Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: ManuelChavez on October 21, 2015, 11:17:10 PM
-
Hello!
I am writing a blog to cover my upcoming trip and work at the seminary in Boston, Kentucky. I hope you may be able to follow along with the progress, and perhaps have some questions answered, regarding the events unfolding there.
http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/
-
Even if Pablo behaves himself for 30 days (which I wouldn't doubt), it wouldn't change the fact that Ambrose Moran, who isn't a priest let alone a bishop, is saying Mass for certain locations of the so-called "SSPX-MC".
I would expect Pablo to NOT show any pornography to seminarians, or "misbehave" in any other way, when someone like you is there. You are older (than your typical naive 18 year old), a bit more experienced with the world, you've worked for a living, etc.
Pablo is not going to cause trouble for himself by scandalizing his "agent" who records sermons and transports equipment over several state lines on "special assignment".
-
Don't you have anything better to do Chavez?
It does not seems a good idea. Why would you even consider doing this? What's your intention?
-
Even if Pablo behaves himself for 30 days (which I wouldn't doubt), it wouldn't change the fact that Ambrose Moran, who isn't a priest let alone a bishop, is saying Mass for certain locations of the so-called "SSPX-MC".
I would expect Pablo to NOT show any pornography to seminarians, or "misbehave" in any other way, when someone like you is there. You are older (than your typical naive 18 year old), a bit more experienced with the world, you've worked for a living, etc.
Pablo is not going to cause trouble for himself by scandalizing his "agent" who records sermons and transports equipment over several state lines on "special assignment".
Why do you allow this people here? They don't do any good for the Resistance. They only seek to do good for themselves.
An analogy: these people only about if they look good in the picture regardless if the picture is true or false.
-
And if Pablo dug a pit on the seminary grounds, etc. (use your imagination), do you REALLY THINK Manuel Chavez would post it on his blog?
No, the only way to make this interesting would be to have a live webcam that can be watched at any time. One in the main classroom, one in the refectory, etc. wherever the action is likely to happen. Or "Manuel" wears a sombrero containing a wireless camera/microphone which is always turned on -- he only takes it off when decency is an issue.
And he would have to NOT POST ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET before he goes there. What does he think this is, "30 days among the chimpanzees" or "Gorillas in the Mist"? These "chimpanzees" have Internet access and are quite capable of reading. But even if the seminarians don't have Internet access at all during the whole year, that doesn't include the dominant gorilla (Pablo). And it's his activity (as well as Ambrose Moran) that made the news of late.
CathInfo has no issues with the seminarians there.
Anyhow, it kind of spoils the "observation" when the "animals" are rational animals and they know they are being observed.
-
And if Pablo dug a pit on the seminary grounds, etc. (use your imagination), do you REALLY THINK Manuel Chavez would post it on his blog?
No, the only way to make this interesting would be to have a live webcam that can be watched at any time. One in the main classroom, one in the refectory, etc. wherever the action is likely to happen. Or "Manuel" wears a sombrero containing a wireless camera/microphone which is always turned on -- he only takes it off when decency is an issue.
And he would have to NOT POST ABOUT IT before he goes there. What does he think this is, "30 days among the chimpanzees?" These "chimpanzees", including the king gorilla himself, have Internet access and are quite capable of reading.
It kind of spoils the "observation" when the animals know they are being observed.
If comes to a point where he mus decide between telling the truth or hiding the truth to save his "pal" he will hide the truth. They harm the Resistance and they still think they're right and we have to thank them!
These people are evil. They think 24/7 how to deceive good innocent Catholics, they plan their actions just like dirty politicians!
-
I keep hearing from various locations on the web, about some notorious "Pablo." He must be some kind of a character. Is he a gangster or something?
:laugh1:
I guess I'm the last person not "in the know."
Maybe someone could refer me to a link or something when you get a chance.
-
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-devil-and-mr-hernandez-6418725
-
ManuelChavez - I am wondering about the picture of Mr. Rogers. Did you know he was a Protestant minister?
Yes, I do. Fred Rogers was a pioneer in children's television programming. He was gentle and soft-spoken, and never raised his voice in anger or impatience. He wrote and played music, and encouraged others through good example.
-
He says he was once rushed to Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center after evil apparitions pounded his kidneys. He says that on another occasion, four cherubic-looking little demons restrained his arms and legs while he was reclining in a La-Z-Boy chair.
:facepalm:
-
If all this is true -- it's difficult to confirm most of his stories and those who have asked him to perform exorcisms describe much more mundane sessions than Hernandez -- why does he put himself through the aggravation? After all, he's not a priest or an appointed church official. He's a plumber by trade, better equipped to expel clogs from a drain than demons from a human body.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Confronted with a person he believes to be demonically possessed, his first response is to disregard church piety and simply shout at the devil -- as he would at a lazy co-worker: "Hey, knock off the bullshit!"
:facepalm:
-
Don't you have anything better to do Chavez?
It does not seems a good idea. Why would you even consider doing this? What's your intention?
My intention is to bring a first-hand representation of the seminary to the public forum, one that is not built on second-hand or tertiary "evidence".
-
Don't you have anything better to do Chavez?
It does not seems a good idea. Why would you even consider doing this? What's your intention?
My intention is to bring a first-hand representation of the seminary to the public forum, one that is not built on second-hand or tertiary "evidence".
Can you top that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYN_E3guNnA
-
Anyways, "film music" is the contestable name for a music genre. And it really seems like such a mundane interest.
A. Do you have any interest or hobbies?
B. Yes, I am obsessed with film music.
A. Uh, ok, what about hobbies like reading classic literature, collecting baseball cards, stamps, studying foreign languages?
B. Sometimes I listen to the Free Willy soundtrack when I have spare time.
-
Anyways, "film music" is the contestable name for a music genre. And it really seems like such a mundane interest.
A. Do you have any interest or hobbies?
B. Yes, I am obsessed with film music.
A. Uh, ok, what about hobbies like reading classic literature, collecting baseball cards, stamps, studying foreign languages?
B. Sometimes I listen to the Free Willy soundtrack when I have spare time.
Basil Poledouris (1945-2006) wrote the score to Free Willy. It is a fusion of orchestral and electronic, and is a pleasant listening experience. I do not care for Michael Jackson's song, however, which seems to be what more people remember.
I also listen to jazz and classical music. I am a writer, and I love history.
If you have any other questions, please ask me, rather than setting up a straw man.
-
And if Pablo dug a pit on the seminary grounds, etc. (use your imagination), do you REALLY THINK Manuel Chavez would post it on his blog?
No, the only way to make this interesting would be to have a live webcam that can be watched at any time. One in the main classroom, one in the refectory, etc. wherever the action is likely to happen. Or "Manuel" wears a sombrero containing a wireless camera/microphone which is always turned on -- he only takes it off when decency is an issue.
And he would have to NOT POST ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET before he goes there. What does he think this is, "30 days among the chimpanzees" or "Gorillas in the Mist"? These "chimpanzees" have Internet access and are quite capable of reading. But even if the seminarians don't have Internet access at all during the whole year, that doesn't include the dominant gorilla (Pablo). And it's his activity (as well as Ambrose Moran) that made the news of late.
CathInfo has no issues with the seminarians there.
Anyhow, it kind of spoils the "observation" when the "animals" are rational animals and they know they are being observed.
I will write what I experience. I will photograph what I see. I am posting about it now so people may know my intentions for this blog, and may have an opportunity to ask questions or post comments and suggestions.
-
Why not install video cameras and sell it as a "reality show"? Good grief.
-
Anyways, "film music" is the contestable name for a music genre. And it really seems like such a mundane interest.
A. Do you have any interest or hobbies?
B. Yes, I am obsessed with film music.
A. Uh, ok, what about hobbies like reading classic literature, collecting baseball cards, stamps, studying foreign languages?
B. Sometimes I listen to the Free Willy soundtrack when I have spare time.
Basil Poledouris (1945-2006) wrote the score to Free Willy. It is a fusion of orchestral and electronic, and is a pleasant listening experience. I do not care for Michael Jackson's song, however, which seems to be what more people remember.
I also listen to jazz and classical music. I am a writer, and I love history.
If you have any other questions, please ask me, rather than setting up a straw man.
Jazz is satanic by the way.
The rhythm is anti-harmonic and jazz is the father of rock/black metal/heavy metal/ every sub-genre of pop/rock music comes from jazz.
"The Beatles first began performing in the late 1950s in jazz clubs in England and West Germany. These clubs, always located in the seediest part of the cities, served as a marketplace for prostitution and the circulation of drugs. Beatle biographer Philip Norman writes: "Their only regular engagement was a strip club. The club owner paid them ten shillings each to strum their guitars while a stripper named Janice grimly shed her clothes before an audience of sailors, guilty businessmen and habitues with raincoat-covered laps." (Philip Norman, Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation, p. 81)
Miles Davis and almost every jazz musician in the US were heroin addicts
-
My intention is to bring a first-hand representation of the seminary to the public forum,
You mean another first-hand representation.
-
Yes, that is a very important point.
Manuel, I won't let it pass if you try to claim that no one here has yet given first-hand evidence of problems in Boston, KY.
They are just as honest as you; maybe more so. That is to say, they might be a bit more objective and realistic.
Again, we have a repeat of the SSPX/Resistance argument. The SSPX said that everything negative said about them was a filthy lie, slander, rumor, or gossip.
On the contrary, I knew better. I observed how many pillars of SSPX chapels, long-time supporters, generous benefactors, ex-seminarians, faithful priests, and highly involved volunteers were finding and admitting problems at their local SSPX chapels and in the modern-day SSPX.
Likewise, the reports about Pablo (etc.) come from those who are THE MOST MOTIVATED to consider Fr. Pfeiffer a good guy, and to think Boston, KY is a great Trad Catholic location. We're talking about people who got involved there, went on retreats there, etc.
I myself am an example of this. I have been highly supportive of the Resistance from the earliest days, which obviously means Fr. Pfeiffer once you go into the 2012 range. There simply weren't any other resistant groups back then.
-
Is anyone really interested in an OLMC infomercial? Let the testimony of first hand witnesses be heard. Manual you don't live there so you've got nothing to say. 30 days is nothing. How many of us will still be around when you're gone?
I do hope that those who have secretly recorded at OLMC get the courage to post that stuff online. Especially the scenes from late nights at priory with El Jefe and his ________.
-
From MaterDominici: You mean another first-hand representation.
My response: Correct.
From Matthew: Manuel, I won't let it pass if you try to claim that no one here has yet given first-hand evidence of problems in Boston, KY.
My response: You may put that concern to rest. I never claimed that I am the only one who has given a first-hand account.
From Matthew: They are just as honest as you; maybe more so. That is to say, they might be a bit more objective and realistic.
My response: That could be the case, in regards to objectivity.
As for being realistic, I cannot comment, except that Realistic is a great RadioShack brand, and is returning to store shelves after a twenty year absence. I look forward to seeing that brand name again soon (but that is entirely off-topic, even if it was a pleasant diversion).
Honesty is the search for and the defense of Truth. I seek the truth, with all due charity. This is why I will not demean anyone here, nor have I gone after anyone here, not for their interest in music, or their avatars, or any other petty reason.
However, there are discrepancies within some of these first-hand accounts, Whether these discrepancies are deliberate or not, I cannot determine.
From Matthew: Again, we have a repeat of the SSPX/Resistance argument. The SSPX said that everything negative said about them was a filthy lie, slander, rumor, or gossip.
My response: I never claimed that everything negative said about the seminary is a lie. Some of the stories are true, others are partly true, some are entirely untrue. I have maintained this from the beginning of my time on CathInfo.
From TheRealMcCoy: Is anyone really interested in an OLMC infomercial? Let the testimony of first hand witnesses be heard. Manual you don't live there so you've got nothing to say. 30 days is nothing. How many of us will still be around when you're gone? I do hope that those who have secretly recorded at OLMC get the courage to post that stuff online. Especially the scenes from late nights at priory with El Jefe and his ________.
My response: I have lived there. I have worked there. 30 days is far from nothing. It is a substantial investment in time and resources, as I have done numerous times since July 2013.
Your lack of charity in your language is deplorable. You should show more respect for others, even Pablo. The fill-in-the-blank comment is unnecessary. It's a cheap shot.
-
My response: I have lived there. I have worked there. 30 days is far from nothing. It is a substantial investment in time and resources, as I have done numerous times since July 2013.
Put your money where your mouth is, boy. Move down here. Permanently.
That is not outside the realm of possibility.
"Boy" is an interesting term, one that can be seen as derogatory, especially given the confrontational stance of the message.
-
My response: I have lived there. I have worked there. 30 days is far from nothing. It is a substantial investment in time and resources, as I have done numerous times since July 2013.
Put your money where your mouth is, boy. Move down here. Permanently.
That is not outside the realm of possibility.
You should. There's enough bounty to go around thanks to a muy mucho generous family. :wink:
-
Anyways, "film music" is the contestable name for a music genre. And it really seems like such a mundane interest.
A. Do you have any interest or hobbies?
B. Yes, I am obsessed with film music.
A. Uh, ok, what about hobbies like reading classic literature, collecting baseball cards, stamps, studying foreign languages?
B. Sometimes I listen to the Free Willy soundtrack when I have spare time.
Basil Poledouris (1945-2006) wrote the score to Free Willy. It is a fusion of orchestral and electronic, and is a pleasant listening experience. I do not care for Michael Jackson's song, however, which seems to be what more people remember.
I also listen to jazz and classical music. I am a writer, and I love history.
If you have any other questions, please ask me, rather than setting up a straw man.
Jazz is satanic by the way.
The rhythm is anti-harmonic and jazz is the father of rock/black metal/heavy metal/ every sub-genre of pop/rock music comes from jazz.
"The Beatles first began performing in the late 1950s in jazz clubs in England and West Germany. These clubs, always located in the seediest part of the cities, served as a marketplace for prostitution and the circulation of drugs. Beatle biographer Philip Norman writes: "Their only regular engagement was a strip club. The club owner paid them ten shillings each to strum their guitars while a stripper named Janice grimly shed her clothes before an audience of sailors, guilty businessmen and habitues with raincoat-covered laps." (Philip Norman, Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation, p. 81)
Miles Davis and almost every jazz musician in the US were heroin addicts
Music is comprised of three basic elements; melody, harmony and rhythm. Jazz uses all three, as do most forms of music. Jazz is a broad category of music, and its history is just as varied as the musicians that have played it.
Jazz is not Satanic, nor is it anti-harmonic. The failures of some of the performers/ composers do not negate the musical value of the various types of Jazz.
-
ManuelChavez - I am wondering about the picture of Mr. Rogers. Did you know he was a Protestant minister?
Yes, I do. Fred Rogers was a pioneer in children's television programming. He was gentle and soft-spoken, and never raised his voice in anger or impatience. He wrote and played music, and encouraged others through good example.
"Fred Rogers was a pioneer in children's television programming."
Yes--yes he was. I am sure the jews are very proud of him.
"He was gentle and soft-spoken, and never raised his voice in anger or impatience. He wrote and played music, and encouraged others through good example."
What the world has labeled as "anger or impatience" is sometimes called for. Also, his "good example" was calculated to effeminize and fαɢɢօtize male children.
In this and other posts (fondness for non-Catholic music, "boy" is derogatory, your general method of discourse) you sure have demonstrated that you are plugged in to the jews' social engineering system.
-
A few measures by which to judge if this is in fact a Catholic seminary,
1) Does it have a full time clerical staff to teach, guide, and watch over the seminarians? I do not mean layman or part time clerics, but full time, a senior brother or a priest at all times.
2) Is daily and Sunday Mass always available to the seminarians?
3) Is there an established and eccessiastically approved curriculum which is properly structured?
4) Are the facilities adequate to provide a safe and wholesome study and living environment for the seminarians?
5) Are the seminarians segregated from daily bustle of the compound and surrounding neighbors so that they might be apart from the "world", and are there accommodations for complete silence and contemplation for interior communion with God?
6 ) Has the seminary been inspected and approved by a resistance Bishop and his recommendations and corrections followed?
Comment, If these basics have not or cannot be met, the seminary should not attempt to operate until they are.
If it is already operating without these basics, operation should be suspended until they are present.
Operating a seminary is not an add on function of a priory. It is a separate and critical function for forming GOOD priests not rolling out cassocks stamped resistance. The warm body theory does not hold in matters of the priesthood.
Operating a seminary is a primary function, not a secondary one. That should always be kept in mind.
On a personal note, I would say that it is time to stop pretending, and high time to get serious.
-
"Fred Rogers was a pioneer in children's television programming."
Yes--yes he was. I am sure the jews are very proud of him.
"He was gentle and soft-spoken, and never raised his voice in anger or impatience. He wrote and played music, and encouraged others through good example."
What the world has labeled as "anger or impatience" is sometimes called for. Also, his "good example" was calculated to effeminize and fαɢɢօtize male children.
In this and other posts (fondness for non-Catholic music, "boy" is derogatory, your general method of discourse) you sure have demonstrated that you are plugged in to the jews' social engineering system.
Fred Rogers was not Jєωιѕн, nor did his program "effeminize and fαɢɢօtize male children." It is clear that you really do not know Fred Rogers, or what he did or said.
Here are two quotes:
“Discovering the truth about ourselves is a lifetime’s work, but it’s worth the effort.”
And:
“When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”
That is Fred Rogers.
I like Catholic music. I like non-Catholic music. I read Catholic literature, as well as non-Catholic literature. It is not a sin to appreciate the works of non-Catholics, as we have enjoyed the works of the Pagan Greeks and Romans since the earliest days of the Church, to our own time. This topic, however, is more complex than simply "Catholic and non-Catholic", and would easily overwhelm this board and this thread.
You may claim that I am "plugged into the jews' social engineering program", but your claim cannot be substantiated. It is a clear attack on myself, rather than a reasonable argument.
I can have a debate or discussion without the use of "ad hominem", "Straw-men" or other incendiary word or phrases. I do not attack the person, but I will use logic, reason and facts to highlight the Truth, and eliminate deception and error.
[19] You know, my dearest brethren. And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. [20] For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.
-
I don't think it was so much in that it fαɢɢօtized but that generally that ´people who were entertained with that as adults would be in that category.
-
You may claim that I am "plugged into the jews' social engineering program", but your claim cannot be substantiated. It is a clear attack on myself, rather than a reasonable argument.
I can have a debate or discussion without the use of "ad hominem", "Straw-men" or other incendiary word or phrases. I do not attack the person, but I will use logic, reason and facts to highlight the Truth, and eliminate deception and error.
I am not arguing with you about anything, sir. I am simply pointing out some tell-tale indications that you are, whether wittingly or unwittingly, not trustworthy. Either you are naive and not realizing the jew social engineering in which you are steeped, or you're a cog in that mechanism--either way, that means you're not trustworthy in my assessment.
-
"Boy" is an interesting term, one that can be seen as derogatory, especially given the confrontational stance of the message.
It seems uber-sensitive to say "boy" is derogatory. Jew social engineering has trained society to generally say the term is derogatory and to incite colored folks to irrational violence upon being so addressed by rooting the term back to some supposed connection to "water-boys." For example, if I said "Obama is not my boy" to one of my colored friends, he would likely be irrationally offended. But I don't give in to such "niceties" dictated by freemasonic/jew social machinery.
-
A few measures by which to judge if this is in fact a Catholic seminary,
1) Does it have a full time clerical staff to teach, guide, and watch over the seminarians? I do not mean layman or part time clerics, but full time, a senior brother or a priest at all times.
2) Is daily and Sunday Mass always available to the seminarians?
3) Is there an established and eccessiastically approved curriculum which is properly structured?
4) Are the facilities adequate to provide a safe and wholesome study and living environment for the seminarians?
5) Are the seminarians segregated from daily bustle of the compound and surrounding neighbors so that they might be apart from the "world", and are there accommodations for complete silence and contemplation for interior communion with God?
6 ) Has the seminary been inspected and approved by a resistance Bishop and his recommendations and corrections followed?
Comment, If these basics have not or cannot be met, the seminary should not attempt to operate until they are.
If it is already operating without these basics, operation should be suspended until they are present.
Operating a seminary is not an add on function of a priory. It is a separate and critical function for forming GOOD priests not rolling out cassocks stamped resistance. The warm body theory does not hold in matters of the priesthood.
Operating a seminary is a primary function, not a secondary one. That should always be kept in mind.
On a personal note, I would say that it is time to stop pretending, and high time to get serious.
NOW we're on-topic here. I agree with Manuel Chavez that we don't have to resort to ad-hominems. They just distract us from the truth at hand. And the quoted post above is the SUBSTANCE of my (and others') opposition to the Boston, KY seminary.
This isn't a feud. This isn't personal. Fr. Pfeiffer's personality doesn't "just rub me the wrong way". If anything, I actually prefer priests who give sermons off-the-cuff. They are usually more interesting and easy to follow.
So I'm not just "one of those guys that can't appreciate Fr. Pfeiffer". Far from it. I was one of his early supporters, until I was basically FORCED to publicly oppose some of his activities.
This worse-than-nothing seminary is a perfect example. Pablo is another; and Mr. Ambrose Moran is yet another.
I'm not going to turn off my brain, not even for a priest I like.
-
Yes, let's get right down to the point about this, Manuel. You could spend 30 years in that seminary and still have the same net effect: zero. You've already shown to have far more invested in the Pfunny Pfarm than all the rest of us save that demonic entity Pablo, so I imagine this will be a Six Pflags theme park ride for you. For your sake I hope you're reality matches up with the rest of us objectively speaking. Until then, you get the only reward a man can ask for upon putting his soul at such unnecessary risk: due consequences for your reckless actions.
Drink your own Kool-Aid from now on, no one else wants to hear it.
Toodles!
-
A few measures by which to judge if this is in fact a Catholic seminary,
1) Does it have a full time clerical staff to teach, guide, and watch over the seminarians? I do not mean layman or part time clerics, but full time, a senior brother or a priest at all times.
2) Is daily and Sunday Mass always available to the seminarians?
3) Is there an established and eccessiastically approved curriculum which is properly structured?
4) Are the facilities adequate to provide a safe and wholesome study and living environment for the seminarians?
5) Are the seminarians segregated from daily bustle of the compound and surrounding neighbors so that they might be apart from the "world", and are there accommodations for complete silence and contemplation for interior communion with God?
6 ) Has the seminary been inspected and approved by a resistance Bishop and his recommendations and corrections followed?
Comment, If these basics have not or cannot be met, the seminary should not attempt to operate until they are.
If it is already operating without these basics, operation should be suspended until they are present.
Operating a seminary is not an add on function of a priory. It is a separate and critical function for forming GOOD priests not rolling out cassocks stamped resistance. The warm body theory does not hold in matters of the priesthood.
Operating a seminary is a primary function, not a secondary one. That should always be kept in mind.
On a personal note, I would say that it is time to stop pretending, and high time to get serious.
NOW we're on-topic here. I agree with Manuel Chavez that we don't have to resort to ad-hominems. They just distract us from the truth at hand. And the quoted post above is the SUBSTANCE of my (and others') opposition to the Boston, KY seminary.
This isn't a feud. This isn't personal. Fr. Pfeiffer's personality doesn't "just rub me the wrong way". If anything, I actually prefer priests who give sermons off-the-cuff. They are usually more interesting and easy to follow.
So I'm not just "one of those guys that can't appreciate Fr. Pfeiffer". Far from it. I was one of his early supporters, until I was basically FORCED to publicly oppose some of his activities.
This worse-than-nothing seminary is a perfect example. Pablo is another; and Mr. Ambrose Moran is yet another.
