Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 20:15:36 GMT
Briefly? He showed real documents proving catholic authenticity and a catholic baptismal certificate! And a website showing him 'dressed as a priest and a bishop' giving sacraments! Yet you still play aloof? God help you.
The first question is whether this person is catholic and valid. There is no question he is. The second is where he is in doctrine and what he is doing in the church. That remains to be given some time for us to hear him more. Yet the fathers already fielded him saying he has been studying the books of archbishop lefebvre for some years. Which is why he contacted the fathers to help. Father told me all these things the other day. If only people would call him like I did instead of spreading internet rumors.
One of the problems with Ambrose Moran is the conflicting evidence. Sure, Fr. Pfeiffer says that he has a Catholic baptismal certificate (which we would need to look at closely anyways, since two other certificates of his have been altered), but Bp. Ambrose has also stated that he was baptized in the Orthodox Church (see in link below). So which story is it – Catholic or Orthodox? And this is the problem with Bp. Ambrose - that there are contradictions, altered documents, doctored photos, etc. www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2007_11_11_Letter_Ambrose_Moran_to_Bishop_Gregory.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2018 21:06:39 GMT
Briefly? He showed real documents proving catholic authenticity and a catholic baptismal certificate! And a website showing him 'dressed as a priest and a bishop' giving sacraments! Yet you still play aloof? God help you.
The first question is whether this person is catholic and valid. There is no question he is. The second is where he is in doctrine and what he is doing in the church. That remains to be given some time for us to hear him more. Yet the fathers already fielded him saying he has been studying the books of archbishop lefebvre for some years. Which is why he contacted the fathers to help. Father told me all these things the other day. If only people would call him like I did instead of spreading internet rumors. One of the problems with Ambrose Moran is the conflicting evidence. Sure, Fr. Pfeiffer says that he has a Catholic baptismal certificate (which we would need to look at closely anyways, since two other certificates of his have been altered), but Bp. Ambrose has also stated that he was baptized in the Orthodox Church (see in link below). So which story is it – Catholic or Orthodox? And this is the problem with Bp. Ambrose - that there are contradictions, altered documents, doctored photos, etc. www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2007_11_11_Letter_Ambrose_Moran_to_Bishop_Gregory.pdf
I would like to respond firstly to Tobias' comments bolded above -
I am so very happy to hear that your concerns were able to be completely addressed in one phone conversation. That is a blessing, to be sure.
However, in all fairness, there were several person who contacted Fr. Pfeiffer themselves, they did not depend on internet rumors, as you are accusing them of. And many reported leaving that conversation more concerned that the situation was not any clearer for them.
I think this is why many people begged for something official from OLMC. Something that clearly and succinctly clarified the 'reasonable objections' that Fr. Hewko referred to in his sermon:
And with respect to what Fr. Hewko preached on in that same sermon is what I think it is those same concerns that Pulcheria highlighted. Fr. Hewko said that these are objective concerns. This isn't so much about Tony la Rosa. Its about the documents authored by Bp. Ambrose. They have created the confusion. Not necessarily Tony for digging them up.
Fr. Pfeiffer addressed some concerns but there were several topics were not addressed. So in fairness, the concerns remain for some.
I think Fr. Hewko gave us the best advice at this time, to pray!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 21:14:51 GMT
Pulcheria_ Call Fr. Pfeiffer yourself. Better yet, why don't you call Bishop Ambrose. Go to the source. Its been verified no one has including Mr. La Rosa or Fr. Ortiz. What a sham! Anything from Mr. La Rosa's site is in serious doubt and speculation. He was caught lying and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts. Presenting a lot of disgruntled novus ordo people saying stuff over the phone as a 'testimony' is not convincing. Look what they still say about the sspx and us. Lets be serious. This is why I hate forums but tolerate it hoping to get some information. I have every desire to know real facts. I sensed something was wrong in the fear mongering of Tony La Rosa/Ecclesia Militans over the past weeks. That's why I called Fr. Pfeiffer. I'm not taking any layman's version who's own arrogance and refusal to pray to the virgin Mary in life for clarity. That's over the top. For anyone further to brush off what was already exposed as nothing, a blind eye, only leaves for public opinion and internet rumors is not to be taken seriously either. How is that honest? People beat father over the head to present something. When he does, they beat him over the head for speaking. Was everything elaborated? Probably not. Just be mature and build what was already presented. For me and any catholic should be about catholic validity first. This was established. Is there third party speculation from other sources? What are the circumstances behind it? What are the motives? Father talked about a split in Chicago between the Ukraine (don't know what to call it diocese?) and another affiliated group many years ago. He explained the other disgrunted group had full control of all records three years ago. Father added, when he called again a few weeks ago there is a new person in charge who verified authenticity of Bishop Ambrose's documents but will only give them to the bishop himself. No one else. Father said he is hoping the Bishop will get them depending on his health.
