|
Post by peterd on Mar 4, 2019 16:14:51 GMT
In the spirit of our founder, the prophet for our times who showed himself to be a leader and savior of the remnant Church in word and deed, what are we if we fail to carry this spirit in the name of Our Lady destroyer of heresies and Queen of Prophets?
"When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand." [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 33:8]
Are we even to be saved ourselves if we can't recognize and hold forth the living word of the prophets and priests of the remnant faithful in these times?
Has Our Lords Church been killed? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2019 16:54:12 GMT
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.
In Fr. Pfeiffer's statement, he does not attribute legitimacy to Moran. He only states Moran is valid.
For many, myself included, Moran's validity too is up for debate - particularly in light of the 1975 letter warning Catholics away from the same 'bishop,' Nicholaus Ilnyckyj who supposedly ordained Moran, stating this Ilnyckyj is not considered anything other than a laymen by the Orthodox.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume Moran is a valid [Orthodox?] bishop. This does not mean Moran is licit. A Catholic cannot approach any illict member of the clergy for sacraments except at the point of death and then, only for confession and/or extreme unction.
And again, this only applies if we know for certain someone is at least valid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 17:28:30 GMT
If Ambrose Moran has ordinary jurisdiction from the pope, then so do I.
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 4, 2019 19:39:10 GMT
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.
In Fr. Pfeiffer's statement, he does not attribute legitimacy to Moran. He only states Moran is valid.
For many, myself included, Moran's validity too is up for debate - particularly in light of the 1975 letter warning Catholics away from the same 'bishop,' Nicholaus Ilnyckyj who supposedly ordained Moran, stating this Ilnyckyj is not considered anything other than a laymen by the Orthodox.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume Moran is a valid [Orthodox?] bishop. This does not mean Moran is licit. A Catholic cannot approach any illict member of the clergy for sacraments except at the point of death and then, only for confession and/or extreme unction.
And again, this only applies if we know for certain someone is at least valid.
Fr. Pfeiffer calls Moran a "valid bishop" and refers to him as "Archbishop Ambrose Moran". We, the CATHOLIC laity, to whom Fr. Pfeiffer speaks, must assume this to mean Fr. Pfeiffer considers Moran a valid CATHOLIC bishop. Moran is neither a valid CATHOLIC bishop nor a legitimate CATHOLIC bishop. What is questionable is whether or not he is a valid or legitimate ORTHODOX bishop or priest. If i were in danger of death, i would approach a NO clergy for those sacraments before approaching Moran. At least they MIGHT be valid and legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 4, 2019 22:24:46 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. Interestingly... Moran says, "Remove yourselves from Tony La Rosa, from Greg Taylor, and concerning the negative comments of Fr. Hewko..." He does not mention Fr. Pfeiffer, even though Fr. Pfeiffer publicly questioned Moran's Catholic lineage and said OLMC will not be utilizing the services of Moran. This begs the question: Why didn't Moran include Fr. Pfeiffer in the quote above? The most obvious reason is because the bond between them is not yet broken and they are still working together behind the backs of the laity, as they did between 2015 and 2018. Remember, Mr. Hernandez is still a very strong supporter of Moran. Moran has also said SSPX ordinations and consecrations are "highly invalid". Fr. Pfeiffer clearly considers the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson by Moran to be legitimate, and calls Moran "Archbishop Ambrose". Has Fr. Pfeiffer submitted himself for conditional ordination by Moran in secret, as he arranged for Fr. Poisson?
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 4, 2019 22:36:11 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. ... "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." Clearly Fr. Pfeiffer supports the "excommunications" by Moran.
|
|
foggy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by foggy on Mar 5, 2019 13:53:13 GMT
Again, did not Abp Lefebvre allegedly ask Moran to work in the wings and what about Abp L's co-consecrator?
|
|
foggy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by foggy on Mar 5, 2019 14:00:56 GMT
So there are infiltrators everywhere, except Moran of course.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2019 14:08:53 GMT
Again, did not Abp Lefebvre allegedly ask Moran to work in the wings and what about Abp L's co-consecrator? Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre supposedly asking Moran to 'work in the wings' ... I don't recall all the details of this allegation but I vaguely recall we only have Moran's word on the subject. Recall too the 2015 interviews with Moran were scrubbed off 469 Fitter in the late summer of 2018, so we have no way to reference this claim.