I'm not going to turn off my brain, not even for a priest I like.
You are 100% correct. This is not a question of this or that person as we all assume the good intent of our fellow Catholics, especially priests.
It is about the concrete factor and logistics of forming a resistance group, a seminary, a priory, or a chapel, etc.
Certain things are needed and certain basic rules and procedures must be followed for such enterprises to be proper in the Catholic sense and to be able to succeed in their purpose.
I had assumed that with common sense they had been done, but now, finding out the shamble that has passed for a Catholic seminary and the disjointed and disorganized fashion in which the priests are flitting from place to place, who knows where or when with no real discernible pattern or larger strategy is to say the least disappointing and shocking.
This is before considering a questionable cleric having been introduced into this chapel circuit with no consultation with a "resistance" bishop or the enmity and hostility between the priests and other priests and bishops. It is not easily understandable how this has come about, save the intervention of a devil.
This thread would be more accurately titled "30 Days in the Seminary that would be, but is not."
It is time for these folks to get off of the soap stand and get serious about what they are doing.
-
It is axiomatic that if a seminary does not have any students, it is no longer a seminary.
(I think it may have been an uncle on my father's side who used to say that.)
-
So ... I suppose you're not going to read the blog, then. That's too bad.
The door's always open, though, and I'll leave a light on for you.
And the Kool-Aid is chilling in the fridge, in case you're interested.
That's alright. If I'm ever in Jonestown, I'll bring a packet of mix to sprinkle in your honor.
-
Is there a seminary in Boston, KY? How many seminarians are enrolled for next term? Why talk about spending 30 days there, if, in fact, there is really no seminary at all?
Aren't you going down to help out?
I thumbed up this post only for comic value. :clown:
Rightly so, that was the intent :laugh1:
-
Yes, let's get right down to the point about this, Manuel. You could spend 30 years in that seminary and still have the same net effect: zero. You've already shown to have far more invested in the Pfunny Pfarm than all the rest of us save that demonic entity Pablo, so I imagine this will be a Six Pflags theme park ride for you. For your sake I hope you're reality matches up with the rest of us objectively speaking. Until then, you get the only reward a man can ask for upon putting his soul at such unnecessary risk: due consequences for your reckless actions.
Drink your own Kool-Aid from now on, no one else wants to hear it.
Toodles!
So ... I suppose you're not going to read the blog, then. That's too bad.
The door's always open, though, and I'll leave a light on for you.
And the Kool-Aid is chilling in the fridge, in case you're interested.
Manuel, seriously no one is interested in what is going on there until the deficits and problems have been properly resolved. Otherwise it is just a distraction.
Let us conclude this matter of the questionable cleric who is being used to service the Kentuckian's chapels and let the "seminary" problems be resolved and approved by a resistance Bishop and then we'll talk.
-
For heaven;s sake. This ridiculous blog is just a PR attempt to whitewash the cult that is Boston, Kentucky. As if the boss, Paul Hernandez will let you speak the truth. At least you are not a woman helping out there who will be harassed or threatened by this boss.
More importantly what help is there for those who wish to get away from the place?
Is there anyone out there who could offer French lessons to help those with a vocation who wish to go to a real seminary, that of Bishop Faure in France.
-
For heaven;s sake. This ridiculous blog is just a PR attempt to whitewash the cult that is Boston, Kentucky. As if the boss, Paul Hernandez will let you speak the truth. At least you are not a woman helping out there who will be harassed or threatened by this boss.
The ones that were harassed left already.
More importantly what help is there for those who wish to get away from the place?
Get in your car and drive far away. Or walk. Run. There are locals who can help those who otherwise would be homeless to escape.
Is there anyone out there who could offer French lessons to help those with a vocation who wish to go to a real seminary, that of Bishop Faure in France.
Yes. PM me for details.
-
Oh boy! This is the silliest thread on CathInfo ever. The only redeeming features are J.Paul's list and a few witticisms. I just can't believe it's for real!
-
Oh boy! This is the silliest thread on CathInfo ever. The only redeeming features are J.Paul's list and a few witticisms. I just can't believe it's for real!
I can.
Boston has shown it's desperation already with this fake bishop. Fr. Chazal called it right by telling these Mickey Mouses to go to disneyçand with goofy and donald and see how it's really done.
-
For heaven;s sake. This ridiculous blog is just a PR attempt to whitewash the cult that is Boston, Kentucky. As if the boss, Paul Hernandez will let you speak the truth. At least you are not a woman helping out there who will be harassed or threatened by this boss.
More importantly what help is there for those who wish to get away from the place?
Is there anyone out there who could offer French lessons to help those with a vocation who wish to go to a real seminary, that of Bishop Faure in France.
Pablo is not my boss. I will say what I wish to say. This is not a PR campaign, as I am writing the blog of my own accord, and not the whims of Pablo or the commands of Father Pfeiffer.
You mock what you do not understand.
-
Jazz is not from Satan. The roots of Jazz includes Gospel and Church music, folk, various cultural musical expressions,...
Even a modernist like Benedict got it right.
other Christian denominations are not true churches
Unless you meant Catholic Church music.
Is this guy one of Pfeiffer's seminarians?
-
Aw, Manuel forgot to tell us Bill-Bob Moran arrived at the Boston KY seminary yesterday.
Did he pretend to say Mass again?
-
Aw, Manuel forgot to tell us Bill-Bob Moran arrived at the Boston KY seminary yesterday.
Did he pretend to say Mass again?
If he said Mass, I was not there for it. He did give a talk after the Mass, which Father Hewko said. He arrived late last night, which is why I did not mention it. I did mentiin it today, however.
We shall see who says the Mass tomorrow.
30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com
-
Well Manuel,
Since you are "in the know" ,as they say, must we assume that all investigations have been concluded and this fellow has been found to be legitimate in his claims and in the validity of his Catholic orders?
Is he still servicing other OLMC associated chapels?
-
My question for the day -- how many of those present at the seminary seem concerned that this person hasn't actually proven himself to be even a priest, much less a bishop?
-
When I see people saying good things about protestants , etc I remember this scary quote
“A day will come when the pope… will declare that all the excommunications are lifted and all the anathemas are retracted, when all the Christians will be united within the Church, when the Jews and Moslems will be blessed and called back to her (...) she will permit all sects to approach her by degrees and will embrace all mankind in the communion of her love and prayers. Then, Protestants will no longer exist. Against what will they be able to protest? The sovereign pontiff will then be truly king of the religious world, and he will do whatever he wishes with all the nations of the earth.” Freemason Eliphas Levi (born Alphonse Louis Constanti) - 1862
P.S: Protestants are in the very heart of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ along with jews.
"Protestantism was the bridge between Machiavelli and the rises of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, both of which play their parts in the diverse manifestations of the modern state"
-
Copy of my post on the 30 days blog.
I have supported the seminary since it's inception, both with donations and daily prayers. Here is a question I really want answered from the 'horse's mouth' . Please ask this question of the Frs on my behalf: Did Fr Pfeiffer hire a professional private detective to investigate Ambrose's past and claims? Have he and Fr Hewko been presented with (and therefore discounted as inconsequential) all the discoveries posted on CI by it's members? I am dubious as to whether you will give a meaningful reply to this question, if any. I intend to post this on CI as well so as to be certain it has come to your attention. Thank you.
-
I will repeat my inquiry for today, Wednesday October 28.
Is the investigation complete? Has Ambrose been found to be legitimate?
That is the tip of the spear here. Perhaps in between preparing tacos, Manuel can provide us with an answer?
-
My question for the day -- how many of those present at the seminary seem concerned that this person hasn't actually proven himself to be even a priest, much less a bishop?
Would you consider their very presence there as a "not concerned at all"?
No, and I'll explain why.
Several of the seminarians there are new to Boston, KY. The Ambrose mess began on Sept 13 with only vague hints before that time. Even many of the other problems with Boston, KY were revealed after that point. Most of those wishing to begin the seminary this year would have made their plans before that time. With bags packed and tickets purchased, I wouldn't fault them for showing up and checking things out for themselves. But, they should find some way to respectfully show that they aren't accepting him as a priest or bishop just because he shows up wearing purple.
And so, I await Manuel's response.
-
Is "BP." Moran in Boston KY now,and is Fr.Hewko still there?
-
How many seminarians are there? More than 3 and less than a dozen. The exact count doesn't matter. Even if there was only one seminarian that place needs to be closed.
-
I will repeat my inquiry for today, Wednesday October 28.
Is the investigation complete? Has Ambrose been found to be legitimate?
That is the tip of the spear here. Perhaps in between preparing tacos, Manuel can provide us with an answer?
I haven't made any tacos, yet. That might be a good idea for tomorrow's lunch. I could make Spanish rice and beans on the side.
As to the investigation, I have yet been able to ask about this. I have been busy, and Father has been unavailable for questions.
There are eight seminarians, and one or two potential brothers (work in progress, I suppose).
-
I will repeat my inquiry for today, Wednesday October 28.
Is the investigation complete? Has Ambrose been found to be legitimate?
That is the tip of the spear here. Perhaps in between preparing tacos, Manuel can provide us with an answer?
I haven't made any tacos, yet. That might be a good idea for tomorrow's lunch. I could make Spanish rice and beans on the side.
As to the investigation, I have yet been able to ask about this. I have been busy, and Father has been unavailable for questions.
There are eight seminarians, and one or two potential brothers (work in progress, I suppose).
Well, the fact that he is there can only mean one of two things,
1) They are finished and he is as he says that he is
2) There is no further investigation going on and they have taken his word for it, and are ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
-
Is ambrose there in Boston now?? Wed PM??
If so, when is he going to his home, can not find his address in Colorado.
Many with same last name in police records, need positive DOB, address,
full middle name or names,
(Birth Certificate , easy to get from NYC if DOB for sure and mother and fathers name
Does anyone have it??
Confirmation of his DOB for tracing purposes??
Is he doing daily (or private) Mass in the chapel?
Have any of the faithful seen any "ORIGINAL" docuмents, papers, photos etc.??
Have Fathers Hewko or Pfeiffer seen "ORIGINAL' docuмents???
Or is everything just Zerox copies or computer printouts of PDF's etc.
So easy to fake them.
Has he met with other chapels or Priests besides Denver??.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone print out the above and actually hand to Fr. Pfeiffer, Please ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God Bless all who may show this error to Fr. Pfeiffer.
P.S. Paul H did a good job on the funeral Mass ie, not showing the faces of the faithful
except for Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer and the Seminarians and the Altar Boys.
(Give credit when due, so much bad mouthing lately)
-
This was my first time looking at this blog. Could I respectfully suggest that the author spend less focus on the food...I see the reason why, but I don't think readers are intereted in the blog because of food.
I think he may focus on the food so much because he's trying to be honest. The food may be just about the only thing he can docuмent for us that wouldn't confirm our suspicions.
me: "Is XYZ true or not?"
him: "Well, the food is good."
We (myself, anyway) aren't looking for dirt on the OLMC. Just truth and clarification. And I suspect that you, Manuel, as their self-appointed spin-doctor will probably not offer much of that. Please surprise me.
-
This was my first time looking at this blog. Could I respectfully suggest that the author spend less focus on the food...I see the reason why, but I don't think readers are intereted in the blog because of food.
I think he may focus on the food so much because he's trying to be honest. The food may be just about the only thing he can docuмent for us that wouldn't confirm our suspicions.
me: "Is XYZ true or not?"
him: "Well, the food is good."
We (myself, anyway) aren't looking for dirt on the OLMC. Just truth and clarification. And I suspect that you, Manuel, as their self-appointed spin-doctor will probably not offer much of that. Please surprise me.
I'm pretty sure that you were an ardent supporter of what Fr. Pfeiffer has been doing. It is nice to know that people have really come around with this about the fake bishop.
-
Absolutely ridiculous. Quote spock to us and post your homemade cinnamon bread and fertilize your b-shop story to us...nobody's buyin it. Mickey mouses.
-
Absolutely ridiculous. Quote spock to us and post your homemade cinnamon bread and fertilize your b-shop story to us...nobody's buyin it. Mickey mouses.
B-shop? How dare you! The Archphotoshop commands much more respect...
-
Absolutely ridiculous. Quote spock to us and post your homemade cinnamon bread and fertilize your b-shop story to us...nobody's buyin it. Mickey mouses.
I didn't fertilize anything, as I have no fertilizer.
I seek the truth in these matters. I am also cooking for everyone at the seminary. My blog is about my thirty days in the Boston seminary. This includes what I have done during these thirty days.
-
I have a feeling 30 days isn't going to be enough for you. It seems journalism isn't your forte.
You've been there 3-4 "business" days. How many professors have taught classes those days? Is there an obvious schedule apart from meal times? Is Mr. Hernandez on the premises or is he gone since you're doing the cooking this month?
-
It's a lovely day in the neighborhood.................................. :chef:
-
On your blog for Thursday October, 29 you say : "I see evidence that he was ordained as a priest. I want to see more evidence for his Episcopal consecration."
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who? Was it Cardinal Slipyj, as he claimed in the sermon video or was it Nicholas Ilnyckyj? I know for a fact that he told Father Hewko that he was ordained by a bishop that was so humble that they called him "the janitor"! Isn't that funny, my priest friend who knew him back in the seventies said that when Bishop Kelly, who was with the SSPX at the time, investigated Moran, they traced his ordaining "bishop" to a janitor at a school in Long Island.
MC, are you after the truth or are you just obeying what the policy is right now in Boston?
There is so much evidence, that this man is a fraud, that it baffles the mind that anyone but a 5 year old would believe him.
I think it was P.T. Barnum who said that "there is a sucker born every minute, and two to take him". I contend that I am being extremely charitable by believing that this is true, I loath to think that the reason is something sinister.
-
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?
Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?
-
On his seventh day at Boston, Manuel did send to me... seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Pablo probably proof reads and edits the blog posts before giving the final ok to post.
-
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?
Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?
I agree, and I will give this a seminarian, Thomistic twist:
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Your voice doesn't carry the thunder or authority of the Voice in the Burning Bush, so don't expect us to treat it with that much reverence or awe. Just saying something does NOT make it so, nor does it make it accepted by everyone.
Do you think this is a game?
There's a pile of evidence 10 feet tall against Ambrose's credibility. Frankly, you have your work cut out for you. And if you call this an attempt to refute all that well-docuмented evidence -- then I'm here to tell you, you've utterly failed.
You have a basement filled with 7 feet of water, and so far you've done the equivalent of clear your throat. The basement's still wet, Martin... In other words, you haven't done jack squat.
You're trying to clean the Augean stables, only you are no Hercules, and there is no convenient river running nearby.
-
At the 5 minute mark, on the video below, is where Moran says that he was ordained by Cardinal Slipyj:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYN_E3guNnA
-
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?
Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?
I said I have seen the evidence of his ordination. I have also heard of the evidence against his ordination. My intent is to put up both cases, for a better analysis of each.
I never said i was convinced of his ordination. While I feel that the evidence points to him being a validly ordained priest, I am willing to accept otherwise, should the evidence point towards that conclusion.
I hope to answer the issue of his ordination first before dealing with his consecration.
I hope to post the evidence on the blog today. I am writing from my smartphone, which isn't exactly the easiet way to produce a blog. I am limited to one photo before the memory bogs down. I hope to have access to a computer today.
-
Pablo probably proof reads and edits the blog posts before giving the final ok to post.
I have yet to see any definitive proof that Pablo knows how to read, let alone proofread...
No, he does not proofread or edit my material.
If you have any questions or concerns, please ask, rather than creating false notions which could spiral into more character assassination.
-
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?
Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?
I said I have seen the evidence of his ordination. I have also heard of the evidence against his ordination. My intent is to put up both cases, for a better analysis of each.
I never said i was convinced of his ordination. While I feel that the evidence points to him being a validly ordained priest, I am willing to accept otherwise, should the evidence point towards that conclusion.
I hope to answer the issue of his ordination first before dealing with his consecration.
I hope to post the evidence on the blog today. I am writing from my smartphone, which isn't exactly the easiet way to produce a blog. I am limited to one photo before the memory bogs down. I hope to have access to a computer today.
It's pointless. He says he has seen the "evidence", but talks in circles when asked about what this alleged evidence is. Then he tries to spin by acting as he is "open-minded" and "analytical" and will weigh everything out for himself. This while ignoring that there are real questions that should be answered and asked before this character is even around making impressions on the seminarians. Meanwhile, behind the scenes everything is already probably in the works about who will be ordained, consecrated, confirmations etc..or at least the simulations of such.
Let's be more coherent. The bafoonery behind ignoring the issues behooves me.
1.) Where did Ambrose attend seminary and what years? Does he have any contacts from there? Anybody who can affirm this?
2.) What year was he ordained to the priesthood? In what rite? Which diocese and church? Who was the bishop?
3.) When was he consecrated a bishop, year? What diocese did this take place? What church? What bishop?
Until you can at least even coherently put together a detailed summary of this information and make it public, you should just not post because it just makes you look more and more ridiculous and may jeopardize and future attempt at a vocation you might have for instance if you came out of that mess and went to a place to get real priestly training like in the seminary in France with Bishop Faure.
If I were you, I would think about this.
-
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?
Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?
I said I have seen the evidence of his ordination. I have also heard of the evidence against his ordination. My intent is to put up both cases, for a better analysis of each.
I never said i was convinced of his ordination. While I feel that the evidence points to him being a validly ordained priest, I am willing to accept otherwise, should the evidence point towards that conclusion.
I hope to answer the issue of his ordination first before dealing with his consecration.
I hope to post the evidence on the blog today. I am writing from my smartphone, which isn't exactly the easiet way to produce a blog. I am limited to one photo before the memory bogs down. I hope to have access to a computer today.
It's pointless. He says he has seen the "evidence", but talks in circles when asked about what this alleged evidence is. Then he tries to spin by acting as he is "open-minded" and "analytical" and will weigh everything out for himself. This while ignoring that there are real questions that should be answered and asked before this character is even around making impressions on the seminarians. Meanwhile, behind the scenes everything is already probably in the works about who will be ordained, consecrated, confirmations etc..or at least the simulations of such.
Let's be more coherent. The bafoonery behind ignoring the issues behooves me.
1.) Where did Ambrose attend seminary and what years? Does he have any contacts from there? Anybody who can affirm this?
2.) What year was he ordained to the priesthood? In what rite? Which diocese and church? Who was the bishop?
3.) When was he consecrated a bishop, year? What diocese did this take place? What church? What bishop?
Until you can at least even coherently put together a detailed summary of this information and make it public, you should just not post because it just makes you look more and more ridiculous and may jeopardize and future attempt at a vocation you might have for instance if you came out of that mess and went to a place to get real priestly training like in the seminary in France with Bishop Faure.
If I were you, I would think about this.
I am going to get the complete answers to these any many other questions. I will write everyday, not just when everything is settled. Things change day by day, and this is my thirty days in the Boston seminary, so I will write without the full picture. If during these thirty days, I find out that Ambrose is a total fraud, then that is what I will write. If I find that there is some truth to his story, then that is what I will write. If I have no conclusion at the end of my thirty days, then I will write this too.
Your last paragraph is unwarranted and shows a bias against the seminary in Kentucky. Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?
-
Your last paragraph is unwarranted and shows a bias against the seminary in Kentucky. Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?
This is a clear manifestation of your narrow view. A bishop is a bishop. If Ambrose turns out to be a valid bishop than that can be both positive and negative. What kind of bishop is he? Is he a bishop that also happens to be a pathological liar? There is very little difference between you writing to see if he is a real bishop with your two possible conclusions or inconclusion and someone writing to see if there is a valid consecration in the new Mass with the same possible outcomes. That's because our fight has never been absolutely for valid sacraments. Arians had valid sacraments. Hey ya know what, so do the Orthodox schismatics. For traditionalists it is the combat for the Faith. A veteran valid priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre approaches a Pfeiffer flock and is told that we don't know where he stands on the Faith, and clearly he has proven to be a more reliable and well balanced priest since this. On the other hand, we have this mickey mouse with a ponytail show up and we can't even confirm he is a priest, much less a bishop, we haven't a clue where he really stands on the Faith without seeing any real evidence, but everyone is sidetracked with just wondering if he is a priest since he has at least offered one Mass on the main altar. This is a clear cut example of how poorly founded the Kentucky establishment is. Do they know anything about Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer? What kind of formation will they seriously have? The Combat for the Faith? Do they know what it is? Or are they caught up in persons and personalities? The mundane daily photos of food, lack of depth and contemplative life...
If he is a bishop, he's still been a part of several schismatic sects lately. Where does he stand on the Faith? After confirming if he is even a valid clergyman this is the real question.
-
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?
Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?
I said I have seen the evidence of his ordination. I have also heard of the evidence against his ordination. My intent is to put up both cases, for a better analysis of each.
I never said i was convinced of his ordination. While I feel that the evidence points to him being a validly ordained priest, I am willing to accept otherwise, should the evidence point towards that conclusion.
I hope to answer the issue of his ordination first before dealing with his consecration.
I hope to post the evidence on the blog today. I am writing from my smartphone, which isn't exactly the easiet way to produce a blog. I am limited to one photo before the memory bogs down. I hope to have access to a computer today.
No matter the so called evidence for or against is, this man should never have been allowed access by the Kentuckians to their faithful until there was no doubt as to his validity!
In matters of the sacraments the Church demands that one always follow the safer course.
These priests ignored this solemn teaching and irresponsibly exposed their faithful to what is possibly a great danger by following their own judgements instead of the Church's doctrine, while snickering and mocking those who raised concerns.
If this man turns out to be a false personality, then this group will have forfeited the trust place in them and sacrificed that whole enterprise placing itself upon a permanent no go list. Not to mention, that they will be a laughing stock for their enemies, and a black eye for Tradition. Were not these serious considerations enough to motivate them to act humility and prudence?
It is a thoroughly scandalous mess regardless of the outcome.
-
I am going to get the complete answers to these any many other questions. I will write everyday, not just when everything is settled. Things change day by day, and this is my thirty days in the Boston seminary, so I will write without the full picture. If during these thirty days, I find out that Ambrose is a total fraud, then that is what I will write. If I find that there is some truth to his story, then that is what I will write. If I have no conclusion at the end of my thirty days, then I will write this too.
Your last paragraph is unwarranted and shows a bias against the seminary in Kentucky. Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?
This isn't about personalities, teams, grudges, or whether or not we like Martin Dougherty, Pablo, or Fr. Pfeiffer. It is not open for debate whether or not we all have a bias against Kentucky. Maybe a few members have gotten fed up, fueled by the repeated violations of their trust. I can't really blame them. But the vast majority of those posting in the Ambrose thread are motivated by love of the Faith, love of Tradition/the Resistance, love of the souls involved, and love of the truth.
We should not have our motives questioned. All we want is the truth. We'd be as quick to accept a genuine Bishop Ambrose as a fake one. But we're objective enough to acknowledge the reality when the is-it-real meter's needle buries itself firmly in the "Fake" range.
I think you have the wrong mindset. You act like we're a bunch of Packers fans and the Boston, KY seminary is the Chicago bears. We're on "the rival team" rooting against you. Or we're a bunch of Android users and the Boston seminary is Apple headquarters. You get the idea.
Even those who ARE objectively "biased" against Kentucky today were likely among Fr. Pfeiffers greatest supporters last year and the year before. So it's really beside the point. WHY has there been this change? That is the real question.
Did they wake up one day and say, "I'm sick of fighting for the Faith; I think I'll attack what I formerly supported"? or, "I've fought on the side of God long enough; let's try out the devil's camp for a while"? Ridiculous.