I really want to see a conference by the bishop to introduce himself with the facts if or when he is going to serve us. Not any layman and really not from a priest can give a complete outline. And really, I don't think they can. So the rest of these 'private allegations' stuff is for the tabloids.
|
|
|
Post by Scarlet Pimpernel on Oct 21, 2018 21:15:43 GMT
Call Bp. Ambrose already! No matter what Fr. Pfeiffer or anyone else says are you going to believe him them anyway?
Go right to the source and get the answer from the man himself if you really want to know.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2018 22:22:49 GMT
Pulcheria_ Call Fr. Pfeiffer yourself. Better yet, why don't you call Bishop Ambrose. Go to the source. Its been verified no one has including Mr. La Rosa or Fr. Ortiz. What a sham! Anything from Mr. La Rosa's site is in serious doubt and speculation. He was caught lying and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts. Presenting a lot of disgruntled novus ordo people saying stuff over the phone as a 'testimony' is not convincing. Look what they still say about the sspx and us. Lets be serious. This is why I hate forums but tolerate it hoping to get some information. I have every desire to know real facts. I sensed something was wrong in the fear mongering of Tony La Rosa/Ecclesia Militans over the past weeks. That's why I called Fr. Pfeiffer. I'm not taking any layman's version who's own arrogance and refusal to pray to the virgin Mary in life for clarity. That's over the top. For anyone further to brush off what was already exposed as nothing, a blind eye, only leaves for public opinion and internet rumors is not to be taken seriously either. How is that honest? People beat father over the head to present something. When he does, they beat him over the head for speaking. Was everything elaborated? Probably not. Just be mature and build what was already presented. For me and any catholic should be about catholic validity first. This was established. Is there third party speculation from other sources? What are the circumstances behind it? What are the motives? Father talked about a split in Chicago between the Ukraine (don't know what to call it diocese?) and another affiliated group many years ago. He explained the other disgrunted group had full control of all records three years ago. Father added, when he called again a few weeks ago there is a new person in charge who verified authenticity of Bishop Ambrose's documents but will only give them to the bishop himself. No one else. Father said he is hoping the Bishop will get them depending on his health.
I really want to see a conference by the bishop to introduce himself with the facts if or when he is going to serve us. Not any layman and really not from a priest can give a complete outline. And really, I don't think they can. So the rest of these 'private allegations' stuff is for the tabloids.
Firstly, thank you for the toleration for forums such as The Catacombs, glad some information here has proved useful to you. It has not escaped the attention of some that 469 Fitter did not publish Fr. Hewko's sermon that addressed Bishop Ambrose.
Tobias, you wrote to Pulcheria to "be mature and build on what was already presented." One is forced to assume that you mean that the laity should build on what Fr. Pfeiffer talked about in his conference...can you elaborate on how the laity should do this?
Please note too that just because someone disagrees with us, it is not a sign of immaturity. Ad hominems will not be tolerated here. "Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Also, please do not assume that a member of the laity has not already talked to Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko.
