Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 1:01:11 GMT
kelley said (in black letters):
"In this case, the investigation is being conducted primarily by Fr. Pfeiffer. Since Father has an invested interest in the outcome of the investigation, this automatically disqualifies any objectivity in the process. "
How so?
How has Father demonstrated no ability to be objective?
How do you know he is not seeking counsel with anyone?
"To say the least, such bias is most inordinate; especially with the fact that as the person in charge, Father has no recourse to any authority but his own, which further complicates and ultimately, detracts from his overall judgment and direction. "
To what bias are you referring to?
Does Father have responsibility to God for any authority he (Fr.) exercises in this apostate?
Has Father ever claimed to use his personal judgement and direction in this process? He said clearly in his multiple talks that he is following the process the Church would follow and Father Hewko said so as well.
"Such an investigation was done by competent Church authorities who were selected based upon their experience and objectivity, all with the sole intention of attempting to arrive at complete moral certitude."
If we had competent Church authorities, this forum would not exists in its current mode. Neither would the current crisis of Faith. Father has said privately and publicly that he would submit to proper authority if it presented itself.
"Such bias can also foster discord and division, whereas, impartiality fosters harmony and agreement. Setting oneself up as judge and jury, while pressured with a sense of sacramental desperation are very dangerous variables in the equation."
Again, what bias do you refer to?
Impartiality, in and of itself, does not necessarily foster harmony and agreement.
"Setting oneself up as judge and jury": how has Father done this? How do you know he has not submitted his work on this matter to anyone else?
"But do such obstacles give license to conduct a subjective process which invariably compromises moral certitude for reasonable doubt? The difficulty in obtaining an independent, objective process is insufficient reason to substitute it for something biased and subjective. When it comes to the Sacraments, the crisis in the Church is not an excuse to abandon the principals of our Faith"
Are you saying Father's investigation is subjective?
"The difficulty in obtaining an independent, objective process": To whom or how do you propose to to receive "an independent, objective process?"
Again what is the bias and subjectivity to which you refer?
What principles of the Faith has Father abandoned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 3:07:59 GMT
Ecclesia Militans,
... The fathers have seen all of the evidences, not just what you selectively promote to the exclusion of the rest....
... For the untrained laity to judge anything in church matters, they have to remove their personal views/ opinions and adapt to what the church teaches; which the fathers had declared with detail in conferences and sermons...
These are good points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 16:33:21 GMT
Ecclesia Militans,
I have no intention to engage with you and your disingenuous disposition. The fathers professed multiple public warnings to you and to the faithful to be aware of your ongoing deceptions and conspiracy. Just the fact alone for you to deflect and conspire against the genuine baptismal certificate the fathers have from source, saying instead Bishop Moran is not a catholic, is sic.
The fathers have seen all of the evidences, not just what you selectively promote to the exclusion of the rest. It is a good thing for people having questions, it is evil to conspire against the evidence that already exists canon law professes as a legitimate ordination and consecration.
So whatever side of the question one is on "he is only an orthodox", canon law provides this as legitimate when converted to Catholicism. Those on the side of following ALL of the evidences, can see there is an abundance validating a true line of Catholicism.
For the untrained laity to judge anything in church matters, they have to remove their personal views/ opinions and adapt to what the church teaches; which the fathers had declared with detail in conferences and sermons.
Remy,
Please keep a little more charity in your posts.
While not everyone has agreed with EM along every phase of his study of the Bp. Ambrose facts, Fr. Pfeiffer has frequently quoted his research. Therefore his service in this situation has been important.
Whether or not he was correct in his conclusions is another matter but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be responded to with charity. If you cannot or do not wish to respond directly to his questions, that is up to you.
God bless.
Perhaps you can be kind and let us know what exactly is so "uncharitable" repeating what the priests have warned publicly? Fr. Pfeiffer gave two conferences and sermons warning Tony Larossa (who is Ecclesia Militans) and the faithful about his conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence.
