errors of judgment (Mr Moran for example), I did my best to encourage others to give him as much leeway as possible (probably too much !) and to lessen the damage. But then I started seeing that there is no room for temperance and charity in Macs camp. Every little misstep and disagreement on everyone else’s part is exaggerated and exploited to advance the cult and to silence any opposition, while the beam in their own eye is conveniently ignored. This is not the Catholic way, and it has NOTHING to do with truth. This is a cultish way.

Take for example the recent propaganda campaign on Cor Mariae, simply because Brother John was not ordained when big Mac in his wisdom deigned that he should have been. Did Mac ever talk to Brother John, to see if he was ready to be ordained ? Nope, but Fr Pfeiffer told him so. And how did Fr Pfeiffer know ? Well, Pablo must have told him. And how did Pablo know ? Well, you see, he has this big crystal ball..

It is a duty of a bishop to make sure the candidates for the priesthood are suitable and prepared for such a serious task. Brother John did not attend a big Traditional seminary with plenty of experienced professors to teach and prepare him. He was trained in a makeshift hut, in the jungle, by an overstretched (but excellent) priest. Is is too hard to see that maybe, just maybe he needed a little bit of fine tuning before being ready for ordination ? Who then is big Mac to stick his big beak into the bishops affairs ? And how about Greg Taylor ? You may have noticed how he too pitched in with his load of criticism. He was even one step ahead. He has already indicated that if or when bishop Williamson one day does ordain Brother John, that too will be criticized. What proud fools they are !

You see, despite all their lofty words, underneath this has nothing to do with doctrine, but with building a club for the bitter zealots ! No thanks, I have no ambition to join that club.

7. What about my ‘doctrinal errors’..

This is where it gets really interesting. Despite all the hype about ‘doctrine’ and ‘truth’, I came to see that most of what is held against bishop Williamson is a question of prudence and practical judgment, not of doctrine. And with the few things that really concerned doctrine, it turned out that when one starts really looking into the underlying doctrine, not one of his attackers was able to prove his guilt. For example, to this day, I have not seen ONE single soul on this planet that is able to prove to me that bishop Williamson is wrong with his comments regarding the Novus Ordo. Imprudent yes, but doctrinally wrong, who can prove it ? Oh yes, there is plenty of tough talk, plenty of slogans, plenty of emotions, plenty of distortions and exaggerations, but .. no honest and objective Church doctrine. Maybe there is, but I have not yet seen it, and certainly not in Macs den. Some have tried, but there is always a mental leap, an assumption, or a little lie underneath the anathemas. And no doubt, me saying this will trigger another avalanche of lofty and beautiful words, without doctrinal substance.

8. What do I take from Macs admonition ?

Plenty : AGERE CONTRA ! I am so completely repulsed by this proud, hypocritical, deceptive kind of person, and his verbal diarrhea, that I would rather err on the other side. There is NO DOCTRINE to be found in Mac, only deceptions underneath a pretense (I could not even call it an appearance) of doctrine. On a practical level, I would rather err on the side of defending our clergy too much, than on the side of criticizing them too much ! For example, it feels awful having to temper the hysteria against the NO (Mass and Church), but truth has NOTHING to do with feelings. It is too easy to get swept away by the Pharizee mob mentality, but it is harder to go against the grain. This has nothing to do with people, but with facts and truth, no matter how inconvenient it is.

9. Return the favour ?

To return the favour to Mac (and his Kentucky Idols), here is something for them to meditate upon. Not my words, because they could possibly change again by tomorrow, but those of St Thomas a Kempis. No doubt, that won’t stop big Mac from twisting it to mean the opposite. Please take especially notice of the first word (turn, as in : 180°)

Avoiding Rash Judgment

TURN your attention upon yourself and beware of judging the deeds of other men, for in judging others a man labors vainly, often makes mistakes, and easily sins; whereas, in judging and taking stock of himself he does something that is always profitable.

We frequently judge that things are as we wish them to be, for through personal feeling true perspective is easily lost. If God were the sole object of our desire, we should not be disturbed so easily by opposition to our opinions. But often something lurks within or happens from without to draw us along with it. Many, unawares, seek themselves in the things they do. They seem even to enjoy peace of mind when things happen according to their wish and liking, but if otherwise than they desire, they are soon disturbed and saddened.

Differences of feeling and opinion often divide friends and acquaintances, even those who are religious and devout. An old habit is hard to break, and no one is willing to be led farther than he can see. If you rely more upon your intelligence or industry than upon the virtue of submission to Jesus Christ, you will hardly, and in any case slowly, become an enlightened man. God wants us to be completely subject to Him and, through ardent love, to rise above all human wisdom.​