To your point about seeing a conference by Bp. Ambrose, its sad because there were interviews and sermons by Bp. Ambrose at OLMC but they have been removed from 469 Fitter a few weeks ago. Perhaps in the interest of having "a conference by the bishop to introduce the facts if or when he is going to serve us," you could petition 469 Fitter to reload them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 22:37:05 GMT
Pulcheria_ Call Fr. Pfeiffer yourself. Better yet, why don't you call Bishop Ambrose. Go to the source. Its been verified no one has including Mr. La Rosa or Fr. Ortiz. What a sham! Anything from Mr. La Rosa's site is in serious doubt and speculation. He was caught lying and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts. Presenting a lot of disgruntled novus ordo people saying stuff over the phone as a 'testimony' is not convincing. Look what they still say about the sspx and us. Lets be serious. This is why I hate forums but tolerate it hoping to get some information. I have every desire to know real facts. I sensed something was wrong in the fear mongering of Tony La Rosa/Ecclesia Militans over the past weeks. That's why I called Fr. Pfeiffer. I'm not taking any layman's version who's own arrogance and refusal to pray to the virgin Mary in life for clarity. That's over the top. For anyone further to brush off what was already exposed as nothing, a blind eye, only leaves for public opinion and internet rumors is not to be taken seriously either. How is that honest? People beat father over the head to present something. When he does, they beat him over the head for speaking. Was everything elaborated? Probably not. Just be mature and build what was already presented. For me and any catholic should be about catholic validity first. This was established. Is there third party speculation from other sources? What are the circumstances behind it? What are the motives? Father talked about a split in Chicago between the Ukraine (don't know what to call it diocese?) and another affiliated group many years ago. He explained the other disgrunted group had full control of all records three years ago. Father added, when he called again a few weeks ago there is a new person in charge who verified authenticity of Bishop Ambrose's documents but will only give them to the bishop himself. No one else. Father said he is hoping the Bishop will get them depending on his health.
I really want to see a conference by the bishop to introduce himself with the facts if or when he is going to serve us. Not any layman and really not from a priest can give a complete outline. And really, I don't think they can. So the rest of these 'private allegations' stuff is for the tabloids.
Firstly, thank you for the toleration for 'forums' such as The Catacombs, glad some information here has proved useful to you. It has not escaped the attention of some that 469 Fitter did not publish Fr. Hewko's sermon that addressed Bishop Ambrose.
Tobias, you wrote to Pulcheria to "be mature and build on what was already presented." One is forced to assume that you mean that the laity should build on what Fr. Pfeiffer talked about in his conference...can you elaborate on how the laity should do this?
Please note too that just because someone disagrees with us, it is not a sign of immaturity. Ad hominems will not be tolerated here. Please do not assume either that a member of the laity has not already talked to Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko. "Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Its sad because there were interviews and sermons by Bp. Ambrose at OLMC but they have been removed from 469 Fitter a few weeks ago. Perhaps in the interest of having "a conference by the bishop to introduce the facts if or when he is going to serve us," you could petition 469 Fitter to reload them.
Why are you building straw man arguments? Father presented a lot of material. Why not build off of that than discounting it. Quite simple. Or do we automatically believe every laymen with their opinion and who knows what material who were caught lying? It all comes back to Mr. La Rosa's website. These I thinks and assumptions have no place seeking facts. Wouldn't you agree? No need to call everything ad hominems when its true people are not willing to pick up the phone and call?
Let the bishop speak. Why not make that case?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 21, 2018 22:47:36 GMT
Firstly, thank you for the toleration for 'forums' such as The Catacombs, glad some information here has proved useful to you. It has not escaped the attention of some that 469 Fitter did not publish Fr. Hewko's sermon that addressed Bishop Ambrose.
Tobias, you wrote to Pulcheria to "be mature and build on what was already presented." One is forced to assume that you mean that the laity should build on what Fr. Pfeiffer talked about in his conference...can you elaborate on how the laity should do this?
Please note too that just because someone disagrees with us, it is not a sign of immaturity. Ad hominems will not be tolerated here. Please do not assume either that a member of the laity has not already talked to Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko. "Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Its sad because there were interviews and sermons by Bp. Ambrose at OLMC but they have been removed from 469 Fitter a few weeks ago. Perhaps in the interest of having "a conference by the bishop to introduce the facts if or when he is going to serve us," you could petition 469 Fitter to reload them.
