The "Prudence" Of "Fr." Peter Tran Van Khoat
Webpage by Lúcio Mascarenhas, Bombay, May 16, 2006.
http://www.geocities.com/livrant/prudence-of-khoat.html
See also:
- Sirianism
- The "Prudence" of Khoat: A Re-Rebuttal Against David Hobson
- Pages on Sirianism from the Vatican-in-exile website
The original address of the page is http://siri.homestead.com/KCredible.html.
H.H. Pope Michael, who put up the original page, has pulled it off and plans to move it to another address: http://www.vaticaninexile.com/Traditionalist/Siri/KCredible.html.
My re-rebuttal of David Hobson's defense of "Fr." Khoat is in blue.
Is Fr. Peter Tran Van Khoat A Credible Witness?
Hobson: Yes
Fr. Khoat has told two divergent stories about his visit with Cardinal Siri in the Spring of 1988.
Hobson: He is most prudent, i.e. being around Gary Giuffre and Giuffre's "Machiavellian manners".
Lucio: We have Hobson's certificate, an emphatic "He is most prudent"....
This webmaster, Mr. Gary Giuffre and other eyewitnesses report of Fr. Khoat's position prior to Cardinal Siri's death.
Hobson: It is common knowledge Fr. Khoat did not tell Giuffre much and withheld information (Prudent)
Lucio: Further certification of Khoat's "prudence", and a frightening admission of his willingness to mislead souls in a very urgent and critical matter involving the identity of the True Pope, and thus of the salvation of every single soul on earth, since, as Pope Boniface VIII taught infallibly in his Unam Sanctam: "Every soul must submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved" — if Hobson is telling the truth, Khoat is guilty of a great and insolent sin against the strict obligation of Charity unto eternal salvation!!!
The reports all agree and coincide with Mr. Remy's report, which was published in the Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes in late 1987. We can presume that Fr. Khoat's visit with Siri influenced Gary Giuffre's book, Exile of the Pope Elect, since Giuffre sent Khoat to Italy, providing $15,000 to finance the trip. Part III indicates the position held by Siri supporters at this time.
Hobson: Correction: Fr. Khoat paid for his airfare to Rome.
Basically the claim at this time was that Siri was elected in 1963 and both 1978 elections, but never permitted to accept, making him a pope elect, which invalidates the elections of Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla.
Hobson: Pope Siri was elected in 1958 as was told by Pope Siri to Fr. Khoat in 1988 (Fr. Khoat notes it was important (providential) that he met Gregory XVII in Rome)
Cardinal Siri dies May 2, 1989.
Hobson: Fr. Khoat pointed out to me it was the Feast day of St. Athanasius, Fr. Khoat was crushed, to this day he seems moved by the day Pope Siri died (in a way that inspires him).
Lucio: The date on which Siri died is totally irrelevant. My own father was born on St. John the Baptist's feast and died on the Nativity of Our Lady; that does not necessarily signify anything, least of all that he was a great saint! Catholics must avoid scrupulously the least stigma of superstition of dates and coincidences.
In late summer, early fall of 1989, Fr. Khoat visits Mr. Jim Condit Jr. in Ohio, and reports that Siri said he accepted the Papal Election in 1958.
Hobson: True, however it was in a conversation — it was not as if Fr. Khoat was broadcasting this historical fact. As evidence that Fr. Khoat was withholding info from the egotist Giuffre: Giuffre did not know about 1958. See the time frame on the main article on ThePopeInRed.com
On June 3rd, 1990, Fr. Khoat reports that the Cardinal Camerlengo appointed by Pope Gregory XVII has called for a Papal Election (Full report can be found here; Original can be consulted here).
Hobson: True (God's Timing is perfect)
Lucio: I may be daft, for I cannot understand what Khoat's timing has got to do with God's timing. Surely, it is not Hobson's intention to imply that Khoat is God?
No further reports from Fr. Khoat have been found by this webmaster.
Since Fr. Khoat's story changed substantially after Cardinal Siri died, it makes both of his reports doubtful. Other evidence indicates his lack of credibility.