Fr. Hewko also warned Tony Larossa again and the faithful of his dishonesty.
There are other members on this site who have pointed out Tony Larossa's disingenuous disposition and rash judgment receiving no "charitable" warning. Yet you only single me out when I directly quote the priests. Why? Admin, you too pointed out Tony Larossa's hypocrisy and rash judgment by creating a new topic thecatacombs.org/thread/1377/tale-catholics
Facts exist Tony Larossa conspired with other priests to go against all the evidence. In 2015 he conspired with Fr. Ortiz to make a fraudulent report to the world instilling confusion and damaging many reputations continuing to this day splitting missions apart. Fr. Pfeiffer discussed all of this in his above sermon "Bishop Larossa and Cardinal Ortiz". It was Tony Larossa's disingenuous conspiracy which caught my attention to look into this further. I spent a lot of time going through many websites on this topic including this one before I joined. It's clear to any one with comprehension there is a perpetuated fraud on the part of Tony Larossa misrepresenting the facts and injecting disinformation. Repeating the priests again, just the fact alone for Tony Larossa to deflect and conspire against the genuine baptismal certificate the fathers have from source, saying instead Bishop Moran is not a catholic, is sic. Why does he ignore that important fact? Because it tosses his "orthodox" narration upside down.
What is both ironic and disturbing is Tony Larossa goes around with near impunity calling the priests and Bishop Moran liars when in fact it is Tony Larossa who was caught conspiring misrepresenting the facts, injects conjectures and assertions as facts, doesn't acknowledge answers where the fathers already made in conferences, ignores and deflects any other areas of evidence only to brandish his own claims, while harasses others with a moral indignation who do not agree with him. Who is conning who, exactly?
Tony Larossa presents that we have to have unfettered belief in him and not in the priests, who by the way, are the only ones who made a FULL investigation. Not him. Tony Larossa copiously calls the priests and Bishop Moran frauds and liars on this website without a "charity" warning. Why is that? I would think a balanced approach to any inquiry would have God as the primary consideration not to misrepresent evidence.
So why in every turn does Tony Larossa begrudging refuse and down play anything the fathers or we say redundantly repeating his own narrative saying "see, no one can answer my question"? A few posts earlier Hammerandchisel called him out for using cleverly crafted words effectively trying to alter the evidence. Consistently Tony Larossa does this. Why?
Because it exposes an under current conspiracy here to promote an "orthodox" only narration. The personality conflict is with himself, not with us, but blamed on us. How strange.
These are facts both priests were forced from the pulpit to warn him to stop his course of conspiracy and defamation, not because of questions, but to his consistent misrepresentation and disinformation of the evidence he refuses to acknowledge and portray otherwise.
Aside from Tony Larossa's good? efforts collecting evidence, which the priests say CONFIRM Bishop Moran's own story, he had created to his own doing a disingenuous disposition giving no credibility and no standing for himself! This is his problem, not ours.
The objective question here is whether Bishop Moran is valid or not. The truth is the fathers had provided in their multiple conferences and sermons, especially in this last conference, ample proof and circumstantial evidences for the validity of Bishop Moran. Fr. Hewko declared this too in his recent sermon (above). Anyone can have foreign opinions otherwise, but the facts are there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 16:58:31 GMT
Remy I wonder if you are new to this crisis, because since 2012 we have been taught very well that validity is not the end all. Validity doesn't mean licit and validity doesn't mean right. The new mass for example) . Traditional Catholics know better. Another thing is you tangle and change Fr. Hewko's very words. Fr. Hewko did say, " we need one more big evidence according to Fr. Pfeiffer to seal it." Where you say he said, Fr. Hewko said it was only a "small question". What's the deal with you? You completely want to ignore the fact that even though he "might" be valid, Fr. Hewko still clearly states he's not yet comfortable with an association. To the contrary. I have only repeated in full what the priests said. Everyone can read this for themselves. The priests clearly stated from all the evidence Bishop Moran is legitimate (valid). And Fr. Hewko also made clear, it seems to the consternation to some, he personally has only has a reservation to the practical association for Bishop Ambrose making sure he is not, his quote, a "fly by night bishop".
