Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 22:11:41 GMT
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? Because Fr. Pfeiffer needs to be accountable for his actions. If someone steals $10,000 from a bank, returning it and saying sorry is not sufficient. Reparation needs to be done. I explained why in my post. "In addition to denouncing Ambrose Moran, there should be some form of reparation made on the part of OLMC. First of all, to use Ambrose Moran for the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson is, objectively speaking, an act of sacrilege because there is not a moral certitude that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. And even if there was a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop, the same conditional ordination would still be morally reprehensible, if not also an act of sacrilege, because Ambrose Moran to this day refuses to publicly admit and repent of his public schismatic past. Secondly, OLMC has done much damage to the unity of the Resistance with this Ambrose Moran affair (and for the second time). Next to Bishop Williamson’s public statement about the moral acceptability of actively attending the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances, I would place the Ambrose Moran affair second, perhaps even a close second, in the detrimental effect it has had on the unity of the Resistance. Thirdly, Fr. Pfeiffer should not state that “this disassociation is final and not open for debate” if by this he means that he will no longer discuss the reasons for the sudden disassociation. After ramming Ambrose Moran down our throats, causing so much havoc, and criticizing those who provided opposition, elaborating on the “anomalies” seems to be a matter of justice." 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. What does this have to do with the Fr. Pfeiffer/Ambrose Moran case?
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Feb 12, 2019 23:12:44 GMT
I think the specific error should be mentioned. If in confession we are required to mention the specifics of the sins to Our Lord, would it not apply in this situation for Fr. Pfeiffer?
"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much." [James 5:16]
|
|
|
Post by domineadjuvame on Feb 13, 2019 5:17:41 GMT
If God in His justice demanded from us public reparation for our sins, none of us "subsistam". Fr Feiffer aknowledged his mistake. That should be sufficient. To me the parable of the two debtors apply in this situation. Our Lord has forgiven me 10000 talents, I can forgive Fr. 100.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 13, 2019 12:38:13 GMT
Many of us know personally or have heard of those who think public reparation is necessary from Fr. Pfeiffer for using and promoting Moran.
IF such reparation were required, it would be assigned by Fr.' s superior. There isn't one in this case.
I think the best we can do right now is to pray for Fr. Pfeiffer. As with us all, God's justice is exact. We don't need to worry about who did what reparation, public or private. Leave that to the good Lord. Let us be careful not to have bitterness in our hearts. Let us respond with prayer and charity when we see mistakes, though we are equally careful not to follow those mistakes. But in all things, keep charity.
Similarly, we cannot follow the example of those who publicly castigate and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them or support them. This is a wrong message to convey, as Moran has recently done in his 'excommunications'. We have loyalty to the Faith alone, to the Church alone. It is the Faith which unites us, not persons.
So let us not imitate those who, out of bitterness, condemn and slash at those who speak the truth. Tony la Rosa and Greg Taylor have spoken the truth and presented the facts about Moran. Our Lord told us "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32. Blind obedience to persons is a sin. How many times did Archbishop Lefebvre warn us in the crisis not to focus on obedience to persons but on obedience to the Church, to Tradition:
Let us remember the words of Fr. Henri LeFloch, the Rector of the seminary at which Archbishop Lefebvre studied, to think as the Church thinks. That is the only way we will not lose our way in these days. By holding fast to the pillar of the Church:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 12:49:10 GMT
If God in His justice demanded from us public reparation for our sins, none of us "subsistam". Fr Feiffer aknowledged his mistake. That should be sufficient. To me the parable of the two debtors apply in this situation. Our Lord has forgiven me 10000 talents, I can forgive Fr. 100. This is not about forgiveness. I have forgiven Fr. Pfeiffer even though he spent a whole public conference attacking me. And I am not demanding public reparation as if I am Fr. Pfeiffer's superior. The public reparation will serve to show that he is sincere in his statement of apology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 12:52:16 GMT
IF such reparation were required, it would be assigned by Fr.' s superior. There isn't one in this case. The problem is that Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't have a superior. So unfortunately we have to take it upon ourselves to ask for that reparation as a sign of good will.
