"Shun all the wiles of the devil..."

+

J.M.J.

Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Holy Rosary

"Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thy faithful may shun all the wiles of the devil..."

(Collect of the Mass, last Sunday, 17th after Pentecost)

"‪Catholic‬ Resistance"-‪‎ManilaPH Being Persecuted By Its Former Manila 'Coordinatrix'-Benefactress

Let our PH friends and readers be warned against this impious woman and her 'visionary' group (with connections to the so-called ‪"God the Father Movement"‬) who's been going bitterly against the Seminary Community, especially against the senior Seminarian who exposed and denounced her to Fr. Chazal who in turn upheld him. To help "get the whole picture" and thus to do away with the malicious lying intrigues of her and her party, we quote the official report ---

"Mrs. [Basilisa, aka 'Julie'] Cordova's madness sprung over mere suspicion on Fr. Pfeiffer's having been sold to [an adverse] proposal [by a faithful who had a falling off with her] for our transfer. This was triggered when Fr. Pfeiffer, coming from Iloilo, contacted Fr. Suelo to go up to the airport in Manila for a meeting. Mrs. Cordova challenged the said arrangement arguing why Fr. Pfeiffer would rather not head straight here unless they wanted to go with William and see another possible site for the Seminary. I reproved her in that such arrangement between the Fathers is not even for her scrutiny and that she was already imputing 'wrongdoing' over mere suspicion. Her only reply was that she has yet to prove herself wrong whenever she would go with her inkling. She added, "If you leave, I would rather be happy but don't expect me to follow them."

When I informed her over the phone of Fr. Suelo's plan of spending the night at her house in Malate for the next morning meet with Fr. Pfeiffer, it was she who rather "very rude[ly]" [to quote her partisan, Rommel dela Rosa] and contemptuously expressed how she would treat even sacred persons in conflict with her decision over her suspicion, saying angrily, "No! He is not welcome here. I am not going to accept him here. If he wants to meet with Pfeiffer, tell him to take an early morning ride there to the airport!" And when our entering Seminarian from Liloan, Leyte first met her, Mrs. Cordova's opening salvo to him was, "Where will you stay now that I am expelling them from here?" [The incoming Seminarian] was taken aback, he "did not know what to say at her rudeness." Now she had the gall to say, "I wonder what kind of formation and training your priests received," and chide us for [being ungratefully disrespectful] over the following "need to be informed" thing even of matters and affairs proper only to an Ecclesiastical Superior of whom she is not :

In the afternoon of Fr. Pfeiffer's meet with Fr. Suelo, he was able to get hold of Mrs. Cordova over the phone for a late afternoon or early evening Mass in Malate. However, Fr. Pfeiffer told me that it was turned down by Mrs. Cordova because the schedule was not convenient and in all possibility, only one could make it. Fr. Pfeiffer rang her up again to finally call it off altogether as he could not make it anymore besides. Many times did he dial up Mrs. Cordova's numbers - both landline AND MOBILE - but she would not pick up though, as Father surmised, she could not be somewhere otherwise. Later in the evening, she sent me a text message to check whether both Fathers had already gone back here to Batangas because she called up faithful for the Mass and prepared food, then Fr. Pfeiffer did not show up "with no sms message sent and NO CALLS WHATSOEVER [lie];" her conclusion: "Fr. Pfeiffer would just like to get me embarrassed before the faithful." Fr. Pfeiffer noted here a "battle plan" prepared by Mrs. Cordova against him for a division between you and him. It seems to me our Manila 'Coordinatrix' manipulated this affair to the discredit of Fr. Pfeiffer over, again, her suspicion.

