|
|
Post by Fidelis on Feb 11, 2019 15:28:01 GMT
Yes of course Fr. Hewko's advice was and always is to stay focused on the essentials. Unfortunately it's Fr. Pfeiffer who reneged from the 2015 official disassociation from Ambrose and opened up the wound again. You're trying to mix apples and oranges with your analogy. It wasn't Fr. Hewko's idea or desire to invite Ambrose back to OLMC. Fr. Hewko instead simply wants to stay focused on the essentials.
Do you notice you're complaining about folks not sticking to the essentials (doctrine) and you are now bringing up other forums and what they're doing? Who cares about those other forums? Why bring them up? I rather do think we should stick with the essentials and that's exactly why we're discussing it here. It's absolutely essential that we stay CATHOLIC and not go with someone who joined the Orthodox.
I agree that it is Fr. Pfeiffer that reintroduced Ambrose Moran back onto the scene. Fr. Hewko was not happy about that decision. At this point, the best thing for Fr. Hewko, after that poor letter of disassociation on Fr. Pfeiffer's part, is to separate himself completely from OLMC and start fresh. Fr. Hewko has made bad decisions under Fr. Pfeiffer, such as promoting Ambrose Moran, conjointly writing a letter to Bishop Williamson to have him come ordain the OLMC seminarians, and accepting a green light priest to say public Mass and teach at OLMC. Fr. Hewko needs to free himself of these aberrations from the True Resistance positions. Completely agree. Fr Hewko needs a clean break because the salt has lost its savour. Our Lady of Lourdes pray for us! |
|
ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72 
|
Post by ruthy on Feb 11, 2019 21:53:52 GMT
I think we understand the point you are trying to make, Little Flower. And certainly your loyalty in reminding people to not 'get out of the vehicle' is commendable. But if we examine this logic, it will be proven false.
If we were supposed to 'stay in the vehicle', true Catholics never would have separated themselves from the Arians, from the Orthodox, from the Albigensians, from the Protestants, from the Novus Ordo, and recently, from the SSPX. What actually happened in all these examples is those holding erroneous ideas separated themselves, they decided to 'change vehicles' other than the one of the Faith, separating themselves from the Church and Her teaching. You're right, the Apostles didn't leave. But the others left the teachings of the Apostles for their own novel ideas.
'There is nothing new under the sun' Solomon tells us.
As a side note, I couldn't be happier than to shut down and throw away the key to anything more having to do with Ambrose Moran. But sadly, it is Fr. Pfeiffer who brought him up yet again yesterday in his sermon. It seems the saga is not yet over. Time will tell.
You mentioned above that Fr. Pfeiffer brought up Bishop Ambrose again. What sermon is it and what did Fr. Pfeiffer say?
|
|
|
|
Post by Initiation on Feb 12, 2019 0:39:29 GMT
I think we understand the point you are trying to make, Little Flower. And certainly your loyalty in reminding people to not 'get out of the vehicle' is commendable. But if we examine this logic, it will be proven false.
If we were supposed to 'stay in the vehicle', true Catholics never would have separated themselves from the Arians, from the Orthodox, from the Albigensians, from the Protestants, from the Novus Ordo, and recently, from the SSPX. What actually happened in all these examples is those holding erroneous ideas separated themselves, they decided to 'change vehicles' other than the one of the Faith, separating themselves from the Church and Her teaching. You're right, the Apostles didn't leave. But the others left the teachings of the Apostles for their own novel ideas.
'There is nothing new under the sun' Solomon tells us.
As a side note, I couldn't be happier than to shut down and throw away the key to anything more having to do with Ambrose Moran. But sadly, it is Fr. Pfeiffer who brought him up yet again yesterday in his sermon. It seems the saga is not yet over. Time will tell.
You mentioned above that Fr. Pfeiffer brought up Bishop Ambrose again. What sermon is it and what did Fr. Pfeiffer say?