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Feb 13, 2019 16:23:02 GMT
"Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more." [John 8:11]
Is sending Fr. Poisson around to administer the sacraments when there still exists doubt to his orders, not a sin against the charism of SSPX and it's founder?
To say Fr. Pfeiffer does not have a superior is making the claim that OLMC is "sedevacantist" regarding any authority over him not just the pope.
" Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." (Romans 13:1)
To be consistent, should not Fr. Pfeiffer now repent of stating that Fr. Passoin should have been conditionally ordained before administering the Sacraments to the faithful. I just don't see how both facts can exist in the OLMC Rites? To me , it's either one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 13, 2019 16:30:18 GMT
"Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more." [John 8:11]
Is sending Fr. Passoin around to administer the sacraments when there still exists doubt to his orders, not a sin against the charism of SSPX and it's founder?
To say Fr. Pfeiffer does not have a superior is making the claim that OLMC is "sedevacantist" regarding any authority over him not just the pope.
" Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." (Romans 13:1)
I don't think its correct to assert that just because a priest is independent [in the context of this crisis in the wake of Vatican II] he is sedevacantist.
Sedevacantism is a distinct issue. There were/many independent priests without an uncompromising bishop over them who are trying to hold the Faith.
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 13, 2019 16:33:15 GMT
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? Because Fr. Pfeiffer needs to be accountable for his actions. If someone steals $10,000 from a bank, returning it and saying sorry is not sufficient. Reparation needs to be done. I explained why in my post. "In addition to denouncing Ambrose Moran, there should be some form of reparation made on the part of OLMC. First of all, to use Ambrose Moran for the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson is, objectively speaking, an act of sacrilege because there is not a moral certitude that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. And even if there was a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop, the same conditional ordination would still be morally reprehensible, if not also an act of sacrilege, because Ambrose Moran to this day refuses to publicly admit and repent of his public schismatic past. Secondly, OLMC has done much damage to the unity of the Resistance with this Ambrose Moran affair (and for the second time). Next to Bishop Williamson’s public statement about the moral acceptability of actively attending the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances, I would place the Ambrose Moran affair second, perhaps even a close second, in the detrimental effect it has had on the unity of the Resistance. Thirdly, Fr. Pfeiffer should not state that “this disassociation is final and not open for debate” if by this he means that he will no longer discuss the reasons for the sudden disassociation. After ramming Ambrose Moran down our throats, causing so much havoc, and criticizing those who provided opposition, elaborating on the “anomalies” seems to be a matter of justice." 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. What does this have to do with the Fr. Pfeiffer/Ambrose Moran case? For ease of viewing, your comments have been posted in quotes in red color. There is a flaw in your reasoning. The bank is always happy when they recover money. They are always unhappy when they do not recover money. You mention that 'reparation needs to be done' - so what does this 'needed reparation' entail? As regards your post on reparation, in Catholic Charity, it lacks details. This is a concern raised by you. What reparation is needed here? This is a concern raised by you. What reparation is needed here? This is a concern raised by you. What reparation is needed here? This is a concern raised by you. What reparation is needed here? This is a concern raised by you. What reparation is needed here? This is a concern raised by you. What reparation is needed here? In conclusion, what and where are the details of the public reparation, and what are the litany of demands that will fulfill this public reparation? In Catholic charity, let me elaborate - The inquiries about the Pope are essential because like Bp Moran, it matters if we believe that Pope Francis is a valid Bishop or not! If there are problems with the validity of a mere Bishop, isnt it necessary for us to examine the validity of the Bishop of Rome? Hence the question, i.e. 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 a Bishop and a 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. Lastly, you have not addressed my initial question. The responses from SAG and Initiation indicate that Fr. Hewko no longer believes in the episcopacy of Lefebvre! Since that causes all sorts of problems for Lefebvre's legacy, it is also necessary to find out with certitude if Fr. Hewko has publicly denied the episcopacy of both Bp. Moran and Abp. Lefebvre. And if he has not denied either of their episcopal orders, why hasn't the accusation of contradiction regarding the validity of Bp. Moran's episcopacy been applied to Fr. Hewko?