Fr. Pfeiffer stayed with us for three days and one night. The third day, a Friday, he took us out to Makati after lunch. Mrs. Cordova came over after we had already left and complained that we did not inform her that we were going out - a couple of times, after the [adverse faithful] affair in which she was also accused of meddling in things which ecclesiastical norms forbid her to have a 'say' whatsoever notwithstanding her being a key benefactor, she declared to me that she has already let ["not give"] her house to be "the house of God;" now, if they say we are "bypassing" her [claims a partisan of her, Rommel dela Rosa] then what is demanded of us is not mere 'courtesy information' but, contrary to what she rhetorically demands, an obligation to report, as to a Seminary superior, for her consideration and regulation as she insolently insisted on with Fr. Pfeiffer-Fr. Suelo arrangement referred to previously. On this point, I challenged her, "So where do we put the demarcation line: where does 'your house' end and the house of God begin?" The clarification I gave her was if we were to use her house for other purpose other than a religious one or if we were to introduce modifications or changes in her property then we are not only bound to "inform her" but also to ask her permission. However, instead of coming down from the heights of her bloated pride and acknowledge that in truth she has no case over her imagined need to be "informed" of our strictly Seminary affairs and activities in and out, she'd rather save her face and proceeded, "If that's the case, then you rent my house for PESOS 60,000 a month so that you can come and go as you please for this is still my house." How rotten is her sense of 'justice' gone, thinking deludedly that with all the resources merely entrusted to her by Divine Providence she has been given with it a position with which she could insolently offer such a shamelessly impious insult to clerics who refused to bow down to her irreligious whim! And at that Sunday 'meeting' she hosted, a faithful named Ligaya remarked on her rental 'threat': "They will come then before you begging on their knees." Interestingly, Mrs. Cordova added also last Friday to her rental 'threat', "Or, I may not allow anymore your Mass in my house" : in giving in to madness she would claim her nature is already used to, she does not know anymore what exactly is the 'penalty' for which. To continue, Father, the story on that Friday afternoon, I sent her a text message during our recreation to inform her that Fr. Pfeiffer would like to see her in Malate in the evening to which she replied, "Why did you show him my messages [in which she would refer to him no longer as Fr. Pfeiffer but as "JP" and imputed malice over Father's failed show-up]?" - I did not mind about showing them anymore in fact. So she knew well that she had gone overboard but then: when we finished our dinner late, I messaged her that Father would not be able to make it anymore as he needed to head straight to the airport; she it was who still managed to get the nerve of impudently replying, "Let him not show himself to me anymore."

Later at night or already past midnight, I received a text message from her that some faithful were requesting the Sunday Mass be held in Malate and added, "since Fr. Suelo is fond of wandering out anyways" (Mrs. Cordova lied at the meeting she convoked below telling the attendees that Fr. Suelo was in Manila for three consecutive days amusing himself). The following morning, she sent again a text message informing me that already, "majority of the faithful [coincidentally] wanted to go home early after the Sunday Mass" - however, there are faithful who, when they needed to go home early, leave after the Mass and no longer stay for lunch with us. I insisted that the Mass be held in Batangas as Fr. Suelo needed rest in preparation for our weeklong-trip to Mindanao-Visayas missions with Fr. Pfeiffer which specific reason I did not mention to her anymore except that we need to prepare for it. On this, Mrs. Cordova mentioned to me last Friday that she and Mrs. Simon were wondering what things would take us for a preparation that denied the request of her coordinating 'office'. So she implies that our considerations in administering the sacred be scrutinized by them and if it seems 'unreasonable' to them... please refer to the end of this paragraph, Father. Mrs. Cordova thought, and rightly, that it must be me who decided to have the Mass here because "Fr. Suelo will not say no." That, in connection with her "since..." in the text message above, showing again her contemptuous attitude against a priest whom they consider to be, in the terms [the adverse faithful above] first referred to Fr. Elijah, 'DRAGgable' ('kaladkarin' in local idiom), was the second reason why I denied her request. Then, Mrs. Cordova also did not go down anymore that Sunday morning. Interestingly, [a faithful young man] informed me that Mrs. Cordova called him to a meeting in her house that same Sunday morning and the meeting even lasted until the afternoon - "need to go home early?" A faithful, who asks not to be named, notified me by email that over phone conversation with Mrs. Cordova early that same Sunday afternoon, among other things she was griping about, she 'threatened', "If they cannot follow our requests, they can now get out of there!"