This is about trust, validity, the Faith, and certainty of the sacraments.
-
Seriously, the more I think about this, the more messed up it appears.
Martin, your WHOLE TACTIC here is fundamentally flawed. You honestly believe (because of a delusion) that you are going to solve the problems in Boston, KY for the whole world to see, by (being the first one to?) keep a level head, a sanguine attitude/outlook, objectivity, politeness, and niceness.
You don't say it outright, but you certainly suggest it.
Just like you firmly suggested that YOU were going to get to the bottom of this by resorting to FIRST HAND INVESTIGATION as if everything posted here so far was so much rumor and hearsay. BZZZ! Wrong. If anything, your testimony is worth LESS than the other posters recent testimonies, because your family is a die-hard supporter of Boston, which (I am told) makes large donations to the seminary, up to the present day. Yourself included.
And as I pointed out, your little experiment is fundamentally flawed because everyone there KNOWS they're on display. They're going to put on a good show for 30 days and then it's back to dysfunctional "normal". But nevertheless, even now things are far from perfect. I heard there won't be Mass there for All Saints Day (Sunday). Also, you haven't mentioned squat about classes. Doesn't a seminary teach the students anything?
Anyhow, your premise seems to be that "the main problem is a lot of emotions running high and people saying things they shouldn't in the heat of anger." Too bad that isn't the case.
Yeah right! If only it were that simple. I wish I could believe that. It must be nice to live in such a comfortable delusion.
No, Martin, the problems are much deeper and much more objective than that. You say you're charitable, objective, dispassionate, polite? Welcome to the club! Nice to have you here. But we've been objective, motivated by charity, polite, etc. all along.
What did you think the Ambrose thread was, an emotional lynch mob? BZZZ! Wrong. I am offended for everyone in that thread. We are working together to try to uncover the truth about this mysterious man with an outlandish story. He has given us SO LITTLE to go on, in terms of references to prove who he really is.
You don't have a monopoly on "wanting to get to the truth", objectivity, charity, or any of those virtues. I'm not merely defending myself here, but mostly the others in the thread. I know many of them personally.
The burden is on Boston, KY to prove Ambrose is legit. No other resistance priest outside of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko believes him. Why is that? Only they are smart enough? Or are they the only ones duped by the con man?
Oh, and I should point out that nowhere else in the Resistance is a
"keen need for a bishop" felt, outside Boston, KY. Resistant groups all over the world have their Confirmation needs met, and other seminaries have their ordination needs met, by the two resistant bishops, +Williamson and +Faure.
This basically proves that they are neither unwilling to help, nor are they difficult to get along with. They go to all the "groups" in the resistance, wherever there is a need. Why is Fr. Pfeiffer (and Fr. Hewko) alone have a problem with these 2 bishops? Might it have to do with Fr. Pfeiffer's animus dominandi (desire to dominate)? Maybe that's why he is understanding to Pablo -- he has the same tendencies to "lord it over" his subjects.
-
The burden is on Boston, KY to prove Ambrose is legit. No other resistance priest outside of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko believes him. Why is that? Only they are smart enough? Or are they the only ones duped by the con man?
So if Ambrose is legit we are accepting the AUTHORITY of Frs. Pfeiffer and Co.?
No matter if it was the SSPX , Frs. Pfeiffer and Co. , Manuel, etc. who chooses to give the whole world a "new" Trad Bishop, by what authority???
Only the Church has the authority.
As faithful, we can investigate and find out if he is valid, and if not (as all the investigations have proven), we are obliged to stay away untill there has been an official investigation that tells us by the authority of the Catholic Church that he is valid and legit and licit.
-
Since when do priests confer validity on bishops?
-
Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?
It doesn't matter if he's a bishop or not. It has been proven that he's given 2 different answers as to who ordained him. He either lied to the Ukrainian Catholics in Toronto or he lied to Boston, KY or he lied both times. A, B, or C ... he's already been proven as a fraud.
And then there are the other problems with OLMC which have nothing to do with Ambrose. Bp Williamson had sufficient reason to avoid Boston, KY long before Ambrose appeared on the scene.
-
Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?
It doesn't matter if he's a bishop or not. It has been proven that he's given 2 different answers as to who ordained him. He either lied to the Ukrainian Catholics in Toronto or he lied to Boston, KY or he lied both times. A, B, or C ... he's already been proven as a fraud.
And then there are the other problems with OLMC which have nothing to do with Ambrose. Bp Williamson had sufficient reason to avoid Boston, KY long before Ambrose appeared on the scene.
I agree. We have barely followed the Ambrose story because we had concerns even before it so how it turns out doesn't really affect us except perhaps to confirm previous suspicions.
-
Common practice and common sense, if there is one photo or docuмent that is false by such means as forgery, Photoshop, etc. The all related docuмents fall under the suspicion generated by the fraud until proven absolutely genuine.
One falsification among them raises the bar or standard by which all others are required to pass over.
Such a validation cannot be made by an interested party, that simply will not stand.
That goes for the priests, the assistant, and the assistant's assistant, (the cook).
-
On his eighth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Eight minds a-melting
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
One issue I see with this 30 days blog and with OLMC defenders in general is it seems like they're quick to pass over serious issues (priestly integrity, laity harassment, and suspicious clerical history for example) and over hype other good things done at the seminary (manual labor and personal piety for example.)
Any good done there is great to see but that does not wash away or cancel out the dangers at OLMC. It's good to see that the members on this forum are not so easily fooled.
It's silly for some at OLMC to label any questions or concerns as "attacks from the devil." As if the Church Herself never had questions or concerns about anything that could possibly be harmful to the Church Herself or Her members...and in fact did attack if it was proven to be harmful. Attacking isn't always an evil action.
-
Should have been called "Thirty Days in the Boston Kitchen"
Many more culinary diversions than useful facts. A perfect vehicle by which to gauge the traditional public's reactions and manipulate the narrative and perceptions.
Honestly, this whole effort seems to be a very transparent damage control PR campaign, and as a Catholic lady reminded me today, this blog and its contents could not be going forward without Father Pfeiffer's knowledge, oversight, and consent.
Cui Bono folks...............................
Hot Dogs and beans tomorrow?..................................... :scratchchin:
-
Ambrose certainly will be teaching the cook all his favorite recipes handed down from his babushka. :chef:
-
Should have been called "Thirty Days in the Boston Kitchen"
Many more culinary diversions than useful facts. A perfect vehicle by which to gauge the traditional public's reactions and manipulate the narrative and perceptions.
Honestly, this whole effort seems to be a very transparent damage control PR campaign, and as a Catholic lady reminded me today, this blog and its contents could not be going forward without Father Pfeiffer's knowledge, oversight, and consent.:
This blog is entirely without Father's oversight and consent. He does know about it, though.
I write what I see. Since most of my first week has been spent in the kitchen, that is what I have written about.
I hope to wrote more soon, and more than just about food. There are plenty of things going on here at the seminary. It is a busy place.
-
Where will the seminarians and the cook be going to Mass this coming Sunday with the two padres out of town?
-
From today's entry on the 30 days blog:
With so much time in the kitchen, it is difficult to find enough time to do more research on the validity of Bishop Ambrose's ordination as priest. I did spend some time, however, with the docuмents.
The Eparchy of Toronto sent two docuмents; the ordination certificate and the letter of indoctrination into the Eparchy. This Eparchy is Ukrainian Catholic, and is in communion with Rome.
The photos available offer more support for the validity of these docuмents.
It is clearer that Bishop Ambrose was ordained a priest, and that the Eparchy of Toronto has confirmed this to be the case.
There is, of course, more information about the ordination, and there are eye witnesses, according to those who have done this research.
I hope this information will soon be released publicly, to those who, like the Apostle Thomas, needed proof for themselves. Doubt is a difficult thing to overcome, especially with all the stories floating around the internet about the man who claims to be a bishop.
I had my doubts about his ordination at first. The Eparchy's archives offer credence to Ambrose's claims that he is a Catholic priest.
His consecration is my next target of inquiry. That will have to wait for another day.
-
Nice little dig there, calling us "doubting Thomases".
You're right, just like St. Thomas should have believed Our Lord's word that He rose from the dead, that He is God, that He has the power to do such a thing ---
Likewise we should have FAITH in Fr. Pfeiffer and Ambrose Moran.
???!!!? Am I missing something here?
No, we're not supposed to have faith when it comes to a priest's ordination or a bishop's consecration. A doubtful priest is no priest at all, or should at least be treated as not a priest until his ordination can be proven.
-
letter of indoctrination
Freudian slip?
-
Nice little dig there, calling us "doubting Thomases".
You're right, just like St. Thomas should have believed Our Lord's word that He rose from the dead, that He is God, that He has the power to do such a thing ---
Likewise we should have FAITH in Fr. Pfeiffer and Ambrose Moran.
???!!!? Am I missing something here?
No, it's absolutely true. At first I doubted exactly how much of a joke Ambrose really was, until I placed my hands on the holes in his story... then I believed that Ambrose was the true Archphotoshop!
:incense: :incense: :incense:
-
A RECIPE FOR MANUEL
1 CUP OF AMBROSE'S TESTIMONY
I studied for and was ordained by [Cardinal Josef Slipyj] in the Byzantine Ukrainian Ruthenian Rite -- beautiful, very beautiful. But, fully Catholic in communion with the Holy Father.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYN_E3guNnA
1 POUND OF CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE FROM TORONTO
(pictured below: Not Cardinal Slipyj / Not Catholic / Not in communion with Rome)
1 DASH OF CHARACTER TESTIMONY
[Ambrose's] mind is sharp and clear.
http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/10/day-six-timestretched.html
COMBINE FOR A TASTY SERVING OF FRAUD SOUP!
-
the letter of indoctrination into the Eparchy.
Fr. Ambrose is NOT and has NEVER BEEN incardinated to this Eparchy.
For the complete letter, click here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38165&min=243&num=1).
-
This whole thing is utterly disgusting, but I think we all knew that MC already had a bias toward King Tut: [sorry but Moran reminds me of the Batman character played by Victor Buono: http://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/screen-capture-8.png]
Hey folks Father Pfeiffer needs a bishop. I just pray that Father Hewko leaves this whole mess and shakes the dust from his feet.
-
On your blog for Thursday October, 29 you say : "I see evidence that he was ordained as a priest. I want to see more evidence for his Episcopal consecration."
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who? Was it Cardinal Slipyj, as he claimed in the sermon video or was it Nicholas Ilnyckyj? I know for a fact that he told Father Hewko that he was ordained by a bishop that was so humble that they called him "the janitor"! Isn't that funny, my priest friend who knew him back in the seventies said that when Bishop Kelly, who was with the SSPX at the time, investigated Moran, they traced his ordaining "bishop" to a janitor at a school in Long Island.
MC, are you after the truth or are you just obeying what the policy is right now in Boston?
There is so much evidence, that this man is a fraud, that it baffles the mind that anyone but a 5 year old would believe him.
I think it was P.T. Barnum who said that "there is a sucker born every minute, and two to take him". I contend that I am being extremely charitable by believing that this is true, I loath to think that the reason is something sinister.
During the 70s I remember hearing that Cardinal Slipyj was very senile.
-
(http://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/screen-capture-8.png)
Sorry, I can't seem to figure out how to imbed a picture.
-
Should have been called "Thirty Days in the Boston Kitchen"
Many more culinary diversions than useful facts. A perfect vehicle by which to gauge the traditional public's reactions and manipulate the narrative and perceptions.
Honestly, this whole effort seems to be a very transparent damage control PR campaign, and as a Catholic lady reminded me today, this blog and its contents could not be going forward without Father Pfeiffer's knowledge, oversight, and consent.:
This blog is entirely without Father's oversight and consent. He does know about it, though.
I write what I see. Since most of my first week has been spent in the kitchen, that is what I have written about.
I hope to wrote more soon, and more than just about food. There are plenty of things going on here at the seminary. It is a busy place.
What kind of library do they have?
-
letter of indoctrination
Freudian slip?
No. I writing on my phone, at night, and the phone often autocorrects when it comes across a word it doesn't know. It is the letter of incardination, not indoctrination.
-
On his ninth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
letter of indoctrination
Freudian slip?
No. I writing on my phone, at night, and the phone often autocorrects when it comes across a word it doesn't know. It is the letter of incardination, not indoctrination.
MC, maybe it was God prompting you to see things for what they are, reality. The only proof you have of his ordination is a docuмent uncovered by Clemens Maria sent to him from Toronto that says that an Orthodox "Bishop" named Nicholas Ilnyckyj ordained him. He was not and never was incardinated in any Catholic diocese or Eparchy. HE IS A CON-MAN!! Are you that naive? If he is a valid priest, which I admit is possible, you still can NOT receive any sacrament from him because it is DOUBTFUL! Do you get it? Even if you can prove without a shadow or doubt, that he is a valid priest, you should still stay away because he was never regularized by the Church, he is a forger, he scandalized many Catholics, and he is a liar. BTW: It is probably now next to impossible to prove the validity of his orders.
-
MC, remember too that Moran told Father Hewko that he was ordained by a bishop in Toronto and that he says on the "sermon video" that he was ordained by Cardinal Slipyj. This claim is at the 5 minute mark. Again I say to you, are you that naive? Your soul and the souls that you encourage to believe this charlatan are at stake.
-
Where will the seminarians and the cook be going to Mass this coming Sunday with the two padres out of town?
Indeed, we will see how much has "changed" in the Boston would be seminary.
-
Ever heard of Pavlov's dogs?
-
letter of indoctrination
Freudian slip?
No. I writing on my phone, at night, and the phone often autocorrects when it comes across a word it doesn't know. It is the letter of incardination, not indoctrination.
MC, maybe it was God prompting you to see things for what they are, reality. The only proof you have of his ordination is a docuмent uncovered by Clemens Maria sent to him from Toronto that says that an Orthodox "Bishop" named Nicholas Ilnyckyj ordained him. He was not and never was incardinated in any Catholic diocese or Eparchy. HE IS A CON-MAN!! Are you that naive? If he is a valid priest, which I admit is possible, you still can NOT receive any sacrament from him because it is DOUBTFUL! Do you get it? Even if you can prove without a shadow or doubt, that he is a valid priest, you should still stay away because he was never regularized by the Church, he is a forger, he scandalized many Catholics, and he is a liar. BTW: It is probably now next to impossible to prove the validity of his orders.
The docuмents I have seen regarding his ordination and incardination were from the archives of the Toronto Eparchy, not from anyone else. If these docuмents are forgeries, then the Eparchy has forged docuмents in their archives. If their archives are so dubious as to have forged docuмents, then anything from that archive should be called into question.
-
The docuмents I have seen regarding his ordination and incardination were from the archives of the Toronto Eparchy,
I'll repeat this again... The Toronto Eparchy did NOT at any point incardinate Ambrose. Please stop referring to their letter as such.
The letter with protocol # 2/75 (on the website) was a letter of accepting Fr. Ambrose as a priest to sevre in the Eparchy. It is NOT a letter of incardination. Canon law has specific procedures for official transference of incardination.
Fr. Ambrose is NOT and has NEVER BEEN incardinated to this Eparchy.
-
The docuмents I have seen regarding his ordination and incardination were from the archives of the Toronto Eparchy,
I'll repeat this again... The Toronto Eparchy did NOT at any point incardinate Ambrose. Please stop referring to their letter as such.
The letter with protocol # 2/75 (on the website) was a letter of accepting Fr. Ambrose as a priest to sevre in the Eparchy. It is NOT a letter of incardination. Canon law has specific procedures for official transference of incardination.
Fr. Ambrose is NOT and has NEVER BEEN incardinated to this Eparchy.
Then why did the Eparchy have it on file? That is what I would like to know.
-
Is it just me, or is Martin ("Manuel") the perfect disciple of Fr. Pfeiffer, having learned "from the best" how to ignore whatever facts or criticism that hurts your cause?
Fr. Pfeiffer does this all the time.
Martin is able to refrain from outright LYING (from what I've seen so far) but he certainly uses redirection, distraction, ignoring important facts, etc.
-
The docuмents I have seen regarding his ordination and incardination were from the archives of the Toronto Eparchy,
I'll repeat this again... The Toronto Eparchy did NOT at any point incardinate Ambrose. Please stop referring to their letter as such.
The letter with protocol # 2/75 (on the website) was a letter of accepting Fr. Ambrose as a priest to sevre in the Eparchy. It is NOT a letter of incardination. Canon law has specific procedures for official transference of incardination.
Fr. Ambrose is NOT and has NEVER BEEN incardinated to this Eparchy.
Then why did the Eparchy have it on file? That is what I would like to know.
Who knows? Ask them. Apparently they archive any useful docuмent; they didn't know if he'd come back later to actually be incardinated. At that point, they would have looked more closely into his ordination, etc. But all they did was say, "Great. Nice to meet you. Keep up the good work." like a form letter. It wasn't the result of any investigation.
It's like getting an initial response from a job application. They write to you acknowledging you are a human being, that they are considering you -- but you haven't been hired yet, they haven't done a background check on you yet, and they haven't drug tested you yet.
All we keep reaching is one dead end after another here.
Proof of Ambrose's legitimacy seems to be quite elusive. Maybe because it doesn't exist?
Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation tends to be the true one.
-
Yeah, I'll say. He ignores every question I've ever asked.
-
The docuмents I have seen regarding his ordination and incardination were from the archives of the Toronto Eparchy,
I'll repeat this again... The Toronto Eparchy did NOT at any point incardinate Ambrose. Please stop referring to their letter as such.
The letter with protocol # 2/75 (on the website) was a letter of accepting Fr. Ambrose as a priest to sevre in the Eparchy. It is NOT a letter of incardination. Canon law has specific procedures for official transference of incardination.
Fr. Ambrose is NOT and has NEVER BEEN incardinated to this Eparchy.
Then why did the Eparchy have it on file? That is what I would like to know.
Here's what the letter says:
After this [period of two years], a review of your record will be made, and the possibility of incardination will be discussed.
Does this resolve your confusion?
-
Is it just me, or is Martin ("Manuel") the perfect disciple of Fr. Pfeiffer, having learned "from the best" how to ignore whatever facts or criticism that hurts your cause?
Fr. Pfeiffer does this all the time.
Martin is able to refrain from outright LYING (from what I've seen so far) but he certainly uses redirection, distraction, ignoring important facts, etc.
Don't feel bad Matthew, I get this all the time from dogmatic anti-Sedevacants.
-
Is it just me, or is Martin ("Manuel") the perfect disciple of Fr. Pfeiffer, having learned "from the best" how to ignore whatever facts or criticism that hurts your cause?
Fr. Pfeiffer does this all the time.
Martin is able to refrain from outright LYING (from what I've seen so far) but he certainly uses redirection, distraction, ignoring important facts, etc.
The only cause I care for is the salvation of souls, mine included. The seminary could close tomorrow, and if God wills it, I would be perfectly fine with that. If Ambrose is a fraud, and the docuмents from the Eparchy archives turn out to be fraudulent, then I will accept that, too.
-
The docuмents I have seen regarding his ordination and incardination were from the archives of the Toronto Eparchy,
I'll repeat this again... The Toronto Eparchy did NOT at any point incardinate Ambrose. Please stop referring to their letter as such.
The letter with protocol # 2/75 (on the website) was a letter of accepting Fr. Ambrose as a priest to sevre in the Eparchy. It is NOT a letter of incardination. Canon law has specific procedures for official transference of incardination.
Fr. Ambrose is NOT and has NEVER BEEN incardinated to this Eparchy.
Then why did the Eparchy have it on file? That is what I would like to know.
Who knows? Ask them. Apparently they archive any useful docuмent; they didn't know if he'd come back later to actually be incardinated. At that point, they would have looked more closely into his ordination, etc. But all they did was say, "Great. Nice to meet you. Keep up the good work." like a form letter. It wasn't the result of any investigation.
It's like getting an initial response from a job application. They write to you acknowledging you are a human being, that they are considering you -- but you haven't been hired yet, they haven't done a background check on you yet, and they haven't drug tested you yet.
All we keep reaching is one dead end after another here.
Proof of Ambrose's legitimacy seems to be quite elusive. Maybe because it doesn't exist?
Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation tends to be the true one.
I will call them on Monday.
-
Proof of Ambrose's legitimacy seems to be quite elusive. Maybe because it doesn't exist?
Perhaps the truth of the matter is eluding those who do not wish to find it...........
-
Forget about Eparchies, is there going to be a priest there for Mass on Sunday and to supervise the seminarians over the weekend?
Who will it be.
-
Forget about Eparchies, is there going to be a priest there for Mass on Sunday and to supervise the seminarians over the weekend?
Who will it be.
Father Hewko is saying Mass tomorrow evening.
-
Proof of Ambrose's legitimacy seems to be quite elusive. Maybe because it doesn't exist?
Perhaps the truth of the matter is eluding those who do not wish to find it...........
Apparently his defenders are holding Ambrose to a new standard:
We will presume that he is a priest until you can provide proof that he is NOT.
In other words, daring us to prove a negative, which is logically impossible.
Furthermore, it's as if saying that his 'eucharist' and 'absolutions' are valid unless you can prove otherwise.
.
-
The end justifies the means apparently.
-
Proof of Ambrose's legitimacy seems to be quite elusive. Maybe because it doesn't exist?
Perhaps the truth of the matter is eluding those who do not wish to find it...........
Apparently his defenders are holding Ambrose to a new standard:
We will presume that he is a priest until you can provide proof that he is NOT.
In other words, daring us to prove a negative, which is logically impossible.
Furthermore, it's as if saying that his 'eucharist' and 'absolutions' are valid unless you can prove otherwise.
.
Such a standard is the opposite of Catholic standards and suffices only within cultish sects. Throwing caution away when dealing with the sacraments is not what the Church does.
-
Forget about Eparchies, is there going to be a priest there for Mass on Sunday and to supervise the seminarians over the weekend?
Who will it be.
Father Hewko is saying Mass tomorrow evening.
When he returns, I would surmise, will there be a cleric in house to supervise the seminarians while he is gone?
It seems business as usual there. I would take that to mean that what has been submitted re Ambrose, to the Fathers, has been disregarded?
-
What I would like to know is for someone who has been there to tell me about their library. What kinds of books do they have in their library?
-
What I would like to know is for someone who has been there to tell me about their library. What kinds of books do they have in their library?
Their library is just off the kitchen. It has books of various types. Most of them are Catholic books, such as the Summa Theologica, City of God and a few missals. There are books from and about the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. There are some commentaries and compendiums, dictionaries and books of canon law. I also found an AP stylebook. I can provide a list of some titles later, if you would like to see what else they have on hand.
-
What I would like to know is for someone who has been there to tell me about their library. What kinds of books do they have in their library?
Their library is just off the kitchen. It has books of various types. Most of them are Catholic books, such as the Summa Theologica, City of God and a few missals. There are books from and about the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. There are some commentaries and compendiums, dictionaries and books of canon law. I also found an AP stylebook. I can provide a list of some titles later, if you would like to see what else they have on hand.
Is the City of God the City of god by St Augustine or the Celestial City of God by Maria de Agreda?
-
A RECIPE FOR MANUEL
1 CUP OF AMBROSE'S TESTIMONY
I studied for and was ordained by [Cardinal Josef Slipyj] in the Byzantine Ukrainian Ruthenian Rite -- beautiful, very beautiful. But, fully Catholic in communion with the Holy Father.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYN_E3guNnA
1 POUND OF CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE FROM TORONTO
(pictured below: Not Cardinal Slipyj / Not Catholic / Not in communion with Rome)
1 DASH OF CHARACTER TESTIMONY
[Ambrose's] mind is sharp and clear.
http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/10/day-six-timestretched.html
COMBINE FOR A TASTY SERVING OF FRAUD SOUP!
