Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 23:45:01 GMT
The Catacombs position has been very confusing lately. You said "Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest." So do you believe Bishop Moran is a catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do?
Can you please elaborate on the confusion?
Not answering this question for one. Answering this one question would help all of us understand the views and contexts in your posts. ...
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 29, 2018 0:42:19 GMT
Fr. Pfeiffer visited our mission a few weeks ago and told us in a talk the whole seminary and priests viewed the large volume of evidences with the amazing newspaper clippings and accepts the legitimacy of Bishop Moran. For Fr. Hewko it is only about accepting him in a practical way.
Could you please explain to me what you mean about "For Fr. Hewko it is only about accepting him in a practical way." because I don't understand what this sentence means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 0:59:09 GMT
Fr. Pfeiffer visited our mission a few weeks ago and told us in a talk the whole seminary and priests viewed the large volume of evidences with the amazing newspaper clippings and accepts the legitimacy of Bishop Moran. For Fr. Hewko it is only about accepting him in a practical way.
Could you please explain to me what you mean about "For Fr. Hewko it is only about accepting him in a practical way." because I don't understand what this sentence means.
Fr. Hewko repeatably said Bishop Moran is legitimate by the evidences he saw and the only problem he sees, in his own words, is a provisional question whether to trust him "I want to see clearly that this is truly the hand of God behind this and truly teaches the faith and he is not some fly by night garage bishop".
As far as the Cardinal Slipyj (conditional?) consecration, Fr. Hewko said it was only a "small question" after declaring again the legitimacy of Bishop Moran provided by the other consecration, "But regardless HE IS TRULY A CONSECRATED BISHOP. And I guess the only small question is was he really consecrated by Cardinal Slipyj in rome because he did many secret consecrations without anybody knowing and he was mad at rome because rome was betraying the catholic Ukrainians to communism." "... And there is already a lot of evidence for it."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2018 23:54:00 GMT
The Catacombs position has been very confusing lately. You said "Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest." So do you believe Bishop Moran is a catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do?
Remy, I realize you are a relatively new member to The Catacombs. As such you are most likely unaware that this question has already been answered: +++
Since Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko are not yet perfectly aligned on this matter, we continue to wait and pray. So it would appear that there is wisdom and prudence in going slowly and carefully in the consideration of this situation.
Again, the position of The Catacombs is unchanged. Please know too that the position of The Catacombs is very much to rely on the sound teachings and guidance of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose love for the Faith exudes itself in nearly every line he writes, whose wisdom is clear for all to see, and whose contemporaneous closeness to our times makes his advice all the more salutary:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 15:07:58 GMT
Remy, please explain how Ambrose Moran was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Slipy when: 1) Ambrose Moran claims he was consecrated in 1976 by Cardinal Slipyj, Bishop Borecky, and Bishop Dimitri: ambrosemoran.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ambrose0022.jpg 2) Ambrose Moran claims Bishop Borecky wrote him a letter dated August 26, 1976 (shortly after the alleged consecration) that he, Ambrose Moran, was appointed the successor to Cardinal Slipyj: ambrosemoran.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ambrose0021.jpg 3) The following letter dated June 30, 1980 was written by William Moran to Bishop Borecky: www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Letter_Fr._Moran_June_30_1980.pdfThis letter was obtained from Fr. Bohdan Bilinksy of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto who found it in the archives of the eparchy: www.ucet.ca/chancery_193.htmIn this letter: a) William Moran addresses himself as a priest (Fr. Moran) and not as a Bishop. b) William Moran requests a reference letter from Bishop Borecky, one of the bishops that Ambrose Moran claims consecrated him, to join a schismatic Orthodox sect (Orthodox Church of America), so that he may finally be canonically regularized. Note: The letter is point #2 above was not found in the Eparchy of Toronto archives. 4) Orthodox priest, Fr. Tosi, confirms that William Moran applied to the Orthodox Church of America as an archimandrite (honorary title for Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests) but was not accepted: www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2018/07/31/the-june-30-1980-letter-of-william-moran-to-bishop-borecky/oca.org/about/chancery-staff
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 15:39:27 GMT
The Catacombs position has been very confusing lately. You said "Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest." So do you believe Bishop Moran is a catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do?
Remy, I realize you are a relatively new member to The Catacombs. As such you are most likely unaware that this question has already been answered: +++
Since Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko are not yet perfectly aligned on this matter, we continue to wait and pray. So it would appear that there is wisdom and prudence in going slowly and carefully in the consideration of this situation.
Again, the position of The Catacombs is unchanged. Please know too that the position of The Catacombs is very much to rely on the sound teachings and guidance of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose love for the Faith exudes itself in nearly every line he writes, whose wisdom is clear for all to see, and whose contemporaneous closeness to our times makes his advice all the more salutary:
The question is specifically You answered with a pre-dated "just pray" answer. Since then both fathers made a doctrinal/ canonical conference and sermon on this matter laying out their declaration Bishop Moran is legitimately all three catholic/ catholic priest/ catholic bishop this topic brought attention to.
Are you using the words aptly and the title of bishop in your writing "Bishop Ambrose was a catholic priest" expressing your belief or noting it is what father said?
A post previous you were highlighting a Bishop Moran poster saying there are no catholic words in it implying you do not believe Bishop Moran. It is these many posts of yours that are confusing to us post-the new conference and sermon from Fr. Hewko giving testament HE IS TRULY A CONSECRATED BISHOP.