As far as licit, that is a totally different subject. One in fact encompasses all of us who are living "illicitly" doing or attending anything outside the conciliar church. Fr. Pfeiffer stated in his conference supplied jurisdiction supplies "licitness" where modern rome does not. So any valid priest or bishop operating outside the norms of conciliarism do so supplied in the will of church, said also Archbishop Lefebvre, until modern rome rectifies and conforms itself back to her tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 1, 2018 18:13:37 GMT
Remy,
Please keep a little more charity in your posts.
While not everyone has agreed with EM along every phase of his study of the Bp. Ambrose facts, Fr. Pfeiffer has frequently quoted his research. Therefore his service in this situation has been important.
Whether or not he was correct in his conclusions is another matter but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be responded to with charity. If you cannot or do not wish to respond directly to his questions, that is up to you.
God bless.
Perhaps you can be kind and let us know what exactly is so "uncharitable" repeating what the priests have warned publicly? Fr. Pfeiffer gave two conferences and sermons warning Tony Larossa (who is Ecclesia Militans) and the faithful about his conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence.
[...] The objective question here is whether Bishop Moran is valid or not. The truth is the fathers had provided in their multiple conferences and sermons, especially in this last conference, ample proof and circumstantial evidences for the validity of Bishop Moran. Fr. Hewko declared this too in his recent sermon (above). Anyone can have foreign opinions otherwise, but the facts are there.
Remy,
We all get it. We do. We really do. Let us leave the priests words as the last words on the matter.
You are giving the strong impression that this is a personal thing between you and EM.
If you are so sure of your position, then actually answer his. He has been repeating over and over and over the same thing, but no one answers him. I don't know enough to do so. If you do - then do it! But don't berate him in other posts while refusing to answer him directly about the one thing - a consecration by Cardinal Slipyj - that he keeps focusing on. That would be more honorable. The great apologists addressed things head on. They didn't just condemn. I have no doubt, reading your posts, that you are amply qualified to address EM's issues.
+++
As to your other words [bolded above] I think you are getting a little off track. Perhaps you are new to tradition?
If validity was the only concern, we never would have had to leave the SSPX. Those priests too are all valid. And you are right, Fr. Pfeiffer provided circumstantial evidence of a Slipyj consecration but he provided ample proof of an Orthodox one. Perhaps this is why in the beginning of that same second conference he focused so heavily on the faithful receiving sacraments from an excommunicated cleric?
There are several who are concerned about this. Validity is not the only concern.
Fr. Pfeiffer in both conferences referenced forged papers and pictures, reading partly from EM's research. Father does not deny that they are forged.
The antimensium, given by Cardinal Slipyj for Bp. Moran's conditional reordination, appears to have been desecrated by Bp. Moran by signing his name to this consecrated corporal. The antimensium, consecrated by a bishop only, is a portable altar in the Eastern Catholic rite, using nearly the same rite to consecrate it as the rite used by the bishop to consecrate an altar. Again, Fr. Pfeiffer referred to this desecration in that second conference. He does not give it context, just reads from EM's research that it was desecrated.
Perhaps it is these things that give several of the laity and priests pause? Perhaps not. Perhaps this is why Fr. Hewko wants to be sure Bp. Moran is not another 'fly by night' bishop? But some of us have been around too long to stop at validity. God willing, Our Lady will help all this to be resolved and answered. Perhaps what appears to be against Bp. Moran will actually be found to be for him. God knows.
Bottom line, it takes time. It takes prayer. Normally, we do not have the option of choosing our bishops. But if we must, we should do so with prudence. Perhaps this is again why not all the priests of the Resistance are at peace with this...yet.