I'm certain this recipe is either a remedy for constipation or diarrhea--I'm just not sure which.
-
What I would like to know is for someone who has been there to tell me about their library. What kinds of books do they have in their library?
Their library is just off the kitchen. It has books of various types. Most of them are Catholic books, such as the Summa Theologica, City of God and a few missals. There are books from and about the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. There are some commentaries and compendiums, dictionaries and books of canon law. I also found an AP stylebook. I can provide a list of some titles later, if you would like to see what else they have on hand.
How about Papal Encyclicals or are they totally dependent on the internet for these priceless official Church docuмents?
-
Here are a few of the books. They have four more sets of shelves like these.
They do have Saint Augustine, by the way.
-
On his tenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
What I would like to know is for someone who has been there to tell me about their library. What kinds of books do they have in their library?
Their library is just off the kitchen. It has books of various types. Most of them are Catholic books, such as the Summa Theologica, City of God and a few missals. There are books from and about the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. There are some commentaries and compendiums, dictionaries and books of canon law. I also found an AP stylebook. I can provide a list of some titles later, if you would like to see what else they have on hand.
How about Papal Encyclicals or are they totally dependent on the internet for these priceless official Church docuмents?
I'll look for those today.
-
As [what's the nice word?] "innocent" as MC is, I'm just grateful that he didn't end up with somebody like Jim Jones or David Bawden--bless his heart.
-
On one shelf, I found Quanta & Cura and also Quo Gravitora.
-
Forget about Eparchies, is there going to be a priest there for Mass on Sunday and to supervise the seminarians over the weekend?
Who will it be.
Wow, at 11:57 pm last night an announcement for Mass went out. That doesn't really help the families who need to plan well in advance to load up children and make the drive.
Will there be an All Saints party for the children? Hopefully somebody had the forethought to plan for that.
-
Forget about Eparchies, is there going to be a priest there for Mass on Sunday and to supervise the seminarians over the weekend?
Who will it be.
Wow, at 11:57 pm last night an announcement for Mass went out. That doesn't really help the families who need to plan well in advance to load up children and make the drive.
Will there be an All Saints party for the children? Hopefully somebody had the forethought to plan for that.
I hope so.
-
Now, now, let's not nitpick.
I know I can't speak for everyone, but speaking for myself and (I hope) most members here, I'm not out to muck rake, nitpick, or act like I have an all-too-human grudge against Fr. Pfeiffer or his seminary.
I am only publicly critical of grave matters at that seminary: endorsement of a con artist as priest/bishop, inadequate training, inadequate isolation/silence, inadequate spiritual direction and supervision, heavy involvement by (even direction from) a known apostate, etc.
The scariest thing about the Boston seminary is the famous quote, "Nemo dat quod non habet." No one gives what he doesn't have. Let's just say that a priest's life must be Order, discipline, with a heavy emphasis on the Interior Life (prayer) and Catholic doctrine.
If the Boston seminary was relying on the Internet for the Papal Encyclicals, we wouldn't even have a thread about them on CI (at least not a critical one).
There's no crime in being poor. There is nothing wrong with humble beginnings. You gotta start somewhere. But for something as critical as a seminary, there are certain minimums which MUST be met. And unfortunately for Fr. Pfeiffer, those minimums are somewhat higher than the minimums for saying Mass somewhere.
Calling the Boston operation a "seminary" is actually quite an insult to real seminaries all over the world.
Likewise, let's not mix up the necessary (Mass) with the extra niceties (All Saints Day costume party). Or the necessary (proper environment/supervision/program of studies) with extra niceties (brand new softcover editions of Papal encyclicals)
We're having an All Saints Day party today at our independent chapel, but just for reference St. Joseph's in San Antonio (SSPX) is not! St. Joseph's, with 1.5 million in the bank, 200-250 parishioners, 2 Masses every Sunday, established in 1975, with a dedicated building (church, mini school and rectory) and served by the mighty SSPX. As far as I know, they're just having Low Mass today. That's it. No Benediction, no High Mass, no party. Unless something has changed since I was there; if anyone knows this to be erroneous, please correct me.
-
We have now morphed beyond the mysteries of the dinner table and have gone to an online tutorial on librarianism.
Let us return to the question, does the seminary so called have a permanent staff
and is there a supervising cleric present at all times?
Who is it? And will the seminarians have access to daily Mass?
-
Now, now, let's not nitpick.
If the Boston seminary was relying on the Internet for the Papal Encyclicals, we wouldn't even have a thread about them on CI (at least not a critical one).
There's no crime in being poor.
Likewise, let's not mix up the necessary (Mass) with the extra niceties (All Saints Day costume party). Or the necessary (proper environment/supervision/program of studies) with extra niceties (brand new softcover editions of Papal encyclicals)
We're having an All Saints Day party today at our independent chapel, but just for reference St. Joseph's in San Antonio (SSPX) is not! St. Joseph's, with 1.5 million in the bank, 200-250 parishioners, 2 Masses every Sunday, established in 1975, with a dedicated building (church, mini school and rectory) and served by the mighty SSPX. As far as I know, they're just having Low Mass today. That's it. No Benediction, no High Mass, no party. Unless something has changed since I was there; if anyone knows this to be erroneous, please correct me.
Matthew, before there was a seminary OLMC was a thriving family parish with tons of children. The families are disappearing. Even some of the Pfeiffers don't go to Mass there anymore. That's not nitpicking if something was a certain way for decades and with no notice a bunch of strangers from AZ/MO/TX show up and take it away. Do you remember a few years ago Hernandez bragged on this very forum he was going to transform Pfeifferville into Pabloville by getting rid of the hillbillies. The ethnic makeup has somewhat shifted this past year and it's definitely less hillbilly.
Would Fr Hannafin approve of what is happening there today? What about Fr Urban Snyder?
-
Now, now, let's not nitpick.
If the Boston seminary was relying on the Internet for the Papal Encyclicals, we wouldn't even have a thread about them on CI (at least not a critical one).
There's no crime in being poor.
Likewise, let's not mix up the necessary (Mass) with the extra niceties (All Saints Day costume party). Or the necessary (proper environment/supervision/program of studies) with extra niceties (brand new softcover editions of Papal encyclicals)
We're having an All Saints Day party today at our independent chapel, but just for reference St. Joseph's in San Antonio (SSPX) is not! St. Joseph's, with 1.5 million in the bank, 200-250 parishioners, 2 Masses every Sunday, established in 1975, with a dedicated building (church, mini school and rectory) and served by the mighty SSPX. As far as I know, they're just having Low Mass today. That's it. No Benediction, no High Mass, no party. Unless something has changed since I was there; if anyone knows this to be erroneous, please correct me.
Matthew, before there was a seminary OLMC was a thriving family parish with tons of children. The families are disappearing. Even some of the Pfeiffers don't go to Mass there anymore. That's not nitpicking if something was a certain way for decades and with no notice a bunch of strangers from AZ/MO/TX show up and take it away. Do you remember a few years ago Hernandez bragged on this very forum he was going to transform Pfeifferville into Pabloville by getting rid of the hillbillies. The ethnic makeup has somewhat shifted this past year and it's definitely less hillbilly.
Would Fr Hannafin approve of what is happening there today? What about Fr Urban Snyder?
The Devil has many ways to undermine a good work.
-
Matthew, before there was a seminary OLMC was a thriving family parish with tons of children. The families are disappearing. Even some of the Pfeiffers don't go to Mass there anymore. That's not nitpicking if something was a certain way for decades and with no notice a bunch of strangers from AZ/MO/TX show up and take it away. Do you remember a few years ago Hernandez bragged on this very forum he was going to transform Pfeifferville into Pabloville by getting rid of the hillbillies. The ethnic makeup has somewhat shifted this past year and it's definitely less hillbilly.
Would Fr Hannafin approve of what is happening there today? What about Fr Urban Snyder?
I don't feel too bad about slightly derailing this thread...
Who was pastor at OLMC before Fr. Pfeiffer came there in 2012?
-
Matthew, before there was a seminary OLMC was a thriving family parish with tons of children. The families are disappearing. Even some of the Pfeiffers don't go to Mass there anymore. That's not nitpicking if something was a certain way for decades and with no notice a bunch of strangers from AZ/MO/TX show up and take it away. Do you remember a few years ago Hernandez bragged on this very forum he was going to transform Pfeifferville into Pabloville by getting rid of the hillbillies. The ethnic makeup has somewhat shifted this past year and it's definitely less hillbilly.
Would Fr Hannafin approve of what is happening there today? What about Fr Urban Snyder?
What do you mean by strangers? What did they take away? How did they take it away?
-
We have now morphed beyond the mysteries of the dinner table and have gone to an online tutorial on librarianism.
And now onto inquiries into the geneology of OLMC, but I will repeat to Manuel,
Let us return to the question, does the seminary so called have a permanent staff
and is there a supervising cleric present at all times?
Who is it? And will the seminarians have access to daily Mass?
-
*crickets chirping*
Crickets that have practically been trademarked by Fr. Pfeiffer & co.
-
We have now morphed beyond the mysteries of the dinner table and have gone to an online tutorial on librarianism.
And now onto inquiries into the geneology of OLMC, but I will repeat to Manuel,
Let us return to the question, does the seminary so called have a permanent staff
and is there a supervising cleric present at all times?
Who is it? And will the seminarians have access to daily Mass?
The seminarians have access to daily Mass.
-
[quoteThe seminarians have access to daily Mass.
Thats not true! But it is certainly true while you're there.
Anyway you're just a visitor and a cook and you can´t say how it is in the seminary! Only a real seminarian can tell us and they revealed us as it is:
they fled!!! So dear Lord MANUEL CHAVEZ if that is not a testimony? The witness of the seminarians has more power and TRUTH, as the testimony of a cook. I am sorry!
You're just a bystander and you don´t look behind the curtain. Your study and investigation of the seminar is allso null and void. :detective:
God bless
-
[quoteThe seminarians have access to daily Mass.
Thats not true! But it is certainly true while you're there.
Anyway you're just a visitor and a cook and you can´t say how it is in the seminary! Only a real seminarian can tell us and they revealed us as it is:
they fled!!! So dear Lord MANUEL CHAVEZ if that is not a testimony? The witness of the seminarians has more power and TRUTH, as the testimony of a cook. I am sorry!
You're just a bystander and you don´t look behind the curtain. Your study and investigation of the seminar is allso null and void. :detective:
God bless
This is an entirely different year. What the former seminarians experienced last year has no bearing on this year. Their testimonials are outdated.
-
So when you leave Kentucky, you will be outdate but the truth remains.
:scratchchin:
-
If they have every day Mass, who's the priest saying mass??? It is not possible that they have everyday mass, except Mr. / Bishop Ambrose is there !!!
The question remains, of course, if it is true sacrifice of the mass. If so, whether it is schismatic. Anyway, the Church forbids to attend a doubtful mass !
-
So when you leave Kentucky, you will be outdate but the truth remains.
:scratchchin:
The truth is what is happening now, not last year. The seminarians did miss some masses last year. I am well aware of that. They have not missed any Masses this year, however.
-
If they have every day Mass, who's the priest saying mass??? It is not possible that they have everyday mass, except Mr. / Bishop Ambrose is there !!!
The question remains, of course, if it is true sacrifice of the mass. If so, whether it is schismatic. Anyway, the Church forbids to attend a doubtful mass !
Father Pfeiffer and Father Hewko have made a better schedule this year, which allows one of them to say Mass at the seminary.
-
I cannot see the picture you posted earlier of Mr Moran saying 'mass'. Have you removed it? If so, why?
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
-
P.S THE BEST SHEDULE they will finally have, when it is to late and the seminary is destroyed. And only then they will fire Pablo!
Let's call the whole as it is in fact from the very beginning: OPERATION ѕυιcιdє!
-
Sorry I have that picture on the blog now. As he saying Mass for the seminarians can we now assume that the priests in Boston accept Mr/Fr/Bishop Moran as kosher. Perhaps he has actually been sent by the XSPX to undermine the Resistance. If so, he has done a great job.
-
Why must you parse words so, Manuel? Have the seminarians received daily Mass since you arrived, officiated by someone other than Ambrose, or not? si si no no
-
Why must you parse words so, Manuel? Have the seminarians received daily Mass since you arrived, officiated by someone other than Ambrose, or not? si si no no
The information which is coming from there is very Fellayish, parsed, Clintonist, and incomplete.
-
Manuel,
From the latest blog entry, we can assume that Ambrose is continuing to service the Kentucky associated chapels while investigation of his legitimacy continues.
If you had a surgeon who had questionable credentials, would you let him operate on your children before you knew if he was even a real doctor?
This is folly on the part of these priests, to be so reckless with the welfare of souls,
is it not?
-
Matthew, before there was a seminary OLMC was a thriving family parish with tons of children. The families are disappearing. Even some of the Pfeiffers don't go to Mass there anymore. That's not nitpicking if something was a certain way for decades and with no notice a bunch of strangers from AZ/MO/TX show up and take it away. Do you remember a few years ago Hernandez bragged on this very forum he was going to transform Pfeifferville into Pabloville by getting rid of the hillbillies. The ethnic makeup has somewhat shifted this past year and it's definitely less hillbilly.
Would Fr Hannafin approve of what is happening there today? What about Fr Urban Snyder?
I don't feel too bad about slightly derailing this thread...
Who was pastor at OLMC before Fr. Pfeiffer came there in 2012?
Good question. Were they an official SSPX chapel or did they have a family altar that one of their sons would offer Mass on when visiting?
-
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. And Mrs. Pfeiffer kept a private chapel in which their sons would offer mass on home visits. This chapel was in exsistance since Fr. Hannafin
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
No. There has not been a single day without a Mass offered here. Do not distort the facts. I have been here for nine days, and my brother has been here since before the beginning of the school year. No missed masses. Ambrose only offered one public Mass while he was here this time.
-
I cannot see the picture you posted earlier of Mr Moran saying 'mass'. Have you removed it? If so, why?
The picture should still be available. Here it is again, in case it was removed.
-
Why must you parse words so, Manuel? Have the seminarians received daily Mass since you arrived, officiated by someone other than Ambrose, or not? si si no no
Ambrose offered one non-private Mass during his time in Kentucky. It was Saturday morning, before he left. Other than that, every other day has had masses offered by either Father Pfeiffer or Father Hewko.
-
Manuel: A little bit of news leaked out that something big, something important, happened at OLMC this past Thursday or Friday. Are you allowed to report it? Does it have to do with Ambrose?
-
Manuel: A little bit of news leaked out that something big, something important, happened at OLMC this past Thursday or Friday. Are you allowed to report it? Does it have to do with Ambrose?
Oh great.
-
Manuel: A little bit of news leaked out that something big, something important, happened at OLMC this past Thursday or Friday. Are you allowed to report it? Does it have to do with Ambrose?
I cannot recall anything big or important happening on either day.
-
No, the chapel was not only for the Pfeiffers.
It was a SSPX chapel under bishop Fellay! ! !
Because of the "so called" Resistance, the parents of father Joseph Pfeiffer and father Tim Pfeiffer, gave it to father Joe. So he is (normally) the BOSS until pablo the Amateur Exorcist arrived...
-
Gregory Taylor of "The Recusant!" came to Kentucky. He is still in KY, so for sure they have everyday mass. Because they have a VIP guest! Here is the link> http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/10/day-six-timestretched.html
-
No, the chapel was not only for the Pfeiffers.
It was a SSPX chapel under bishop Fellay! ! !
Because of the "so called" Resistance, the parents of father Joseph Pfeiffer and father Tim Pfeiffer, gave it to father Joe. So he is (normally) the BOSS until pablo the Amateur Exorcist arrived...
It's my understanding that several of the Pfeiffers are registered as member of the board of OLMC. If there is financial mishandlings wouldn't they be culpable as well? I mean, certainly they are all aware of the problems at OLMC and to date they have not taken the proper steps to rectify it. Do you think an IRS audit would be a good idea?
-
Gregory Taylor of "The Recusant!" came to Kentucky. He is still in KY, so for sure they have everyday mass. Because they have a VIP guest! Here is the link> http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/10/day-six-timestretched.html
No. He arrived last Saturday and left two days ago, early morning.
-
On his eleventh day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Motorede, if you make an accusation than back it up. What was this "Big thing" and who said it? If you can't report fully than don't say anything at all. What is this, elementary school?
Ekim: I don't interpret what I wrote as an accusation of anything. Sorry if I caused confusion. And no, of course, it's not elementary school, it's a fishing expedition--fishing for information from Manuel who is living there and reporting happenings at OLMC. I know nothing more, but would like to, if there is anything. Manuel said in response to my question that, as far as he knows, nothing big or important occurred there on Thursday or Friday. I'm satisfied with his answer.
-
It depends upon what the meaning of big, important, or nothing is................
-
It depends upon what the meaning of big, important, or nothing is................
Sad to say, it would only be a minor step down if Fr. Pfeiffer, defending Ambrose, Pablo, or some other outrage, resorted to Bill Clinton's infamous:
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
-
My hearing is none too good, but does Mr Moran here in this video say that we can consider the seminary canonically erected ? Can anyone make out what he is saying ? This is more evidence that he said Mass in Boston even though Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko know that he is a fraud.
Mr Moran saying 'mass' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOC_h_238hg)
-
My hearing is none too good either when the mike is probably 15 to 25 feet from the speaker. I find the video problematic. It appears that the camera is set up on a tripod, because it is not moving about as if it were hand held. If that is the case, why did the video camera operator feel it was necessary to place the camera so far from Ambrose? Why did he not simply set it up under the speaker's nose? Maybe Manuel has the answer.
-
Moran's sermon low mass (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOC_h_238hg)
He says at the end that he did not forget the Creed that famous (infamous?) Sunday. But he surely forgets saying "Dominus vobiscuм" and the offertory prayer before removing the chalice veil.
Did you hear what he says about having two bishops "in secret"?
-
My hearing is none too good either when the mike is probably 15 to 25 feet from the speaker. I find the video problematic. It appears that the camera is set up on a tripod, because it is not moving about as if it were hand held. If that is the case, why did the video camera operator feel it was necessary to place the camera so far from Ambrose? Why did he not simply set it up under the speaker's nose? Maybe Manuel has the answer.
It was hand held. I didn't want to get too close to the seminarians. In retrospect, I should have gotten closer.
-
Here's what I heard (some things were inaudible, even at full volume):
[...] SSPX Marian Corps. I am not. But somehow, he is. [...] I'm here. And so I consider, having this is my second visit here, having met all of you, I know each one of you [...] can see [...] the right place. So we will consider, somehow we have to deal with the pirates that took over the ship. Except the captain of the ship is one of the pirates [...]. We will consider the seminary canonically erected. And uh, you don't have to worry about that. Just a canonical technicality. But in the current circuмstances, I will guarantee you one thing: anyone who has a vocation, will be ordained. Because we even have more options than myself. I have 2 bishops, who exist in secret, and if I disappear(ed?) tomorrow, they will pop up. So the Blessed Mother always has alternatives for you. So no one should get worried [...] me, "well who's going to ordain us?".
We're praying that Bishop, uh, Williamson and Bishop Faure will cooperate and be good bishops. Promote the true Faith. That [is/goes] to show you, that in extreme necessity, the Blessed Mother can be creative and resourceful. It is said, that under the present circuмstances we have [...] the likes of me to come forward to help you. But for better or worse, I am here. And my attitude is, if you can put up with me, [Satan?] is mine, don't worry about it. So, pray for me, I'm praying for you. I don't want to leave today. I'd like to stay. But I have to take care of my pastoral responsibilities, so I'll probably be coming and going, and that way... It's like when you go to the gym. You lift the physical resistance and then the muscles hurt and you have to let them recuperate and build back up. Then you go, you skip a day, right? So, I'll come for a week or so and then I'll let you recuperate from me, and then I'll come back. And we'll keep doing that and you just build up and be strong.
[...] the Creed today [...]. They accused me of leaving out the Creed when I celebrated the Sunday Mass. But I ask [...] people [...] they don't even know what they're talking about. I did not leave out the Creed. And I know that because the choir sang it. And I remember genuflecting. And then I went down and sat down. So I, I know these things. I mean, I'm not senile, yet.
-
Well as they always say about Bishop Fellay, "it looks like its a done deal.
Obviously the weight given to Brother Joseph and Tony's research was little enough that it was apparently discarded.
So friends when dealing with any organs of this group, "Caviat Emptor"
-
Well, had I known CtK was doing the same, I wouldn't have bothered, but here's my transcript fwiw. : )
[inaudible beginning] And so I consider having – this as my 2nd visit here – having met all of you. I know each one of you. And so I can see (pointing at his chest), you’re in the right place. So, we will consider – sometimes you have to deal with the pirates that take over the ship, except the captain of the ship is one of the pirates now. We will consider the seminary canonically erected, and, uh, you don’t have to worry about that. It’s just a canonical technicality. But, in the current circuмstances, I will guarantee you one thing: anyone who has a vocation will be ordained. Because we even have more options than myself. I have two bishops, who exist in secret. And, if I disappeared tomorrow, they would pop up. And so the Blessed Mother always has alternatives for you. So, no one should get worried here and leave because of who’s going to ordain us. We’re praying that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure will cooperate and be good bishops. Promote the true Faith. But just to show you in an extreme necessity the Blessed Mother can be creative and resourceful. It is sad that under the present circuмstances we have you relying on the likes of me to come forward to help you. But, for better or worse, I am here, and my attitude is, if you can put up with me [inaudible] don’t worry about it. So, pray for me. I’m praying for you. I don’t want to leave today. I wanted to stay, but I have to take care of my [principle?] responsibilities and so I’ll probably be coming and going and that way -- it’s like when you go in the gym, you lift the physical resistance and then the muscles hurt and you have to let them recuperate, and build back up, then you go, you skip a day, right? So, I’ll come for a week or so and then I’ll let you recuperate from me and then I’ll come back. And, we’ll keep doing that, and you’ll just build up and be strong.
(He moves back to the altar here. No Sign of the Cross to officially end the sermon. He turns half around and says something close to, “We even have the Creed today.” He turns to the altar briefly as if to resume Mass. Then, he turns back around to face the attendees and continues…)
They accused me of leaving out the Creed when I celebrated the Sunday Mass. There are nasty people out there; they don’t even know what they’re talking about. I did not leave out the Creed and I know that because the choir sang it. And I remember genuflecting. And then I went down and sat down. And so I, I know these things. I mean I’m not senile yet.
(He turns back toward the altar, bows, and resumes “Mass”.)
-
It depends upon what the meaning of big, important, or nothing is................
Sad to say, it would only be a minor step down if Fr. Pfeiffer, defending Ambrose, Pablo, or some other outrage, resorted to Bill Clinton's infamous:
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Yes remember last week's comment by one of the priests, "there is no doubt he is a Bishop" We do not know if the missing qualification, "of the Catholic Church" ,
was intentional or an oversight?
-
Has he ever made the sign of the Cross?
