|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2019 11:57:22 GMT
Consider the episcopal services of the 'confirmations' done in May by Moran.
OLMC could argue that they were done without their knowledge and that may be true. But where is the warning afterwards? Where is the repeated disassociation in light of those 'confirmations'?
Yes. Your statement makes sense. I am just wondering whether those "confirmations" were done in OLMC controlled chapels or independently by a few of Fr. Pfeiffer's faithful. I believe it was a mixture of both. The video with Moran's sermon on the day of the Confirmations appears to be the same home that he has recorded sermons in the past. It appears that the family who received the 'confirmations' traveled there to received them. It is my understanding that they are strong OLMC parishioners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 11:58:27 GMT
Note that immaculatemary still hasn't responded to my comment in another thread that Fr. Pfeiffer defends Ambrose Moran in the latter's claim that I excommunicated myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 12:00:18 GMT
Yes. Your statement makes sense. I am just wondering whether those "confirmations" were done in OLMC controlled chapels or independently by a few of Fr. Pfeiffer's faithful. I believe it was a mixture of both. The video with Moran's sermon on the day of the Confirmations appears to be the same home that he has recorded sermons in the past. It appears that the family who received the 'confirmations' traveled there to received them. It is my understanding that they are strong OLMC parishioners. Regarding the family that records Ambrose Moran's sermons, was their home considered an OLMC chapel location?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2019 12:09:34 GMT
I believe it was a mixture of both. The video with Moran's sermon on the day of the Confirmations appears to be the same home that he has recorded sermons in the past. It appears that the family who received the 'confirmations' traveled there to received them. It is my understanding that they are strong OLMC parishioners. Regarding the family that records Ambrose Moran's sermons, was their home considered an OLMC chapel location? They are certainly parishioners [see Christa's words here] but not necessarily a chapel location, strictly speaking. It is my understanding that their location in Ohio is within driving distance to OLMC itself or another OLMC chapel location in Cincinnati, therefore there is no need for regular Masses at their location.
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Aug 12, 2019 12:11:31 GMT
Consider the episcopal services of the 'confirmations' done in May by Moran.
OLMC could argue that they were done without their knowledge and that may be true. But where is the warning afterwards? Where is the repeated disassociation in light of those 'confirmations'?
Yes. Your statement makes sense. I am just wondering whether those "confirmations" were done in OLMC controlled chapels or independently by a few of Fr. Pfeiffer's faithful. The confirmations were done for a family who is an olmc chapel coordinator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 12:49:38 GMT
Yes. Your statement makes sense. I am just wondering whether those "confirmations" were done in OLMC controlled chapels or independently by a few of Fr. Pfeiffer's faithful. The confirmations were done for a family who is an olmc chapel coordinator. Okay. I think this may absolve Fr. Pfeiffer from being responsible for the OLMC chapel co-ordinator's act UNLESS Fr. Pfeiffer gave his approval for this act. Perhaps someone who knows this OLMC chapel co-ordinator could ask him/her whether Fr. Pfeiffer gave approval for this act.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2019 13:02:15 GMT
The confirmations were done for a family who is an olmc chapel coordinator. Okay. I think this may absolve Fr. Pfeiffer from being responsible for the OLMC chapel co-ordinator's act UNLESS Fr. Pfeiffer gave his approval for this act. Perhaps someone who knows this OLMC chapel co-ordinator could ask him/her whether Fr. Pfeiffer gave approval for this act.
Whether or not Fr. Pfeiffer knew ahead of time doesn't speak to the fact that the issue was not addressed after the 'confirmations' had occurred. We must avoid doubtful sacraments. The laity should be warned to avoid Moran. Instead there was silence from OLMC after these 'confirmations'. Rather, we have been hearing for months that OLMC continues to defend Moran as valid, despite the words of the "disassociation".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 13:14:11 GMT
Okay. I think this may absolve Fr. Pfeiffer from being responsible for the OLMC chapel co-ordinator's act UNLESS Fr. Pfeiffer gave his approval for this act. Perhaps someone who knows this OLMC chapel co-ordinator could ask him/her whether Fr. Pfeiffer gave approval for this act.
