Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 19:04:55 GMT
It's not about Fr. Pfeiffer attacking Bishop Williamson in his person, if this is what you are stating. It's about Fr. Pfeiffer continuing to attack Bishop Williamson's errors so long as Bishop Williamson does not retract them. His Excellency has done grave harm to the Resistance by his errors. No, it is not what I am stating. There is no need for fr. Pfeiffer to continue to attack Williamson in any way. Fr. Pfeiffer asked for assistance from a bishop who said no. Time to move on. If b. Williamson is negligent in his duties as a bishop, that is a matter for God to judge, not any human. There are plenty of other bishops. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him and leave Williamson to his own conscience? How many times do they have to answer your questions? Looks like your just trying to bait without even listening. Btw where are there other bishops?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 19:10:57 GMT
Bishop Williamson continues to influence people, new and old. So long as he does, he needs to be censured for his errors and people need to be clear on where he stands. And if no one speaks out, he will think he is right. I agree, though, that only God can judge his soul. There are MANY bishops who continue to influence people, yet are they censured by OLMC for their errors? b. Williamson has made his position clear to olmc priests time and time again. Leave b. Williamson to his own devices and conscience. Intelligent laity will understand where he stands and make their position clear with their checkbooks. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him? You didn't answer that question for previous times I asked... Care to provide what +williamson made 'clear' about the priests at olmc? I certainly haven't heard anything. No obfuscation please. Just his verbatum words.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 19, 2018 19:56:03 GMT
No, it is not what I am stating. There is no need for fr. Pfeiffer to continue to attack Williamson in any way. Fr. Pfeiffer asked for assistance from a bishop who said no. Time to move on. If b. Williamson is negligent in his duties as a bishop, that is a matter for God to judge, not any human. There are plenty of other bishops. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him and leave Williamson to his own conscience? How many times do they have to answer your questions? Looks like your just trying to bait without even listening. Btw where are there other bishops? How many times do I have to ask, why doesn't fr. Pfeiffer Leave Williamson alone and utilize Moran, who fr. Pfeiffer adamantly finds legitimate?
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 19, 2018 20:02:00 GMT
There are MANY bishops who continue to influence people, yet are they censured by OLMC for their errors? b. Williamson has made his position clear to olmc priests time and time again. Leave b. Williamson to his own devices and conscience. Intelligent laity will understand where he stands and make their position clear with their checkbooks. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him? You didn't answer that question for previous times I asked... Care to provide what +williamson made 'clear' about the priests at olmc? I certainly haven't heard anything. No obfuscation please. Just his verbatum words. Read. I said b. Williamson has made his position clear TO fr. Pfeiffer, not ABOUT fr. Pfeiffer. What has he made clear? That he will not assist them. Verbatim words? See the original post on this thread... So, once again I ask the same question, which no one here will answer: Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is a legitimate bishop. Why not use him and leave b. Williamson to his own devices and conscience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 21:02:27 GMT
Bishop Williamson continues to influence people, new and old. So long as he does, he needs to be censured for his errors and people need to be clear on where he stands. And if no one speaks out, he will think he is right. I agree, though, that only God can judge his soul. There are MANY bishops who continue to influence people, yet are they censured by OLMC for their errors? b. Williamson has made his position clear to olmc priests time and time again. Leave b. Williamson to his own devices and conscience. Intelligent laity will understand where he stands and make their position clear with their checkbooks. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him? You didn't answer that question for previous times I asked... Bishop Williamson is a former SSPX bishop. He is closer to home than other bishops.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 19, 2018 21:53:54 GMT
There are MANY bishops who continue to influence people, yet are they censured by OLMC for their errors? b. Williamson has made his position clear to olmc priests time and time again. Leave b. Williamson to his own devices and conscience. Intelligent laity will understand where he stands and make their position clear with their checkbooks. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him? You didn't answer that question for previous times I asked... Bishop Williamson is a former SSPX bishop. He is closer to home than other bishops. Not if the answer is always no... All this fuss over closer to home? If there is a legitimate bishop, who will cooperate with fr. Pfeiffer, who fr. Pfeiffer will cooperate with, the match should be made. fr. Pfeiffer considers Moran legitimate. If Moran is willing to work with him, makes no sense to continue to try to get Williamson. My bet is fr. Pfeiffer would lose a LOT of Faithful if he did and Moran would demand supremacy over fr. Pfeiffer. Ergo fr. Pfeiffer won't utilize moran, for now, but will keep him close. Ohio is pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by Simple guest on Jul 19, 2018 22:58:22 GMT