-
Well, had I known CtK was doing the same, I wouldn't have bothered, but here's my transcript fwiw. : )
[inaudible beginning] And so I consider having – this as my 2nd visit here – having met all of you. I know each one of you. And so I can see (pointing at his chest), you’re in the right place. So, we will consider – sometimes you have to deal with the pirates that take over the ship, except the captain of the ship is one of the pirates now. We will consider the seminary canonically erected, and, uh, you don’t have to worry about that. It’s just a canonical technicality. But, in the current circuмstances, I will guarantee you one thing: anyone who has a vocation will be ordained. Because we even have more options than myself. I have two bishops, who exist in secret. And, if I disappeared tomorrow, they would pop up. And so the Blessed Mother always has alternatives for you. So, no one should get worried here and leave because of who’s going to ordain us. We’re praying that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure will cooperate and be good bishops. Promote the true Faith. But just to show you in an extreme necessity the Blessed Mother can be creative and resourceful. It is sad that under the present circuмstances we have you relying on the likes of me to come forward to help you. But, for better or worse, I am here, and my attitude is, if you can put up with me [inaudible] don’t worry about it. So, pray for me. I’m praying for you. I don’t want to leave today. I wanted to stay, but I have to take care of my [principle?] responsibilities and so I’ll probably be coming and going and that way -- it’s like when you go in the gym, you lift the physical resistance and then the muscles hurt and you have to let them recuperate, and build back up, then you go, you skip a day, right? So, I’ll come for a week or so and then I’ll let you recuperate from me and then I’ll come back. And, we’ll keep doing that, and you’ll just build up and be strong.
(He moves back to the altar here. No Sign of the Cross to officially end the sermon. He turns half around and says something close to, “We even have the Creed today.” He turns to the altar briefly as if to resume Mass. Then, he turns back around to face the attendees and continues…)
They accused me of leaving out the Creed when I celebrated the Sunday Mass. There are nasty people out there; they don’t even know what they’re talking about. I did not leave out the Creed and I know that because the choir sang it. And I remember genuflecting. And then I went down and sat down. And so I, I know these things. I mean I’m not senile yet.
(He turns back toward the altar, bows, and resumes “Mass”.)
This would be hilarious if souls weren't at stake. Ambrose and the "Pope in Red" website should swap tall tales and charge an audience admission for doing so. As far as I'm concerned, neither Fr. Pfeiffer nor Fr. Hewko are fit to offer a public Mass at this point. I don't know whether the appropriate terminology is schism, heresy, or something else, but if Ambrose is the fraud many here (including myself) believe he is, then Fr. Pfeiffer & Fr. Hewko are outside the Church for the nature of their association with him, having him say Mass, promoting him, etc.
Even if I turn out to be wrong about Ambrose being a fraud, Fr. Pfeiffer & Fr. Hewko are taking the situation much too lightly & are proceeding too fast & recklessly, which, though not placing them outside the Church, demonstrates an exercise of deplorable poor judgment unbecoming a priest, and I would think it inadvisable to attend their Masses. They are trying to recklessly pass Ambrose off as legitimate to advance their own grandeur--not for the glory of God--not for providing priests for God's Church--but because Fr. Pfeiffer is the center of his own universe and wants his--Fr. Pfeiffer's--seminary to be a hit & stoke his ego, and probably has his sights unwaveringly set on being concecrated himself.
For those of you who may be going light on Fr. Hewko, he is either all for pushing the same agenda as Fr. Pfeiffer, or he is culpably timid in the face dire error. Either way, the right course of action is for him to renounce Ambrose and disassociate from Fr. Pfeiffer's (and his alter ego Pablo) foolhardy self-grandiosing endeavors.
It saddens me to see that Fr. Pfeiffer's endeavors have come to this. I had such very high hopes for him in the beginning. When Pablo emerged on CI (what--maybe 2 1/2 years ago) I was in denial that Fr. Pfeiffer could possibly be aware of what a madman he had in his circle. But I finally had to acknowledge that in fact he was aware of Pablo's antics and accepted them--I lost a tremendous amount of respect at that point. My heart sank more when I learned how they were treating +Williamson. And now, after all of that, he has sought out (via Pablo, I have no doubt) this fraudulent charlatan.
At this point, Fr. Pfeiffer's actions are more reminiscent of Luther or Henry VIII, than a good holy Catholic priest cleaving to tradition.
-
Well, had I known CtK was doing the same, I wouldn't have bothered, but here's my transcript fwiw. : )
Mater, you apparently have better ears than I, or at least better headphones. :smile:
-
@centroamerica
You wrote: "Has he ever made the sign of the Cross?"
With the sign of the Cross he makes himself known, because the Orthodox make a completely different sign of the cross and refuse to make the Catholic sign of the cross! That will certainly be the reason that he doesn´t do it.
-
@centroamerica
You wrote: "Has he ever made the sign of the Cross?"
With the sign of the Cross he makes himself known, because the Orthodox make a completely different sign of the cross and refuse to make the Catholic sign of the cross! That will certainly be the reason that he doesn´t do it.
Eastern rite Catholics who are in full communion with the Catholic Church make the sign of the cross the same way.
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
No. There has not been a single day without a Mass offered here. Do not distort the facts. I have been here for nine days, and my brother has been here since before the beginning of the school year. No missed masses. Ambrose only offered one public Mass while he was here this time.
Was the mass that Ambrose offered in the Latin rite or the Byzantine rite?
-
Do you know what kinds of classes the seminarians are taking?
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
No. There has not been a single day without a Mass offered here. Do not distort the facts. I have been here for nine days, and my brother has been here since before the beginning of the school year. No missed masses. Ambrose only offered one public Mass while he was here this time.
Was the mass that Ambrose offered in the Latin rite or the Byzantine rite?
It was Brooklyn rite.
-
Who is teaching the classes?
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
No. There has not been a single day without a Mass offered here. Do not distort the facts. I have been here for nine days, and my brother has been here since before the beginning of the school year. No missed masses. Ambrose only offered one public Mass while he was here this time.
Was the mass that Ambrose offered in the Latin rite or the Byzantine rite?
It was Brooklyn rite.
There is no such thing.
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
One of the priests says Mass very late on Sunday evenings after traveling.
There were some missed Sundays during the summer.
-
On his twelfth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
@TheRealMcCoy
You wrote: "There were some missed Sundays during the summer."
SOME?! Especially in wintertime! Although Father Voigt was still a member of the "so called resistance", for many weeks there was no Sunday Mass!
-
On his twelfth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
What scares the hell out of me is that your numbers keep ascending and you've yet to list porno-viewings and lay exorcisms.
-
On his twelfth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
What scares the hell out of me is that your numbers keep ascending and you've yet to list porno-viewings and lay exorcisms.
We'd need a full 365 just for Pabs!
-
Am I the only one who notices that he goes from the sermon straight to the removing of the veil without saying "Dominus Vobiscuм"? This is a fact that all can see watching that short segment of the mass. No real traditional priest forgets that.
-
On his twelfth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
What scares the hell out of me is that your numbers keep ascending and you've yet to list porno-viewings and lay exorcisms.
Oy vey.
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
One of the priests says Mass very late on Sunday evenings after traveling.
There were some missed Sundays during the summer.
What do they do when there are missed Sundays during the summer?
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
One of the priests says Mass very late on Sunday evenings after traveling.
There were some missed Sundays during the summer.
What do they do when there are missed Sundays during the summer?
Did they ever post a daily schedule? This being about a day in the life in the seminary, it seems illogical to always mention food but never mention a daily routine. How's their prayer life, how is the day divided and what classes does the blogger ever attend? To be a blog about a seminary and only focus on contraversy and food makes it seem like a boys' home and not a seminary.
-
Dear Manuel Chavez,
I am sorry but I can´t believe what you wrote. Father Pfeiffer and father Hewko leave every weekend Kentucky, and they are out for several days. That has not changed!
One of the priests says Mass very late on Sunday evenings after traveling.
There were some missed Sundays during the summer.
What do they do when there are missed Sundays during the summer?
Did they ever post a daily schedule? This being about a day in the life in the seminary, it seems illogical to always mention food but never mention a daily routine. How's their prayer life, how is the day divided and what classes does the blogger ever attend? To be a blog about a seminary and only focus on contraversy and food makes it seem like a boys' home and not a seminary.
Its purpose is not to let you know what is actually happening in the so called seminary, it it to put out fires as they crop up and marginalize criticisms of the involved parties.
-
Manuel,
I would like to know the reason for not involving the 2 resistance bishops in this investigation. Is Ambrose (if proven valid) not to be a resistance bishop, but rather Kentucky's private bishop?You would think that bishops Williamson and Faure would have called Ambrose to England to be interviewed and to study his docuмents. Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis- and that alone would be quite a feather in Fr Pfeiffer's cap. If he is for real, then the rest of the resistance priests and bishops should rejoice. Why aren't they rejoicing?
PS- maybe Fr P should cancel a few flights and use the money to hire a real private investigator-- and then listen to his findings. Surely the same info that is posted on CI would come to his attention...
-
As others have pointed out, Fr. Pfeiffer has duplicated his old stomping grounds, the SSPX, a bit TOO well.
Right down to "ignore all criticism", "attack your opponents", "pretend to address issues but not really address them", and so forth.
This 30 Days in the Seminary blog is basically Boston, KY's answer to Fr. Themann's conference a few years ago, "Resistance to What" and Angelus Press' stage piece, "Against the Rumors".
Just reading the title gives you an impression which is NOT borne out by reading the actual content. But for the superficial, one will think that the rumors have been debunked, that there is nothing to resist, etc.
It's psychological. Human beings tend to give the benefit of the doubt. No one is going to assume a huge production was made about nothing. They will ASSUME the conference was chock full of careful refutations of the Resistance and its reason for being. Of course, the truth is far from it. But that won't stop people from being duped.
-
Hey Manuel,
How about letting us know when Bishop Billy Bob is due back in KY?
-
Manuel,
I would like to know the reason for not involving the 2 resistance bishops in this investigation. Is Ambrose (if proven valid) not to be a resistance bishop, but rather Kentucky's private bishop?You would think that bishops Williamson and Faure would have called Ambrose to England to be interviewed and to study his docuмents. Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis- and that alone would be quite a feather in Fr Pfeiffer's cap. If he is for real, then the rest of the resistance priests and bishops should rejoice. Why aren't they rejoicing?
PS- maybe Fr P should cancel a few flights and use the money to hire a real private investigator-- and then listen to his findings. Surely the same info that is posted on CI would come to his attention...
I will ask the Fathers about the any potential roles for Bishops Faure and Williamson in regards to Bishop Ambrose.
I am also researching the seminary schedule and daily activities.
-
Manuel,
I would like to know the reason for not involving the 2 resistance bishops in this investigation. Is Ambrose (if proven valid) not to be a resistance bishop, but rather Kentucky's private bishop?You would think that bishops Williamson and Faure would have called Ambrose to England to be interviewed and to study his docuмents. Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis- and that alone would be quite a feather in Fr Pfeiffer's cap. If he is for real, then the rest of the resistance priests and bishops should rejoice. Why aren't they rejoicing?
PS- maybe Fr P should cancel a few flights and use the money to hire a real private investigator-- and then listen to his findings. Surely the same info that is posted on CI would come to his attention...
I will ask the Fathers about the any potential roles for Bishops Faure and Williamson in regards to Bishop Ambrose.
I am also researching the seminary schedule and daily activities.
Do you happen to know if Ambrose has the intention to judge the validity of marriages and issue annulments?
Why wasn't he at Cardinal Slipyj's funeral?
-
Manuel,
I would like to know the reason for not involving the 2 resistance bishops in this investigation. Is Ambrose (if proven valid) not to be a resistance bishop, but rather Kentucky's private bishop?You would think that bishops Williamson and Faure would have called Ambrose to England to be interviewed and to study his docuмents. Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis- and that alone would be quite a feather in Fr Pfeiffer's cap. If he is for real, then the rest of the resistance priests and bishops should rejoice. Why aren't they rejoicing?
PS- maybe Fr P should cancel a few flights and use the money to hire a real private investigator-- and then listen to his findings. Surely the same info that is posted on CI would come to his attention...
I will ask the Fathers about the any potential roles for Bishops Faure and Williamson in regards to Bishop Ambrose.
I am also researching the seminary schedule and daily activities.
Perhaps you will want to contact the two Bishops and see what, if any, role they see for these two priests in the greater "resistance".
You have been there more than long enough to know the schedules, curriculum, and activities.
We already know enough about what has transpired there. You may want to rethink how long you may wish to carry on with this charade. You cannot undo what has been done.
-
...Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis-
Yes--this gap in his story is quite an obstacle. He's a con-man & Fr. Pfeiffer is too. Fr. Pfeiffer may not be the sharpest knife in the shed, but I think he is smart enough to know that Ambrose's brand of manure doesn't smell natural. It's quite obvious to me that he's peddling the story that 45+ years into this crisis, he flipped over a rock and low & behold there was "a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop," all the while knowing, at least deep down, that he is a fraud, and it is all for Fr. Pfeiffer's personal self-grandiosing, and probably gain too.
What are the odds of a story like this? And besides the incredible underlying premise, what are the odds of an egotistical priest who likes to hear himself talk more than anybody else in the world does except possibly Lindsey Graham, who needs a bishop to ordain a couple of "seminarians" here & there for him and sooner or later concecrate him, and an impulsive self-important embellishing lay-exorcist "mexican" being the ones to flip over the rock hiding this treasure?
-
...Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis-
Yes--this gap in his story is quite an obstacle. He's a con-man & Fr. Pfeiffer is too. Fr. Pfeiffer may not be the sharpest knife in the shed, but I think he is smart enough to know that Ambrose's brand of manure doesn't smell natural. It's quite obvious to me that he's peddling the story that 45+ years into this crisis, he flipped over a rock and low & behold there was "a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop," all the while knowing, at least deep down, that he is a fraud, and it is all for Fr. Pfeiffer's personal self-grandiosing, and probably gain too.
What are the odds of a story like this? And besides the incredible underlying premise, what are the odds of an egotistical priest who likes to hear himself talk more than anybody else in the world does except possibly Lindsey Graham, who needs a bishop to ordain a couple of "seminarians" here & there for him and sooner or later concecrate him, and an impulsive self-important embellishing lay-exorcist "mexican" being the ones to flip over the rock hiding this treasure?
The odds are too remote to allow for belief.
The whole thing is incredibly convenient, and too good to be true.
Just like another compulsive liar I know scammed my (very interested in his Irish heritage) friend for months that a beautiful maiden of Irish blood couldn't wait to meet him. I forgot how it is he knew her, but he strung my friend along for MONTHS about this girl. It was one excuse after another why he couldn't call/e-mail/meet her. I never did find out how it ended.
That's the thing about scams -- they're highly unlikely, and too good to be true. Those with a bit of experience in the world recognize them for what they are.
-
...Uncovering a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop would be cause for much joy and thanksgiving in this crisis-
Yes--this gap in his story is quite an obstacle. He's a con-man & Fr. Pfeiffer is too. Fr. Pfeiffer may not be the sharpest knife in the shed, but I think he is smart enough to know that Ambrose's brand of manure doesn't smell natural. It's quite obvious to me that he's peddling the story that 45+ years into this crisis, he flipped over a rock and low & behold there was "a hitherto unknown genuine, traditional Catholic bishop," all the while knowing, at least deep down, that he is a fraud, and it is all for Fr. Pfeiffer's personal self-grandiosing, and probably gain too.
What are the odds of a story like this? And besides the incredible underlying premise, what are the odds of an egotistical priest who likes to hear himself talk more than anybody else in the world does except possibly Lindsey Graham, who needs a bishop to ordain a couple of "seminarians" here & there for him and sooner or later concecrate him, and an impulsive self-important embellishing lay-exorcist "mexican" being the ones to flip over the rock hiding this treasure?
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch.
-
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch.
Have you uploaded it yet? I've got my popcorn all ready for this bit of entertainment. :popcorn:
-
Now now now, if that was all true then these good folk would not have been researching and turning over rocks and discovering slime and dishonesty for the last three weeks.
This is a very convenient narrative which was regurgitated after lunch.
I don't think there are many people who are buying it. Some of us still remember the training we received by father Pfeiffer on discerning the spirits.
Now, did they tell you who are these two secret bishops?
-
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch.
Have you uploaded it yet? I've got my popcorn all ready for this bit of entertainment. :popcorn:
Not yet, but I hope to do so tomorrow. Time is limited, and I have been busy. I will make time tomorrow. I am sorry for the delay, and I thank you for your patience.
-
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch.
Have you uploaded it yet? I've got my popcorn all ready for this bit of entertainment. :popcorn:
Not yet, but I hope to do so tomorrow. Time is limited, and I have been busy. I will make time tomorrow. I am sorry for the delay, and I thank you for your patience.
Why don't you go check out Bawden's operation next. I'm starting to think you would find enough commonality to put together a coherent [<--- this word just somehow doesn't seem to fit] theme for a reality show or something.
-
Who are the two secret Bishops?
Drop us a quick line please.
-
Who are the two secret Bishops?
Drop us a quick line please.
I do not know, and Ambrose never said.
-
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch.
8 Bishops? at once? srsly? Were these Catholic or Orthodox (schismatic)?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/30/bb/64/30bb640bc1088482acf90737da095c4a.jpg)
Disneyland bishops as suggested by Fr C??
-
.
For those who thought that all the various signatures on the last consecration certificate were a bit much, get ready for the 8-bishop new version.
.
-
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch.
Manuel, the above statement is confusing, at least to me. If Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox, then why the mountain of evidence, even from ecclesiamilitans.org that indicates that he was/is such? Also, what is the meaning of "he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time." A valid consecration only requires that it be done once. Why by eight bishops? Does this mean Ambrose was repeatedly "consecrated" by various "bishops?"
I would be grateful for any clarification/explanation on this. Thank you in advance and God bless.
-
This thread is more than wearisome, its like Chinese whispers...
-
ManuelChavez believes everything Pablo says. No matter what he says. He is his Pope.
Dear Manuel Chavez if you do your prayers to get what you want or that a situation takes place, and it happen because God has listen to you. Who made it possible? Your prayers. And if a witch is making his job... moving mountains by bad forces... calling down to the Kentucky Resistance such a bishop.. who made it possible that this man comes? Who made it possible that this man had a privat conversation with Pablo in his headquarter? But no if it was witchcraft or not, Pablo is involved in this whole story. Believe what you want to believe. You are like a little child, without any blessing of Pablo you don't move and everything he says you believe. I pray for you and for your brother.
-
Well by now it's no secret that other priests have spoken up. Fr. Chazal's video was really good, but it was ignored. I know of at least one more that I think made private contact by email that if Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't back away from this non-Catholic liar, that all should break off any contact with Kentucky. I think there are some who want to give Fr. Pfeiffer the benefit of the doubt. Ironically, it was the same day that another spoke up privately that Manuel said that Pfeiffer will make a statement. Apparently, he isn't in any hurry.
-
Manuel,
If Ambrose knows then the other two priests know.
Ask them at breakfast or lunch today, if you would.
-
@Centroamerica
Fr.Pfeiffer usually doesn´t read his e mails.
J.Paul wrote: Manuel,
If Ambrose knows then the other two priests know.
Ask them at breakfast or lunch today, if you would.
Manuel you should ask Pablo, at breakfast or lunch today, because he is the clandestine press of goofy-land.
-
Manuel,
The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
Hold on there, did not both Fathers in their sermons two weeks ago say that the investigation was ongoing and that he would be gone if they found out something in the negative?
And was this not after Ambrose had already been saying Mass? These two realities do not match. If they are going to hold to this new narrative, they had better have the assistant pull those videos from you tube.
-
ManuelChavez believes everything Pablo says. No matter what he says. He is his Pope.
Dear Manuel Chavez if you do your prayers to get what you want or that a situation takes place, and it happen because God has listen to you. Who made it possible? Your prayers. And if a witch is making his job... moving mountains by bad forces... calling down to the Kentucky Resistance such a bishop.. who made it possible that this man comes? Who made it possible that this man had a privat conversation with Pablo in his headquarter? But no if it was witchcraft or not, Pablo is involved in this whole story. Believe what you want to believe. You are like a little child, without any blessing of Pablo you don't move and everything he says you believe. I pray for you and for your brother.
If you wish to proclaim ideas without merit or basis in truth, you are free to do so.
Well if Ambrose is allowed to do it...
-
I will ask the Fathers about the any potential roles for Bishops Faure and Williamson in regards to Bishop Ambrose.
I am also researching the seminary schedule and daily activities.
I think you and I both know that Fr. Pfeiffer will not have anything to do with these bishops -- and vice-versa.
As to your second point, this beggars belief. The seminary is not that big! It should take you 10 minutes during 1 meal to find out how many classes are being given, etc. You're there, man! It's a podunk seminary with a half-dozen seminarians. You can probably hear their classes from your kitchen.
It's like saying that I don't know the schedule in my own house, or what classes my children have at their homeschool. Easy enough to find out! Just take a break a couple times a day, walk through the living room, and see what they're doing! Or take the 30 seconds and ask the entire faculty (i.e., my wife) what classes they have each day.
You've been there HOW MANY DAYS now, and you haven't talked about SEMINARY stuff at all. Your blog reads like a Catholic "mommy blog" talking about food, with some "because I said so" gratuitous propaganda defending Ambrose's legitimacy thrown in here and there.
Not exactly very useful.
-
If I programmed CathInfo with some kind of Artificial Intelligence that automatically filtered out certain logical fallacies, and I typed in the fallacy
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
(What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied.)
And clicked "Save", virtually ALL of ManuelChavez's posts would become blank!
-
I will ask the Fathers about the any potential roles for Bishops Faure and Williamson in regards to Bishop Ambrose.
I am also researching the seminary schedule and daily activities.
I think you and I both know that Fr. Pfeiffer will not have anything to do with these bishops -- and vice-versa.
As to your second point, this beggars belief. The seminary is not that big! It should take you 10 minutes during 1 meal to find out how many classes are being given, etc. You're there, man! It's a podunk seminary with a half-dozen seminarians. You can probably hear their classes from your kitchen.
It's like saying that I don't know the schedule in my own house, or what classes my children have at their homeschool. Easy enough to find out! Just take a break a couple times a day, walk through the living room, and see what they're doing! Or take the 30 seconds and ask the entire faculty (i.e., my wife) what classes they have each day.
You've been there HOW MANY DAYS now, and you haven't talked about SEMINARY stuff at all. Your blog reads like a Catholic "mommy blog" talking about food, with some "because I said so" gratuitous propaganda defending Ambrose's legitimacy thrown in here and there.
Not exactly very useful.
Good comment. The insulting part is that he thinks or at least thought that people would buy it.
-
I make no promises about the longevity of Manuel Chavez' "chaff" which he is spreading all over this forum.
He is trying to create a distraction, confuse us, etc. but I'm keeping things on track, assisted by many other helpful members here.
-
Manuel,
Is lunch over? Did a good meal make the Fathers more talkative about the identity of the secret Bishops who are waiting to pop out?
And how did they finish their investigation into Ambrose before he was allowed to say Mass, when they said that they were still investigating long after he started to service their faithful.
These are questions which must be answered before any semblance of trust can be restored, if possible.
-
I make no promises about the longevity of Manuel Chavez' "chaff" which he is spreading all over this forum.
He is trying to create a distraction, confuse us, etc. but I'm keeping things on track, assisted by many other helpful members here.
I have not tried to create a distraction, nor have I tried to confuse anyone here. I have not insulted or demeaned anyone here.
I am here to serve others in any way I can, both in person and on the internet. This is why I would drive Father to and from your Mass site, and why I would remind Father to include the San Antonio area on his visits. We do what we can to bring the Word of God to others, with all due charity and patience.
I am after the truth in all things, for the Truth is Christ and of Christ, and anything that is not of the truth is not of Christ.