Whether or not Fr. Pfeiffer knew ahead of time doesn't speak to the fact that the issue was not addressed after the 'confirmations' had occurred. We must avoid doubtful sacraments. The laity should be warned to avoid Moran. Instead there was silence from OLMC after these 'confirmations'. Rather, we have been hearing for months that OLMC continues to defend Moran as valid, despite the words of the "disassociation". I agree that we must continue to warn the laity about Ambrose Moran. However, Fr. Pfeiffer still believes that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. Therefore, if the laity, even an OLMC Chapel Co-ordinator, chooses to have confirmations outside of a OLMC controlled chapel, then Fr. Pfeiffer neither cannot be held responsible for their acts nor does he need to publicly warn them.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2019 14:40:52 GMT
Whether or not Fr. Pfeiffer knew ahead of time doesn't speak to the fact that the issue was not addressed after the 'confirmations' had occurred. We must avoid doubtful sacraments. The laity should be warned to avoid Moran. Instead there was silence from OLMC after these 'confirmations'. Rather, we have been hearing for months that OLMC continues to defend Moran as valid, despite the words of the "disassociation". I agree that we must continue to warn the laity about Ambrose Moran. However, Fr. Pfeiffer still believes that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. Therefore, if the laity, even an OLMC Chapel Co-ordinator, chooses to have confirmations outside of a OLMC controlled chapel, then Fr. Pfeiffer neither cannot be held responsible for their acts nor does he need to publicly warn them.Mmm, I'm not sure I understand you here.
I agree with you that Fr. Pfeiffer cannot be held responsible for the the individual acts of the laity (I mentioned this in the OP).
But my confusion arises from the last of your (bolded) words above. It seems as though you are saying Fr. Pfeiffer bears no responsibility to publicly warn people against having any affiliation with Moran. Is this correct?
If this is what you are saying, then how do we put the repeated warnings from Fr. Pfeiffer (and many other true and false Resistance priests) over the years to red-light the SSPX Sacraments and Masses into context? Do not the priests have a duty to warn the laity against error and doubt? At least with the SSPX, the laity are assured of valid and legitimate Masses and Sacraments.
Again, I am sure I am misunderstanding you, EM. I'd be grateful for any clarification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 16:49:06 GMT
Dear Amicus, You are also missing the point. As you have observed, what the followers choose is their right. Thus the followers can choose to go to Fr. Hewko or Fr. Pfeiffer or Bp. Williamson, Bp. Fellay, Pope Francis, etc. Masses, as that is the followers right. Please keep in mind that that Fr. Hewko, Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Moran have parted ways. If you have any questions, do ask the Priests. Regarding your comment about Fr. Hewko's Masses - Fr. Hewko's position states that New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations are dubious. Fr. Hewko's position brings up a problem because we've already had a Pope (Benedict XVI) and now have a Pope (Francis) consecrated in the New Rite. How does one explain this?Pax Christi. immaculatemary,
We are not going to discuss this here (see your words in bold above). This was addressed in another thread on this forum, as you well know. Archbishop Lefebvre has spoken very, very clearly on the doubtfulness of the New Rite Sacraments. As SSPX priests, this is how both Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer have long preached. It is a change in Fr. Pfeiffer to switch gears and now declare that the New Rite Sacraments are without doubt. This is a Fr. Pfeiffer change. Not an Archbishop Lefebvre change and not a Fr. Hewko change.
If you choose to believe Fr. Pfeiffer in this regard, that is between you. Fr. Pfeiffer, and the good Lord. But do not keep bringing up what has already been addressed here. This forum follows the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre in these times, who himself only follows what the Church has always taught. Again, if you wish to part ways with the Archbishop, as OLMC has done on it's position on the doubtfulness of New Rite Sacraments, that is up to you. But it will not be discussed ad nauseam here. Once again, I refer to you Fr. Pfeiffer's words of 2014, speaking clearly on the doubtfulness of New Rite Sacraments - the same doubtfulness you keep insisting Fr. Hewko is wrong for also saying. Note that Fr. Pfeiffer's words in 2014 were also during the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
Again, this is derailing the thread, getting off topic (you have done this twice now in this same thread). This thread is not about Fr. Hewko. To drag him into this on an unrelated issue appears to be nothing but an attempt to deflect and distract from the subject at hand.