It is Father Pfeiffer's sermon from yesterday in Toronto. If you begin at 24 minutes, he mentions Ambrose. |
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 12, 2019 1:13:21 GMT
I think we understand the point you are trying to make, Little Flower. And certainly your loyalty in reminding people to not 'get out of the vehicle' is commendable. But if we examine this logic, it will be proven false.
If we were supposed to 'stay in the vehicle', true Catholics never would have separated themselves from the Arians, from the Orthodox, from the Albigensians, from the Protestants, from the Novus Ordo, and recently, from the SSPX. What actually happened in all these examples is those holding erroneous ideas separated themselves, they decided to 'change vehicles' other than the one of the Faith, separating themselves from the Church and Her teaching. You're right, the Apostles didn't leave. But the others left the teachings of the Apostles for their own novel ideas.
'There is nothing new under the sun' Solomon tells us.
As a side note, I couldn't be happier than to shut down and throw away the key to anything more having to do with Ambrose Moran. But sadly, it is Fr. Pfeiffer who brought him up yet again yesterday in his sermon. It seems the saga is not yet over. Time will tell.
Respectfully Admin, there was no mention of Arianism or any other heresy in my reply. Rather it was to show that both Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer like Abp. Lefebvre encouraged the faithful to stick to the essentials. Perhaps my post to Juan Diego needs more clarity. The bumps on the road can be anything that life sends (e.g. lack of funds, sickness, modernist Priests, etc.), and we the passengers in the vehicle (i.e. the Church Militant) on the road have to stick to the essentials during these moments. That was my point to Juan Diego. That was the big difference between Abp. Lefebvre and his peers. While he focused on the essentials, the rest got caught up with the bumps. Since your response takes a different interpretation to my reply, it is fair to provide a response. You hold that True Catholics stepped out of the vehicle in the past because there was a heresy. Are you or others who hold your view imply or believe that 'True catholics' have stepped out of the vehicle because Fr. Pfeiffer is guilty of heresy? Is that the position of the forum? Your interpretation spurs another interesting discussion (not related to OLMC, but on the faith). If 'True Catholics' did not 'stay in the vehicle' because there was a heresy (Arianism, Protestantism, etc.),where did they find the heresy? Was in the vehicle, the road or both? If the vehicle was full of heresy, how did they know that the road was safe when it is already bumpy? If the bumpy road was full of heresy, why did they not stay in the vehicle that could have protected and help them navigate? If both the road and the vehicle were full of heresy, how did they escape the road and the vehicle? As regards Fr. Pfeiffer bringing up Bp. Moran in the sermon on 469fitter's channel, he also brought up Bp. Fellay, Max Krah, Paul the Mexican, St. Timothy, St. Paul, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, Fr. Ford and so many more. Unfortunately he did not bring up Bp. Williamson, Bp. Faure, Bp. Zendejas, Bp. Dom Thomas Aquinas, etc. There is so much to learn  Only Our Lord and Our Lady can guide us through bumps. The Priests like us are mere vehicles (or vessels). We must stick to the essentials and let Our Lord and Our Lady take care of the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 12, 2019 1:42:40 GMT
It seems you missed the point of the video. Fr. Hewko has always encouraged the faithful to focus on the essentials and likewise Fr. Pfeiffer has always encouraged the faithful to focus on the essentials, similar to Abp. Lefebvre, who also encouraged the faithful to focus on the essentials. There will always be bumps in a road you travel, that does not mean the vehicle you drive in should come to a complete halt. The Apostles did not do that, neither did those in the Church Militant before us, and neither should we. Fr. Pfeiffer has already given his verdict on the case of Bp. Moran, and so has Fr. Hewko. Why are people still focused on Bp. Moran. Is the faith not important anymore, or has Bp. Moran become a new-found source of unity? It's incredible how people just want to wash away the damage that Fr. Pfeiffer has done to the unity of the True Resistance. Fr. Pfeiffer can do this over and over again and his ardent followers will just keep washing the slate clean. They refuse to hold Fr. Pfeiffer accountable for his actions. I am sorry, but a letter of apology that contains a contradiction regarding the validity of Ambrose Moran's episcopacy just doesn't cut it. Fr. Pfeiffer was given a chance