If I have ever said or written anything that violates the rules of this forum, I apologize for this. If I have said or written anything that is false, I am also sorry, for I detest lies and deception, and I will not participate in character assassination.
I am still here in Boston, Kentucky. I have taken many of the questions and concerns found here and talked to the about these issues. I have asked them to come forth with the information, and have asked them as to the slowness of their response to the current situation.
Once again, I do not mean to distract or confuse. God bless and please pray for me.
-
Manuel,
Christ knows all truth and who the secret Bishops are, perhaps the Father's in charity will tell the rest of us so that we might have more hope for the future and you might remind the Fathers that secrets are not the Catholic way.
-
Manuel,
Christ know all truth and who the secret Bishops are, perhaps the Father's in charity will tell the rest of us so that we might have more hope for the future and remind the Fathers that secrets are not the Catholic way.
Yes, I remember Fr. Pfeiffer being very harsh on priests who were anything less than completely public about everything...
No double-standards or hypocrisy, please.
-
Matthew's on a roll today. Very good posts.
We aren't quite as gullible as some people evidently think we are, Manuel.
Many (myself, at least) have been doing gymnastics over the past few years to give the benefit of the doubt (and even at times to make charitable excuses) for Boston's idiosyncrasies- but Ambrose will be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
.
-
Is OLMC hosting it's own hoe-down version Assisi IV? Any one who shows up can say Mass with a wink and a nod? Just BYOM.
*Bring Your Own Mitre.
:rolleyes:
-
Is OLMC hosting it's own hoe-down version Assisi IV? Any one who shows up can say Mass with a wink and a nod? Just BYOM.
*Bring Your Own Mitre.
:rolleyes:
Something new...................the Karaoke Mass................ :incense:
-
This is degenerating into just another "bishop's line" - someone else's "bishop's line" - like Thuc, etc. And with all the questions, hesitations and angst those situation's bring.
OLMC could have stayed strong and unquestioned, if it had the wisdom to remain Williamson/Faure - and "if and when it had to," pick only necessary fights.
-
Ambrose reached out to Father Pfeiffer. Pablo did not find him, and neither did Father. The research on Ambrose's background was done before Ambrose was allowed to say Mass in September. They contacted the Eparchy in Toronto, and many other places, found eye witnesses, and more, and their information showed that the claims of Ambrose are accurate in three main points:
That Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox.
That he was was ordained.
That he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time.
Those points are what we discussed today, after lunch. [/quote]
Manuel, the above statement is confusing, at least to me. If Ambrose is Catholic, not Orthodox, then why the mountain of evidence, even from ecclesiamilitans.org that indicates that he was/is such? Also, what is the meaning of "he was consecrated at least once. By eight bishops, who did this after the contentious consecration by Cardinal Slipjy, who also consecrated others during that time." A valid consecration only requires that it be done once. Why by eight bishops? Does this mean Ambrose was repeatedly "consecrated" by various "bishops?"
I would be grateful for any clarification/explanation on this. Thank you in advance and God bless.
Manuel, could you please reply?
-
Manuel, another question. Doubtless, you've seen the thread stating that Fr. Hewko said OLMC will not be associated with Ambrose. Can you confirm, deny or elaborate on this? Is this Fr. Hewko's opinion/position or that of both priests?
-
Manuel, another question. Doubtless, you've seen the thread stating that Fr. Hewko said OLMC will not be associated with Ambrose. Can you confirm, deny or elaborate on this? Is this Fr. Hewko's opinion/position or that of both priests?
I confirmed the conversation with Father Hewko.
-
Manuel, another question. Doubtless, you've seen the thread stating that Fr. Hewko said OLMC will not be associated with Ambrose. Can you confirm, deny or elaborate on this? Is this Fr. Hewko's opinion/position or that of both priests?
I confirmed the conversation with Father Hewko.
So does this mean that Fr. Hewko will leave that cult when Ambrose returns to offer "Mass"?
It seems clear to all that Fr. Pfeiffer charging full speed ahead. It's obvious to all that Fr. Hewko is deceived and confused. I doubt Ambrose is going away anytime soon.
-
What a disgusting blog http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/11/day-thirteen-highs-and-lows.html (http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/11/day-thirteen-highs-and-lows.html)
It´s all about the Idol Pablo, a love hymn to pablo the Amateur Exorcist. Manuel has no problem dedicating his blog to help the Kentucky group and his best friend Pablo (but will not succeed). Why does he not write a love hymn to Christ or to God the Father...? Manuel C. why don´t you do something useful? Why don´t you invest your time in praising God instead of men? Pleas take care that you do not take the wide road that leads to...
-
What a disgusting blog http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/11/day-thirteen-highs-and-lows.html (http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/11/day-thirteen-highs-and-lows.html)
It´s all about the Idol Pablo, a love hymn to pablo the Amateur Exorcist. Manuel has no problem dedicating his blog to help the Kentucky group and his best friend Pablo (but will not succeed). Why does he not write a love hymn to Christ or to God the Father...? Manuel C. why don´t you do something useful? Why don´t you invest your time in praising God instead of men? Pleas take care that you do not take the wide road that leads to...
It is not all about Pablo, and it is not a love hymn. It seems that you wish to twist my words to attack me, as a means to attack Pablo, Father Pfeiffer and the seminary. If I am.wrong in this assumption, I would love to be corrected in this.
I have been fair, I have listened to others, I have brought the information to the attention of Fathers Hewko and Pfeiffer, which may have helped in their recent decision, as reported on this site earlier. I have not sought to do any injury to you or to anyone here.
I ask for the same level of courtesy, charity and patience, Ecclesiae. If you have an issue with me or with what I have written, please contact me directly, or post your questions or concerns here.
I am far from perfect, and I appreciate any charitable advice and corrections from fellow Catholics.
One piece of advice I have received was to write less about food on my blog. I admit that I wrote too much about what the seminarians ate, and not enough about the seminary functions.
This was good advice, something I can use to better myself.
As always, if you have any questions or comments, for myself or for the Fathers, I will do my best to get answers for you.
These are tough times, and they will only get harder. Please pray for me, and for all who are here in Boston, Kentucky.
-
Manuel, I'm confused.
Are you saying that Fr Pfeiffer will no longer allow Ambrose to service any Resistance mission and will not be invited back to OLMC in any capacity?
-
Manuel,
It is admirable that you brought information to the Fathers and reported how their hard headedness was not going down very well out in the world.
But sadly they had more than enough information and pleading from friends and the pews for them to take stock and act long before the most serious damage was done. Willfull men sometimes do not listen and they have squandered the progress that God may have granted to them.
It is simply another step in the inevitable disintegration of the SSPX.
But in the end, this action is too little, too late. You can pass that on.
-
Manuel, I'm confused.
Are you saying that Fr Pfeiffer will no longer allow Ambrose to service any Resistance mission and will not be invited back to OLMC in any capacity?
It may be so, until the issues brought up on this site and others have been thoroughly investigated.
Two of these issues are the doctored photograph and the claims of being consecrated by Cardinal Slipjy.
This is my understanding of the events, based on my conversations with Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko:
Father did an initial, five-month investigation, which concluded that Ambrose was a priest, and Catholic Bishop. This was done before Ambrose was allowed to visit and say Mass.
When other information came forth, it became clear that the investigation had to be reopened, specifically because of the photograph and the first consecration.
I do not believe that his ordination was in doubt, nor the second consecration, as the paperwork came not from Ambrose, but from the Eparchy of Toronto and other reputable sources.
Still, it has been questioned, and those questions need answers. The investigative work done here needs to be addressed, and this is what I believe is going on now, and why Father Hewko responded as such yesterday.
As always, I would love to forward any questions or concerns to the Fathers.
Thank you for your patience with me, and with my blog. God bless.
-
Manuel, I'm confused.
Are you saying that Fr Pfeiffer will no longer allow Ambrose to service any Resistance mission and will not be invited back to OLMC in any capacity?
It may be so, until the issues brought up on this site and others have been thoroughly investigated.
Two of these issues are the doctored photograph and the claims of being consecrated by Cardinal Slipjy.
This is my understanding of the events, based on my conversations with Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko:
Father did an initial, five-month investigation, which concluded that Ambrose was a priest, and Catholic Bishop. This was done before Ambrose was allowed to visit and say Mass.
When other information came forth, it became clear that the investigation had to be reopened, specifically because of the photograph and the first consecration.
I do not believe that his ordination was in doubt, nor the second consecration, as the paperwork came not from Ambrose, but from the Eparchy of Toronto and other reputable sources.
Still, it has been questioned, and those questions need answers. The investigative work done here needs to be addressed, and this is what I believe is going on now, and why Father Hewko responded as such yesterday.
As always, I would love to forward any questions or concerns to the Fathers.
Thank you for your patience with me, and with my blog. God bless.
Manuel, I am going to make an assumption. My assumption is based on what I have observed going on for the past couple of years. The most compelling of these is the fact that last year Fr. Pfeiffer gave a conference in Canada where he and the laity are "smashing" Bishop Williamson. In this conference he makes it very clear that "God will provide", and that "God will send us a Catholic bishop". Apparently, Fr. Chazal was 'hip' to this because in his video he says "not this one, not this time, this one isn't from God". He made a clear reference to this quote from Fr. Pfeiffer. This is a clear sign that Fr. Pfeiffer was searching or at least hoping for a bishop. Then miraculously, around this same time a magical "bishop" calls him up. Thats's a good story for children, but I'm not buying it. I have no scruple with publicly saying that I do not believe Fr. Pfeiffer was sought out by this "gift from God". I don't believe it for a second. A lie such as this is certaibly grave and seems to indicate apostasy. But you know what, if you are a 'brother' when this Ambrosian Mickey Mouse returns, the chances of you staying and going along with the whole thing are a lot greater. Do you really think Fr. Pfeiffer has not considered and estimated his losses for continuing in the Mickey Mouse line? Certainly he has. Right now he is trying to soften that loss, and you are the vehicle he is using to do that. When this "bishop" returns, maybe you'll remember what I said and shake the dust from your feet.
-
Will the Fathers enlighten us as to who the two secret Bishops are?
Something here does not add up, They were investigating him from before, during , and now after his arrival and again after his departure, and yet he was allowed access to the souls in their care throughout this process.
What is that all about?
And, don't forget, the two secret Bishops.
-
Will the Fathers enlighten us as to who the two secret Bishops are?
One more lie probably. He seems to be a pathological liar.
-
Will the Fathers enlighten us as to who the two secret Bishops are?
One more lie probably. He seems to be a pathological liar.
His lies were easily and continually accepted by the priests.
-
On his thirteenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
test
Martin clearly demonstrates that they are not finished with this guy. They are "still investigating." The Weasel can pop back up at any time - say somewhere around February 2nd to confer the tonsures.
Notice that OLMC is still speaking through anonymous internet posters and their friendly blogger. They are not man enough and priestly enough to address the public directly, nor are they willing to completely renounce their association with Ambrose. They are saving him for later - shelving him for now - so that they can keep what few supporters they still have.
Furthermore, Martin has communicated to us an untruth.
Fr. Pfeiffer told him to report that certain "other information came forth" after they did their initial investigation; and that this information was not known to them before "Ambrose was allowed to visit and say Mass." [Forget about the fact that they let him do even more damage the week of October 25th after scads more damning evidence came to light.]
Here are some pertinent facts:
I learned Ambrose's name on Thursday, September 10, 2015. I immediately did a google search and found the Gregory of Denver information, plus some blog entries, which clearly indicated that Ambrose belonged to the schismatic groups. That very night, I sent both Pfeiffer and Hewko an email with the links. Hewko responded the same night. I have these emails and can reproduce them if necessary.
The following day I had a face to face meeting with Fr. Pfeiffer. We discussed my research. He told me that Greg Taylor had been looking into this for the past two months, and had come across the same information. Fr. Pfeiffer showed me the photoshopped picture with Slipjy, and we discussed it. He argued that it was not photoshopped. The picture was downloaded to his computer.
Fr. Pfeiffer allowed Ambrose to say the Sunday Mass that weekend with full knowledge of the fake picture and the schismatic associations.
-
test
Martin clearly demonstrates that they are not finished with this guy. They are "still investigating." The Weasel can pop back up at any time - say somewhere around February 2nd to confer the tonsures.
Notice that OLMC is still speaking through anonymous internet posters and their friendly blogger. They are not man enough and priestly enough to address the public directly, nor are they willing to completely renounce their association with Ambrose. They are saving him for later - shelving him for now - so that they can keep what few supporters they still have.
Furthermore, Martin has communicated to us an untruth.
Fr. Pfeiffer told him to report that certain "other information came forth" after they did their initial investigation; and that this information was not known to them before "Ambrose was allowed to visit and say Mass." [Forget about the fact that they let him do even more damage the week of October 25th after scads more damning evidence came to light.]
Here are some pertinent facts:
I learned Ambrose's name on Thursday, September 10, 2015. I immediately did a google search and found the Gregory of Denver information, plus some blog entries, which clearly indicated that Ambrose belonged to the schismatic groups. That very night, I sent both Pfeiffer and Hewko an email with the links. Hewko responded the same night. I have these emails and can reproduce them if necessary.
The following day I had a face to face meeting with Fr. Pfeiffer. We discussed my research. He told me that Greg Taylor had been looking into this for the past two months, and had come across the same information. Fr. Pfeiffer showed me the photoshopped picture with Slipjy, and we discussed it. He argued that it was not photoshopped. The picture was downloaded to his computer.
Fr. Pfeiffer allowed Ambrose to say the Sunday Mass that weekend with full knowledge of the fake picture and the schismatic associations.
Communicatio in sacris.
-
BTW I typed test because I was having problems posting. It's not related to the post contents itself. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Can you tell us about the order of the day in this seminary?
-
Can you tell us about the order of the day in this seminary?
We've been asking about this since day one, literally. He just blows us off. His last post is about trying to recruit brothers.
You can't make this stuff up.
-
Can you tell us about the order of the day in this seminary?
How cute--a troll feeding a troll.
-
I haven't heard anything to distinguish Pfeifferville from Bawden's seminary. More similarities than differences right down to invalid bishop on hand for "ordinations." What a disgrace and a joke Fr. Pfeiffer has made of himself. Should be pointed to as an example for the next 200 years not to let a big ego ride the short-bus through seminary.
-
Manuel,
Have the Fathers left for the weekend without telling you who the two secret Bishop are?
-
Manuel,
Have the Fathers left for the weekend without telling you who the two secret Bishop are?
Father Hewko is still here, and will be here all weekend. I haven't asked them about the secret bishops yet.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
-
Manuel,
Have the Fathers left for the weekend without telling you who the two secret Bishop are?
Father Hewko is still here, and will be here all weekend. I haven't asked them about the secret bishops yet.
Well please do get to it. Why are they hiding this ?
Can we expect a reorganization and new staff at the seminary, and a permanent clerical presence there now?
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
Mr. Rogers was an effeminate heretic. His program was an early step in jew-pushed brainwashing to normalize effeminacy & fαɢɢօtry. Sorry you can't let go of your childhood illusions. I watched his programs and enjoyed them too as a child. But I grew up, aged, and came to see his program for what it was.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
Mr. Rogers was an effeminate heretic. His program was an early step in jew-pushed brainwashing to normalize effeminacy & fαɢɢօtry. Sorry you can't let go of your childhood illusions. I watched his programs and enjoyed them too as a child. But I grew up, aged, and came to see his program for what it was.
He wasn't Catholic, but I would not accuse him in this manner, for it is without merit.
-
Statement from Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary concerning Archbishop Ambrose Moran
* * *
November 7th, 2015
Dear faithful,
After further investigation, the Seminary of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Boston, Kentucky, has decided not to associate with Archbishop Ambrose Moran.
Please keep our nine seminarians and brothers in your prayers and we thank all who are praying for our apostolate.
In Christ the King and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Father Joseph Pfeiffer
Father David Hewko
http://www.filiimariae.org/2015/11/statement-from-our-lady-of-mount-carmel-seminary-concerning-archbishop-ambrose-moran-communique-du-seminaire-our-lady-of-mount-carme
-
... blog http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/11/day-thirteen-highs-and-lows.html (http://30daysintheseminary.blogspot.com/2015/11/day-thirteen-highs-and-lows.html)...
It is not all about Pablo, and it is not a love hymn. It seems that you wish to twist my words to attack me, as a means to attack Pablo, Father Pfeiffer and the seminary. If I am.wrong in this assumption, I would love to be corrected in this.
I have been fair, I have listened to others, I have brought the information to the attention of Fathers Hewko and Pfeiffer, which may have helped in their recent decision, as reported on this site earlier. I have not sought to do any injury to you or to anyone here.
I ask for the same level of courtesy, charity and patience, Ecclesiae. If you have an issue with me or with what I have written, please contact me directly, or post your questions or concerns here.
I am far from perfect, and I appreciate any charitable advice and corrections from fellow Catholics.
One piece of advice I have received was to write less about food on my blog. I admit that I wrote too much about what the seminarians ate, and not enough about the seminary functions.
This was good advice, something I can use to better myself.
As always, if you have any questions or comments, for myself or for the Fathers, I will do my best to get answers for you.
These are tough times, and they will only get harder. Please pray for me, and for all who are here in Boston, Kentucky.
The weekend tends to be free time for the seminarians.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Day Fifteen: Seminarians' Day Out.
The weekend tends to be free time for the seminarians. The schedule for these days are [is] different from the rest of the week.
After Mass, breakfast and Manualia, Father Hewko took the seminarians out to Louisville to visit the sick in the hospital.
They had a packed lunch at the hospital before moving on to the next item on the agenda. Some of the food was given to the homeless who stay near the hospital.
Father led the hike across the Big Four Bridge, to a chocolate and candy shop. The large group then visited two local churches. While at the first location, Father led the seminarians in singing the Salve Regina. After Father and the seminarians left, the few people who were present commented on the beauty and awe of hearing such divine music.
The caravan arrived at the seminary shortly before dinner.
The seminarians seemed to enjoy their trek into the city. It is good to have a change of pace from their regular schedule, and to forget for a while the raging storms of controversy surrounding the seminary.
Father will have Mass at 10am tomorrow, then he drive over to Nashville for Mass there. He is taking a couple seminarians to serve Mass. It is about two and a half hours each way. It must be done, to make sure souls have access to the Mass and the sacraments.
The work of a priest never ends.
...It is good to have a change of pace from their regular schedule, and to forget for a while the raging storms of controversy surrounding the seminary...
-
Manuel,
The communique did not mention he consolation of who the two secret Bishops are.
Have they told you yet?
-
Manuel,
The communique did not mention he consolation of who the two secret Bishops are.
Have they told you yet?
If they would tell who they are, they wouldn't be secret anymore.
.
-
Manuel,
The communique did not mention he consolation of who the two secret Bishops are.
Have they told you yet?
If they would tell who they are, they wouldn't be secret anymore.
.
I asked. They do not know who they are.
-
On his fifteenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
We like Mr. Rogers in our family. I especially appreciate his kind treatment of Monarchy. Of course he approached it in a natural way because he wasn't Catholic. He had some nice virtues. I used to pray for him when he was still living.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
We like Mr. Rogers in our family. I especially appreciate his kind treatment of Monarchy. Of course he approached it in a natural way because he wasn't Catholic. He had some nice virtues. I used to pray for him when he was still living.
He was a long-time vegetarian that died of stomach cancer. I found this interesting.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
We like Mr. Rogers in our family. I especially appreciate his kind treatment of Monarchy. Of course he approached it in a natural way because he wasn't Catholic. He had some nice virtues. I used to pray for him when he was still living.
He was a long-time vegetarian that died of stomach cancer. I found this interesting.
Probably got sick from pesticides like an early version of Monsanto's Roundup.
.
-
As it turns out, not such a beautiful day in the neighborhood! Manuel should set his signature line to "Would you be mine, could you be mine, won't you be my bishop?"
-
Because of the many voices online and around the world, Father Pfeiffer had a discussion with the seminarians [regarding Ambrose]. I attended this discussion, and recorded it.
I hope to post it soon.
Manuel, I'd still like to see this discussion. Will you be publishing it soon?
-
Because of the many voices online and around the world, Father Pfeiffer had a discussion with the seminarians [regarding Ambrose]. I attended this discussion, and recorded it.
I hope to post it soon.
Manuel, I'd still like to see this discussion. Will you be publishing it soon?
Yes, Manuel, I concur with Mater Dominici, please post this.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
https://www.tunestotube.com/
I have plenty of evidence to do so!
Make it happen Manuel...
-
Manuel why don´t you ask Pablo or the other neighbors for help?
They know how to convert the file into a video format and Pablo could give you his computer. :rahrah: :tv-disturbed:
God bless!
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
https://www.tunestotube.com/
I have plenty of evidence to do so!
Make it happen Manuel...
That is not evidence. It is a link to a program. I distrust many such programs, ones that promise free this or free that. I have always told people to stick with programs from reputable sources.
I will look into this program, but I need to make sure it is safe, and will not compromise any of my security.
I still prefer to do the encoding myself.
-
Manuel it is so simple. As I said, Pablo could help you. He does it so well. Maybe your brother knows how to do it... But I´m sorry I forgot that he is not allowed to talk to you because you're a layman? Father Hewko said that the seminarians are no longer allowed to talk to the laity. :scratchchin:
-
Manuel it is so simple. As I said, Pablo could help you. He does it so well. Even your brother should have some idea... But maybe he is not allowed to talk to you because you're a layman? Father Hewko said that the seminarians are no longer allowed to talk to the laity. :scratchchin:
I am not going to ask Pablo to help me. I can do it myself, when I have the time and the access to a computer.
The seminarians are discouraged from socializing with the faithful after the Mass, though I can talk to my brother, when the schedule permits. Silence is a general rule, with this and any other traditional seminary.
I write mainly from the kitchen, while I prepare food, which I am doing now. I also write my blog at night, after lights out, from my room at what is known as the schoolhouse. The computers are either in the priory or the office next to the priory.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
https://www.tunestotube.com/
I have plenty of evidence to do so!
Make it happen Manuel...
That is not evidence. It is a link to a program. I distrust many such programs, ones that promise free this or free that. I have always told people to stick with programs from reputable sources.
I will look into this program, but I need to make sure it is safe, and will not compromise any of my security.
I still prefer to do the encoding myself.
So if I point you at a droid or apple app to do the same thing, you'll simply claim it's untrustworthy too? Obviously you're just making excuses, and it's really disingenuous.
Manuel, your role as a toadie with a flexible sense of ethics is beginning to betray you.
-
On his sixteenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
https://www.tunestotube.com/
I have plenty of evidence to do so!
Make it happen Manuel...
That is not evidence. It is a link to a program. I distrust many such programs, ones that promise free this or free that. I have always told people to stick with programs from reputable sources.
I will look into this program, but I need to make sure it is safe, and will not compromise any of my security.
I still prefer to do the encoding myself.
So if I point you at a droid or apple app to do the same thing, you'll simply claim it's untrustworthy too? Obviously you're just making excuses, and it's really disingenuous.
Manuel, your role as a toadie with a flexible sense of ethics is beginning to betray you.
If there is an app that is of a trustworthy source, I would absolutely use it, with no hesitation.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
https://www.tunestotube.com/
I have plenty of evidence to do so!
Make it happen Manuel...
That is not evidence. It is a link to a program. I distrust many such programs, ones that promise free this or free that. I have always told people to stick with programs from reputable sources.
I will look into this program, but I need to make sure it is safe, and will not compromise any of my security.
I still prefer to do the encoding myself.
So if I point you at a droid or apple app to do the same thing, you'll simply claim it's untrustworthy too? Obviously you're just making excuses, and it's really disingenuous.