I'm not sure Foggy, what exactly is your question about the co-consecrators of the Archbishop. Perhaps this article will help: thecatacombs.org/thread/1779/cardinal-leinhart-archbishop-lefebvre
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2019 13:25:55 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. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]
It appears that Fr. Pfeiffer has finally addressed, somewhat, the false accusations against the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders.
He recently gave a catechism, New Ordination rite intention Catechism, on March 2, 2019 that briefly addressed Moran's accusations. You will find a transcription and the link for this catechism here: New Ordination rite intention Catechism - F....pdf (140.5 KB) Many thanks to Initiation, for all the work that went into the transcribing! The beginning of the catechism is mostly a general review of the Sacraments and what is necessary for their validity.
Towards the middle to end of the catechism, Father Pfeiffer begins to address the recent repeated attacks on the validity of the orders of Archbishop Lefebvre. Recall that these attacks come in the form of sermons posted on Ambrose Moran's you tube channel for the last three or four Sundays. Moran picks up the old argument that supposedly Cardinal Liénart [the ordaining and consecrating bishop of Archbishop Lefebvre] admitted on his deathbed that he was a Freemason. And because of his alleged Freemasonry, Moran argues Liénart must have withheld the Church's intention to validly ordain and consecrate priests and bishops.
As The Recusant noted above, this thesis concerning Liénart has long been debunked [found here]. It was first refuted by Fr. Laudenschlager as early as 1978, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher also in 1978, and recently by Fr. Hewko by at least February 16th of this year. These accusations have never been taken seriously and as Fr. Pulvermacher noted, they always spring up in the context of a personal attack on the Archbishop and his work rather than on Cardinal Liénart and freemasonry.
In this catechism, Fr. Pfeiffer does address the false accusations against the Archbishop though there is zero mention of Moran's name:
Once again, we see a bewildering absence of any mention of Moran's name as the one regurgitating these false accusations.
So why the new change from Fr. Pfeiffer? Why is Moran's name again not mentioned as the originator of these new attacks against our beloved Archbishop Lefebvre. We all know that any other bishop or priest [Fellay, Williamson, etc] who deviated or compromised the stance of the Archbishop was loudly and soundly denounced.
It leaves one to draw the conclusion that perhaps this disassociation from Ambrose Moran is not "final". If it was final, then there would be no problem referring to Moran by name. Bp. Fellay's name was repeatedly mentioned by Fr. Pfeiffer after 2012. Bp. Williamson's name was repeatedly mentioned since 2015. If this disassociation was sincere, why the hesitancy? Why the appearance of a double standard? Perhaps indeed the disassociation is not final. Perhaps this is why in Moran's sermon from this past Sunday [March 3, 2019], after once again loudly denouncing the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre and all things SSPX, Moran states at the end despite all his concerns about validity, he is willing to work with OLMC! What happened to all his concerns about the validity of SSPX priests? One hardly knows what to believe. If I recall correctly, Moran had no issues with SSPX priests [publicly] until Fr. Hewko publicly expressed concerns about Moran's validity and legitimacy.
Attacks on the Archbishop Lefebvre are a direct attack on those great shoulders that defended the Faith and Tradition when almost no other bishop would. He deserves to be vigorously defended against such pernicious attacks and accusations. To hear such a watered-down defense of him is heartbreaking, especially from one who received his own priestly orders from the Archbishop's line.
Let us keep these souls in our prayers. How much confusion is being sown!
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Mar 8, 2019 14:31:27 GMT
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because angers looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." Saint Thomas Aquinas
|
|
|
Post by stpaul on Mar 8, 2019 15:04:10 GMT
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. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]
It appears that Fr. Pfeiffer has finally addressed, somewhat, the false accusations against the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders.