Hobson: Why? he was prudent. From the time a Pope is living and dies, certain things must be done to keep the *mission of the Church (*i.e. the papacy) going.
Lucio: Note: Another gratuitous certification of Khoat's "prudence". We will need every of these certificates and still come up short, by-and-by!
Before or as part of making this public announcement inviting such a "Conclave", did Khoat prove his right to call it? And, since a "conclave" was apparently gathered together, apparently enough we have been provided (yet another, Sigh!) papal pretender. Who is he, and where is he? Why has this critical information been withheld from souls, each and every one of whom have a right to this information in public?
Testimony of Fr. Khoat
Basically we have four witnesses to Fr. Khoat’s testimony that I have current access to. We have Mr. Condit’s published testimony from a conversation and presentation in late summer or early fall of 1989. We have the testimony of Teresa Benns, who visited with Fr. Khoat in the spring of 1989 in order to determine whether or not Siri was Pope. We have a sermon given by Fr. Khoat June 3, 1990 and reprinted on pages 14 and 15 of the Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes in issue number 65. Finally we have my own interviews with Fr. Khoat in the fall of 1988 and again in 1989.
First of all, though I would like to relate a story related to me by Gary Giuffre, concerning Fr. Khoat’s trip to Italy to see Siri. Giuffre had a presentation and a notebook prepared at the time, which demonstrated the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the heresies of Wojtyla, Luciani and Montini, especially on the matter of religious liberty. Giuffre prepared a copy for presentation to Wojtyla and Fr. Khoat spent $5,000 in order to get in a position to do so. However, Fr. Khoat failed to deliver the notebook. Basically Giuffre thought that the trip had been a waste of $15,000.
Hobson: Not true at all — I have all the documentation— this was a gravely important and successful trip — again Fr. Khoat paid his own way. Giuffre did not have all the info and does not to this day. He (Giuffre) was not telling you what he knew.
Lucio: Something does not jell here. What happened to the money Giuffre gave to Khoat as part of his commission? Either Hobson is lying on behalf of Khoat or Hobson is directly accusing Giuffre of lying about providing the money. Which is true? Money does not disappear into thin air.
In 1989 I was surprised to see a picture of Antipope John Paul II prominently displayed in Fr. Khoat’s office for all to see. He had some excuse that was to lead people in, then he would tell them the truth. However, if Siri was Pope, why was their no picture of Pope Siri?
Hobson: If factual, a tactical error at the time?? Fr. Khoat in my many correspondences including as recently as May 5th, 2006 the 39 year of his priestly ordination knows that from Roncalli to Ratzinger they are usurping Anti-popes. There is no question that he knows they are invalid, none!
Lucio: Hobson is confusing things and dates. H.H. Pope Michael recalls Khoat having a picture of the Antipope Wojtyla ("Voltiva") in his office.
Hobson is unable to deny this; the best he can come up with is "a tactical error".
This, cross my heart, is from the "most prudent man that ever walked upon the face of the earth" if we are to take Hobson's certificates at face value.
One certificate lost, two to go.
And it is totally irrelevant what Khoat believes "as recently as May 2006" when we are discussing the year 1989!
Dates! Man, get your grasp on dates right!
And this is what everyone called Siri at this time. Later on this visit I would receive a further shock, which I related to Giuffre. Khoat came out and said that he liked the position of Lefebvre, that is that Wojtyla was Pope but we refused to obey his evil commands.
Hobson: I have no information about this alleged incident. I can ask him this week. It is my opinion that Fr. Khoat 100% recognizes the validity of Bp. Lefebvre. I know he studied the Lienart issue intensely (I have his notes).
Lucio: Basic confusion of ideas. H.H. Pope Michael has not touched at all here on the question of the validity of Lefebvre's orders. He merely reports that Khoat at that time — 1989 — which is after Khoat's visit to Siri in Rome, informed him (Pope Michael) that he (Khoat) agreed with Lefebvre's attitude towards the Roman Modernist heresiarch Wojtyla, which is "is that Wojtyla is legitimate Pope but we refuse to obey his evil commands".