Manuel, your role as a toadie with a flexible sense of ethics is beginning to betray you.
If there is an app that is of a trustworthy source, I would absolutely use it, with no hesitation.
Fine deal. Use the time you're wasting on this forum to download one and get that discussion posted. iTunes or google play, they check all the apps you get there..
No more lame excuses, okay Manuel?
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Thank you.
If it's easier, I have no need for images and an MP3 can usually be attached to your posts here. Can you give it a try?
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Thank you.
If it's easier, I have no need for images and an MP3 can usually be attached to your posts here. Can you give it a try?
I did not know that. Is there a file size limitation? It is nearly 200mb.
How do I attach an mp3? Thank you.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Thank you.
If it's easier, I have no need for images and an MP3 can usually be attached to your posts here. Can you give it a try?
I did not know that. Is there a file size limitation? It is nearly 200mb.
How do I attach an mp3? Thank you.
That's likely too large. How about Dropbox?
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Thank you.
If it's easier, I have no need for images and an MP3 can usually be attached to your posts here. Can you give it a try?
I did not know that. Is there a file size limitation? It is nearly 200mb.
How do I attach an mp3? Thank you.
That's likely too large. How about Dropbox?
It was a long conference, nearly two hours. I will try Dropbox.
-
Thank you. It is uploading now.
-
As everyone who's read this thread knows, I am completely against Moran as I think his orders are doubtful and he's a fraud and a liar. I also think that MC has white washed OLMC a fair bit. With that being said, some of the posters on here are down right mean and rash in their judgement of MC. It seems to me that MC may not be seeing things as rosy colored as he once did. A little kindness and charity will help. :)
-
As everyone who's read this thread knows, I am completely against Moran as I think his orders are doubtful and he's a fraud and a liar. I also think that MC has white washed OLMC a fair bit. With that being said, some of the posters on here are down right mean and rash in their judgement of MC. It seems to me that MC may not be seeing things as rosy colored as he once did. A little kindness and charity will help. :)
The best part about not crossing the line in this way, is that you don't have as much to apologize for (both inside and outside of the confessional).
I'm pretty sure I haven't been uncharitable to MC. I've asked him some hard questions, criticized him even, but I think I've stuck to the facts and haven't crossed that line.
-
As everyone who's read this thread knows, I am completely against Moran as I think his orders are doubtful and he's a fraud and a liar. I also think that MC has white washed OLMC a fair bit. With that being said, some of the posters on here are down right mean and rash in their judgement of MC. It seems to me that MC may not be seeing things as rosy colored as he once did. A little kindness and charity will help. :)
The best part about not crossing the line in this way, is that you don't have as much to apologize for (both inside and outside of the confessional).
I'm pretty sure I haven't been uncharitable to MC. I've asked him some hard questions, criticized him even, but I think I've stuck to the facts and haven't crossed that line.
Yes, I think you've been pretty fair in that regard. To tell you the truth, Matthew, I'm bothered by the same points you made in the other thread. The fact that OLMC still have no doubt that his orders are valid is very very disturbing. This is sacramental theology 101, a doubtful sacrement is to be treated as invalid.
-
As everyone who's read this thread knows, I am completely against Moran as I think his orders are doubtful and he's a fraud and a liar. I also think that MC has white washed OLMC a fair bit. With that being said, some of the posters on here are down right mean and rash in their judgement of MC. It seems to me that MC may not be seeing things as rosy colored as he once did. A little kindness and charity will help. :)
Whitewashed is hardly the word. Anyone covering up this mockery of a bishop, coordinator, and seminary, needs to see it for exactly what it is and get out of Dodge. You only prolong this perversion when you don't call it out. The longer he is allowed to wallow in this delusion, the less apt he will be able to get out of it.
Martin needs to come to grips with the fact that he's invested far too much time at that place to be objective about it. He's been in the denial stage now and is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. If the rest of you enjoy having your intelligence insulted over and over again just to put up with his incessant refusal to acknowledge the painfully obvious, that's on you.
Ambrose is a fraud. Pablo is an apostate. Gajewski is a deluded maniac. You want to be lead by priests who surround themselves and their "seminarians" with this level of megalomania?
I'm not going to let that pill go down easy.
Snap out of it!
-
I've used sacrcasm to make a point twice. I have attempted to give him sound charitable advice at least twice.
-
Ambrose is a fraud. Pablo is an apostate. Gajewski is a deluded maniac. You want to be lead by priests who surround themselves and their "seminarians" with this level of megalomania?
You left out a couple:
Fr. Pfeiffer -- not exactly the pinnacle of humility -- being one of (2? 3?) Resistant priests worldwide who won't work with +Williamson and +Faure or follow them in any way. He wants to completely run his own show.
Greg Taylor a.k.a. "The Recusant" - Not exactly the most humble either.
There are other minor players too (laymen), but I don't need to list them all.
Birds of a feather flock together? I'm actually surprised this many alpha-males can work together without stepping on each other's toes...
-
I've used sacrcasm to make a point twice. I have attempted to give him sound charitable advice at least twice.
He's not going to respond to anything. His mind is made up because his soul is bound to that group. For a non-seminarian to stay there as many times as he has, there's no question he's got a very strong personal attachment. The pretense of an 30 day investigative blog is such a transparent stalling tactic that I can't believe we're still tossing softballs in his direction. He's an adult, and there's no need to sugarcoat it.
Just like everyone else over there, he has a responsibility to confront the issues! Did he think we were gullible enough to think talking about food is going to make anyone feel better about the place?
But oh, thankfully he saw the light and will now sorta kinda ask somebody when they get back, yadda, yadda, yawn, yawn. It might be really weak, but it's a classic stalling move. It's manipulative Manuel, you can stop that garbage now.
-
Ambrose is a fraud. Pablo is an apostate. Gajewski is a deluded maniac. You want to be lead by priests who surround themselves and their "seminarians" with this level of megalomania?
You left out a couple:
Fr. Pfeiffer -- not exactly the pinnacle of humility -- being one of (2? 3?) Resistant priests worldwide who won't work with +Williamson and +Faure or follow them in any way. He wants to completely run his own show.
Greg Taylor a.k.a. "The Recusant" - Not exactly the most humble either.
There are other minor players too (laymen), but I don't need to list them all.
Birds of a feather flock together? I'm actually surprised this many alpha-males can work together without stepping on each other's toes...
Pfeiffer is one of the priests implied, but hey I was only talking about the worst cases. I'm all for piling on! If day 30 doesn't end in a hostage situation, I think we will have come out ahead.
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
That would explain a bunch. Still wouldn't excuse it though!
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
Sorry I don't understand this. Can somewhat put this in dummy terms for me? Tax evasion stuff?
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
I'll bet computers are controlled!! :roll-laugh1:
Can't have just anybody stumbling across porn or something.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
Look here hoss--
You have conjured up in your little pea brain all kinds of unrealistic ideas regarding "sufficient evidence," "good journalism," and how you can see somebody pin some fraudulent bastard down so tight that he's about to $#!+ his pant and come out of his skin and you still don't get it. I've grown so tired of you in such a short time that I want to puke every time I hear your jew-taught nonsense that you think is all of this fancy debate-logic-journalism-evidence bull$#!+
Did you grow up in a liberal household? Did your parents turn you over to liberal educators? Liberal Novus Ordo?
--Oops--Forgive me for throwing so much at you before you can answer VIA TEXT!!
Maybe it's simply how you present because of some liberal (jew-influenced) background, but I don't trust you as far as I could throw Fr. Pfeiffer. Your presence here is only serving as free advertisement for this circus of a seminary and your reality blog.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
https://www.tunestotube.com/
I have plenty of evidence to do so!
Make it happen Manuel...
That is not evidence. It is a link to a program. I distrust many such programs, ones that promise free this or free that. I have always told people to stick with programs from reputable sources.
I will look into this program, but I need to make sure it is safe, and will not compromise any of my security.
I still prefer to do the encoding myself.
So if I point you at a droid or apple app to do the same thing, you'll simply claim it's untrustworthy too? Obviously you're just making excuses, and it's really disingenuous.
Manuel, your role as a toadie with a flexible sense of ethics is beginning to betray you.
If there is an app that is of a trustworthy source, I would absolutely use it, with no hesitation.
Fine deal. Use the time you're wasting on this forum to download one and get that discussion posted. iTunes or google play, they check all the apps you get there..
No more lame excuses, okay Manuel?
Listen to yourself--telling some dork who grew up to be Mister Rogers to not be lame.
-
It has been difficult, since the file must be converted to a video format to be put up on YouTube. I need to access a computer to do so. Computer access is controlled, and free time is limited. I apologize for this.
Manuel, this is neither difficult nor do you seem to have much limitation on computer access. You sure have enough time for your pathetic little blog at least... So either post the discussion, or be man enough to admit you've been instructed to blow everyone off.
I have not used a computer the entire time I have been here. In order to take the audio file and turn it into a video file, I need some computer software, such as movie maker, to add video to the audio. I have used my phone for all my writing, and my phone cannot convert the audio only to an audio/video format.
Please do not accuse unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
Look here hoss--
You have conjured up in your little pea brain all kinds of unrealistic ideas regarding "sufficient evidence," "good journalism," and how you can see somebody pin some fraudulent bastard down so tight that he's about to $#!+ his pant and come out of his skin and you still don't get it. I've grown so tired of you in such a short time that I want to puke every time I hear your jew-taught nonsense that you think is all of this fancy debate-logic-journalism-evidence bull$#!+
Did you grow up in a liberal household? Did your parents turn you over to liberal educators? Liberal Novus Ordo?
--Oops--Forgive me for throwing so much at you before you can answer VIA TEXT!!
Maybe it's simply how you present because of some liberal (jew-influenced) background, but I don't trust you as far as I could throw Fr. Pfeiffer. Your presence here is only serving as free advertisement for this circus of a seminary and your reality blog.
I am sorry if I have offended you in any way. God bless and please pray for me.
-
Centro...
"86'd". Is an old military term. It means to be discontinued or exhausted.
-
Centro...
"86'd". Is an old military term. It means to be discontinued or exhausted.
Ok. Thanks. So they invested in the seminary. Thought they were gonna cash in on the crisis in the SSPX maybe?
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
The phrase "not just dollars" would imply a monetary investment. Not just dollas but also time, or not just dollars but also Euros. Not just dollars but also labor in the kitchen. In all of these "dollars" is included in the equation.
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
The phrase "not just dollars" would imply a monetary investment. Not just dollas but also time, or not just dollars but also Euros. Not just dollars but also labor in the kitchen. In all of these "dollars" is included in the equation.
His brother's vocation could be destroyed by these scandals taking place at OLMC. This is serious folks. Souls are at stake.
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
The phrase "not just dollars" would imply a monetary investment. Not just dollas but also time, or not just dollars but also Euros. Not just dollars but also labor in the kitchen. In all of these "dollars" is included in the equation.
Pesos?
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
The phrase "not just dollars" would imply a monetary investment. Not just dollas but also time, or not just dollars but also Euros. Not just dollars but also labor in the kitchen. In all of these "dollars" is included in the equation.
Pesos?
Just FYI, in case you didn't realize it, the man behind the screen name "Manuel Chavez" is about as Hispanic as ...Mr. Rogers.
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
The phrase "not just dollars" would imply a monetary investment. Not just dollas but also time, or not just dollars but also Euros. Not just dollars but also labor in the kitchen. In all of these "dollars" is included in the equation.
Pesos?
Just FYI, in case you didn't realize it, the man behind the screen name "Manuel Chavez" is about as Hispanic as ...Mr. Rogers.
I wasn't sure about him. But I was thinking Pablo would enjoy getting pesos.
-
You all do realize if the seminary gets 86ed the Chavez family loses their investment? The OLMC track record for ROIs is not real good.
And the investment I speak of is not just dollars.
What do you mean by "investment"?
The phrase "not just dollars" would imply a monetary investment. Not just dollas but also time, or not just dollars but also Euros. Not just dollars but also labor in the kitchen. In all of these "dollars" is included in the equation.
Pesos?
Just FYI, in case you didn't realize it, the man behind the screen name "Manuel Chavez" is about as Hispanic as ...Mr. Rogers.
I am half Mexican, from my mother's side. I am also a bunch of other nationalities, which could make me a mutt of sorts, but Mexican is a strong part of my ethnic origins.
-
I have just managed to listen to the recording posted on the 30 Days in Boston. In between the snorting of Fr Pfeiffer (why does he do that ?), i was shocked that he clearly believes Mr Moran to be a totally valid priest and bishop. He even attacks Tony La Rosa by name for exposing the truth about this fake.
As a typical meglomaniac Father says that people are only attacking him because they want the 'seminary' closed down. He is even so deluded to say that they are continuing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. I am sure the saintly Archbishop will be turning in his grave at that. Abp Lefebvre would not touch that cult with his crozier except to exorcise it if both the priests came to their senses and get rid of Paul Hernandez.
-
I have just managed to listen to the recording posted on the 30 Days in Boston. In between the snorting of Fr Pfeiffer (why does he do that ?), i was shocked that he clearly believes Mr Moran to be a totally valid priest and bishop. He even attacks Tony La Rosa by name for exposing the truth about this fake.
As a typical meglomaniac Father says that people are only attacking him because they want the 'seminary' closed down. He is even so deluded to say that they are continuing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. I am sure the saintly Archbishop will be turning in his grave at that. Abp Lefebvre would not touch that cult with his crozier except to exorcise it if both the priests came to their senses and get rid of Paul Hernandez.
Both Hewko and Pfeiffer are infinitely worse than Pablo at this point. Nothing the Mexican could possibly do would be on the same level as a priest permitting sacrilege on the scale that these two have. They deserve to be defrocked for this.
-
This does not look good at all.
-
On his seventeenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Understatement.
-
At the roughly 26:30 mark Fr. Pfeiffer says that Ambrose was never part of the Orthodox church. Yet he went on to explain before that Ambrose was for many years part of various Orthodox groups. Bizarre....
-
The talk makes my head spin. None of it changes the fact that Fr. Pfeiffer lacked great discernment in even bringing Ambrose to his seminary.
-
For those who want to listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's recent 1 hour 45 minute conference on Ambrose for the seminarians, I have it here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/Fr-Pfeiffer-Ambrose.mp3
I made it much louder, and compressed it into a roughly 100 megabyte MP3 file.
I could have made it even smaller if I was willing to endure some distortion (you know, the whole "sounds like he's underwater" effect). But I went with 128 Kbps, which is plenty of bandwidth for speech.
-
Thanks Matthew!
I was just gonna post about this. I haven't looked at his site for a few days so I didn't know about this dropbox conversation. Thankfully somebody uploaded it. I'm gonna listen to it now.
-
I have just managed to listen to the recording posted on the 30 Days in Boston. In between the snorting of Fr Pfeiffer (why does he do that ?), i was shocked that he clearly believes Mr Moran to be a totally valid priest and bishop. He even attacks Tony La Rosa by name for exposing the truth about this fake.
As a typical meglomaniac Father says that people are only attacking him because they want the 'seminary' closed down. He is even so deluded to say that they are continuing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. I am sure the saintly Archbishop will be turning in his grave at that. Abp Lefebvre would not touch that cult with his crozier except to exorcise it if both the priests came to their senses and get rid of Paul Hernandez.
I noticed the snorting that he does a few years ago. I have met someone with a mild form of tourettes that frequently did this. It was different, but resembled this that he is doing. The symptoms are worse when the person is not speaking. This would explain the relief he gets in being long-winded.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
Wow, he comes out swinging on Tony La Rosa for trying to foster a rebellion. At about 20 minutes he affirms most authoritatively and repetitively that Ambrose is a valid priest, a valid bishop, and a true Catholic.
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
Apparently, it's not over until the fat lady sings and she ain't singing anytime soon.
-
Good thing I got up in the middle of the night with a bout of insomnia or I would have missed it-- taken down already, really?
Fr sounded tired and stumbled over many of the various names, dates and titles, and the whole thing was rather convoluted- which is excusable considering the labyrinthine nature of the whole tangled affair- but the gist seems to be that he still believes Ambrose to be a valid and Catholic priest and bishop.
PS- How do you get *8* bishops together for a formal function without it being a huge deal that has lots of photos and a reception afterward, and plenty of witnesses and docuмentations?
-
Good thing I got up in the middle of the night with a bout of insomnia or I would have missed it-- taken down already, really?
PS- How do you get *8* bishops together for a formal function without it being a huge deal that has lots of photos and a reception afterward, and plenty of witnesses and docuмentations?
Don't worry, it's still here on CathInfo, in two different places. In fact, it's even better than the original. The copy here has been made louder, and compressed to MP3 form taking 1/2 the size.
http://www.cathinfo.com/Fr-Pfeiffer-Ambrose.mp3
Regarding your second point -- yes, that would be like a minor conclave!
Bishop Faure is coming to Houston on the 29th of this month, and I guarantee you it will be a much bigger deal than Sunday Mass. Just for starters, there will be a conference and potluck afterwards, but I also know that people are coming from hundreds of miles around (myself included). That's ONE bishop.
Could you imagine the turnout, if Bishops Williamson and Faure announced they were going to consecrate another bishop? And maybe +de Mallerais was joining as well? Even 4 trad Bishops in one place, you'd have people flying in from other countries to be there, plus coming from ALL OVER the U.S.A. no matter where the event was being held.
It's not that outlandish either -- +Williamson has promised to consecrate more bishops in the future. I certainly look forward to that day! And who knows where +de Mallerais will end up, once his precious SSPX makes a deal with Rome.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
We can always depend on you taking one step forward and two steps back.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
We can always depend on you taking one step forward and two steps back.
I was asked anout the recording by Tony La Rosa, who has given me permission to report this much back to all here. I offered to remove the audio recording, and so I did. This is not two steps back. It is honoring a personal request, one I felt was justified.
It is about moving forward.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
We can always depend on you taking one step forward and two steps back.
I was asked anout the recording by Tony La Rosa, who has given me permission to report this much back to all here. I offered to remove the audio recording, and so I did. This is not two steps back. It is honoring a personal request, one I felt was justified.
It is about moving forward.
Did Tony Larosa ask you to take it down?
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
We can always depend on you taking one step forward and two steps back.
I was asked anout the recording by Tony La Rosa, who has given me permission to report this much back to all here. I offered to remove the audio recording, and so I did. This is not two steps back. It is honoring a personal request, one I felt was justified.
It is about moving forward.
Did Tony Larosa ask you to take it down?
I took it down after I asked Tony La Rosa if he would like me to take it down, after a brief exchange of emails. I am not at liberty to give his reasons, though I believe it is the best decision.
-
Well it's just too bad for him.
It's none of his concern. This is between Fr. Pfeiffer, the seminarians, the Resistance, and the good of the Catholic Church.
This conference to the seminarians has no bearing on Tony La Rosa personally. What, did Father mention some rash Tony la Rosa has or something? Give me a break.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
To call you a hack would be more flattery than you deserve.
-
This conference to the seminarians has no bearing on Tony La Rosa personally. What, did Father mention some rash Tony la Rosa has or something? Give me a break.
:laugh1:
-
Tony La Rosa is the one who "wouldn't draw any conclusions" about the faked Ambrose docuмent (which he posted a few days ago on his blog). Remember this from a few days ago?
Now that his ONE issue with Fr. Pfeiffer has been resolved (i.e., Ambrose), I think he wants to STAY on good terms with Boston, KY from this point forward.
Hence his animosity with this conference, which makes Fr. Pfeiffer look bad.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
To call you a hack would be more flattery than you deserve.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? What have I done that has offended you so?
-
Tony La Rosa is in TORONTO --
Toronto is where the comment came a few years ago, "If you guys would red light the SSPX like we are, maybe God would bless you and you'd get Mass more often..."
Now look at them -- jumping from the warm water of the frog pot (SSPX) into the blazing fire.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
We can always depend on you taking one step forward and two steps back.
I was asked anout the recording by Tony La Rosa, who has given me permission to report this much back to all here. I offered to remove the audio recording, and so I did. This is not two steps back. It is honoring a personal request, one I felt was justified.
It is about moving forward.
Did Tony Larosa ask you to take it down?
I took it down after I asked Tony La Rosa if he would like me to take it down, after a brief exchange of emails. I am not at liberty to give his reasons, though I believe it is the best decision.
Sounds like you really learned how things are done in your four semesters of jewrnalism.
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
To call you a hack would be more flattery than you deserve.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? What have I done that has offended you so?
Because you are promoting/defending the circus that is Pfeifferville and that is perilous to souls. And all the more so because you are feigning (ever so roughly) to be doing so in an unbiased journalistic style.
You are as big of a joke as the kid who briefly covered Bawden's antics for our amusement. But you are less of a laughing matter though because more souls are at stake and souls that have been in good stead are being lead astray and are at stake.
-
Tony La Rosa is the one who "wouldn't draw any conclusions" about the faked Ambrose docuмent (which he posted a few days ago on his blog). Remember this from a few days ago?
Now that his ONE issue with Fr. Pfeiffer has been resolved (i.e., Ambrose), I think he wants to STAY on good terms with Boston, KY from this point forward.
Hence his animosity with this conference, which makes Fr. Pfeiffer look bad.
Bingo.
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
-
I also find it very disturbing that Father Pfeiffer keeps claiming that Moran was incardinated into the Toronto Eparchy......that is blatantly false! Even Moran's own "evidence" doesn't back that claim.
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
I think there is some confusion in the understanding of being a baptized Catholic. I was always taught that yes, once baptized as a Catholic the indelible mark on your soul remains whether or not you are a "practicing" Catholic or not. Therefore, Martin Luther would have been judged as a Catholic who had left the Faith and was no longer a "practicing" Catholic. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic and you will be judged that way which means woe is you if you have rejected the Faith.
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
Yes!! Martin Luther died a Catholic priest. Not only that, Martin Luther will be a Catholic priest for all eternity. Allow that to sink in.
-
At 28 minutes ...He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. ....
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic...
I was always taught that yes, once baptized as a Catholic the indelible mark on your soul remains whether or not you are a "practicing" Catholic or not. Therefore, Martin Luther would have been judged as a Catholic who had left the Faith and was no longer a "practicing" Catholic. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic and you will be judged that way which means woe is you if you have rejected the Faith.
Exactly, covet truth.
Let's not get too bogged down on this one point. If Fr. Pfeiffer meant it WRT the indelible mark of Baptism, it was completely irrelevant to the point at hand, and weird that he even mentioned it in the context of Ambrose potentially having been schismatic for a while.
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
Yes!! Martin Luther died a Catholic priest. Not only that, Martin Luther will be a Catholic priest for all eternity. Allow that to sink in.
Tell me then:
1) Did Martin Luther die a member of the Catholic Church or the Luthern church?
2) Are all validly baptized adults Catholics, no matter if they are members of a Protestant or Schismatic sect?
3) Are children who are validly baptized in a non-Catholic church, members of the Catholic Church?
-
I also find it very disturbing that Father Pfeiffer keeps claiming that Moran was incardinated into the Toronto Eparchy......that is blatantly false! Even Moran's own "evidence" doesn't back that claim.
These are the kinds of points that are very relevant to his talk.
-
I'm going to start calling this faction SSPX:SOL (Souls Out of Line). :wink:
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
Yes!! Martin Luther died a Catholic priest. Not only that, Martin Luther will be a Catholic priest for all eternity. Allow that to sink in.
Tell me then:
1) Did Martin Luther die a member of the Catholic Church or the Luthern
church?
