|
Post by stpaul on Feb 7, 2019 0:22:37 GMT
Ruthy, You are mixing up the sermon of Ambrose/Moran and the intention of the rite of ordination Moran talks about concerning ABL. Moran is trying to imply it is the intention in that case.
However concerning Fr. Poisson as explained by Fr. Pfeiffer since April, Fr. Poisson's issue is not the intention it is the form. That's why Fr. Poisson did not say public Masses
when he first went to OLMC in 2018. He was waiting to be conditionally ordained.
You certainly can refer the question to Fr. Pfeiffer if you need further clarification.
So, in Fr. Pfeiffer's explanation, Fr. Poisson was not legitimate because he was ordained by the fraternity of st. Peter but he is now legitimate because he was conditionally ordained by Moran. Did I get that right? And now Fr. Pfeiffer says Moran's legitimacy is questionable. I have a few questions: - Where does that leave Fr. Poisson? - Will all the "sacraments" Fr. Poison administered have to be re-administered? - Why is Fr. Poisson still on circuit since Fr. Pfeiffer said Moran is questionable? - Why is Moran still saying "mass" for Fr. Pfeiffer faithful in Ohio? - What are Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko going to do with the "holy oils" they received from Moran? - Will Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko have to re-administer all the sacraments they administered using those oils?
|
|
|
Post by Initiation on Feb 7, 2019 21:08:36 GMT
Mr. Pablo Hernandez and Ambrose Moran
Posted by Tony La Rosa In the video below, Ambrose Moran shows his ignorance of both sacramental theology and the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in doubting the episcopal consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre. My question at this point is whether Mr. Pablo Hernandez, who has promoted this fraud and liar, will publicly apologize for such promotion and for the denigration of those who have opposed Ambrose Moran. After all, Ambrose Moran has now publicly attacked the modern day St. Athanasius of the Catholic Resistance and the very priests that Mr. Hernandez works with. What say you, Mr. Hernandez?
|
|
|
Post by Initiation on Feb 12, 2019 1:59:39 GMT
From Fr. Hewko, gratefully reprinted here with his permission:
For anyone who may not have seen this or who has forgotten about what Father Hewko has said about Moran after the sermon he did where he spoke unfavourably about Abp. Lefebvre. Note how he does not use "bishop" before Moran in the first line but says Abp. Lefebvre.
Moran's statements throw a cloud of darkness on all of Abp. Lefebvre's work for the survival of the Holy Faith & defense of Christ the King. It is insidious.
Let us judge by the words of the Sacred Heart.
Moran or Lefebvre?
(Moran) One: confusion, division, lying, fraud, arrests, doubtful documents, fake photos, unrest, promotion of self, etc.
(Archbishop Lefebvre) The other: flourishing of the Faith, orphanages, hospitals, schools, priests, seminaries, Africa converted, fidelity to Tradition, reflourishing of Tradition after Vatican II, growth, large families, vocations, humility, love of God, certainty, clarity, Truth, peace of Christ, Mary honored and loved, etc....
"By their fruits you shall know them."
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Feb 12, 2019 18:29:45 GMT
It appears to me that Fr. Hewko in his pubic condemnation of Ambrose Moran also , in a way, submits a fraternal correction to Fr. Pfeiffer.
One would expect the nature of the facts would dictate an even stronger public condemnation, if not equal to, of Ambrose Moran from Fr. Pfeiffer.
Am I uncharitable or outside of personal Catholic duty by these questions/statements?
