|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 20, 2018 19:39:56 GMT
Did you not read. If the fathers have a different knowledge today, and I will add, if I misunderstood, then I will retract what I wrote and say here - THE ALLEGATION THAT BISHOP AMBROSE DEFECTED TO THE ORTHODOX RELIGION.
I have no interest in straw-men arguments with you again, and again, and again as you do throughout these years. The foundation is Bishop Ambrose is a catholic; you need to submit to this and stop your deflection to build your case he is not; but only an orthodox. EM, your the greatest offender to the Church in this process. I have no interest to haggle on your hypotheticals what is not true.
I am not taking your baits but wish you to accept what we all have to as practicing Catholics the voice of the Church communicated through the grave burden these priests have on their souls to provide for what is right before God and not an opinion you have. I'm not interested in unproductive conversation when you refuse to build on a catholic foundation Bishop Ambrose is a catholic. Until then I or anyone cannot help you but to make headlines of sensual round robin arguments going nowhere like a few guests are doing now. They too refuse to accept any facts but their own answers for a bias agenda they wish to deny.
EM, staying in your own public opinion does not help yourself or anyone you are effectively tripping up in false narrations.
God bless.
The Kentucky Fathers have and still do believe that Ambrose Moran never defected from the Catholic Church. If someone can prove me wrong, please go ahead. EM, In 2007, Archbishop Gregory received Archbishop Ambrose (Moran-Dolgorouky) of New York City, one of many episcopi vagantes who claim to have been consecrated by independent Ukrainian bishops, into the GOCA. After his reception, he participated in the consecration of Archimandrite John (Egan) as Bishop of Colorado Springs, along with Archbishop Gregory, on January 6, 2008." How can he not defect and still participate in such a "consecration"?
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 20, 2018 19:43:43 GMT
Adding to,
My understanding given through the Church and the canonical provisions in a State of necessity taught ( here and here) on the pulpits of the SSPX for many years is there is a difference between the State of necessity and a State of emergency. That is what this topic is conveying discussing the mission and nature of the Church.
The State of necessity is what we have been living through for 60 years with no relief or recourse from the prevailing Churchmen committing their sin Heaven said would happen. It is a provision through Canon law making know "The highest law in the Church is for the salvation of souls" to provide the natural right of Catholics with every means necessary to help them in graces and treasures of the Church for their salvation not to be blocked by errant stewards.
Meaning, if the normal routes to receive the graces of Redemption are block, a catholic has the right and obligation to go around them to receive those graces.
The State of Emergency by way of an example is one who is dying on the side of a road and want/need the sacraments, the Church allows in these cases souls can receive them so called [illegally] but validly through a passing errant priest, immoral priest, heretic priest, or other who have valid orders even though they may be in an illegal state with the Church.
Meaning, there is a present crisis in the Catholic Church making a State of necessity we already know giving rise to the Catholic resistance in Tradition necessitating Archbishop Lefebvre to do what he did outside the normal means of the Church to acquire and protect the mission and nature of the Church to continue; even though some did not understand and left, he said he had to do it for the continuance of the Church. Time passed still in this crisis another crisis formed to where his own priests and four bishops succumbed to modernism when they were trained to detect and fight, had fallen too. Which gave rise again to another State of necessity in extension. As such, the Catholic resistance continued to fight now under another burden and crisis to where one of the sspx bishops (Bishop Williamson) was unjustly and illegally removed by the sspx superiors to effect their deal with the modernist, and said he would help. Time passed and he too showed in his writings and conference a pertinacity to open the door to modernism making another crisis and State of necessity... Regardless of the layers of purification God is allowing, the Catholic Resistance continues. But in what condition, what ailments, what injury?
Here now is the question.
The Catholic Resistance is now on the side of the road thrown out and trodded by their own selfish churchmen like the injured in the story of the Good Samaritan. The injured person, us, called out for help to the churchmen and they walked away uninterested, we called out to the next passersby sspx, and they too walked away not to be bothered having things to do, then we called out to the next passersby the bishops in the 'resistance' and they too walked away laughing. The injured, us, are dying for the graces of Redemption. Who will help? Our Lord sent a Samaritan. One who is scorned and outcast by the elite pharisees who walked by. The injured was/is now in a State of emergency about to die and needing to receive the sacraments to continue the mission and nature of the Church. God does know and who is he preparing OUTSIDE the thoughts of men as He did with the Good Samaritan. Time will come. God provides for those who love him.
We are in a State of emergency put on us by the errant churchmen who only laugh at us. But God has the last laugh. He will not be mocked or obstructed to provide for His Church.
This is the situation we are in now. We are in a State of Emergency and only will get deeper if God allows to go through to a physical catacomb and blood of martyrdom coming by the hands or sinful priests and bishops making the sacrifice of us in blood to God to give us who are faithful the crown and they their punishment.