Why are you building straw man arguments? Father presented a lot of material. Why not build off of that than discounting it. Quite simple. Or do we automatically believe every laymen with their opinion and who knows what material who were caught lying? It all comes back to Mr. La Rosa's website. These I thinks and assumptions have no place seeking facts. Wouldn't you agree? No need to call everything ad hominems when its true people are not willing to pick up the phone and call?
Let the bishop speak. Why not make that case?
Actually, most of what Fr. Pfeiffer presented I already knew.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 22:49:53 GMT
Firstly, thank you for the toleration for 'forums' such as The Catacombs, glad some information here has proved useful to you. It has not escaped the attention of some that 469 Fitter did not publish Fr. Hewko's sermon that addressed Bishop Ambrose.
Tobias, you wrote to Pulcheria to "be mature and build on what was already presented." One is forced to assume that you mean that the laity should build on what Fr. Pfeiffer talked about in his conference...can you elaborate on how the laity should do this?
Please note too that just because someone disagrees with us, it is not a sign of immaturity. Ad hominems will not be tolerated here. Please do not assume either that a member of the laity has not already talked to Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko. "Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Its sad because there were interviews and sermons by Bp. Ambrose at OLMC but they have been removed from 469 Fitter a few weeks ago. Perhaps in the interest of having "a conference by the bishop to introduce the facts if or when he is going to serve us," you could petition 469 Fitter to reload them.
Why are you building straw man arguments? Father presented a lot of material. Why not build off of that than discounting it. Quite simple. Or do we automatically believe every laymen with their opinion and who knows what material who were caught lying? It all comes back to Mr. La Rosa's website. These I thinks and assumptions have no place seeking facts. Wouldn't you agree? No need to call everything ad hominems when its true people are not willing to pick up the phone and call?
Let the bishop speak. Why not make that case?
Bp. Ambrose has presented altered certificates, doctored photos, contradictory evidence, etc. How can one trust what he says?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2018 22:51:23 GMT
Firstly, thank you for the toleration for 'forums' such as The Catacombs, glad some information here has proved useful to you. It has not escaped the attention of some that 469 Fitter did not publish Fr. Hewko's sermon that addressed Bishop Ambrose.
Tobias, you wrote to Pulcheria to "be mature and build on what was already presented." One is forced to assume that you mean that the laity should build on what Fr. Pfeiffer talked about in his conference...can you elaborate on how the laity should do this?
Please note too that just because someone disagrees with us, it is not a sign of immaturity. Ad hominems will not be tolerated here. Please do not assume either that a member of the laity has not already talked to Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko. "Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Its sad because there were interviews and sermons by Bp. Ambrose at OLMC but they have been removed from 469 Fitter a few weeks ago. Perhaps in the interest of having "a conference by the bishop to introduce the facts if or when he is going to serve us," you could petition 469 Fitter to reload them.
Why are you building straw man arguments? Father presented a lot of material. Why not build off of that than discounting it. Quite simple. Or do we automatically believe every laymen with their opinion and who knows what material who were caught lying? It all comes back to Mr. La Rosa's website. These I thinks and assumptions have no place seeking facts. Wouldn't you agree? No need to call everything ad hominems when its true people are not willing to pick up the phone and call?
Let the bishop speak. Why not make that case?
At the risk of repeating myself: the bishop DID speak but 469 Fitter removed it.
What do you mean 'build off what Fr. presented'? Exactly what are you suggesting? I am actually quite intrigued to know what you mean.
Calling someone immature for not agreeing with you is an ad hominem, by any definition.
Please elaborate on how I constructed a straw man argument. [On a personal note, I thank you as that accusation brought a smile to my face.] I have only responded to what you wrote.