Mrs. Cordova came down also last Friday with Ms. Matti, the 'visionary', and two others [Susan Tempra, and a lady named Telen] who form her group. Ms. Matti's piece: we were "disrespectful" towards our host-benefactor in following Fr. Pfeiffer. And when she said, "Yes, Fr. Pfeiffer is the Superior BUT DOES HE PROVIDE FOR YOU HERE...," I challenged her also "to [her] face" (Gal. 2.11) for this deluded proud spirit would rather have a benefactor's whim be given preference [than true Catholic obedience to a legitimate Superior]. Taking what she erroneously considers to be of weightier matter, I called them to account: what comparison is there between what they're boasting of and a single Mass offered for them. They have forgotten that whatever it is they are boasting of now is nothing before God and that God reduces to nothing all our proud works. But it seems it did not matter to them for when [the faithful young man] asked Mrs. Cordova during the meeting she convoked, "to whom will you go for Mass and other Sacraments" given that we all are now worthless before their eyes (Ms. Matti zeroed in also your two-month absence as tantamount to abandoning your seminarians - the 'visionary' failed to 'see' so I tried to enlightened her regarding the circumstances of our canonical vacation), the ‪Sedevacantist‬ CMRI came up but since the said Sedevacantists refuse to go here and would refer them instead to Fr. Soliman whom they do not 'like', the 'visionary' spoke thus, "we were told that if there are no more priests to whom we should go, then we can already go straight to [g]od..." - the 'spirit' behind Protestantism. And so she continued, this time taking it out on Fr. Suelo (who defied Mrs. Cordova in going up still to Manila to meet with Fr. Pfeiffer) according to the complaints of Fr. Onoda which, she claimed, she learned from a woman who inquired with the mainstream-‪SSPX‬ OLVC Prior for his whereabouts. The 'visionary' would like us to 'see' that Fr. Suelo is a great financial liability if we leave Mrs. Cordova's house and that since, according to Fr. Onoda, he is a recalcitrant subordinate he is as good as dumped. So, to shut her up and finally end the discussion with them, I remarked: "St. Teresa said: 'Even if a priest be a sinner, I will still kiss his footsteps.' Dump your clerics when they turn apostates, heretics, schismatics but not because you perceive them as 'offending' your 'righteous' sensibilities. And as to our renting out or not this house or to the discontinuance of the Mass here, and as to your murmurings against our decisions on the administration of the sacred and on our getting in and out of the Seminary, let Fr. Chazal settle it."

Later in the afternoon, Mrs. Cordova went all the way through in perpetrating in the Seminary cloister even up to our rooms (except Fr. Suelo's which, I was told by our lady-helpers, was locked) their superstitious ritual of swinging incense to drive away, in her proud presumption, the remaining evil spirits who, she claimed, came with [the adverse faithful] and who now have been taking hold of us so that we finally get 'enlightened'! She was an ex-[‪Augustinian Recollect‬]nun and claiming to be 'traditional' she must know that that kind of shameless irreverent stupidity cannot pass without them having incurred a canonical punishment [it is our lady-helpers who rather have a Catholic sense for they dreaded that such forbidden absurdity occured; they believe that God will punish them for it]. And in virtue of the Order of Porter conferred upon me, shall I bar those impiously deluded proud spirits from sacred ceremony until we see them "begging [pardon and absolution] on their bended knees?" The 'visionary', I was told, then claimed that she saw the remaining proud spirits scampering away - I recall her relating one time that when she saw devils surrounding a mainstream-SSPX priest at an airport where she happened to be waiting, she ran away out of fear for them: but St. Therese also saw devils and these proud spirits were the ones who scampered away from her trembling; according to St. Teresa, if we pray well we can not be fearful of devils. Mrs. Cordova and party left taking away with them the red and green vestments which came from Mrs. [Babes Simon].