At the risk of repeating myself once again, this thread is not about the doubtfulness of the New Rite Sacraments. It's about Moran continuing to be a presences in OLMC circles, despite the OLMC disassociation of early 2019, despite his own doubtful credentials, thereby giving doubtful Sacraments to OLMC laity. That is the subject of this thread. Lets not kick up a lot of dust and deflect from the issue here.
Dear Admin, Respectfully, this is a Fr. Hewko issue, because he too visits the same OLMC chapels after his parting from Bp. Moran and OLMC. Thus, if Fr. Pfeiffer is responsible for Bp. Moran visiting OLMC chapels after parting ways with Bp. Moran, then Fr. Hewko is also responsible for Bp. Moran visits after parting ways with Bp. Moran. We have stated many times that Fr. Hewko, Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Moran have parted ways. From our point of view, a parting is a parting. But from your point of view, a parting is not a parting? Should we then hold Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer responsible for Bp. Williamson's and Bp. Fellay's actions? As regards your statement of us "derailing the thread, getting off topic", please note the following: 1. It was Amicus who suggested that "there is nothing questionable about Fr. Hewko's Mass", to which we responded. 2. In the previous thread that was locked, the letter that was discussed was " Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope". When discussions not related to the letter "Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope" were being brought by other forum members to "to deflect and distract from the subject at hand", how could our responses alone be considered "deflect and distract"? 3. Ecclesia Militans asked a question in a previous thread that was locked and has once again asked the same question in this thread. Ecclesia Militans question was not related to the topic of " Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope", nor is it related to Moran making inroads with OLMC laity. While we could not answer Ecclesia Militans question on the previous thread as it was locked, but can reply to him on this thread - wouldn't his question also be considered to "to deflect and distract from the subject at hand" and therefore, any response from us to him will also be "to deflect and distract from the subject at hand"? 4. It is suggested that "This forum follows the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre in these times, who himself only follows what the Church has always taught". If the good Archbishop Lefebvre avoided polemics, and answered questions to the laity and the Church hierarchy, why can't the 15 questions posed by us in the letter " Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope" be answered? If the 15 questions were answered previously in sermons or writings, then wouldn't it be an easy task for the faithful and/or Fr. Hewko to give answers to each of these 15 questions once again? Pax Christi
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2019 17:27:24 GMT
Dear Admin, Respectfully, this is a Fr. Hewko issue, because he too visits the same OLMC chapels after his parting from Bp. Moran and OLMC. Thus, if Fr. Pfeiffer is responsible for Bp. Moran visiting OLMC chapels after parting ways with Bp. Moran, then Fr. Hewko is also responsible for Bp. Moran visits after parting ways with Bp. Moran. We have stated many times that Fr. Hewko, Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Moran have parted ways. From our point of view, a parting is a parting. But from your point of view, a parting is not a parting? Should we then hold Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer responsible for Bp. Williamson's and Bp. Fellay's actions? As regards your statement of us "derailing the thread, getting off topic", please note the following: 1. It was Amicus who suggested that "there is nothing questionable about Fr. Hewko's Mass", to which we responded. 2. In the previous thread that was locked, the letter that was discussed was " Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope". When discussions not related to the letter "Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope" were being brought by other forum members to "to deflect and distract from the subject at hand", how could our responses alone be considered "deflect and distract"? 3. Ecclesia Militans asked a question in a previous thread that was locked and has once again asked the same question in this thread. Ecclesia Militans question was not related to the topic of " Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope", nor is it related to Moran making inroads with OLMC laity. While we could not answer Ecclesia Militans question on the previous thread as it was locked, but can reply to him on this thread - wouldn't his question also be considered to "to deflect and distract from the subject at hand" and therefore, any response from us to him will also be "to deflect and distract from the subject at hand"? 4. It is suggested that "This forum follows the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre in these times, who himself only follows what the Church has always taught". If the good Archbishop Lefebvre avoided polemics, and answered questions to the laity and the Church hierarchy, why can't the 15 questions posed by us in the letter " Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bishop Timlin and the Pope" be answered? If the 15 questions were answered previously in sermons or writings, then wouldn't it be an easy task for the faithful and/or Fr. Hewko to give answers to each of these 15 questions once again? Pax Christi
There is so much disingenuity here, IM. I started to reply to these statements in more depth but once again, we are just going round and round. So, rather than long exchanges over nonsensical points, let me be brief.
