|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2019 11:31:28 GMT
Can you elaborate? We know PDFs can be altered with specific software but a PDF was not what was forwarded and circulated.
Correct, the link provided is not a pdf. It opens in Word, which can be altered. I have not seen the original, so I have no clue if it has been altered or not. Mmmm. I think, Ruthy, you've actually made my point. In providing a link, just like any other link to a website, it allows for cross-checking of the posted material.
If all that was provided was a Word document then one could argue against the integrity of the document. But that was not done here. The link was provided in an effort to show the integrity of what was cut and pasted. Does that make sense? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 11:50:36 GMT
I have a question: Why did Fr. Pfeiffer have Ambrose Moran conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson? People persistently report that OLMC continues to claim that Moran is a valid bishop but that sadly he lacks the appropriate paperwork to allow him to assist OLMC in an episcopal capacity. This is nothing new as these were Fr. Pfeiffer's comments in his 'disassociation' from Moran earlier this year. Fr. Pfeiffer has repeatedly claimed that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. Father had him conditionally ordain Ambrose Moran. Father, therefore, had a doubt about the ordination of Fr. Poisson by a bishop consecrated in the Novus Ordo Rite. Why then is so much effort being put by OLMC or OLMC's defenders in proving the validity of Fr. Poisson's ordination by a bishop consecrated in the Novus Ordo Rite? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 11:57:09 GMT
And why was Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained if OLMC focuses on validity only. Agnes, I have little doubt that if Bishop Fellay offered to ordain the OLMC seminarians, but without changing his position as it stands now, Fr. Pfeiffer would take him up on that offer. Fr. Pfeiffer has deviated from the true Resistance stance which is that we cannot unite in worship with those professing doctrinal errors. Fr. Hewko also was following this path, but by the grace of God got back on track. Fr. Hewko leaving OLMC has been such a blessing. The OLMC environment was slow working poison. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2019 12:05:49 GMT
People persistently report that OLMC continues to claim that Moran is a valid bishop but that sadly he lacks the appropriate paperwork to allow him to assist OLMC in an episcopal capacity. This is nothing new as these were Fr. Pfeiffer's comments in his 'disassociation' from Moran earlier this year.
But just how seriously OLMC is steering their laity away from Moran is belied by the reported Confirmations by Moran of OLMC parishioners.
But the true height of the irony about this situation is that despite OLMC being kind enough to allow for Moran's validity, Moran does not return the favor. He continues to denounce all SSPX priests and bishops, beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre, as not being bishops or priests at all, claiming that they are all invalid, which of course would include Fr. Pfeiffer. These are Moran's public words, readily available for all to hear on his YouTube channel.
All we can do is continue to pray for all involved, starting with OLMC and Moran.
Just because "parishioners" being confirmed by Ambrose, doesn't mean Fr. Pfeiffer has anything to do with that or that he is encouraging it. Do you know for fact, that Fr. Pfeiffer is involved with what people who attend his missions are doing. A lot of people do things without the priests knowledge of what they are doing.
Once again, Ruthy, I think you've made my point. It may not necessarily matter if the parishioners had direct encouragement from OLMC/Fr. Pfeiffer. If your priest keeps telling you that a bishop or a priest is valid, valid, valid, and you keep hearing this for months, and you keep reading papers, hearing conferences, and listening to arguments from that priest(s) in favor of the validity of a certain bishop or priest (validity only, not legitimacy or licitness) then one slowly begins to think that validity is indeed enough. But we know, as the SSPX once did too, that Validity is not Enough!.
Have we not seen this over and over and over, ad nauseam, from the SSPX and their continued involvement with the modernist clergy? Have they not desensitized so many SSPX laity into thinking a reconciliation between the SSPX and Modernist Rome is a noble goal except for a few missing details? Are we not seeing the beginning fruits of people thinking Moran is acceptable to approach for sacraments?
The degree of direct involvement by Fr. Pfeiffer in having his parishioners confirmed by Moran is not well known. They may have easily done so without his knowledge or consent. Though this seems unlikely, that such a big step would be taken in secret and behind his back, without having first sought his advice and counsel.
But even if he had zero knowledge until after the fact about this confirmations, did he (or any other priest at OLMC) afterwards publicly warn other parishioners against going to Moran for confirmations or other sacraments in the future? No, he did not. No one at OLMC did this. This same family continues to be coordinators for one of the OLMC missions. It has been over a month since these confirmations and all we hear are crickets.
And we all know silence is implied consent. Is this not the same implied consent through silence that many of the false Resistance bishops and priests tacitly agree with Bp. Williamson's 'grace in the New Mass'? Are there two standards we are judging things by now?