To posture further that this is all about Ecclesia Militans and his website gives him a higher role in this than he deserves. This is all about Bp. Ambrose. How he has presented himself. To make this a polarizing issue between Fr. Pfeiffer and Tony la Rosa is silly. No layperson deserves such attention. Let us elevate our minds and seek only the truth. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that 'Against a fact there is no argument'. Let the facts speak for themselves. We don't need to vilify people to make our points.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2018 23:00:44 GMT
Another great reason and example why we cannot read and re-read Archbishop Lefebvre too much:
This is not about personalities. To belittle it to such a level is fruitless and uncharitable. Let us continue to imitate the humility of Our Lady and pray much for discernment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 23:49:14 GMT
Isn't it striking not one person here spoke of anything Father elaborated on? It would be very mature in conversation to build on something, anything, for what father had to say than to discount it. Wouldn't you agree? Asking how to do that is rather distracting to his efforts. And no, I did not say pulcheria is immature. You missed the whole point. I repeat, it would be mature to start a conversation on what the priest had to say; not laymen covering over it. Please do not turn this into a spectator sport. Father was very clear about a certain layman acting in fraud. Didn't you even listen to the conference? Appears not with your responses. As far as the catacombs, please do not be over confident, there is an evident change here.
Why do you not start a conversation about that legitimately signed corporal in the gold picture frame from Cardinal Slipyj and shown in that website ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/ I am really interested in that. That's huge! Why not the baptismal certificate father got from new york? That should be really interesting to any catholic? Why are these things not talked about? Why only is the narrative of calling father essentially a liar prevalent? I may be rather new to this forum, but where is the honesty towards these many other documents and photographs? Why the blackout?
You people claim to seek the truth. Why not address what father had presented? Why is asking for this an 'attack' to you? Adding pablo's stupidly as if the priests have control over it is distracting. And yes, it is a strawman.
The bishop should give a present conference. Today. Wouldn't that answer a lot of questions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 0:41:44 GMT
Isn't it striking not one person here spoke of anything Father elaborated on? It would be very mature in conversation to build on something, anything, for what father had to say than to discount it. Wouldn't you agree? Asking how to do that is rather distracting to his efforts. And no, I did not say pulcheria is immature. You missed the whole point. I repeat, it would be mature to start a conversation on what the priest had to say; not laymen covering over it. Please do not turn this into a spectator sport. Father was very clear about a certain layman acting in fraud. Didn't you even listen to the conference? Appears not with your responses. As far as the catacombs, please do not be over confident, there is an evident change here.
Why do you not start a conversation about that legitimately signed corporal in the gold picture frame from Cardinal Slipyj and shown in that website ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/ I am really interested in that. That's huge! Why not the baptismal certificate father got from new york? That should be really interesting to any catholic? Why are these things not talked about? Why only is the narrative of calling father essentially a liar prevalent? I may be rather new to this forum, but where is the honesty towards these many other documents and photographs? Why the blackout?
You people claim to seek the truth. Why not address what father had presented? Why is asking for this an 'attack' to you? Adding pablo's stupidly as if the priests have control over it is distracting. And yes, it is a strawman.
The bishop should give a present conference. Today. Wouldn't that answer a lot of questions?
You’re missing the point, tobias. We didn’t say that there isn’t any evidence for Bp. Ambrose. We said that there is a lot of evidence AGAINST him and this creates the problem.
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Oct 22, 2018 0:42:23 GMT
For quite awhile I’ve chosen to be on the sidelines in all this ...until this video was posted.
Along with the poor technical production, the presentation’s content and demeanor made watching AND listening not just frustrating, but really painful. This remonstrating conference seemed to be like a priestly extension of the recent Pablo temper tantrum video trilogy (since removed) so full of anger. As if the faithful were a child in a high-chair being forced fed by their father and he was steaming mad that his child had the nerve to ask him what he was feeding them.
I was hoping that this would be Father acknowledging all the questions and concerns of the faithful, so charitably addressed last week by Fr. Hewko; and perhaps some reassuring, calming fatherly guidance. Instead he seemed more intent on making this a laborious mission to castigate and condemn his perceived enemies; and he took a really long time doing it. To me, it wasn’t so much what Father had to say, as it was what he didn’t have to say; very disappointing.
Perhaps it’s because he considers the source as confrontational enemy fire, but Father doesn’t seem to really consider the many contradictions and concerns that are pointed out, worth any factual refutation; his continual rebuttal to the points seemed to be: “You’re a liar and you’re going to hell.” Maybe its just me, but if you’re intent on presenting the reason why the many concerns and contradictions are a fallacy, can't you calmly refute the points of contention with actual facts to demonstrate the falsehood? If you think he accomplished this, well I’m sorry, but I disagree. Instead, his refutations were blanketed with fast talking ad hominem accusation and condemnation; not very convincing. I almost felt like I was being sold something that I really didn't need. As far as any refutation goes, I’m betting if this were a court of Law, his case would probably be thrown out.