After reading this for the first time I’m not sure if I have understood the issue here. OLMC need holy oils and the like and hopefully ordinations in the future. Bishop Williamson is asked for his assistance but refuses, not for the first time. A few points are raised, among a lot of others, about BW being an auxiliary bishop and these sort of requests were the reason ABL ordained the four bishops in the first place. A few guests are a bit upset that BW was even asked because he’s said no before, and feel he should be left alone and that Fr Pfieffer should go ask Bishop Ambrose. All ok? BW private reasons are his own of course, but one can’t help think what’s the problem? OLMC have continually stood against n.o.miracles, n.o grace, which has been pointed out also this entire thread among other threads, and seems from my view that it could have been interpreted by a few as directly attacking the subject- BW, or haven’t seen the pointing out of errors as a charity, rather a personal attack? Some guests have turned to some pretty petty arguments Fr Pfieffer said this and that and paid this to someone and paid that, I don’t think this was ever the point. To continue the work of the Archbishop which was to continue the true faith throughout the world as it was, like it or not, OLMC will need a bishop’s services on occasions. I personally have no problem with them asking the same bishop everyday for 50 years, and not just the one bishop but each and every bishop that shows even the slightest glimpse of fight for the true faith. It’s most definitely necessary. I among many others also share Fr Pfieffers strong faith and optimism that they will get a bishop when the hour is right.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 20, 2018 1:42:45 GMT
"I among many others also share Fr Pfieffers strong faith and optimism that they will get a bishop when the hour is right."
Or, perhaps, when fr. Pfeiffer follows canon law and gets a superior...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 2:14:52 GMT
After reading this for the first time I’m not sure if I have understood the issue here. OLMC need holy oils and the like and hopefully ordinations in the future. Bishop Williamson is asked for his assistance but refuses, not for the first time. A few points are raised, among a lot of others, about BW being an auxiliary bishop and these sort of requests were the reason ABL ordained the four bishops in the first place. A few guests are a bit upset that BW was even asked because he’s said no before, and feel he should be left alone and that Fr Pfieffer should go ask Bishop Ambrose. All ok? BW private reasons are his own of course, but one can’t help think what’s the problem? OLMC have continually stood against n.o.miracles, n.o grace, which has been pointed out also this entire thread among other threads, and seems from my view that it could have been interpreted by a few as directly attacking the subject- BW, or haven’t seen the pointing out of errors as a charity, rather a personal attack? Some guests have turned to some pretty petty arguments Fr Pfieffer said this and that and paid this to someone and paid that, I don’t think this was ever the point. To continue the work of the Archbishop which was to continue the true faith throughout the world as it was, like it or not, OLMC will need a bishop’s services on occasions. I personally have no problem with them asking the same bishop everyday for 50 years, and not just the one bishop but each and every bishop that shows even the slightest glimpse of fight for the true faith. It’s most definitely necessary. I among many others also share Fr Pfieffers strong faith and optimism that they will get a bishop when the hour is right. Yup that about sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 20, 2018 2:30:58 GMT
Except it doesn't matter what someone thinks, it matters what IS.
Why would fr. Pfeiffer continue to ask b. Williamson when he has Moran, who he believes to be legitimate? It just makes no sense to me, comfort or not (which I don't believe for a second).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 3:58:22 GMT
How many times do I have to ask, why doesn't fr. Pfeiffer Leave Williamson alone and utilize Moran, who fr. Pfeiffer adamantly finds legitimate?
Nightowl, we see the colors of your feathers. Appears you are only interested in your own answers. First, regarding your above question, it was already answered here thecatacombs.org/post/2222/thread
Second, seeking Bishop A, B, or C is not a personal thing. Bishop Williamson denying service in a time of necessity, as we said multiple times, is what is wrong. Seems you are comfortable to have a hodge-podge Church just being a matter of getting along while omitting the supremacy of Her doctrine. Who is really the victim here? Christ.
Wouldn't it dawn on you as a catholic, if you are, to ask that basic question about doctrine. And you are fine for a bishop to dismiss catholic priests requests for no reason at all except I do not want to? That doesn't disturb you?