He recently gave a catechism, New Ordination rite intention Catechism -
You will find a transcription of this catechism here: View AttachmentMany thanks to the Catacombs member, Initiation, for all the work that went into the transcribing! Father starts out by stating the purpose of the catechism:
The majority of the catechism does indeed address the Sacraments, with a focus on the form, matter, and intention.
But then, there is a shift. Father Pfeiffer begins to address the recent repeated attacks of Ambrose Moran's on the validity of the orders of Archbishop Lefebvre. Recall that these attacks come in the form of sermons posted on Moran's you tube channel for the last three or four Sundays. These accusations call into question the validity of the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre by Cardinal Liénart. Moran picks up the old argument that supposedly Liénart admitted on his deathbed that he was a Freemason. And because of his alleged Freemasonry, he must have withheld the Church's intention to validly ordain and consecrate priests and bishops.
As The Recusant noted above, this thesis concerning Liénart has long been debunked, here. It was firstly refuted by Fr. Laudenschlager as early as 1978, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher also in 1978, and recently by Fr. Hewko by at least February 16th of this year. These accusations have never been taken seriously and as Fr. Pulvermacher first noted, they always spring up in the context of a personal attack on the Archbishop and his work rather than on Cardinal Liénart and freemasonry.
In Fr. Pfeiffer's catechism, he does address the false accusations against the Archbishop: But once again, what is bewildering about these words is the complete absence of any mention of Moran's name as the one regurgitating these false accusations. As The Recusant notes there was a similar disparity in a previous sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer's after these accusations of Moran's were first aired:
So why the new change from Fr. Pfeiffer? Why is Moran's name again not mentioned as the originator of these new attacks against our beloved Archbishop Lefebvre. We all know that any other bishop or priest [Fellay, Williamson, etc] who deviated or compromised the stance of the Archbishop was loudly and soundly denounced.
It leaves one to draw the conclusion that perhaps this disassociation from Ambrose Moran is not "final". If it was final, then there would be no problem referring to Moran by name. Bp. Fellay's name was repeatedly mentioned by Fr. Pfeiffer after 2012. Bp. Williamson's name was repeatedly mentioned since 2015. If this disassociation was sincere, why the hesitancy? Why the appearance of a double standard? Perhaps indeed the disassociation is not final. Perhaps this is why in Moran's sermon from this past Sunday [March 3, 2019], after once again loudly denouncing the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre and all things SSPX, Moran states at the end despite all his concerns about validity, he is willing to work with OLMC! What happened to all his concerns about the validity of SSPX priests? One hardly knows what to believe. If I recall correctly, Moran had no issues with SSPX priests [publicly] until Fr. Hewko publicly expressed concerns about Moran's validity and legitimacy.
Attacks on the Archbishop Lefebvre are a direct attack on those great shoulders that defended the Faith and Tradition when almost no other bishop would. He deserves to be vigorously defended against such pernicious attacks and accusations. To hear such a watered-down defense of him is heartbreaking, especially from one who received his own priestly orders from the Archbishop's line.
Let us keep these souls in our prayers. How much confusion is being sown!
Maybe, and this is only speculation as you have done, just maybe Moran is willing to work with OLMC for two reasons: 1. Financial. OLMC always seems to have money. 2. Moran will conditionally ordain Fr. Pfeiffer, if he hasn't done so already in secret, as he did with Fr. Poisson.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2019 15:18:42 GMT
I cannot imagine a scenario where Fr. Pfeiffer would submit to a reordination. It would be a mortal sin to repeat the sacrament of Holy Orders without cause. And Fr. Pfeiffer states he doesn't believe Moran's accusations against the Archbishop's validity, thanks be to God.
|
|
|
Post by QMaryLArmy on Sept 29, 2019 1:52:13 GMT
'Thou shaft not bear false witness... Sometimes, the truth that you tell them is your view and it's not the truth, but if you tell them in love, they realize that you are being kind to them." As they say, the Devil is in the detail and he's the father of lies!
|
|