Since the drama of this bizarre soap-opera has resurfaced, Father has told many of us personally that the fathers are in the midst of a toilsome process of investigation (especially in light of the possible clandestine consecrations by Cardinal Slipyj); and Fr. Hewko’s recent sermon reinforced this. But, to me, what’s now most troubling is that with this presentation, Father gives a clear impression that this investigation is not really necessary after all. Consider this baffling logic toward the end of the video:
This is why we need prayers to Our Lady of the Rosary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 1:02:21 GMT
... But, to me, what’s now most troubling is that with this presentation, Father gives a clear impression that this investigation is not really necessary after all. Consider this baffling logic toward the end of the video: This is why we need prayers to Our Lady of the Rosary. You're right, kelley. Father Pfeiffer told us that none of the evidence against Ambrose Moran is important. The only things that are important are: his baptismal certificate, his ordination certificate and his consecration certificate. Forget all the rest. He says the same thing in the video: Fr. Pfeiffer: “All we need to know is these things: he is a baptized Catholic, he was ordained a priest validly, he was consecrated a bishop validly and at this time he is professing the Holy Roman Catholic Faith and may God forgive him whatever faults he may have had.” (at minute 1:30:07)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 1:05:30 GMT
For quite awhile I’ve chosen to be on the sidelines in all this ...until this video was posted. Along with the poor technical production, the presentation’s content and demeanor made watching AND listening not just frustrating, but really painful. This remonstrating conference seemed to be like a priestly extension of the recent Pablo temper tantrum video trilogy (since removed) so full of anger. As if the faithful were a child in a high-chair being forced fed by their father and he was steaming mad that his child had the nerve to ask him what he was feeding them. I was hoping that this would be Father acknowledging all the questions and concerns of the faithful, so charitably addressed last week by Fr. Hewko; and perhaps some reassuring, calming fatherly guidance. Instead he seemed more intent on making this a laborious mission to castigate and condemn his perceived enemies; and he took a really long time doing it. To me, it wasn’t so much what Father had to say, as it was what he didn’t have to say; very disappointing. Perhaps it’s because he considers the source as confrontational enemy fire, but Father doesn’t seem to really consider the many contradictions and concerns that are pointed out, worth any factual refutation; his continual rebuttal to the points seemed to be: “You’re a liar and you’re going to hell.” Maybe its just me, but if you’re intent on presenting the reason why the many concerns and contradictions are a fallacy, can't you calmly refute the points of contention with actual facts to demonstrate the falsehood? If you think he accomplished this, well I’m sorry, but I disagree. Instead, his refutations were blanketed with fast talking ad hominem accusation and condemnation; not very convincing. I almost felt like I was being sold something that I really didn't need. As far as any refutation goes, I’m betting if this were a court of Law, his case would probably be thrown out. Since the drama of this bizarre soap-opera has resurfaced, Father has told many of us personally that the fathers are in the midst of a toilsome process of investigation (especially in light of the possible clandestine consecrations by Cardinal Slipyj); and Fr. Hewko’s recent sermon reinforced this. But, to me, what’s now most troubling is that with this presentation, Father gives a clear impression that this investigation is not really necessary after all. Consider this baffling logic toward the end of the video: This is why we need prayers to Our Lady of the Rosary. I would agree kelly in many things you say. But if we are to denominate the presentation over the message, it would miss the point in life eliminating the majority of the world's people trying to communicate something. Yes, he was visibly angry. And he said why too. So I am trying to put that aside and look at the substance. This is an important subject. I would agree too there could have been more things to say to many's liking, but lets be constructive than destructive in the circumstance. I too would hope he would present more when times comes. I certainly didn't know he was going to do this and in this way but a lot came out. So why not begin a conversation on what is said and presented? It is rather silent here.
|
|