Was Khoat now una cum (i.e., "in communion with") John Paul II? If Fr. Khoat knew Siri had been elected in 1958, why place Wojtyla’s picture on the wall? Why say he liked the position of Lefebvre, when he knew that it was a false position?
Hobson: I will ask him about your personal observations the next time I speak with him. I did not know his office situation in Stafford, Texas.
Lucio: Lame answer and insufficient!
What is important is what Fr. Khoat said about Siri and how he acted. Fr. Khoat said that Siri said it is a secret, when questioned about his papacy.
Hobson: No, Fr. Khoat was keeping the story from you. I know this.
Lucio: If true, a damning admission — See comment on Pope Boniface's Unam Sanctam above. Cancel another of those certificates: Only one left to go now!
This was a constant story in 1989 and again in 1989. Fr. Khoat possessed a picture of Siri vested in green gothic vestments, which appears to be taken from within the sanctuary.
Hobson: There is more than one picture ... (Fact)
Easter was April 3rd that year, so in the Catholic Church green vestments would not be used until May 30th, the Monday after Trinity Sunday. However, the Novus Ordo Church uses green vestments for the Sundays between Easter and Pentecost, which are part of (what the Catholic Church calls) "ordinary time".
Hobson: I can not answer this, I will say that Fr. Khoat said Siri was controlled and under constant surveillance — it was much effort to finally get to His Holiness Gregory XVII. In the process Fr. Khoat had to "n a since rent an apartment "type thing" — it did not happen overnight — Pope Siri was most difficult to get to speak with. (He was always guarded it seems) It was a near miracle it seems that Fr. Khoat , through his sacrifice was able to meet with His Excellency and then alone (in private).
However, manner of acting as stated in Canon 1325 is a way to judge. What would a Catholic priest do, who was in our current situation when he finds the true Pope? The first thing he would do is ask for guidance and faculties to handle the current emergency. Fr. Khoat, however said he had not asked Siri for either, but relied on the principle of ecclesia supplet ("the Church mystically supplies the lack of...").
Hobson: I can not comment on this in the theological sense — Fr. Khoat as stated many times, is most prudent. Would he need to say anything to you or others. Pope Siri was under a documented threat — Fact. Is it not logical that — Fr. Khoat would know the enemy never sleeps?
Lucio: Not a sufficient explanation. And we have been issued yet another worthless certificate of Khoat's phenomenal "prudence". I say: Trash it!!! "Prudence" cannot override the strict obligation in Charity to reveal to souls the information urgently necessary to ensure their eternal salvation!!!
By the way, since Hobson provides us a "certificate" that Siri was "under a documented threat", and a further certificate that this is a "fact", can we please have this "documentation" provided to the public-in-general? Souls have a right to the information.
Wouldn’t actual faculties from the Pope be far better than ecclesia supplet?
Fr. Khoat used the John XXIII calendar and breviary of 1960, which is consistent to the claim that Siri was elected in 1963, but not to the claim that Siri was elected in 1958.
Hobson: I have no information on this.
Lucio: Why not? This is fundamental information, and you have had more than ample time! This page has been up for several months, and had been taken down and put up and taken down, several times due to your mafia-style threats! What has kept you so long from getting this information?
If Siri was elected in 1958, then his election invalidated the election of Angelo Roncalli. This invalidates every action Roncalli posited as usurper antipope. Catholics would be obliged to ignore his every decree and keep things as they were at the death of Pope Pius XII, since Siri never performed any action as Pope.
Hobson: This is not true, I believe (and have some notes evidence [not mine] he set the process in motion to continue the papacy.) Also Pope Siri was elected in 1958 — he told Fr. Khoat this (they spoke to each other in French)— that is why Catholics today know about the white smoke i.e., because of Fr. Khoat .
Fr. Khoat says this (the white smoke is something to meditate on as it has a mystical meaning too, — as to what is happening in these seemingly "end of times" and what the situation in the True Church, is in (a blotting out) terrible darkness. I will add that Fr. Khoat "brings light"...