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Mar 3, 2019 14:19:43 GMT
One would expect the nature of the facts would dictate an even stronger public condemnation, if not equal to, of Ambrose Moran from Fr. Pfeiffer. Yes indeed. Moran gives a conference trashing Archbishop Lefebvre. And the response from Fr Pfeiffer? Silence. In fact no, not silence, worse than silence. He gave a sermon the folowing Sunday condemning "babblers" and comparing Moran to the prodigal son. Imagine for one moment that Bishop Fellay had given a sermon or conference trashing Archbishop Lefebvre. Imagine if Bishop Williamson had done so in public. They would have been condemned and contradicted loudly and at length by all of us, Fr Pfeiffer included, and rightly so. But Moran gives his usual self-aggrandising spiel and dredges-up the long debunked Lienart thesis, and what is the response from Fr Pfeiffer? No condemnation or contradiction at all. If anything, a quasi-defence of Moran, together with a veiled condemnation of those who had dared to complain. Now, in his defence Fr. Pfeiffer might consider that since this happened after his having disassociated from Moran, therefore no response is required from him. After all, he is not his brother's keeper, why should he be answerable for whatever nonsense Moran chooses to say? I haven't actually heard that argument being made anywhere, it just seems to me to be the only possible defence for Fr Pfeiffer's disgraceful non- response to Moran. But it seems to me that that argument is rather a difficult one to make. Because whether he likes it or not, Fr Pfeiffer is associated in everyone's mind with whatever Moran says and does, and for a good reason too. Fr. Pfeiffer connected himself to Moran over the past six months. He gave a public conference in November attempting to defend Moran and vouch for him and "sell" him to us, as it were. He has been privately promoting him to the faithful all over the place during November, December and January. In February he suddenly tells everyone that he's not working with Moran due to some obscure reason involving one particular document which hadn't been produced, an excuse which even I don't claim to understand (does anyone?). But what is noticeable is that even then he said nothing regarding Moran's claims or character or standing in the Church which would contradict his previous favourable judgement. Finally, it was a family who are supposedly Fr. Pfeiffer's faithful who filmed and uploaded Moran's sermon that day. So it seems to me that the "I don't know anything about this, it's nothing to do with me" defence is not a very sound one. It is something to do with him, and he ought reasonably to expect that, given the circumstances, everyone would look for his response. So again: Bishop Fellay or Bishop Williamson or Pope Francis wouldn't have got away with this sort of public trash-talking of Abp. Lefebvre in this way. But Moran does. And Fr. Pfeiffer's favourable judgement of Moran's character still stands. Where are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre? As far as I am aware, only Fr Hewko defended the founder's honour on this occasion.
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Mar 3, 2019 16:34:17 GMT
Here is, as far as I know, the only response of Fr Pfeiffer to Moran trashing Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Vain babblers, given over to Satan." "Vain babblers are on the internet." "Vain babblers, who are always looking for something wrong." "Vain babblers, always looking for evil. And they do not have as their purpose Charity."
[20:45] "Some parishioners mentioned it to me very recently. It is rather like we now see a new spirit, a wicked spirit amongst our people that unfortunately is around. What would happen when the prodigal son returns, today, amongst our Traditional Catholics? When the prodial son returns and they find that he has come, they will say: 'What is the father going to do to him? How many years of prison is he going to give him, how many lashes is he going to give him? What kind of punishment is he going to do? Is he going to make the prodigal son stand up and say: I'm sorry for wasting all my father's money, I'm sorry for all the wicked things I've done..? Is he goimg to make him bow in the dirt, is he going to put him in prison? What is the punishment?'
And the word spreads amongst the servants: Here comes back that wicked son! The father must throw him in prison! The father must beat him! The father must punish him! The father must curse him! Let's all line up. I'm scandalised! I can't believe it! What kind of father is this?! The father is having a feast! The father is killing the fatted calf! ... Is this the spirit of Christ? It is vain babbling. It is they who speak words which they do not know, they do not know at all. Hence this wickedness has entered deep into our hearts. And there must be a warning. There must be a warning.
Why are we looking for evil everywhere? Why are we looking for wickedness everywhere? Why are we looking for punishment everywhere? Can there not be forgiveness? Can there not be forgivrness of the wicked sinner? What does the Father do, the priest of God? [22:45]
He's supposed to go where the sinner is. And what does he tell the sinner? As Our Lord Jesus Christ told St Margaret Msry Alacoque: 'You bring me your sins, you bring me your wickedness, amd I will give you blessings.' This is the way it is with Christ. ... [23:45] What are we supposed to do if we are the followers of Christ? What does the gospel mean to us? Therefore Our Lord Jesus Christ says through St. Paul to Timothy, 'Timothy, tell the people: don't listen to vain babblers.'