No one is expecting another Archbishop Lefebvre. Though our hearts would be so grateful to the good Lord in His mercy if He were to deign to send us another great prelate. But that remains to be seen.
All we can do now is "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2018 1:21:35 GMT
Perhaps you can be kind and let us know what exactly is so "uncharitable" repeating what the priests have warned publicly? Fr. Pfeiffer gave two conferences and sermons warning Tony Larossa (who is Ecclesia Militans) and the faithful about his conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence.
[...] The objective question here is whether Bishop Moran is valid or not. The truth is the fathers had provided in their multiple conferences and sermons, especially in this last conference, ample proof and circumstantial evidences for the validity of Bishop Moran. Fr. Hewko declared this too in his recent sermon (above). Anyone can have foreign opinions otherwise, but the facts are there.
Remy,
We all get it. We do. We really do. Let us leave the priests words as the last words on the matter.
You are giving the strong impression that this is a personal thing between you and EM.
If you are so sure of your position, then actually answer his. He has been repeating over and over and over the same thing, but no one answers him. I don't know enough to do so. If you do - then do it! But don't berate him in other posts while refusing to answer him directly about the one thing - a consecration by Cardinal Slipyj - that he keeps focusing on. That would be more honorable. The great apologists addressed things head on. They didn't just condemn. I have no doubt, reading your posts, that you are amply qualified to address EM's issues.
+++
As to your other words [bolded above] I think you are getting a little off track. Perhaps you are new to tradition?
If validity was the only concern, we never would have had to leave the SSPX. Those priests too are all valid. And you are right, Fr. Pfeiffer provided circumstantial evidence of a Slipyj consecration but he provided ample proof of an Orthodox one. Perhaps this is why in the beginning of that same second conference he focused so heavily on the faithful receiving sacraments from an excommunicated cleric?
There are several who are concerned about this. Validity is not the only concern.
Fr. Pfeiffer in both conferences referenced forged papers and pictures, reading partly from EM's research. Father does not deny that they are forged.
The antimensium, given by Cardinal Slipyj for Bp. Moran's conditional reordination, appears to have been desecrated by Bp. Moran by signing his name to this consecrated corporal. The antimensium, consecrated by a bishop only, is a portable altar in the Eastern Catholic rite, using nearly the same rite to consecrate it as the rite used by the bishop to consecrate an altar. Again, Fr. Pfeiffer referred to this desecration in that second conference. He does not give it context, just reads from EM's research that it was desecrated.
Perhaps it is these things that give several of the laity and priests pause? Perhaps not. Perhaps this is why Fr. Hewko wants to be sure Bp. Moran is not another 'fly by night' bishop? But some of us have been around too long to stop at validity. God willing, Our Lady will help all this to be resolved and answered. Perhaps what appears to be against Bp. Moran will actually be found to be for him. God knows.
Bottom line, it takes time. It takes prayer. Normally, we do not have the option of choosing our bishops. But if we must, we should do so with prudence. Perhaps this is again why not all the priests of the Resistance are at peace with this...yet.
No one is expecting another Archbishop Lefebvre. Though our hearts would be so grateful to the good Lord in His mercy if He were to deign to send us another great prelate. But that remains to be seen.
All we can do now is "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8
You again misconstrue what I said. The fathers already answered all those questions (some do not want to hear) and professed the outcome based on all the evidence canon law prescribes. Nothing else.
Good day.
|
|
|
Post by johnno on Dec 2, 2018 7:42:35 GMT
The laity are untrained? What a sweeping statement! It is not only the laity that have to remove 'their personal views/opinions' but priests also. Look at all the different opinions of priests from the Pope down. The Pope is expressing his personal take on the faith; Bishop Williamson often instructs(?) the laity by way of personal opinions; the priests involved in the resistance are expressing personal opinions about sedevacantism and other matters. Many of the laity are highly trained in matters of faith and doctrine. Quite apart from all the above every individual Catholic, whether priest or layman, must account to God for his/her own soul. To know one's Catechism and pray for the strength to live by its clear clearly expressed teachings is taught to us as untrained children.