Lucio: Again, you have basic confusion of ideas. H.H. Pope Michael is speaking here of the fact that, if it is true that Siri was elected in 1958 and then remained lawful Pope until his death in 1989, the '1962 Revised Missal' of Antipope John XXIII-II is without value to Catholics who are aware of these facts, as Khoat claimed to be in 1989 after his visit to Siri the previous year; despite which, he continued to use the '1962 Revised Missal', thereby proving the lie of his claim about 'Pope Siri'!
I would discount Khoat's advise to meditate on the white smoke of 1958. Khoat is no prophet, and he does not speak for God or for the Magisterium of the Church.
As for your certification that "Khoat brings light" I can only say that it frightens me. Frightens me because you demonstrate a brain-washed, cult mentality. I sincerely hope that the bunch of you aren't going to do an encore of David Koresh's Waco!!! Please come off it! Khoat is not the Messias, nor is he God; he is a mere man and one totally incapable of "bringing light"!
Further Personal Recollections of this Webmaster
Fr. Khoat, as many know him, has become a key figure in recent events. He visited Giuseppe Siri in 1988. Before discussing the various reports of this meeting, it is necessary to find out just who Fr. Tran Van really is.
I met Fr. Khoat for the first time in 1978 at the Society of Saint Pius X chapel in Dickinson, Texas. He came over to attend the funeral of the 18 year old daughter of Bill Comiskey, who had died tragically in an accident. The Comiskey family lives in Nederland, Texas near where Fr. Khoat had a Vietnamese Traditionalist church in Port Arthur, Texas. Over the next two and a half years we were to cross paths several times.
The next time we met was in Saint Marys in 1980. Brendan O’Keefe (who had been ordained by the Eastern Orthodox at the recommendation of Fr. Gomar de Pauw), my mother and I were visiting. Fr. Khoat recognized me and joined the conversation. And thus Fr. Khoat and O’Keefe were introduced. Shortly before resigning from the Society of Saint Pius X in March of 1981 I was in El Paso, Texas. Fr. Khoat and a number of his followers drove clear across Texas to also be there, so we visited again. It was in El Paso where the picture below was taken.
Hobson: Fr. Khoat at times would travel and say several Masses for the faithful in one day. He said at one time he would say five every Sunday in different places as I recall.
Lucio: Again, you have basic confusion of ideas. You have entirely missed what H.H. Pope Michael has said above!
After Archbishop Thuc consecrated bishops, I was seeking information. So I wrote to Fr. Khoat.
Hobson: Fr. Khoat met with Bp. Thuc several times he informed me. He holds the Thuc consecrations are valid. I have some very important information about Bp. Thuc and his Diem (and whole family) that I would like to get to the public soon.
However, he never replied, although the letter was not returned as undeliverable. And here is where I must lodge a complaint. There are some who simply will not answer letters. I am not sure that Fr. Khoat is one of them, as this is an isolated incident. There are others who have consistently failed to reply, unless they want something from you.
In 1987 shortly after realizing the absolute necessity of a Papal Election, I heard that Bill Comiskey had some information, so I wrote to him. He wrote back saying that his priest Fr. ????? (he wrote Khoat, but then blacked it out) had more information. I wrote back that I knew his priest was Fr. Khoat and had known him in the past. Soon I was in contact with Fr. Khoat and on my way to Port Arthur to investigate.
Let us backtrack to the early 1980’s O’Keefe did not ever affiliate with the Society of Saint Pius X, although he was in contact with them. However he did go to Port Arthur and worked with Fr. Khoat for a year and a half. My father and I had maintained some contact with O’Keefe. After his return to Saint Louis, O’Keefe exchanged letters and phone calls with us. O’Keefe sent along some interesting documentation from which I will quote briefly.Dear Fr. O’Keefe,However this is not the most interesting document.
I received your dossier and, having looked through it, am returning it herewith to you…
Respectfully yours in Christ and Mary,
+Marcel LEFEBVRE.