by many after his first public promotion of Ambrose Moran and he blew it. Now it is time for Fr. Pfeiffer to denounce Ambrose Moran as the liar and fraud he is and to make public reparation for the damage that Fr. Pfeiffer has done. If you believe Fr. Pfeiffer has done so much damage to the unity of the True Resistance, then surely you must know who is or are the unifiers of this 'True Resistance' and who are its torch bearers? In Catholic charity, it would help to know your opinions on the following: a) You say that Fr. Pfeiffer's letter contains a contradiction because it validates Ambrose Moran's episcopacy. Well, our current Pope was ordained a Priest on December 13, 1969, and a Bishop on June 27, 1992, and a Cardinal on February 21, 2001. Unlike Bp. Zendejas or Bp. Dom Tomas, we have videos and photos of him offering the Novus Ordo Mass. Fr. Francis offering the Novus Ordo Missae  Abp. Francis becoming a Cardinal. Like Pope Francis, most of the Bishops in the conclave are all new rite Priests and Bishops. Do you believe Pope Francis is or is not the Pope? Do you believe that any of the Episcopal ordinations in the Novus Ordo are valid? Do you accuse the Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 'una cum' with Pope Francis is in contradiction because they are validating the Novus Ordo episcopal rite? b) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 12:24:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2019 13:58:24 GMT
I think we understand the point you are trying to make, Little Flower. And certainly your loyalty in reminding people to not 'get out of the vehicle' is commendable. But if we examine this logic, it will be proven false.
If we were supposed to 'stay in the vehicle', true Catholics never would have separated themselves from the Arians, from the Orthodox, from the Albigensians, from the Protestants, from the Novus Ordo, and recently, from the SSPX. What actually happened in all these examples is those holding erroneous ideas separated themselves, they decided to 'change vehicles' other than the one of the Faith, separating themselves from the Church and Her teaching. You're right, the Apostles didn't leave. But the others left the teachings of the Apostles for their own novel ideas.
'There is nothing new under the sun' Solomon tells us.
As a side note, I couldn't be happier than to shut down and throw away the key to anything more having to do with Ambrose Moran. But sadly, it is Fr. Pfeiffer who brought him up yet again yesterday in his sermon. It seems the saga is not yet over. Time will tell.
Respectfully Admin, there was no mention of Arianism or any other heresy in my reply. Rather it was to show that both Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer like Abp. Lefebvre encouraged the faithful to stick to the essentials. Perhaps my post to Juan Diego needs more clarity. The bumps on the road can be anything that life sends (e.g. lack of funds, sickness, modernist Priests, etc.), and we the passengers in the vehicle (i.e. the Church Militant) on the road have to stick to the essentials during these moments. That was my point to Juan Diego. That was the big difference between Abp. Lefebvre and his peers. While he focused on the essentials, the rest got caught up with the bumps.
Since your response takes a different interpretation to my reply, it is fair to provide a response. You hold that True Catholics stepped out of the vehicle in the past because there was a heresy. Are you or others who hold your view imply or believe that 'True catholics' have stepped out of the vehicle because Fr. Pfeiffer is guilty of heresy? Is that the position of the forum?Your interpretation spurs another interesting discussion (not related to OLMC, but on the faith). If 'True Catholics' did not 'stay in the vehicle' because there was a heresy (Arianism, Protestantism, etc.),where did they find the heresy? Was in the vehicle, the road or both? If the vehicle was full of heresy, how did they know that the road was safe when it is already bumpy? If the bumpy road was full of heresy, why did they not stay in the vehicle that could have protected and help them navigate? If both the road and the vehicle were full of heresy, how did they escape the road and the vehicle? As regards Fr. Pfeiffer bringing up Bp. Moran in the sermon on 469fitter's channel, he also brought up Bp. Fellay, Max Krah, Paul the Mexican, St. Timothy, St. Paul, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, Fr. Ford and so many more. Unfortunately he did not bring up Bp. Williamson, Bp. Faure, Bp. Zendejas, Bp. Dom Thomas Aquinas, etc. There is so much to learn Only Our Lord and Our Lady can guide us through bumps. The Priests like us are mere vehicles (or vessels). We must stick to the essentials and let Our Lord and Our Lady take care of the rest.