Heaven help our poor priests if such an impossible burden is placed on them.
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Dec 2, 2018 18:08:41 GMT
Great post johnno and great point made!
“One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.” (ABL-Interview, July 1978)
The resistance laity by now have been formed and chiseled to know their faith, to not blindly follow. If we haven't learned one thing since Vat. II then we haven't learned anything, is that blind obedience is not Catholic. The resistance laity are the battle hardened souls who don't compromise easily simply at anyone's word. Everything gets weighed against our catechism as johnno points out.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 2, 2018 19:22:21 GMT
Wonderful posts johnno and S.A.G.! Excellent points!
"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith, and not to deviate in any way from the tradition of the Fathers."
- John, Bishop of Constantinople, in his letter to Pope Hormisdas in the year 519
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2018 19:51:34 GMT
Are you laity saying you are trained in Canon Law pertaining to this?
Enough said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2018 21:44:32 GMT
The laity are untrained? What a sweeping statement! It is not only the laity that have to remove 'their personal views/opinions' but priests also. Look at all the different opinions of priests from the Pope down. The Pope is expressing his personal take on the faith; Bishop Williamson often instructs(?) the laity by way of personal opinions; the priests involved in the resistance are expressing personal opinions about sedevacantism and other matters. Many of the laity are highly trained in matters of faith and doctrine. Quite apart from all the above every individual Catholic, whether priest or layman, must account to God for his/her own soul. To know one's Catechism and pray for the strength to live by its clear clearly expressed teachings is taught to us as untrained children.
Heaven help our poor priests if such an impossible burden is placed on them. Pope Pius XII on “lay theology”: “… Recently what is called “ lay theology” has sprung up and spread to various places, and a new class of “lay theologian” has emerged, which claims to be sui juris; there are professors of this theology occupying established chairs, courses are given, notes published, seminars held. These professors distinguish their teaching authority from, and in a certain way set it up against, the public Teaching Authority of the Church; at times, in order to justify their position, they appeal to the charismatic gifts of teaching and of interpreting prophecy, which are mentioned more than once in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline Epistles (e.g. Rom. 12:6 f.; I Cor. 12:28-30); they appeal to history, which from the beginning of the Christian religion down to today presents so many names of laymen who for the good of souls have taught the truth of Christ orally and in writing, though not called to this by the Bishops and without having asked or received the sacred teaching authority, led on by their own inward impulse and apostolic zeal. Nevertheless it is necessary to maintain to the contrary that there never has been, there is not now, and there never will be in the Church a legitimate teaching authority of the laity withdrawn by God from the authority, guidance, and watchfulness of the sacred Teaching Authority; in fact, the very denial of submission offers a convincing proof and criterion that laymen who thus speak and act are not guided by the Spirit of God and of Christ. Furthermore, everyone can see how great a danger of confusion and error there is in this “lay theology”; a danger also lest others begin to be taught by men clearly unfitted for the task, or even by deceitful and fraudulent men, whom St. Paul described: “The time will come when men . . ., always itching to hear something fresh, will provide themselves with a continuous succession of new teachers, as the whim takes them, turning a deaf ear to the truth bestowing their attention on fables instead” (cf. II Tim. 4:3 f.). Source: www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sidil.htm
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 2, 2018 22:03:50 GMT
"Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious." -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, 1972
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2018 22:24:49 GMT
"Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious." -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, 1972 You have "the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church" .... but not the tongue - especially for the women.
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Dec 2, 2018 23:30:37 GMT
Let’s not confuse things. Don’t lose common sense. Pius XII was not referring to family and individual decisions. Neither was Archbp. Lefebvre when he wrote about “ lay theologians”.
Look at what they speak about.