In a letter dated December 29, 1981 Hector Bolduc, District Superior of the Southwest District of the United States of the Society of Saint Pius X wrote Fr. Khoat:"I enclose a copy of an earlier letter I have sent you as well as a copy of a letter from a group called the Phuc Sinh Vietnamese Original Catholic Community Parish, whatever that is.Hobson: Bill Comisky told me in late December 2005 A.D. in Port Arthur, Texas that Fr. Khoat did own a hotel, —(you must remember Fr. Khoat was not part of the Novus Ordo diocese, he kept the True Faith, so he organized people to help with business for families and the true Church, Resurrection Parish) Mr. Comisky who I was fortunate to have dinner with him and his family, at his house in December, said the hotel was in not the greatest part of town. He said Fr. Khoat may have obtained it through a business dealing (default of a contract?)... Mr. Comisky was not sure. He said that, that part of the city (of Port Arthur) was sadly, a place where the "wrong type" of people hung out. I did see some business cards / material for the hotel — and Fr. Khoat did do his best for sure to try to make it a success and to chase out the bad elements. He was promoting it for business travelers who it would fly to the coastal seaport (Port Arthur, Texas ) to conduct trade in the seafood, shipping, etc., economic market.
"As you will note, they make very grave accusations against you.
"If this is the case of enemies of the Church trying to defame the name of a good priest then please let me know.
"Do answer the following questions:
1. "Do you own a hotel in part or in whole?"
(Fr. Khoat pointed the hotel out to me he used to own, stating that prostitutes worked out of it, and drugs were sold there, but that this was out of his control.)
Hobson: As I said Bill Comisky told me that, that area of Port Arthur was for a long time a " problem " area to me on my visit in December 2005 A.D.
One must remember Fr. Khoat was from Vietnam and his investors?/helpers who were more often Vietnamese —possibly they did not know the history of the area.
To infer that Fr. Khoat did anything wrong here is total and terrible sin of injustice (this whole section must be taken down — are you objective?)
Lucio: Hobson has not proven his claim of Khoat's innocence, and there is no basis for "this whole section be taken down"! We will discuss this further below.
2. "Do you own a movie house (theatre) in part or in whole?"Hobson: I have no information on this. I can ask him
3. "Are there plans to build a dock at Sabin Pass? Are you in any way involved in the place?"Hobson: Fr. Khoat not being part of the Novus Ordo Diocese helped his fellow Vietnamese with their businesses to feed their families.
Lucio: If he did, it was / is nice and kind of him. However, why should he, a priest, be holding other people's properties in his own name? Is this the course of a "prudent" man? Why not incorporate them in the form of a trust or company? What is at the heart of the accusation being made by Khoat's Vietnamese opponents?
4. "Please answer to the letter in full answering all the charges so that the truth may be made known.Hobson: Fr. Khoat did no wrong here. I have gone through hundreds of documents concerning his life and business dealings — what is the point, here?
5. "Concerning the above questions, is the money of the Vietnamese group in any way involved in any of these projects?
6. "Who, if anyone, owns title to the above businesses?
I will expect your answer to this letter on or before January 10th, 1982.
I wish to inform you that if the matter is not settled satisfactorily by that time, all affiliation between you and the Society of Saint Pius X will cease.
Lucio: Isn't the point clear? Bolduc's words are clear enough, and we have not seen any public answer to them, to which answer the public has a strict right, as it concerns vitally the credibility of "Fr." Khoat! The public has a strict right to all the documentation in this matter.
Bolduc wrote to Bill Comiskey on the same day:"Concerning the letter being circulated by the “Phuc Sinh” Vietnamese Community, please explain what this is all about, who these people are, and comment on their charges.O’Keefe related that Fr. Khoat owned a hotel, which Fr. Khoat later confirmed to me, claiming it was because he was a citizen whereas most of the other Vietnamese had not yet gained their citizenship. Drugs were sold from this hotel and prostitutes worked there regularly.
Hobson: This is yellow journalism — Fr. Khoat is a holy priest — I am sure he did all in his power to get the bad element out of there — many prayers etc. Why is this on this web page — this is really unjust. If a business man owns a restaurant and a group of rotten people go there at various times, does it mean the owner has done wrong? No. Fr. Khoat is a holy man, a holy priest. Take this page down.
Lucio: This is NOT yellow journalism. It is reporting facts, and facts that souls have a right to know. Khoat has every right to put provide the public with his self-defense, but has he? Your certification of Khoat as a "holy priest" is worthless at face-value.