The following day, during lunch, I was told that they expected me to just sit down before them keeping mum while Mrs. Cordova and the 'visionary' were spewing the same impious murmurings with which they have already maliciously intrigued with other faithful, and then of course "beg [for their indulgence] on bended knees." But sorry for them last Friday, I did not - and will not! They forgot that a cleric sitting before them occupies a position higher than what they pretend to be and a Porter of the "house of God" would not tolerate their shamelessly impudent and impious mouths in dealing with and speaking of us so I refuted and reproved them accordingly. One of them commented to our lady-helpers, "He hasn't become a priest yet, what more..." To which I would reply: What more if I become a priest? I will deal just as God dealt severely with proud murmurers as of Old" [emphases, ours with those supplied in the original].

Fr. Chazal decided to abandon the woman's house and appointed 8th of September for the Community's transfer. He tasked the senior Seminarian to take charge of the transfer as he would be away for the scheduled Korea-Japan mission run and instructed to "save whatever you can [that is liturgically necessary for the Seminary]." However, later in the day, the impious woman charged the senior Seminarian in the local community blotter with 'theft' formally claiming that the altar cross, sanctuary images of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, the tabernacle, censer, ciborium, and missal stand received by the Superior as donations "all belong to [her]" while later would circulate text messages to the effect that she was actually trying to get even for the adverse effect of the Seminarian's report on her repute in that "he was wrong in going against a tiger." Her impious claim was a lie for her means of demanding back what "belong[s] to [her]" was by harassment of the weak and poor (she's an 'effeminate' "tiger" after all with tail actually tucked in between hind legs!) - her poor tenants who served the Community and even offered help to the Seminary to get a temporary house and thus make the priests and seminarians stay near them were threatened with outright expulsion from her property had they failed to get everything she specified on her demand note! This coward also instructed her tenants to noise abroad that the Community - especially the senior Seminarian - were 'thieves'; but, when the locals of the subdivision learned of what she did, only then did they know that she was actually a "rotten lying hypocrite" - a neighbor active in the Novus Ordo parish denounced her with loathing to the N.O. "presider". Well, these N.O. devoted faithful exhibited themselves to be in possession still, somehow, of sound Catholic sense than this impudent deluded woman who claimed before the Resistance priests and seminarians that she saw the 'Blessed Virgin' one time in her property during the first marriage for the ResistancePH - but only the devil would have this kind of impious effect of her deceitful 'apparition'! And to buttress her allegation that she was robbed, she now has resorted to a lie: that her house was only for her 'retreat house' and not a seminary.

The next morning after the transfer, the 'effeminate' "tiger" instructed the chief of the local community police to demand also from the Seminarian the chalice bought by Fr. Pfeiffer with a threat that the local community police would cross beyond their area of jurisdiction and extend their arms on behalf of the political 'corruptrix'. The Seminarian challenged them to come up rather with a rightful court order from which the deluded impious spirit backed off for she would not be able to present to the court any evidence proving that Fr. Pfeiffer's chalice "belongs to [her]."

Fr. Chazal, over a phone conversation with his senior Seminarian, claimed that that deluded woman was actually the one "robbing" the community and since what she was able to get back by harassment were devoted to the sanctuary and the altar the 'effeminate' "tiger" "committed," continued Fr. Chazal, "ABOMINATION." The Church, according to St. Pius X-Pope Benedict XV Code of Canon Law, punishes her and her partisans who urged her and would defend her impious usurpation of ecclesiastical property with EXCOMMUNICATION LATAE SENTENTIAE - that is, AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION - and its absolution reserved to the Holy See (good 'luck' to her and her partisans with the present "diabolical disorientation" of Rome).