No one is holding Fr. Pfeiffer responsible for Bp. Moran. Clearly Moran is responsible for Moran. What Fr. Pfeiffer is responsible for is the warning of the laity. Have you ever heard or read a transcript of Fr. Pfeiffer's "barking dog" sermon of May 2012? It can be found here. This was the old-Fr. Pfeiffer we all knew and loved. This was the priest who loudly and emphatically denounced errors and 'bastard' priests and Masses, who pointed out we cannot hold an 'economy of silence' when it comes to the SSPX's errors. This is what we used to be able to depend on, a true shepherd who defends his flock and shows the thorn-strewn pitfalls to be avoided.
EM's question to you in the now-locked thread that you refused to answer for several days before it was locked was pertinent to the subject matter of that thread. It was re-asked elsewhere in another thread with similar subject matter.
It is not a "suggestion" that The Catacombs follows Archbishop Lefebvre. It is a fact.
Other members were banned in the not too distant past for repeatedly going off topic. You are not being singled out. Stop the finger pointing.
Amicus was not the first to bring up Fr. Hewko Masses at "OLMC chapels," you were.
Tread carefully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 19:10:17 GMT
I agree that we must continue to warn the laity about Ambrose Moran. However, Fr. Pfeiffer still believes that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. Therefore, if the laity, even an OLMC Chapel Co-ordinator, chooses to have confirmations outside of a OLMC controlled chapel, then Fr. Pfeiffer neither cannot be held responsible for their acts nor does he need to publicly warn them.Mmm, I'm not sure I understand you here. I agree with you that Fr. Pfeiffer cannot be held responsible for the the individual acts of the laity (I mentioned this in the OP). But my confusion arises from the last of your (bolded) words above. It seems as though you are saying Fr. Pfeiffer bears no responsibility to publicly warn people against having any affiliation with Moran. Is this correct? If this is what you are saying, then how do we put the repeated warnings from Fr. Pfeiffer (and many other true and false Resistance priests) over the years to red-light the SSPX Sacraments and Masses into context? Do not the priests have a duty to warn the laity against error and doubt? At least with the SSPX, the laity are assured of valid and legitimate Masses and Sacraments. Again, I am sure I am misunderstanding you, EM. I'd be grateful for any clarification. Admin, you are correct that Fr. Pfeiffer DOES bear responsibility to publicly warn the people against having any affiliation with Ambrose Moran. However, this is on an objective level. If we look at it through the eyes of Fr. Pfeiffer, his attitude regarding Ambrose Moran presents a different story. According to Fr. Pfeiffer, Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop who professed the Catholic Faith in his presence. Furthermore, Fr. Pfeiffer has said that even if it were true that Ambrose Moran lied about his past, it does not matter because he is willing to help his seminary and faithful. Therefore, in his eyes, he may hold that there is no need to warn the people.
|
|
agnes
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by agnes on Aug 12, 2019 19:43:59 GMT
All I can say is thank you Lord for Father Hewko, Admin and Ecclesiamilitans for the warnings given and for holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. God Bless you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 20:18:43 GMT
All I can say is thank you Lord for Father Hewko, Admin and Ecclesiamilitans for the warnings given and for holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. God Bless you. Thank you. Admin is doing a great job! Most importantly we thank Fr. Hewko for being one of the few priests holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre without compromise!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2019 21:47:18 GMT
All I can say is thank you Lord for Father Hewko, Admin and Ecclesiamilitans for the warnings given and for holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. God Bless you. You are most kind, Agnes.
We all owe EM a great debt of gratitude for sounding the alarm over Moran for these past four years. And as for Fr. Hewko, thanks be to the good God above for leaving us such a good priest, who is still holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre! How precious few of these priests are left in the world.
Our Lady has been so good to us to show us, with true maternal solicitude, so many warnings against Moran.
|
|