I am happy to try to clarify a few of your concerns.
First of all, though, I must disagree with the first bolded [emphasis mine] statement you made. It wasn't that Archbishop Lefebvre stuck to essentials and the others focused on 'bumps in the road'. The others/his peers in one way or another abandoned the teachings of the Church to follow the errors of Vatican II and modernism. Vatican II tells us [in Gaudium et Spes 12] that "all things on earth should be directed towards man as their centre and crown". thecatacombs.org/thread/2/errors-vatican-ii-fr-hesse
This is not a bump. This IS an essential. It was errors and heresies such as this that Archbishop Lefebvre walked away from:
To trivialize what the Archbishop fought against and fought to preserve cannot be passed over, I'm sorry.
+++
To your second point, I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I wrote:
To reiterate, those who abandon or attempt to change or reinterpret what the Church [the one true vehicle of Faith] have deliberately gone on a different trajectory than the Church. Some of you will easily recall Fr. Hewko telling us for the past six years now, 'If we teach you something other than what the Church teaches, leave us.' We stick with the truths of our Faith.
With respect to your question: "Are you or others who hold your view imply or believe that 'True catholics' have stepped out of the vehicle because Fr. Pfeiffer is guilty of heresy? Is that the position of the forum?"
I am very glad you have asked that so I can be clear. I do not think Fr. Pfeiffer is guilty of heresy. I have never said that.
What I am concerned about is that despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that Moran is not a Catholic bishop of good canonical standing,
rather, that he is an Orthodox bishop. The Orthodox have valid orders [if they have been reviewed by the Church and deemed valid after investigation] but according to canon law cannot be approached for sacraments except at the point of death and even then only for the sacraments of penance and extreme unction.
And while we are in a time of emergency, we cannot break canon law at our whim. This would lead to anarchy.
+++
With respect to your third comment [emphasis mine again], I think again, you have misunderstood my words. I alluded to this in the first point I made above. 'True Catholics' as you call them, have stayed in the vehicle. They have stayed in the true Noah's Ark of the Catholic Church. It was the heretics who left the true Ark. This is shown to us over and over throughout our Catholic History. The heretics leave and/or are ejected by the Church Herself. Bumps in the road will always be with us. But we always must choose the Faith over persons. Or we would have never left the Novus Ordo, never have left the SSPX, never have separated from the false resistance, when each of these groups deviated from the true Catholic Faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 12, 2019 14:17:55 GMT
Ecclesia Militans, I read what you wrote in the link. The questions that I posed to you in charity still stand irrespective of Bp. Moran. It has to do with the faith. a) If you believe Fr. Pfeiffer has done so much damage to the unity of the True Resistance, then surely you must know who is or are the unifiers of this 'True Resistance' and who are its torch bearers? b) You say that Fr. Pfeiffer's letter contains a contradiction because it validates Ambrose Moran's episcopacy. Well, our current Pope was ordained a Priest on December 13, 1969, and a Bishop on June 27, 1992, and a Cardinal on February 21, 2001. Unlike Bp. Zendejas or Bp. Dom Tomas, we have videos and photos of him offering the Novus Ordo Mass. Like Pope Francis, most of the Bishops in the conclave are all new rite Priests and Bishops. Do you believe Pope Francis is or is not the Pope? Do you believe that any of the Episcopal ordinations in the Novus Ordo are valid? Do you accuse the Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 'una cum' with Pope Francis is in contradiction because they are validating the Novus Ordo episcopal rite. c) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy? |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Feb 12, 2019 16:15:58 GMT
I believe Fr. Hewko was simply being prudent by using the title Bishop with Ambrose Moran. He avoided the sedevacantist errors of rash judgement by giving the man Ambrose Moran rights to his claims without solid evidence to the contrary. Now that the evidence has been presented, and all parties are aware of the facts presented surrounding his supposed Catholic ordination , I believe there exists no excuse not to make a judgement to the validity of Ambrose Moran having valid Catholic orders. I believe future conversation regarding Ambrose Moran should be clear and precise, especially by those holding authority in the resistance. Ambrose Moran is not a proven valid Catholic bishop. Any other way of speaking should be taken in my mind as a Roman tongue of partial truths.