The defence of Khoat that you attempt ("If a business man owns a restaurant and a group of rotten people go there at various times, does it mean the owner has done wrong?") is lame and cannot be sustained. Khoat is a priest, and not a businessman. And a priest has no business owning a hotel used as a house of ill-repute. There is a sharp distinction between a situation where "rotten people go there at various times" and "prostitutes and drug-peddlers using the hotel as a habitual base of operations." If any other honest man had been involved, he would have either called in the authorities, or shut up shop and converted the building to other uses or sold it off and got out of an unacceptable situation. And Khoat is no ordinary citizen or mere businessman, but ostensibly an ordained priest, a minister of God! Nothing, nothing whatsoever can excuse his failure to end this scandal. His actions are not only far from that of a "prudent" man, they are the very opposite! There is no excuse!
And please remember that you are not King-Emperor of the United States, with the authority to order another person peremptorily to "take down this page"! Try and get over your habit of acting like a goon and a hooligan and try harder to fit in like a law-abiding citizen!
Fr. Khoat also owned ten shrimp boats for the same reason and O’Keefe stated that some of these were used for smuggling drugs.
Hobson: Fr. Khoat was in charge of many people — he did put together a deal to purchase these expensive shrimping boats (I have studied the official paper work). As Fr. Khoat , told me when I asked him a few months ago about the Vietnamese in Port Arthur he said that in Vietnam these people were well trained in fishing skills (shrimping etc.) The Vietnamese are a hard working people. Port Arthur, with the ocean in the back yard was / is a great fit.
Lucio: Nice if he did it, but no excuse for the boats, under his charge, being misused for drug-running, if O'Keefe's accusations are true!!!
Hobson: I mentioned the webmaster's (i.e. Pope Michael's) unfair accusation here to a group of long time Port Arthur people. which included again Bill Comisky again, and as I recall Annie Comisky his wife and they all just laughed all at once... still there was a frustration in this "laugh" — this is clearly a libelous statement that no objective person could put online.
Lucio: "Laughter" and "frustration" are not sufficient answer to serious charges, which neither you nor Khoat have sufficiently countered!!! Truth can never be libel!!!
Hobson: And I mentioned this accusation of yours to Fr. Khoat ... he sadly "smirked" in total disbelief, he could see what the webmaster of this site was attempting.
This is a sin to post this libel online.
Lucio: Let Khoat smirk all he wants. Smirking does solve the problem of his disrepute. If he has evidence to disprove, he will cease smirking and get cracking on proving his innocence. That is how normal people behave. Smirking is the refuge of those who have no other defence.
O’Keefe said there were irregularities with the Western Union offices Fr. Khoat owned. While I was there to visit Fr. Khoat, he was making notes on old Western Union notepads, which I presume he acquired when he owned a Western Union office.
Hobson: I have no information on this. It seems he had involvement with a Western Union office. It is quite plausible this was useful in helping the Vietnamese help relatives / members of their families, still in Vietnam who were being persecuted. Let me assure you, Fr. Khoat is 100% completely an anti-Communist... that war is not over for Fr. Khoat.
Lucio: Evidently, "that war is not over" for Khoat, a fact that he proves by investing in factories in Communist Vietnam, governed and managed under the auspices of the Communists, and exploiting the cheap labor of Vietnam under Communist auspices. With defenders such as these, what need of enemies?
In fact, Fr. Khoat had a problem with his bingo parlors that made the local news, while I was there in the spring of 1989.
Hobson: I have no information on this.
Although I set this aside at the time of my visits to Khoat in 1988 and again in 1989, in reviewing my visits and the events then, I have to wonder if there is not some truth to all of this. Fr. Khoat established a large Vietnamese Traditionalist community. In fact in 1977, Lefebvre left Dickinson to go and dedicate their church. When I arrived in 1988, I expected to find a large community.