If the Kentucky Fathers want Bishop Williamson to come to the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary church to ordain seminarians and administer Confirmation, then I have a difficult time seeing how Fr. Hewko would be able to continue preaching that we should not attend Bishop Williamson's Masses. Clearly legitimate lineage is more important to the OLMC priests than questionable masses and teachings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 19:48:06 GMT
The Kentucky Fathers have and still do believe that Ambrose Moran never defected from the Catholic Church. If someone can prove me wrong, please go ahead. EM, In 2007, Archbishop Gregory received Archbishop Ambrose (Moran-Dolgorouky) of New York City, one of many episcopi vagantes who claim to have been consecrated by independent Ukrainian bishops, into the GOCA. After his reception, he participated in the consecration of Archimandrite John (Egan) as Bishop of Colorado Springs, along with Archbishop Gregory, on January 6, 2008." How can he not defect and still participate in such a "consecration"? I agree that Ambrose Moran was involved with schismatics. It is the Kentucky Fathers who do not believe so.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 20, 2018 20:00:53 GMT
EM, In 2007, Archbishop Gregory received Archbishop Ambrose (Moran-Dolgorouky) of New York City, one of many episcopi vagantes who claim to have been consecrated by independent Ukrainian bishops, into the GOCA. After his reception, he participated in the consecration of Archimandrite John (Egan) as Bishop of Colorado Springs, along with Archbishop Gregory, on January 6, 2008." How can he not defect and still participate in such a "consecration"? I agree that Ambrose Moran was involved with schismatics. It is the Kentucky Fathers who do not believe so. The photos I saw of moran being involved in such a "consecration" cannot be disputed. Also, Moran, himself, told me he had participated in such. Maybe the OLMC priests really do question Moran's legitimacy, contrary to their words, based on their actions of continuing to request assistance from +Williamson, and they keep Moran in their pocket, nearby, as a backup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 20:29:08 GMT
Are you two unable to read? Who cares what b.ambrose did in the past. If he is a catholic bishop the priests are putting their necks out for, you have the problem. If b.ambrose played in the wrong religion for a while and returned, you still have a problem.
Why dont you two go to a bar and talk to your drunk instead of here. You two are like a dog with a hypocritical bone that wont go away.
Hashing the same thing over and over without any regard is stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 20:36:25 GMT
Are you two unable to read? Who cares what b.ambrose did in the past. If he is a catholic bishop the priests are putting their necks out for, you have the problem. If b.ambrose played in the wrong religion for a while and returned, you still have a problem. Why dont you two go to a bar and talk to your drunk instead of here. You two are like a dog with a hypocritical bone that wont go away. Hashing the same thing over and over without any regard is stupid. I have two main problems with Ambrose Moran: 1. He did not acknowledge and renounce his joining the Orthodox during his profession of Faith made to the Kentucky Fathers. 2. He was neither ordained nor consecrated by Catholic bishops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 20:37:45 GMT
Question for you two bar mates.
If either of you were dying and had no recourse to a 'normal' priest, would you accept the sacraments from a priest who had bad teaching and bad masses?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 20:44:57 GMT
Question for you two bar mates. If either of you were dying and had no recourse to a 'normal' priest, would you accept the sacraments from a priest who had bad teaching and bad masses? With the understanding that the priest could be as bad as being a schismatic, I would only accept the Sacrament of Penance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 20:46:52 GMT
Are you two unable to read? Who cares what b.ambrose did in the past. If he is a catholic bishop the priests are putting their necks out for, you have the problem. If b.ambrose played in the wrong religion for a while and returned, you still have a problem. Why dont you two go to a bar and talk to your drunk instead of here. You two are like a dog with a hypocritical bone that wont go away. Hashing the same thing over and over without any regard is stupid. I have two main problems with Ambrose Moran: 1. He did not acknowledge and renounce his joining the Orthodox during his profession of Faith made to the Kentucky Fathers. 2. He was neither ordained nor consecrated by Catholic bishops. 1. How do you know that? It was stated he did by the fathers. Or is it really you have a bone to pick. Where is your proof? 2.again, that is your opinion. The fathers said otherwise. Sorry you do not trump with impartial evidence. Macabees made a good point if b.ambrose was consecrated a bishop by a valid orthdox bishop, b.ambrose was consecrated as a valid catholic bishop but not legal. Go check church history on this before you get too drunk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 20:48:40 GMT
Question for you two bar mates. If either of you were dying and had no recourse to a 'normal' priest, would you accept the sacraments from a priest who had bad teaching and bad masses? With the understanding that the priest could be as bad as being a schismatic, I would only accept the Sacrament of Penance. You answered your own question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 21:00:44 GMT
I have two main problems with Ambrose Moran: 1. He did not acknowledge and renounce his joining the Orthodox during his profession of Faith made to the Kentucky Fathers. 2. He was neither ordained nor consecrated by Catholic bishops. 1. How do you know that? It was stated he did by the fathers. Or is it really you have a bone to pick. Where is your proof? 2.again, that is your opinion. The fathers said otherwise. Sorry you do not trump with impartial evidence. Macabees made a good point if b.ambrose was consecrated a bishop by a valid orthdox bishop, b.ambrose was consecrated as a valid catholic bishop but not legal. Go check church history on this before you get too drunk. 1. The Fathers do not believe that Ambrose Moran had a schismatic past, so there was nothing to renounce. I had direct contact with the Fathers at that time. 2. Check out my website and search Ambrose Moran. There are many posts to this effect. The Orthodox are a mess. There are so many factions that have broken off from each other that I would take the attitude of "I don't know if their valid" and hence avoid them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 21:01:34 GMT
With the understanding that the priest could be as bad as being a schismatic, I would only accept the Sacrament of Penance. You answered your own question. How so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 21:05:51 GMT
You answered your own question. How so? Really? You have been going on and on about how could the fathers or anyone receive something from b.williamson. were you not interested to receive an answer? You answered it for you as many here have. IT IS AN EMERGENCY!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 21:14:16 GMT
Really? You have been going on and on about how could the fathers or anyone receive something from b.williamson. were you not interested to receive an answer? You answered it for you as many here have. IT IS AN EMERGENCY!! I referred to ordinations and Confirmations, which are public ceremonies and are usually encompassed witin the context of Mass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 21:19:45 GMT
Really? You have been going on and on about how could the fathers or anyone receive something from b.williamson. were you not interested to receive an answer? You answered it for you as many here have. IT IS AN EMERGENCY!! Furthermore, I question the "emergency" argument. The Kentucky Fathers are simple priests. They can educate seminarians. Fine. However, it is questionable whether they have a moral obligation to do so given that they don't have episcopal powers to take those seminarians to the next step.
|
|