Your above statement highlights your intention loud and clear. You only wish OLMC to go away and obscurely throw a bone to them as to go after another 'personality' bishop ambrose. But to rid yourself in conscience the struggle the Holy Spirit convicts the false resistance with, does not go away. And, we are not going away. The complacency of the false resistance is seen to be quite happy; we know that. Well, we are not happy doing less and make a religion out of it. Catholicism has order. Something of which the false resistance threw away. So I can understand why you say what you do. Religion becomes personal for those who walk without the yoke of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 20, 2018 4:00:07 GMT
I believe when the time is right God will send a bishop. God created heaven and earth if He wanted OLMC to have a bishop right now there would be one, there is nothing He can't do, but I think sometimes we forget that. He knows what He is doing and He has provided OLMC with everything they've needed so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 4:19:14 GMT
Which adds to the next observation - These false bishops said they were going to "Crush" OLMC. How could that be possible for catholic bishops to do such an evil thing? The word 'crush' was used as a verb. An action! What more effectiveness can a bishop do to stop priests from growing the Church in Her missions? Answer - Not to provide the treasures and service of the Church to them.
This is what Bishop Fellay had done stopping the Avrille Dominicans and Capuchins in 2012 and 2014. These defunct sspx bishops are using the sacraments as weapons. The same is happening in violent mentality in the persons of the other four false resistance bishops.
Just ask yourself the question again. How can a catholic bishop do such an evil thing against Christ? Starting to see a demonic tree?
St John said "Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God". (1 John 4) Dissolveth His Church, is not of God!
|
|
|
Post by Anon2 on Jul 20, 2018 5:22:08 GMT
There are MANY bishops who continue to influence people, yet are they censured by OLMC for their errors? b. Williamson has made his position clear to olmc priests time and time again. Leave b. Williamson to his own devices and conscience. Intelligent laity will understand where he stands and make their position clear with their checkbooks. Fr. Pfeiffer adamantly says Moran is legitimate. Why not use him? You didn't answer that question for previous times I asked... Bishop Williamson is a former SSPX bishop. He is closer to home than other bishops. For heaven's sake! Bishop Ambrose was used by Frs Fenton and Ward and St Jude's in the seventies. Williamson is all right Jack! Forget about him and his sound box (es). If Ambrose can help Tradition then why not use him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 11:48:13 GMT
What about bishop ambrose vs bishop williamson?
Same answer. Which of the bishops is closer to the nature of the Church.
It was already noted what is Bishop Williamson's position. What of Bishop Ambrose?
Validity - They both are valid bishops and have apostolicity. BW in the Roman rite and BA in the Catholic Ukraine rite. ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/
Doctrine - Present 2018, Bishop Williamson is in the Roman rite where Bishop Ambrose is bi-ritual both Catholic Ukraine rite and Roman rite. Bishop Williamson professed the true religion and now mixes the evil new religion. Bishop Ambrose professed the true religion through the Ukraine rite and roman rite [1]. Bishop Ambrose was baptized Catholic, received his priesthood in the Catholic faith, and at some point left the Catholic faith to the Orthodox religion promoted through ecumenism of the new church he was in. Placing more than a defect but an apostation to the Catholic faith, he later rejected Orthodoxy and converted back to Catholicism. We know he made a confession during that time, and publicly made a Catholic profession of faith with other norms provided in the Church before others and us years ago. Bishop Williamson states he is traditional while acting against the Church destroying her order and structure. Bishop Ambrose states he is now traditional through the books of Archbishop Lefebvre and coming to know the old sspx, and for what we know, acts in desire to build the Church.
Political - We know Bishop Williamson rejects the mission to convert nations [2]. Bishop Ambrose was willing to work more to do so but was attacked by socialist Catholics not to. (The socialist catholics i.e. the false resistance.)
Social - in the same manner. BW seeks to destroy the social family structure and its order to replace it with the religion of man [3]. Bishop Ambrose sought to help build that order in our dilemma, but again was attacked by the Catholic left.
Moral - BW cannot pursue Holiness with the grave sin upon him rejecting to serve the Church and her needs in this crisis. Bishop Ambrose I do not know enough of him in this area other than wishing to keep the Four Marks of the Church facilitating his service to build the Church.
What does it mean? At this point in 2018, Bishop Williamson and his three other bishops maintain doctrinal error and compliance to BW obstinance to draw closer to the nature of the Church. In comparison where Bishop Ambrose having both validity and doctrine is closer in its degree.
_____________________________________________
[1] Though with one dimension and difficult to understand for the west roman rite, the Ukraine rite accepts married priests which Bishop Ambrose being a part of also accepts.
[3] Idem.
Machabees, I highlighted in red the statement of interest. This is the first time I am hearing you state that Ambrose Moran joined the Orthodox religion. I am impressed. However, the Kentucky Fathers do not hold this position. They hold that Ambrose Moran was always Catholic. Now if he left the Catholic Church and became Orthodox, he should have renounced his Orthodoxy in front of the Kentucky Fathers during his profession of Faith. He did not do that. Therefore, you too should be concerned about this.
|
|