Pius XII- “ professors of this theology occupying established chairs, courses are given, notes published, seminars held.” Archbp. Lefebvre in the OPEN LETTER writing about this new religion of Vat. II and it's new teachings to Catholics:- “ The new Canon Law supports all this. Lay theologians hold chairs of theology in Catholic universities, the faithful take over roles in divine worship which were once reserved to those in clerical orders: they administer some of the sacraments, they distribute Holy Communion and serve as witnesses at weddings.” As far as family decisions Archbp. Lefebvre writes: " This extraordinary influence of the family and background was intended by God. He willed that His blessings should first of all be passed on by the family. This is the reason why He gives to the father of a family such great authority and power over his family, his wife and his children.”Again from the Archbishop: “ This is why Catholics in this latter part of the twentieth century have a duty to be more vigilant than their fathers were. (referring to those Catholics who followed the clergy in going along with the changes) They must not let just any idea be imposed upon them.”
|
|
|
Post by christa on Dec 3, 2018 0:54:13 GMT
My name is Christa Richards. I live in Ohio. I joined the Our Lady of Mount Carmel resistance in May 2015. I attended the Mass of September 13, 2015 with Metropolitan Archbishop Ambrose Moran Dolgorouky. I witnessed nothing out of the ordinary in the Mass. His sermon was full of amazing history of the Church which he had lived through. I had no reason whatsoever to not believe he was exactly who he said he was. I saw the video interviews he gave with Fr. Hewko and became even more honored to have been able to have attended a Mass offered by him. I did not hear of him again at all for an entire year except for the beginnings of horrible accusations being flung which I became indifferent to. I never paid any attention to forums and websites until August of 2018 in finding out that my ten year old son’s picture had been posted on someone’s site in order to promote some lies against the Archbishop. No great mystery as to why the picture was brought down, a picture of my son was being used for a dishonest purpose. It was then also made known to me that my family’s personal website intended only for family had also been posted. I have recently been added to a mailing list from ‘Preiz, Lisez et Resistez’ spreading accusations about the Archbishop. I most likely was wrong to have not paid closer attention to all this in order to defend the Archbishop and in so doing defend Holy Mother Church. I will now do so. In late September of 2016 I began wondering how the Archbishop was doing so I got in touch with him. It was very easy. Thus began my communication with the Archbishop. At that time he was living in Colorado. We simply texted back and forth mostly about whose feast day it was and normal pleasantries. In February, 2017 I became aware that the Archbishop was looking for a cheaper place to live. By chance my in-laws had a small rental become vacant at that same time period. I told the Archbishop of the availability and he made a rental agreement with my in-laws. Father Pfeiffer and Father Hewko and Pablo had nothing to do with it and they did not even know until I told them after the fact. It was nothing out of the ordinary nor mysterious. Just a man renting a home from an older couple who had an available rental property. A normal rental contract was made. My mother-in-law has since past away and so the property and rental contract has been transferred over to my husband. Not only has the Archbishop never missed a rental payment but he is also always on time. Archbishop Ambrose moved into my in-laws’ rental property on June 1, 2017. My husband, two sons, and I helped him move in. At that time he was still suffering greatly from a bad hip. My family witnessed firsthand the enormous quantity of personal effects belonging to the Archbishop that point to exactly who he is. I have lived three minutes away from the Archbishop for the past 18 months. My family and I have come to know him on a weekly basis. We have shared dinners, lunches, stories, family joys and sorrows with him over this time. I hope it is not too much to say that I feel I have come to know the man. I have seen him suffer greatly with physical pain as well as the pain of all the hateful lies from the souls he would love to help. He has endured it all for the sake of these same souls. He is patient in suffering but steadfast in the Faith and the respect due his Episcopacy. He is who he says he is. Education: The Archbishop has made no false claims of all his degrees and doctorates in the fields of medicine, behavioral sciences and psychology. We have unboxed plaque after plaque of embossed, signed and sealed diplomas, a number of which