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 13, 2019 16:39:02 GMT
IF such reparation were required, it would be assigned by Fr.' s superior. There isn't one in this case. The problem is that Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't have a superior. So unfortunately we have to take it upon ourselves to ask for that reparation as a sign of good will. For ease of viewing, your comments have been posted in quotes in red color. In fairness, the call for public reparation has come from you, and has been supported by others on this forum. Thus you and those who support this public reparation effort should be able to explain what public reparation is needed here? Will the public recitation of 1 Our Father and 1 Hail Mary suffice? And who will give the absolution?
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Feb 13, 2019 16:48:32 GMT
If an independent priest says there is no authority over him existing in the Church today then he is either a sedevacantist or the pope. Fr.Pfeiffer is not a sedevacantist because he admits existing Church authority over him. What I am questioning is whether he is acting upon the fact.
I see nobody is willing to tackle the Fr. Poisson issue. Either it is an issue or it is not.
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 13, 2019 16:54:25 GMT
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.
For ease of viewing, your comments have been posted in quotes in red color. However if Archbishop Lefebvre had not stuck to the essentials and focused on the bumps in the road, we presume he would have gone exactly where his peers did. If his peers stuck to the essentials, would they have ended up where they did? It is very easy for any of us to fall, unless we cling to Our Lord and Our Lady, and stick to the essentials. Anyone who drives on a road, knows that bumps can be major or minor. A major bump can result in a crash, a minor bump can result in a jolt within the vehicle. Abp. Lefebvre's fight has not been trivialized, and neither has the fight from previous stalwarts such as St. Athanasius, St. John Fisher, St. Dominic, etc. Each one had a different bump, but they all stuck to the essentials, and clung to Our Lord and Our Lady. I am glad that we are in agreement that we both believe that Fr Pfeiffer is not in heresy. No one is advocating breaking canon law, but one could say that canon law can also be applied in a way akin to how false obedience was used to rope in Catholics post-Vatican II who fell into the Novus Ordo. Had Abp. Lefevbre stuck to Canon Law similar to other Vatican II council bishops like Abp. Sheen, Cardinal Ottaviani, etc. we would all have been pushed towards the Novus Ordo. With regards to Bp Moran being a Catholic or Orthodox Bishop, the interpretation of the 'overwhelming evidence' was interesting to unfold. Several pronouncements were made by a myriad of folks but none of these pronouncements were from Fr Pfeiffer or Fr Hewko. Since when have the laity been given Ecclesiastical authority to determine the status of a Priest, Bishop or the Pope?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 17:21:12 GMT
Littleflower, I don't know what reparation is precisely needed. I just know that an contradictory letter of apology is not sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Feb 13, 2019 18:06:54 GMT
As you also say and give example for it is imperative to cling to Our Lord and Our Lady. Back in October Fr. Hewko asked for the faithful to unite our prayers with his asking Our Lady for a crystal clear understanding, without a shadow of doubt concerning Moran, to know if he was sent from heaven. I trust Our heavenly Mother and believe she did answer our prayers "without a shadow of a doubt", (words of warning from ABL to stay away from that which is doubtful) that no way was that man sent from heaven. With all the information that came forward after the Rosary novena and with Fr. Hewko publicly saying: As far as sacramentally and episcopal powers and all that it's too much doubt, too much confusion. WE STAY AWAY. PERIOD! IT'S OVER! New chapter, new page. Deo gratias!
Are you denying that Fr. Hewko's has made an announcement? Are you in denial?
|
|
|
Post by littleflower on Feb 13, 2019 18:56:05 GMT
Littleflower, I don't know what reparation is precisely needed. I just know that an contradictory letter of apology is not sufficient. In fairness, you are contradicting yourself. One the one hand you are demanding public reparation and now you say "I don't know what reparation is precisely needed"?
|
|