|
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Feb 12, 2019 17:03:04 GMT
Littleflower to Ecclesia Militans:
c) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Feb 12, 2019 17:17:09 GMT
I think the issue now is whether Fr. Pfeiffer has made sufficient public warning to the faithful regarding a known wolf in sheep's clothing? Is it a matter of ecclesial justice for the lay faithful to demand Fr. Pfeiffer make a more pronounced and clear statement of "excommunication" of one who has publicly excommunicated others in the resistance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 17:39:20 GMT
Ecclesia Militans, I read what you wrote in the link. The questions that I posed to you in charity still stand irrespective of Bp. Moran. It has to do with the faith. a) If you believe Fr. Pfeiffer has done so much damage to the unity of the True Resistance, then surely you must know who is or are the unifiers of this 'True Resistance' and who are its torch bearers? b) You say that Fr. Pfeiffer's letter contains a contradiction because it validates Ambrose Moran's episcopacy. Well, our current Pope was ordained a Priest on December 13, 1969, and a Bishop on June 27, 1992, and a Cardinal on February 21, 2001. Unlike Bp. Zendejas or Bp. Dom Tomas, we have videos and photos of him offering the Novus Ordo Mass. Like Pope Francis, most of the Bishops in the conclave are all new rite Priests and Bishops. Do you believe Pope Francis is or is not the Pope? Do you believe that any of the Episcopal ordinations in the Novus Ordo are valid? Do you accuse the Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 'una cum' with Pope Francis is in contradiction because they are validating the Novus Ordo episcopal rite. c) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy? a) The True Resistance is with Fr. Pfeiffer, but he caused a division in it by bringing Ambrose Moran onto the scene. It is not yet dead in Fr. Pfeiffer, but he must stay away from Ambrose Moran. However, that does not mean that Fr. Pfeiffer should not be held accountable for his actions. His denouncing of Ambrose Moran as a liar and fraud together with his will to make public reparation will show his sincerity in putting this issue behind us once and for all. b) You seem to not have understood. Fr. Pfeiffer's letter declares Ambrose Moran as a valid bishop, but then proceeds with stating that Ambrose Moran has not presented evidence to confirm that validity. This is where the contradiction lies. Why does Fr. Pfeiffer need further evidence is he already accepts him as a bishop? Is he a valid bishop or not? Your inquires about the pope, etc. are not relevant to this discussion. c) See the answer above from Initiation and SAG. |
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 12, 2019 18:55:37 GMT
Littleflower to Ecclesia Militans:
c) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy?
"Moran or Lefebvre?"