The vain babbling. Our recent vain babbling, for instance, everybody is interested in the evils of bishop Ambrose and the evils of Paul the Mexican and the evils of Fr. Pfeiffer and the evils of bishop Fellay and the mockery of the Ecclasia Dei commission. ..."
[Remember also that Moran used the Sunday sermon to "excommunicate" two faithful of the Resistance by name. He does it more than once. And he declared that "anyone associated with" either of these two men was also outside the Church. How did Fr. Pfeiffer respond to this? Remember that these two men had both been his own faithful who assisted at his Masses previously. Alas, no response at all. No response, that is, unless you take the following, from further on in Fr Pfeiffer's same sermon about Ambrose and the prodigal son etc, to be somehow a response:]
[28:35] As one of the things I must do in preaching the gospel, I must condemn enemies by name, like St Paul does in Timothy chapter 1, mentioning Alexander and Hymenaeos, and he condemns them by name, two of them, at the very end.
But what is his purpose? He says: 'I am condemning them by name that they might learn I've given them over to Satan.' Not that tbey will go to hell, because hopefully they will repent. I have given them over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme.
Here the Church tells us: what is the purpose of excommunication? What is the purpose of suslension amd the punishments of the Church? These are called medicinal penalties. The purpose of them is to cure the soul. That's why Mommies and Daddies give their kids spankings, it's a curimg technique. When you give your kid a spanking its so that he will learn not to do evil and he will correct and ammend his ways he will turn to the love of God. Which is why Sacred Scripture says: 'The father who does not chastise his son, despises him.' And yet: 'Provoke not thy son to wrath,' therefore don't beat him too much. Don't drive him away from God too much. [29:50]
But there must be some chastisement of the son. And yes there are excommunications in the Church and there are suspensions in the Church. There are times of punishment in the Church. There are times where we must condemn others by name. When Our Lord condemned the Pharisees and the Saducees is was so that they might repent. ... Why Did He take a whip amd knock over the tables of the money-changers? So that they would repent. Because with some of them, kimd words would not work. [30:40] Therefore Timothy, says St Paul, you preach the Gospel - the end of the commandment of preaching the gospel is Charity from a pure conscience. It is in order that the Faith might grow. Tell the souls that are entrusted to you: do not follow vain babbling.
Don't follow vain babbling. The great danger of lay theologians on the internet, the great danger of all the experts typing in their words, "My thoughts about bishop Fellay." "My thoughts about Pope Francis..." - We're interested in the thoughts of Christ. ... [31:45] But beware of vain babbling. Beware of mockery. Beware of wickedness and evil. Everyone wants to know the latest scandal, the latest mockery. These things are most serious offences against God. They are not the gospel of peace. They are not the gospel of peace. ... [33:50] Let us remain faithful to the love of God, remain faithful to the holy truth of the Church, and not fall into the traps of always looking for wickedness, pointing out evil everywhere, but rather follow the Gospel. ...
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Mar 3, 2019 16:54:43 GMT
As I say, it is veiled and could be taken in more than one way. But I suspect that more than one or two people here on "The Catacombs" are meant to recognise themselves in those words.
If you say anything other than nice things about Moran, then you're someone who is "always looking for wickedness".
If you see a danger and raise the alarm, then you are "always pointing out evil everywhere."
If you are scandalised by Moran, then you're like the people scandalised at the Father welcoming back the prodigal son.
Why do I suddenly get such a strong sense of deja-vu? Why am I reminded of all those sermons of loyal SSPX priests back in 2012 and 2013? Where have we heard all this sort of thing before?
If people resort to the internet, if they resort to "lay theoligians" (meaning, any layman who has anything to say about anything touching on the crisis in the Church) if they're "looking for wickedness" or for those who "point out evil everywhere," then that might be because they're just evil and have no other motive than wickedness. On the other hand, it might just possibly be because they are genuinely worried and concerned, because they get no straight answers, are starved of real information, are hearing nothing but rumours and are left with the general suspicion that something is being hidden from them. And if they do hear from the priest, as likely as not all they'll hear is pure clericalism: I'm the priest, you're only laity, you need to trust me and be obedient, etc. etc.