Fr. Ruiz's words from nearly a year ago speaks well to the dangers of any involvement with Moran - he kindly pleads with Fr. Pfeiffer to have nothing to do with Moran. (Fr. Hewko has done the same, all the priest-friends of OLMC have done the same.):
|
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 8, 2019 12:30:51 GMT
Interesting the document has been removed. = link
Is somebody embarrassed by it now? |
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Jul 8, 2019 15:41:29 GMT
People persistently report that OLMC continues to claim that Moran is a valid bishop but that sadly he lacks the appropriate paperwork to allow him to assist OLMC in an episcopal capacity. This is nothing new as these were Fr. Pfeiffer's comments in his 'disassociation' from Moran earlier this year. Fr. Pfeiffer has repeatedly claimed that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. Father had him conditionally ordain Ambrose Moran. Father, therefore, had a doubt about the ordination of Fr. Poisson by a bishop consecrated in the Novus Ordo Rite. Why then is so much effort being put by OLMC or OLMC's defenders in proving the validity of Fr. Poisson's ordination by a bishop consecrated in the Novus Ordo Rite?
Ah, that's the ticket! If Fr. Pfeiffer (pre-Moran) knew Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained, why doesn't that same priest need to be reordained now? Why the change? Further, isn't it ultimately the decision of a (traditional Catholic) bishop to decides and who has the authority to decide who requires reordination and who doesn't?
And if there is no traditional Catholic bishop available to assist in such a decision, is it not better to err on the side of caution and do as OLMC originally did and keep Fr. Poisson off circuit?
|
|
agnes
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by agnes on Jul 9, 2019 9:32:48 GMT
Thanks to Admin for the work put into this and keeping us informed. God Bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2019 10:31:16 GMT
Thanks to Admin for the work put into this and keeping us informed. God Bless. You are very kind, Agnes.
I would just like to be clear for all. The Catacombs is not on a witch hunt. Simply because The Catacombs has thrown its support behind the doctrinal stances of Frs. Hewko and Ruiz (staying true to the real Archbishop Lefebvre!), there is no crusade to hurt other priests or group.
It's about doctrine. It always has been. I could personally relate first hand, things said or done by OLMC that were extremely troubling or scandalizing. There are many other members or souls here who could do the same. But this is not our focus. Cathinfo has no problem publishing information against OLMC, some of it true, some of it not - but always it is published with a great deal of venom. We do not want that here. Just as with the Conciliar Church, just as with the now-Conciliar SSPX, just as with the False Resistance, and just as with now OLMC, it's about the doctrine.
It was about the doctrine when we left the SSPX, it was about the doctrine when there was a separation from the False Resistance, and its about doctrine with this separation from OLMC. (Interesting isn't it, how we all came from the same SSPX source - but who is still holding fast and not deviating from the clear path through this Conciliar crisis laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre?)
I humbly pray daily for everyone at OLMC. There are some simply wonderful souls there at OLMC. I was personally blessed to meet several great people at the Doctrinal Conferences in the past. I am very grateful for my times there. It was heartbreaking to see this split. I think we have all lost friends over this. But again, we are not here to increase our friend list. This is about the Faith. The heavy support given by OLMC for Moran is a massive scandal. The about-face concerning Fr. Poisson's need for reordination is also a big scandal. We are in the trenches of the Faith and must hold fast to what we know to be right and true.
Again, we keep OLMC daily in our prayers. A soul who was very much maligned and attacked by OLMC in private circles told me we should promise each other to daily pray for those at OLMC. There was no bitterness or hardness of heart from that person, despite the widely circulated attacks and falsehoods spread against them. Deo gratias that charity, though very cold in our day, is not yet dead!
|
|
ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72 
|
Post by ruthy on Jul 9, 2019 18:34:53 GMT
Interesting the document has been removed. = link
Is somebody embarrassed by it now?
The document has not been removed. |
|
ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ruthy on Jul 9, 2019 18:36:09 GMT
Thanks to Admin for the work put into this and keeping us informed. God Bless. You are very kind, Agnes.
I would just like to be clear for all. The Catacombs is not on a witch hunt. Simply because The Catacombs has thrown its support behind the doctrinal stances of Frs. Hewko and Ruiz (staying true to the real Archbishop Lefebvre!), there is no crusade to hurt other priests or group.
It's about doctrine. It always has been. I could personally relate first hand, things said or done by OLMC that were extremely troubling or scandalizing. There are many other members or souls here who could do the same. But this is not our focus. Cathinfo has no problem publishing information against OLMC, some of it true, some of it not - but always it is published with a great deal of venom. We do not want that here. Just as with the Conciliar Church, just as with the now-Conciliar SSPX, just as with the False Resistance, and just as with now OLMC, it's about the doctrine.
It was about the doctrine when we left the SSPX, it was about the doctrine when there was a separation from the False Resistance, and its about doctrine with this separation from OLMC. (Interesting isn't it, how we all came from the same SSPX source - but who is still holding fast and not deviating from the clear path through this Conciliar crisis laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre?)