In Catholic Charity, this is not a public statement from Fr. Hewko. Even if it were a public statement, notice that while Fr. Hewko does not use "Bishop" before Moran, he also does not use "Archbishop" before Lefebvre. By this reasoning, are you suggesting that Fr. Hewko no longer recognizes Lefebvre as an Archbishop publicly? Please clarify. The question still stands: c) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy? |
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 12, 2019 19:00:29 GMT
Ecclesia Militans, I read what you wrote in the link. The questions that I posed to you in charity still stand irrespective of Bp. Moran. It has to do with the faith. a) If you believe Fr. Pfeiffer has done so much damage to the unity of the True Resistance, then surely you must know who is or are the unifiers of this 'True Resistance' and who are its torch bearers? b) You say that Fr. Pfeiffer's letter contains a contradiction because it validates Ambrose Moran's episcopacy. Well, our current Pope was ordained a Priest on December 13, 1969, and a Bishop on June 27, 1992, and a Cardinal on February 21, 2001. Unlike Bp. Zendejas or Bp. Dom Tomas, we have videos and photos of him offering the Novus Ordo Mass. Like Pope Francis, most of the Bishops in the conclave are all new rite Priests and Bishops. Do you believe Pope Francis is or is not the Pope? Do you believe that any of the Episcopal ordinations in the Novus Ordo are valid? Do you accuse the Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 'una cum' with Pope Francis is in contradiction because they are validating the Novus Ordo episcopal rite. c) Fr. Hewko has acknowledged that Bp. Ambrose is a Bishop. Why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko? Do we have a recent public statement of Fr. Hewko regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy? a) The True Resistance is with Fr. Pfeiffer, but he caused a division in it by bringing Ambrose Moran onto the scene. It is not yet dead in Fr. Pfeiffer, but he must stay away from Ambrose Moran. However, that does not mean that Fr. Pfeiffer should not be held accountable for his actions. His denouncing of Ambrose Moran as a liar and fraud together with his will to make public reparation will show his sincerity in putting this issue behind us once and for all. b) You seem to not have understood. Fr. Pfeiffer's letter declares Ambrose Moran as a valid bishop, but then proceeds with stating that Ambrose Moran has not presented evidence to confirm that validity. This is where the contradiction lies. Why does Fr. Pfeiffer need further evidence is he already accepts him as a bishop? Is he a valid bishop or not? Your inquires about the pope, etc. are not relevant to this discussion. c) See the answer above from Initiation and SAG. In Catholic Charity, your reply to some of the questions while helpful, does not clarify. See below. "a) The True Resistance is with Fr. Pfeiffer, but he caused a division in it by bringing Ambrose Moran onto the scene. It is not yet dead in Fr. Pfeiffer, but he must stay away from Ambrose Moran. However, that does not mean that Fr. Pfeiffer should not be held accountable for his actions. His denouncing of Ambrose Moran as a liar and fraud together with his will to make public reparation will show his sincerity in putting this issue behind us once and for all."By his public statement, Fr. Pfeiffer has removed the source of the division. Why does the division continue to persist? What is a public reparation, and what are the litany of demands that will fulfill this public reparation? "b) You seem to not have understood. Fr. Pfeiffer's letter declares Ambrose Moran as a valid bishop, but then proceeds with stating that Ambrose Moran has not presented evidence to confirm that validity. This is where the contradiction lies. Why does Fr. Pfeiffer need further evidence is he already accepts him as a bishop? Is he a valid bishop or not? Your inquires about the pope, etc. are not relevant to this discussion."The inquiries about the Pope are essential because it matters if we believe he is a valid Bishop or not! Do you believe that any of the Episcopal ordinations in the Novus Ordo are valid? Do you believe Pope Francis is or is not the Pope, because all of his ordinations are done in the new rite (ordained a Priest on December 13, 1969, and a Bishop on June 27, 1992, and a Cardinal on February 21, 2001)? Do you accuse the Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 'una cum' with Pope Francis is in contradiction because they are validating the Novus Ordo episcopal rite. "c) See the answer above from Initiation and SAG."The answer of Initiation and SAG are insufficient, because in that very quote from Fr. Hewko, he says "Moran or Lefebvre" and addresses neither of them by their Episcopal title. Unless you want us all to believe that Fr. Hewko no longer believes Lefebvre is or was never an Archbishop. |
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Feb 12, 2019 19:01:30 GMT
Yes it was a public statement that Fr. Hewko asked to be posted.
And if you doubt what has been posted here ask Fr. Hewko yourself what he means.
|
|