That was a nonsense argument in 2012 and it's still a nonsense argument today.
|
|
|
Post by therecusant on Mar 3, 2019 18:23:04 GMT
Here is the latest from His Royal Highness, His Beatitude Metropolitan-Archbishop-Coadjutor and the last authority on earth, from last Sunday, uploaded 6 days ago. How's this for "vain babbling""..?
The sermon begins at 7:27
So Archbishop Lefebvre was a very holy man, he just wasn't an Archbishop, wasn't even a priest in fact.
He then goes on to compare himself to St. Paul, due to the fact (he calls himself "we") has been attacked many times, etc. just like St. Paul.
The rest of the sermon is much the same as before: blah blah, Satanists, Freemasons, Luciferians, blah blah, everything is invalid except me, blah blah, everyone is controlled by Freemasons except me, etc, etc.
Around 19:40 he introduces what I think is a pure novelty, certainly I've never heard it anywhere before: the idea that someone being ordained can have "a defect of intention in receiving the sacrament" (he uses the example of an infiltrator, on the day of his own ordination to the priesthood, not having the right intention in receiving the priesthood, because he only wants to become a priest so as to destroy the Church: "So he may not be a valid priest."). Can anyone confirm that this idea is nonsense, that the validity of priestly ordination depends on the motive of the person getting ordained? I'd stake my life on it that this is pure, utter rubbish. It feels almost Donatist to me. It just shows, even more, what sort of man we're dealing with here.
|
|
|
Post by pacelli on Mar 3, 2019 19:24:12 GMT
Recusant wrote: Pope Leo XIII taught on this very matter of intention: The matter is clear that so long as the Catholic rite is used, validity must be presumed. I would urge you and any other who wants to do further research on this to go to these excellent sources, which address and thoroughly debunk this error against the validity of the orders of Archbishop Lefebvre. “The Validity of the Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre,” taken from Michael Davies an Evaluation, Daly, John S., 1989, pages 316-408. Linked HERECracks in the Masonry, Coomaraswamy, Rama P., 1982. Linked HERECardinal Lienart and the Intention to do What the Church Does? Conlon, Christopher, 2014. Linked HERE
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 4, 2019 3:06:23 GMT
Moran gives a conference trashing Archbishop Lefebvre. And the response from Fr Pfeiffer? Silence.
In fact no, not silence, worse than silence. He gave a sermon the folowing Sunday condemning "babblers" and comparing Moran to the prodigal son. This is because Fr. Pfeiffer is not really done with Moran. Fr. Pfeiffer still teaches those under his and Mr. Hernandez' spell that Moran is a legitimate archbishop and that Fr. Hewko is committing sin in leaving OLMC. Mark my words: Moran will conditionally ordain and then consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer in the not too distant future.
|
|
foggy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by foggy on Mar 4, 2019 9:17:06 GMT
Moran says things that OTHERS also say. Yet, he has used the facilities of Fr Pfeiffer who is now doubted? Wasn't Moran asked to work in the wings after he approached Lefebvre - should he have raised his objections then, and loudly? What about Lefebvre's co-consecrator? What about the fudged photographs? etc Can someone with skill and wit please unpack this talk?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2019 10:43:31 GMT
Moran gives a conference trashing Archbishop Lefebvre. And the response from Fr Pfeiffer? Silence.
In fact no, not silence, worse than silence. He gave a sermon the folowing Sunday condemning "babblers" and comparing Moran to the prodigal son. This is because Fr. Pfeiffer is not really done with Moran. Fr. Pfeiffer still teaches those under his and Mr. Hernandez' spell that Moran is a legitimate archbishop and that Fr. Hewko is committing sin in leaving OLMC. Mark my words: Moran will conditionally ordain and then consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer in the not too distant future.