I humbly pray daily for everyone at OLMC. There are some simply wonderful souls there at OLMC. I was personally blessed to meet several great people at the Doctrinal Conferences in the past. I am very grateful for my times there. It was heartbreaking to see this split. I think we have all lost friends over this. But again, we are not here to increase our friend list. This is about the Faith. The heavy support given by OLMC for Moran is a massive scandal. The about-face concerning Fr. Poisson's need for reordination is also a big scandal. We are in the trenches of the Faith and must hold fast to what we know to be right and true.
Again, we keep OLMC daily in our prayers. A soul who was very much maligned and attacked by OLMC in private circles told me we should promise each other to daily pray for those at OLMC. There was no bitterness or hardness of heart from that person, despite the widely circulated attacks and falsehoods spread against them. Deo gratias that charity, though very cold in our day, is not yet dead!
What false doctrines are OLMC teaching? |
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jul 9, 2019 20:43:22 GMT
Uh, Ruthy your answer is right in the title of this thread and the very first post explains it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2019 8:33:52 GMT
Ruthy,
Nearly from Day One of Moran showing up on the scene again in 2018 with the surprise reordination of Fr. Poisson, the focus by OLMC has been solely on validity. This continues to the present day as the OP demonstrates. It is this focus solely on validity without referencing legitimacy that is most troubling.
I can personally attest to conversations with Fr. Pfeiffer where I was told that "even if he [Moran] is a scoundrel, a charlatan, etc. if he's valid we have to take him." I have heard this repeated to me verbatim from others who have had the same conversations with Fr. Pfeiffer about Moran. And all this was months before we knew about the criminal issues. At that point, we only knew about the forged documents.
But here are a few public examples how OLMC [and their supporters] focus on validity alone in their dealings with Moran: In contrast, Fr. Hewko reminded us in his sermon of January 27, 2019 that it is wrong, that it is not the way of the Church to focus on validity only: It is this same argument and focus on validity only that is currently being applied to Fr. Poisson's ordination from the Conciliar Church.
When Fr. Poisson first arrived at OLMC in early 2018, he was kept off the Mass circuit because it was then all the priests' combined conclusion [the final decision rested with Fr. Pfeiffer as the Rector] that because of the circumstances of his ordination in the Conciliar Church being doubtful, that a reordination was required.
As we all know, the introduction of Moran to do that reordination in July of 2018 has born very bad fruit, for reasons already well documented on this site. After all the failed attempts to show Moran was valid and legitimate OLMC was forced to distanced themselves from Moran [though all the while maintaining he's valid though being unable themselves to provide proof of that validity]. Now the talk about validity has shifted and as mentioned, become centered on Fr. Poisson. There were [are?] OLMC chapels who did not feel comfortable accepting Fr. Poisson due to either the Moran reordination, the first ordination in the Conciliar Church being doubtful or a combination of the two.
Since the disassociation from Moran in January, OLMC has found itself in a bit of quandary. Either they must:
a) they admit they were wrong in stating Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained and rather that Fr. Poisson's first ordination was valid, or b) they must once again take Fr. Poisson off the Mass circuit and wait until a valid and legitimate bishop reordains him. Clearly they have chosen to quietly admit that they were wrong when they first said Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained and that rather now, the laity are asked/forced to accept the fact that his ordination in the Conciliar Church is valid and legitimate. Hence once again, as was demonstrated in the opening post of this thread, OLMC is continuing this emphasis on validity by circulating documents that attempt to justify how the Conciliar Sacraments are valid, particularly of Ordination.
But yet we know, validity is not enough!
Taken from The Angelus - 2009:
Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, 1984:
The emphasis on validity without legitimacy is a very dangerous road. It was exquisitely used to lead souls astray in the Conciliar Church and it will continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2019 8:51:46 GMT
Many of these quotes focus on the issue of validity of the New Mass specifically. But knowing as we do that all the Rites of the Sacraments were changed in the Conciliar Church with a specific aim of being more acceptable to the Protestants in particular, these statements about validity by Archbishop Lefebvre and other traditional priests can easily be applied to all of the Sacraments where it is not already explicitly been stated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2019 11:53:28 GMT
Unfortunately, Fr. Pfeiffer has lost his way. It would take a miracle of humility for him to change his direction. His focus on getting his seminarians ordained has turned him from the essential principles of the Catholic Resistance as pointed out to us by Archbishop Lefebvre. Therefore, until he makes a clear change back onto the right path, souls should avoid him. Let us keep praying for him.
Fr. Hewko continues the true Catholic Resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Jul 10, 2019 13:49:10 GMT
This is why we can no longer blindly trust. Sr. Lucia in her last interview said, "“Father, we should not wait for a call to the world from Rome on the part of the Holy Father to do penance. Nor should we wait for a call for penance to come from the Bishops in our Dioceses, nor from our Religious Congregations. No, Our Lord has often used these means, and the world has not paid heed. So, now each one of us must begin to reform himself spiritually. Each one has to save not only his own soul, but also all the souls that God has placed on his pathway."
St. Pius X knew the importance of people knowing their catechism to wade through modernism. the closer the chastisement is the more this will all become apparent!
On a lighter note Moran will surely start another round of excommunications  |
|