Hobson: I hope you have the prudence to drop this section of hearsay above — note the Novus Ordo "bishops" put the full-court-press on Fr. Khoat and the Vietnamese people, including a terrible a campaign of calumny against Fr. Khoat .. I have all the court documents on this. Fr. Khoat , took them on for their unjust actions. One of the Bishops (from Beaumont?) said that Fr. Khoat had taken money from old ladies ....In court, Fr. Khoat asked this "Bishop" to name who these old ladies were, i.e. name names... even one. The "Bishop" could not as there never were defrauded older ladies... this is the type of sinful calumny that the criminal, property hungry, usurpers — purposely used against Fr. Khoat to set his people against him and get the independently owned Resurrection Church property from him..
Also the Novus Ordo Bishops waged a campaign of telling the "new to the country" people, that Fr. Khoat was excommunicated.... Note: for saying the True Mass etc., i.e. having the Roman Catholic Faith . Now Fr. Khoat has a double doctorate and fought these bastard bogus "bishops" with heroic courage and meekness (this is a great virtue of his, meekness, he is also very strong as those who know him, know he is a prudent leader. But these V2 sect "Bishops" would not let down".. they put their pressure on the local Port Arthur government and in a double punch against the Tridentine Mass saying priest Holy Fr. Khoat told the people, many who it seems did not know much about the language etc., and were just beginning to start a new existence in a foreign land (the US) —that they would have certain of their benefits that for some would include food stamps, taken away from them if they acknowledged Fr. Khoat and the True Mass.
Has not every American parish been "major league" effected by this terrible Apostasy. Not speaking English for some and being told calumny about a holy priest — and then threatening to take away even daily food? These Novus Ordo phony "bishops" are the criminals,who in God's perfect timing will receive justice! I was there (in Port Arthur) for the True Mass at a smaller, well kept chapel in late December of 2005 A.D. Fr. Khoat is still very loved in Port Arthur. He celebrated the Easter Mass their this April (2006 A.D.)
Lucio: Bad enough as the Roman Modernist sect is, it does not serve as an excuse for Khoat's own wrongdoings. It is disingenuous and dishonest to try and seek cover for one's own wrongdoing by taking refuge in the fact of another group's undeniable criminality. It is like a Catholic in Elizabethan England resorting to occult arts and defending himself on the grounds of being persecuted as a Catholic by the Protestants. The excuse does not serve.
Instead the church building is now a Buddhist Temple. The only Vietnamese at Fr. Khoat’s Masses was his father. Even his own relatives do not go to Fr. Khoat’s Masses. Instead there is a beautiful new Vietnamese Novus Ordo Church and a large park a few blocks east of Fr. Khoat’s home. What caused all of these Vietnamese to leave Fr. Khoat and return to the Novus Ordo?
Hobson: You say a beautiful "Novus Ordo Church".
Lucio: Is it your implication that a false and schismatic sect cannot ever have a beautiful church building?
Hobson: This I think was answered above. We must pray for the restoration of the true Papacy. Fr. Khoat told me specifically that every day he prays for this intention. He advised me last week to tell others to meditate on the message of Our Lady of La Salette.
Lucio: Which message would that be? The one that claims that "Rome will fall and become the seat of the Antichrist", a false "message" that openly contradicts Pastor Æternus of the Vatican Council, 1869-1870, and which false "message" has been consistently banned and forbidden to be discussed by Catholics by the Church from the early 1870s until 1958?
Sincerely,
David Hobson
Owner
StGemma.com Web Productions
05/08/06
H.H. Pope Michael I
Post-Script
As a Catholic, I demand that H.H. Pope Michael cease to allow David Hobson to terrorize him against publicizing the above page impugning the credibility of Khoat.I point out and affirm that every soul has a strict right to this information as bearing on his eternal salvation, and it must be available freely.
If H.H. Pope Michael were to knuckle down to Hobson's threats and keep the page off, he (Pope Michael) would be guilty of a great sin against God, as St. Peter, the first pope sinned by his dissembling in the face of the Judaizers in Antioch, for which St. Paul chastised him.
Put the page up and keep it up! If Khoat or Hobson have any credible refutation, either correct the page or link to their refutations.
Kind regards,
Lúcio Mascarenhas, Bombay.
|
PUBLISHED on the Internet: May 16, 2006.
|
P U R P O S EWritten with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio. |
Fair Use NoticeThis web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Lúcio Mascarenhas |