are upper graduate level and doctorate. The man is a treasure of knowledge. Priesthood and Episcopacy: Everything about the Archbishop points to the Catholic Church and his Episcopacy. His demeanor, dress, speech, gestures, stories, artifacts, relics, crosiers, miters, pectoral crosses, icons, vestments, photo albums, document after document, not to mention the polystavrion sakkos and omophorion over his shoulders which he is wearing in the picture in front of Santa Sofia Church in Rome alongside Cardinal Slipyj. Both of these vestments are hanging in his closet. I see them every week when I go to visit him and straighten up a bit for him. When we were unpacking his belongings I recognized this vestment and asked him about it. I even compared it to the picture and it is the very same. And yes, the original picture is hanging in his home. It is aged but still in good shape. He is a Roman Catholic Bishop with permission to celebrate Mass in both the Byzantine and Latin Rite. This privilege was granted to him by Patriarch Josyf Cardinal Slipyj. That he is a Catholic, a priest, and bishop there is no doubt. I have seen an abundance of proof of this in his home. I have seen his original baptismal certificate as he showed it to me himself. I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of photos in albums of him teaching at Catholic Schools, at the military academy, in the seminary, offering his first Mass with his mother and father present, giving blessings after his first Mass and on and on. I’ve seen his certificate to the priesthood and consecration as a bishop. I know all the answers to the 24 objections because I just asked him. It all has solidly reasonable answers. So many of the objections are assumptions or misinformed opinions. Like #23 about the girl who could not decide on a vocation. The Archbishop told the young lady she could marry a Greek Catholic Seminarian and end up married to a Greek Catholic Priest. This is very true. Even though it is something I’m not used to and it took me by surprise because I grew up in the Western Rite, it is nonetheless true. In fact Fr. Chirovsky (the man used to promote a lie in #24) is a Ukrainian Catholic priest who is married with two children. In fact he was already married when Cardinal Slipyj ordained him. So, objection #23 is answered as I just gave you the answer. The Archbishop offered to say the Latin Mass at our house so we would not have to drive three hours to Kentucky on Sundays. Father Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko had nothing to do with this and they did not know until I told them. I support both the Kentucky Fathers and the Archbishop as I hope my loyalty will always remain with Holy Mother Church. The Resistance priests as well as Archbishop Ambrose are clergy in Holy Mother Church. Archbishop Ambrose teaches the Holy Roman Catholic Faith. He is not an Orthodox. He works hard trying to bring the Orthodox back into the Roman Catholic Church. He catechizes my two sons and has taught them how to serve Latin Rite Mass for a Bishop - down to removing the zucchetto at the appropriate times and getting it back on the head on time and that type of thing. (The Orthodox do not wear zucchettos.) His sermons point always to the One Holy Roman Catholic Church. He preaches against heretics, schismatic and the Vatican II Church, which he calls a false church. Royalty: Archbishop Ambrose Moran Dolgorouky is a Royal Prince through the Dolgorouky line in the Kingdom of Naples. In his house are painted portraits of himself, his cousin and his mother in royal attire. He has plaques and certificates of a number of knighthoods. He has royal pins which he often wears. One woman met him for the first time on a day he happened to be wearing one of his royal pins. She is a learned woman and she knew exactly what it was…..for my embarrassment I did not, but I do now. She was quite taken with the fact that he had it. While unpacking his personal effects we found a number of items pointing to his royalty. Two simple items, but very neat, were two large decorative menus of separate dates from a famous restaurant in New York City. They had been created especially for the Archbishop. One was celebrating his birthday and the other the anniversary of his ordination. Both menus had his name printed on the front as such: H.R.H. Archbishop Ambrose. (H.R.H. – His Royal Highness). The Archbishop has allowed me to record his sermons in order to share his ministry with all the Faithful. I began doing this in July with a few gaps. I will strive to always record them such that his effectiveness will spread through the whole Church. Here is his Youtube channel. I thank you for your consideration. I’ll not be back on this forum, I’m just making this one post as I do not wish to be pulled into any type of discussion. Archbishop Ambrose Sermons - Youtube Channel
|
|