St. Paul,
Please be careful in the choice of your words, particularly regarding people 'under the spell' of others. This is uncharitable and unnecessary to make your points.
I have heard some of the rumors you attribute to Fr. Pfeiffer [particularly that Moran is legitimate and Fr. Hewko is in error leaving OLMC] from several sources so I'm letting it go for now, but otherwise, try to not attribute to a person something if you do not have a direct quote from them. This keeps things from getting distorted and taken out of context.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2019 11:14:09 GMT
Moran says things that OTHERS also say. Yet, he has used the facilities of Fr Pfeiffer who is now doubted? Wasn't Moran asked to work in the wings after he approached Lefebvre - should he have raised his objections then, and loudly? What about Lefebvre's co-consecrator? What about the fudged photographs? etc Can someone with skill and wit please unpack this talk? Foggy, welcome to The Catacombs!
Speaking to your points, sadly, the narrative has changed many times from both Moran and OLMC over the last several months.
In the past Moran has praised Archbishop Lefebvre, supposedly asked to work with him, etc. Now that Fr. Hewko has warned the faithful to stay away from Moran for his doubtful orders, Moran is in attack mode, slashing at all things SSPX/Archbishop Lefebvre.
As TheRecusant mentions, the OLMC narrative went from Moran is a Catholic bishop to 'well, we have no proof he is a Catholic bishop but we must take a man at his word', to he is a valid [Orthodox] bishop and because we are in a state of emergency, we are allowed to use him despite the laws of the Church that state the contrary, despite the warnings of Archbishop Lefebvre to avoid doubtful things, to beware of false shepherds.
It is difficult and tortuous to unravel all the twists and turns this saga has taken. There are a plethora of threads on this site that speak to some of the issues. At this time, we can only recommend that the posts here be reviewed, particularly The Recusant's study and the archives on the Ecclesia Militans site. But finally, to think as the Catholic Church thinks on this, to know how to understand the issue from an ecclesiastical perspective, please see Fr. Hewko's brief statement, here, that we are not allowed to take: Really, in summation, all we can say with certainty and with charity is that Moran's situation is enshrouded in doubt - we must stay away. Not out of a position of arrogance but out of an abundance of caution and prudence, to not entrust the things of God [the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, etc] to doubtful persons. We should all be praying for all the persons involved, Ambrose Moran especially.
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 4, 2019 15:41:37 GMT
This is because Fr. Pfeiffer is not really done with Moran. Fr. Pfeiffer still teaches those under his and Mr. Hernandez' spell that Moran is a legitimate archbishop and that Fr. Hewko is committing sin in leaving OLMC. Mark my words: Moran will conditionally ordain and then consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer in the not too distant future.
St. Paul,
Please be careful in the choice of your words, particularly regarding people 'under the spell' of others. This is uncharitable and unnecessary to make your points.
I have heard some of the rumors you attribute to Fr. Pfeiffer [particularly that Moran is legitimate and Fr. Hewko is in error leaving OLMC] from several sources so I'm letting it go for now, but otherwise, try to not attribute to a person something if you do not have a direct quote from them. This keeps things from getting distorted and taken out of context.
God bless.
Not rumors, nothing uncharitable. Regarding Fr. Pfeiffer teaching that Moran is legitimate, from Fr. Pfeiffer's own hand: Regarding Fr. Pfeiffer teaching that Fr. Hewko is in error in leaving OLMC, again from Fr. Pfeiffer's own hand: Regarding Mr. Hernandez being a "lay exorcist", from Mr. Hernandez' own mouth (Laity are not supposed to do exorcisms, as we are not trained and will usually get possessed.): www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-devil-and-mr-hernandez-6418725I assumed you had seen these already.
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 4, 2019 15:45:59 GMT
"We should all be praying for all the persons involved, Ambrose Moran especially." --- Just a side note... In calling Moran "Ambrose Moran", you tacitly approve of and accept him as a bishop, for that is the name he took when he was supposedly consecrated. I suspect this is why Fr. Hewko calls him only "Moran". His real name is William Moran.
|
|