Sorry if this may be a consternation to you but it is very confusing to all of us this website is giving two perceptions. Can you please be clear in this question one way or other.
Do you believe Bishop Moran is all three catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do, or just one or two of them?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2018 15:55:55 GMT
Remy, I realize you are a relatively new member to The Catacombs. As such you are most likely unaware that this question has already been answered: +++
Since Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko are not yet perfectly aligned on this matter, we continue to wait and pray. So it would appear that there is wisdom and prudence in going slowly and carefully in the consideration of this situation.
Again, the position of The Catacombs is unchanged. Please know too that the position of The Catacombs is very much to rely on the sound teachings and guidance of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose love for the Faith exudes itself in nearly every line he writes, whose wisdom is clear for all to see, and whose contemporaneous closeness to our times makes his advice all the more salutary:
The question is specifically You answered with a pre-dated "just pray" answer. Since then both fathers made a doctrinal/ canonical conference and sermon on this matter laying out their declaration Bishop Moran is legitimately all three catholic/ catholic priest/ catholic bishop this topic brought attention to.
Are you using the words aptly and the title of bishop in your writing "Bishop Ambrose was a catholic priest" expressing your belief or noting it is what father said?
A post previous you were highlighting a Bishop Moran poster saying there are no catholic words in it implying you do not believe Bishop Moran. It is these many posts of yours that are confusing to us post-the new conference and sermon from Fr. Hewko giving testament HE IS TRULY A CONSECRATED BISHOP.
Sorry if this may be a consternation to you but it is very confusing to all of us this website is giving two perceptions. Can you please be clear in this question one way or other.
Do you believe Bishop Moran is all three catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do, or just one or two of them?
Remy, I will give no other answer right now than what I have.
There is much that confuses about this situation. I could easily advertise those things which cause concern and confuse but I choose not to do so publicly at this time. I am happy The Catacombs is able to provide access to transcripts [thank you to those who provided the transcripts!], the conferences, etc, as well as respectful, Catholic commentary. But I will continue to 'watch and pray'.
God bless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 16:11:33 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 16:46:54 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.
So in other words, you cannot answer as well.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2018 16:50:37 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.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2018 17:46:22 GMT
Could you please explain to me what you mean about "For Fr. Hewko it is only about accepting him in a practical way." because I don't understand what this sentence means.
Fr. Hewko repeatably said Bishop Moran is legitimate by the evidences he saw and the only problem he sees, in his own words, is a provisional question whether to trust him "I want to see clearly that this is truly the hand of God behind this and truly teaches the faith and he is not some fly by night garage bishop".
As far as the Cardinal Slipyj (conditional?) consecration, Fr. Hewko said it was only a "small question" after declaring again the legitimacy of Bishop Moran provided by the other consecration, "But regardless HE IS TRULY A CONSECRATED BISHOP. And I guess the only small question is was he really consecrated by Cardinal Slipyj in rome because he did many secret consecrations without anybody knowing and he was mad at rome because rome was betraying the catholic Ukrainians to communism." "... And there is already a lot of evidence for it."
It would seem from Fr. Pfeiffer's transcript that the consecration of Bp. Ambrose was Orthodox and we know the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox orders as valid but not licit. Hence, Fr. Hewko making the statement Bp. Ambrose is 'truly a consecrated bishop'.
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Nov 30, 2018 17:56:38 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 21:38:26 GMT
And I guess the only small question is was he really consecrated by Cardinal Slipyj in rome because he did many secret consecrations without anybody knowing and he was mad at rome because rome was betraying the catholic Ukrainians to communism." The question of whether Ambrose Moran was really consecrated by Cardinal Slipyj is not a small question. As a matter of fact, this is the central claim of all claims. It is the claim that Ambrose Moran emphasized in his interview/talks of 2015 and made him of most interest to OLMC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 21:44:40 GMT
In union with Cardinal Slipyj is in union with Catholicism which the records show had brought in many priests including Fr. Moran at the time. This historical part is a key element showing a working relationship and involvement with Cardinal Slipyj rome acknowledges he had ordained/conditionally ordained and consecrated/ conditionally consecrated many priests and bishop through that apostolate. Records show Fr. Moran is one of them. Which records show that Fr. Moran was brought in union with Cardinal Slipyj?
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Dec 1, 2018 0:11:43 GMT
One specific aspect in this circus which isn’t being emphasized enough is a fundamental detail of the so-called "investigation" itself. In much saner days, with these particular circumstances, Holy Mother Church would have commissioned a tribunal/committee of such, to conduct an examination process having upmost scrutiny and deliberation. 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.
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. 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. 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. This dilemma, along with additional important points, is considered with greater detail in this recent essay.
It could be argued that because of the crisis in the Church, submitting to the normal Ecclesiastical investigation process is simply impossible. 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; but rather, as the Archbishop clearly instructs, it’s even greater reason to hold fast to follow moral certainty and avoid all occasions of doubt.
We’ve been spiritually advised to pray to our Blessed Lady to learn God’s Will. Perhaps His adorable Will in this matter is indeed being manifest to us by the simple fact that the typical Church investigation by competent authorities is a near impossibility; and therefore the arrival at complete moral certitude for this case is just as impossible. This could account for the circus-like confusion and great lack of peace. In following His Will, God never asks us to overcome the impossible; and He certainly never asks us to compromise and settle for what’s "close enough." But often times He does oblige us to just walk away.
|
|