2) Are all validly baptized adults Catholics, no matter if they are members of a Protestant or Schismatic sect?
3) Are children who are validly baptized in a non-Catholic church, members of the Catholic Church?
1) He died as an apostate Catholic priest. That's how he would have been judged unless somehow he repented at the end. He had the Faith but rejected it.
2) If properly baptized, both matter and form, then it is valid and they are Catholic but not held to the same standard through ignorance. One can only be validly baptized once.
3) Yes, if proper matter and form have been used. However, they are not held culpable because they are ignorant of the Truth and are being brought up in a false religion.
As to validly baptized adults, when they are given the actual grace by God to seek the truth but knowingly do not do so or turn away from it then they will no longer be ignorant and will held accountable. See why it's so important for the validly baptized to be converted to the True Faith.
I didn't want to de-rail this thread but these are important questions that I hope I have answered correctly. If I have misspoken in my answers I will stand corrected.
-
Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.
The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.
-
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
Yes!! Martin Luther died a Catholic priest. Not only that, Martin Luther will be a Catholic priest for all eternity. Allow that to sink in.
Tell me then:
1) Did Martin Luther die a member of the Catholic Church or the Luthern
church?
2) Are all validly baptized adults Catholics, no matter if they are members of a Protestant or Schismatic sect?
3) Are children who are validly baptized in a non-Catholic church, members of the Catholic Church?
1) He died as an apostate Catholic priest. That's how he would have been judged unless somehow he repented at the end. He had the Faith but rejected it.
2) If properly baptized, both matter and form, then it is valid and they are Catholic but not held to the same standard through ignorance. One can only be validly baptized once.
3) Yes, if proper matter and form have been used. However, they are not held culpable because they are ignorant of the Truth and are being brought up in a false religion.
As to validly baptized adults, when they are given the actual grace by God to seek the truth but knowingly do not do so or turn away from it then they will no longer be ignorant and will held accountable. See why it's so important for the validly baptized to be converted to the True Faith.
I didn't want to de-rail this thread but these are important questions that I hope I have answered correctly. If I have misspoken in my answers I will stand corrected.
Not to belabor the point. But since I am the one who was asked, I will say that, based on what I have been taught, I concur with what Covet says.
-
Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.
The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.
What you say sounds reasonable. But on a very fine hyper-technical point, I do not think it is 100% accurate.
I am not the least bit concerned about derailing a 72 page thread, and least of all this one.
So could anyone with theological/seminary training (Matthew? Ladislaus?) help us out here? Now I'm just curious and really want to know.
Edit: *73 page
-
Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.
The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.
A person, formally baptized in the Catholic Church sometime in their life cannot become a non-Catholic. One can only become a fallen-away Catholic, a non-practicing Catholic, or how ever you want to say it. Whether you become a heretic, an apostate, or a schismatic you never lose that mark on your soul that you received at baptism. The point is that is how you will be judged -- as a Catholic. Remember no one enters heaven but through the Catholic Church.
-
Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.
The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.
A person, formally baptized in the Catholic Church sometime in their life cannot become a non-Catholic. One can only become a fallen-away Catholic, a non-practicing Catholic, or how ever you want to say it. Whether you become a heretic, an apostate, or a schismatic you never lose that mark on your soul that you received at baptism. The point is that is how you will be judged -- as a Catholic. Remember no one enters heaven but through the Catholic Church.
This is not right, I will start a new thread on Church membership in the general discussion area.
-
Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.
The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.
A person, formally baptized in the Catholic Church sometime in their life cannot become a non-Catholic. One can only become a fallen-away Catholic, a non-practicing Catholic, or how ever you want to say it. Whether you become a heretic, an apostate, or a schismatic you never lose that mark on your soul that you received at baptism. The point is that is how you will be judged -- as a Catholic. Remember no one enters heaven but through the Catholic Church.
The character alone does not make a person a member of the Catholic Church. Heretics who are baptized outside of the Church receive the character. In fact, if a heretic openly and knowingly denies the faith when he is baptized, although he will not receive the grace of the sacrament, he will still receive the character. The point is, every validly baptized person receives the character, but not all those who are validly baptized are members of the Church.
A person baptized as a Catholic, yet who renounces the Church and joins a heretical sect, is no longer a member of the Church. He is a former Catholic or fallen away Catholic.
-
Here is a link to the new thread:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38753
-
Here is a link to the new thread:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38753
Thanks.
-
The latest post on the 30 Days blog is pretty stupid. Seriously, Forrest Gump isn't known for his high -- or even average -- intellect, and this blog post is right out of Forrest Gump!
"Life is like a box of chocolates". Or as this blog says today, "Life is often like cooking."
He pretty much goes there. Comparing the Boston seminary going forward to a dish of chili that was salvaged from a botched cooking adventure.
He compared the Ambrose mess to a meat pie whose crust was made with cake mix instead of biscuit mix, making a "sweet meat pie".
Since he was talking about chili, I'd title the post, "Boston baked beans".
-
.
I am replying only to the bold portion below:
At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me. He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith. I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
The indelible mark of baptism. I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell. Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest. These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven. Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell. One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.
It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.
Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!
Yes!! Martin Luther died a Catholic priest. Not only that, Martin Luther will be a Catholic priest for all eternity. Allow that to sink in.
Tell me then:
1) Did Martin Luther die a member of the Catholic Church or the Luthern
church?
2) Are all validly baptized adults Catholics, no matter if they are members of a Protestant or Schismatic sect?
3) Are children who are validly baptized in a non-Catholic church, members of the Catholic Church?
1) He died as an apostate Catholic priest. That's how he would have been judged unless somehow he repented at the end. He had the Faith but rejected it.
2) If properly baptized, both matter and form, then it is valid and they are Catholic but not held to the same standard through ignorance. One can only be validly baptized once.
3) Yes, if proper matter and form have been used. However, they are not held culpable because they are ignorant of the Truth and are being brought up in a false religion.
As to validly baptized adults, when they are given the actual grace by God to seek the truth but knowingly do not do so or turn away from it then they will no longer be ignorant and will held accountable. See why it's so important for the validly baptized to be converted to the True Faith.
I didn't want to de-rail this thread but these are important questions that I hope I have answered correctly. If I have misspoken in my answers I will stand corrected.
Not to belabor the point. But since I am the one who was asked, I will say that, based on what I have been taught, I concur with what Covet says.
There have been many cases of children so-called baptized outside the Church but their baptism was found invalid, even when proper form and matter were used. The reason is the third element that you didn't mention:
INTENTION
Form, matter and intention are necessary. So a protestant minister who pours the water and says the words as he should but has no intention to do what the Church does but only intends to initiate the child (or adult) into his congregation as a kind of registration, does not confer baptism. Any such candidate should be conditionally baptized when they want to become Catholic.
.
-
.
INTENTION
Form, matter and intention are necessary. So a protestant minister who pours the water and says the words as he should but has no intention to do what the Church does but only intends to initiate the child (or adult) into his congregation as a kind of registration, does not confer baptism. Any such candidate should be conditionally baptized when they want to become Catholic.
.
That's right and I forgot to include that for validity. Now, I have a question as this topic is getting beyond my abilities to answer.
If one is baptized a Catholic and leaves the Church and becomes schismatic or an apostate how does that change the effects of their baptism other than they have cut themselves off from the sources of grace and, without repentance, eternal life? Won't they be judged as a Catholic who had the Faith but left it? They can't go to their particular judgement and claim ignorance. I don't see how a Catholic can become a non-Catholic, in the same way as a protestant, in God's eyes. He is held to a different standard.
-
This entire thing is dumb. There is NO useful information at any level coming from this 30 day blog, no insight into a standardized routine or syllabus, no insight into spiritual formation, no insight into the support network or administrative side, no rebuttal to Fr. Voigt's letter, no explanation for the exile of Mr. Moran....this is STUPID!
-
1917 Code of Canon Law, c. 2314.1: "All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated..."
-
On his nineteenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Nineteen nervous gnashers
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
When is the requiem Mass for this thread?
-
What is the order of the day like at this seminary? What time is mass?
What about Lauds and Vespers?
Do they say the Divine Office?
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
-
That's great -- they practically cut/pasted the schedule from Winona, MN (SSPX seminary) or at least what it used to be 20 years ago.
That's fine and dandy. But do they live up to it? Does that schedule reflect the REALITY at the Boston seminary? It sure wasn't just a few short months ago.
Homeschool parents will tell you that "theory" and "practice" are two completely different things. You have the loftiest plans for your kids on September 1. By December, you'll lucky to bring out the books at all on many days. Another example: weight loss resolutions in America around January 1st. Everyone is gung-ho for a month (plus or minus) and then those brand-new treadmills and exercise bikes to into the rented storage locker "for later".
Of course they're going to put up a REAL seminary's schedule. They think they are a real seminary! Then why doesn't Bishop Williamson respect that seminary? Oh, I know -- for those in Boston, it's because +W is a bad guy; a big fat meanie <extend fat lower lip>.
Well I reject that underlying premise, and I'm taking this "schedule" with a huge grain of salt salt lick.
And let's not forget -- Martin (Manuel Chavez) put himself out there as "reporting from the seminary", and does he confirm this schedule? No, he just pastes the official story or ideal -- what about the reality? What is his answer?
*evade* *dodge*
Did I tell you I can make a wicked banana bread? Life is like a box of chocolates... Did I tell you how rainy it's been lately in Boston?
ZZZZzzzzz.....
I see. I'll take that as a no. No order or regular classes in the seminary. Gotcha.
-
And in other news, I am Napoleon Bonaparte.
Want proof? Here you go.
All of this is talking about me. And since these paragraphs describe Napoleon Bonaparte, then I am indeed Napoleon Bonaparte! The logic is completely water-tight, you gotta admit.
Matthew was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the Revolutionary Wars. As Napoleon I, he was Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814, and again in 1815. Napoleon dominated European affairs for over a decade while leading France against a series of coalitions in the Napoleonic Wars. He won most of these wars and the vast majority of his battles, rapidly gaining control of continental Europe before his ultimate defeat in 1815. One of the greatest commanders in history, his campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide and he remains one of the most celebrated and controversial political figures in Western history.[3][4] In civil affairs, Napoleon had a major long-term impact by bringing liberal reforms to the countries that he conquered, especially the Low Countries, Switzerland, Italy, and large parts of Germany. He implemented fundamental liberal policies in France and throughout Western Europe.[note 1] His lasting legal achievement was the Napoleonic Code, which has been adopted in various forms by a quarter of the world's legal systems, from Japan to Quebec.[10][11][12]
Napoleon was born in Corsica to a relatively modest family of noble Tuscan ancestry. Serving in the French army, Napoleon supported the Revolution from the outset in 1789 and tried to spread its ideals to Corsica, but was banished from the island in 1793. Two years later, he saved the French government from collapse by firing on the Parisian mobs with cannons. After the Directory rewarded Napoleon by giving him command of Army of Italy at age 26, he began his first military campaign against the Austrians and their Italian allies, scoring a series of decisive victories that made him famous all across Europe. He followed the defeat of the Allies in Europe by commanding a military expedition to Egypt in 1798, conquering the Ottoman province after defeating the Mamelukes and launching modern Egyptology through the discoveries made by his army.
After returning from Egypt, Napoleon engineered a coup in November 1799 and became First Consul of the Republic. With the Concordat of 1801, Napoleon restored the religious powers of the Catholic Church but kept the lands seized by the Revolution. The state nominated the bishops and controlled church finances. He extended his political control over France until the Senate declared him Emperor of the French in 1804, launching the French Empire. Intractable differences with the British meant that the French were facing a Third Coalition by 1805. Napoleon shattered this coalition with decisive victories in the Ulm Campaign and a historic triumph at the Battle of Austerlitz, which led to the elimination of the Holy Roman Empire. In October 1805, however, a Franco-Spanish fleet was destroyed at the Battle of Trafalgar, allowing Britain to impose a naval blockade of the French coasts. In retaliation, Napoleon established the Continental System in 1806 to cut off European trade with Britain. The Fourth Coalition took up arms against him the same year because Prussia became worried about growing French influence on the continent. After quickly knocking out Prussia at the battles of Jena and Auerstedt, Napoleon turned his attention towards the Russians and annihilated them in 1807 at Friedland, which forced the Russians to accept the Treaties of Tilsit, the high water mark of the French Empire.
Hoping to extend the Continental System, Napoleon invaded Iberia and declared his brother Joseph the King of Spain in 1808. The Spanish and the Portuguese revolted with British support. The Peninsular War, noted for its brutal guerrilla warfare, lasted six years and culminated in an Allied victory. Fighting also erupted in Central Europe, as the Austrians launched another attack against the French in 1809. Napoleon defeated them at the Battle of Wagram, dissolving the Fifth Coalition formed against France. By 1811, Napoleon ruled over 70 million people across an empire that had domination in Europe, which had not witnessed this level of political consolidation since the days of the Roman Empire.[13] He maintained his strategic status through a series of alliances and family appointments. He created a new aristocracy in France while allowing the return of nobles who had been forced into exile by the Revolution.
Tensions over rising Polish nationalism and the economic effects of the Continental System led to renewed confrontation with Russia. To enforce his blockade, Napoleon launched an invasion of Russia in 1812 that ended in catastrophic failure for the French. In 1813, Prussia and Austria joined Russian forces in a Sixth Coalition against France. A chaotic military campaign eventually culminated in a large Allied army defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig in October. The next year, the Allies invaded France and captured Paris, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in April 1814. He was exiled to the island of Elba. The Bourbons were restored to power and the French lost most of the territories that they had conquered since the Revolution. However, Napoleon escaped from Elba in February 1815 and took control of the government once again. The Allies formed a Seventh Coalition, which ultimately defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in June. He was then captured by the British and imprisoned on the remote island of Saint Helena. His death in 1821 at the age of 51 was received by shock and grief throughout Europe. In 1840, a million people witnessed his remains returning to Paris, where they still reside at Les Invalides.[14]
-
Take their proposed schedule with a huge grain of salt.
-
One glaring omission from the schedule is:
2:00 am Axis & Allies
-
That's great -- they practically cut/pasted the schedule from Winona, MN (SSPX seminary) or at least what it used to be 20 years ago.
That's fine and dandy. But do they live up to it? Does that schedule reflect the REALITY at the Boston seminary? It sure wasn't just a few short months ago.
Homeschool parents will tell you that "theory" and "practice" are two completely different things. You have the loftiest plans for your kids on September 1. By December, you'll lucky to bring out the books at all on many days. Another example: weight loss resolutions in America around January 1st. Everyone is gung-ho for a month (plus or minus) and then those brand-new treadmills and exercise bikes to into the rented storage locker "for later".
Of course they're going to put up a REAL seminary's schedule. They think they are a real seminary! Then why doesn't Bishop Williamson respect that seminary? Oh, I know -- for those in Boston, it's because +W is a bad guy; a big fat meanie <extend fat lower lip>.
Well I reject that underlying premise, and I'm taking this "schedule" with a huge grain of salt salt lick.
And let's not forget -- Martin (Manuel Chavez) put himself out there as "reporting from the seminary", and does he confirm this schedule? No, he just pastes the official story or ideal -- what about the reality? What is his answer?
*evade* *dodge*
Did I tell you I can make a wicked banana bread? Life is like a box of chocolates... Did I tell you how rainy it's been lately in Boston?
ZZZZzzzzz.....
I see. I'll take that as a no. No order or regular classes in the seminary. Gotcha.
They adhere to the schedule. Only once or twice have they had any deviations from this set schedule this year. In previous years, there were more deviations from the schedule. This year has been far more strict than in the past, and more consistent.
I am not evading or dodging, nor have I made any banana bread, wicked or otherwise.
I did confirm the schedule in one of my blog posts, though I did not write it out in great detail as the schedule listed here.
-
But the schedule isn't believable, Martin. It's obviously cut-pasted from the S.T.A.S. website.
Just one point that I *know* is false --
On your "Sunday schedule" you have 7:30 Mass and 10:00 Mass. What a coincidence -- just like my Winona seminary days!
But we all know they don't have 2 Masses there on Sunday, first thing in the morning just like Winona, MN.
While I acknowledge they've had Sunday Mass consistently in the recent past, it's more because Fr. Hewko makes sure to get back while it's still Sunday and say Mass late in the evening for the Seminary only.
7:30 Mass it's not, and it's certainly not multiple Masses.
And does Fr. Hewko REALLY teach 3 class slots back to back for 3 hours every day? That's a lot of teaching for one professor.
-
But the schedule isn't believable, Martin. It's obviously cut-pasted from the S.T.A.S. website.
Just one point that I *know* is false --
On your "Sunday schedule" you have 7:30 Mass and 10:00 Mass. What a coincidence -- just like my Winona seminary days!
But we all know they don't have 2 Masses there on Sunday, first thing in the morning just like Winona, MN.
While I acknowledge they've had Sunday Mass consistently in the recent past, it's more because Fr. Hewko makes sure to get back while it's still Sunday and say Mass late in the evening for the Seminary only.
7:30 Mass it's not, and it's certainly not multiple Masses.
And does Fr. Hewko REALLY teach 3 class slots back to back for 3 hours every day? That's a lot of teaching for one professor.
The schedule presented here is partly inaccurate. The schedule I wrote about on my blog is accurate, and they adhere to that schedule. The source for this cut and pasted schedule mentioned here has not been updated since August 2013, and was made as a potential seminary website during the early setup for the seminary. It is a relic of the early days.
The seminary schedule is relatively the same as presented here, minus a few deviations. There are four morning classes now, which go from 9 am to 12 pm, rather than just three classes. On many days, both Father Pfeiffer and Father Hewko are present, which means they split the class schedule.
Weekends can vary somewhat in terms of Mass times, though they have not missed any Masses so far this seminary year.
The main point is that the seminary has a schedule and they adhere to the schedule. It may not be exactly the same as what was posted two years ago on the demo website, but it is a fairly solid routine.
I will present a more detailed version of the schedule on my blog this weekend, since people have asked about that.
-
Also, the parish has yet to miss a Mass during this school year. Mass has been no later than 630pm on Sunday. This is not just for the seminarians, but for all in the area.
-
I really didn't look at the cut and pasted schedule before commenting on it, which is my mistake. I am sorry for the confusion on that matter.
I will post a detailed schedule soon.
-
Who is going to ordain these men if and when they finish their education? What are Father Pfeiffer's plans for that?
-
On his twenty-first day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Perhaps when Father Hewko returns today for the seminarians' Mass, you can ask him who they are planning to have ordain their seminarians?
God Bless
-
So when the priests are away who is in charge at the seminary? Paul the American Hernandez ? An honest answer please.
-
So when the priests are away who is in charge at the seminary? Paul the American Hernandez ? An honest answer please.
No. The head seminarian is in charge of the seminary, and Pablo is helping with other things related to the seminary.
-
Perhaps when Father Hewko returns today for the seminarians' Mass, you can ask him who they are planning to have ordain their seminarians?
God Bless
David Bawden or his "Bishop" Bob (something-or-other) may be available to help out.
-
Perhaps when Father Hewko returns today for the seminarians' Mass, you can ask him who they are planning to have ordain their seminarians?
God Bless
Whomever God sends. It could be Bishops Faure or Williamson. That is not outside the realm of possibility.
-
On his twenty-second day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Perhaps when Father Hewko returns today for the seminarians' Mass, you can ask him who they are planning to have ordain their seminarians?
God Bless
Whomever God sends. It could be Bishops Faure or Williamson. That is not outside the realm of possibility.
I think that what folks are wondering, is could it be Ambrose, or is that outside of the realm of possibilities?
-
Perhaps when Father Hewko returns today for the seminarians' Mass, you can ask him who they are planning to have ordain their seminarians?
God Bless
Whomever God sends. It could be Bishops Faure or Williamson. That is not outside the realm of possibility.
I expect either of them would want to exorcise and de-louse the place before they have anything whatsoever to do with it.
-
Perhaps when Father Hewko returns today for the seminarians' Mass, you can ask him who they are planning to have ordain their seminarians?
God Bless
Whomever God sends. It could be Bishops Faure or Williamson. That is not outside the realm of possibility.
I think that what folks are wondering, is could it be Ambrose, or is that outside of the realm of possibilities?
I don't know whether that would ever work or not. For some reason, every time I think of Pablo and Ambrose, and to some extent Fr. Pfeiffer, all in Pfeifferville together, I conjure up images of a bunch of bandits in a western movie dashing toward the border with their loot, and getting more agitated day by day from loss of sleep for keeping an eye on each other 24/7.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
There were plenty of Catholic saints with those qualities.
You should be in 30 days at a St Ignatius Silent retreat.
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
Here is something missing from itinery: WORK.
Who is feeding the chickens a and planting the crops?
-
Just as well Fr. Pfeiffer's discussion is posted here, because Manuel already flushed his down the memory hole! That's journalism at it's absolute worst Manuel..
Fr. claims it's indisputable that Moran is a priest and bishop, and 4 days later they ditched him. What exactly is OLMC's "truth"?
It's very interesting. Fr Pfeiffer says Tony Larosa(?) confirmed the fraudster's incardination in Toronto, but if I recall correct, Tony was the one who got docuмented confirmation from the Toronto Eparchy that "Archbishop" Moran's claim is fraudulent, he was never incardinated in Toronto.
It's also interesting how fast Fr. dismissed the claims of Papal Privilege and Universal Jurisdiction when a questioner brought them up. Obviously Fr. was already picking and choosing from Billy Moran's Buffet of Baloney. He sure wasn't swallowing all of it, even himself!!!
I removed it upon a personal and private request, which I felt I should honor.
To call you a hack would be more flattery than you deserve.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? What have I done that has offended you so?
Because you are promoting/defending the circus that is Pfeifferville and that is perilous to souls. And all the more so because you are feigning (ever so roughly) to be doing so in an unbiased journalistic style.
You are as big of a joke as the kid who briefly covered Bawden's antics for our amusement. But you are less of a laughing matter though because more souls are at stake and souls that have been in good stead are being lead astray and are at "
MOST OF ALL:
It all offends God and our Blessed Mother. It mocks the Catholic Church.
-
Manuel Chavez:
Your blog offends God and Our Blessed Mother. It mocks the Catholic Church. You need to go to Confession too.
-
Shouldn't seminarians go to Confession?
-
Manuel Chavez:
Your blog offends God and Our Blessed Mother. It mocks the Catholic Church. You need to go to Confession too.
How have I offended God and Our Blessed Mother? How do I mock the Catholic Church?
-
Manuel,
Since you are giving us a window into the seminary, please tell us how many seminarians are at OLMC right now. That is, those who are still physically attending classes there every day, and not including brothers, support staff, pets/livestock, or Pablos. If it's not too much trouble, you can let us know what the breakdown in years of study at OLMC is too.
You should have that all off the top of your head, no delays are needed for research.
-
On his twenty-third day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-three french fries,
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Manuel,
Since you are giving us a window into the seminary, please tell us how many seminarians are at OLMC right now. That is, those who are still physically attending classes there every day, and not including brothers, support staff, pets/livestock, or Pablos. If it's not too much trouble, you can let us know what the breakdown in years of study at OLMC is too.
You should have that all off the top of your head, no delays are needed for research.
There are seven seminarians attending classes, one brother, a handful of support staff, many chickens (too many hens though), three ducks, two priests and a Pablo without a pear tree.
One seminarian has been here since the beginning. Another has been here two years. With the exception of the head seminarian, who was at Winona at least as far back as 2012, the others are first year seminarians. So that makes three with multiple years.
Once again, I ask ... How have I offended God and Our Lady? How have I mocked the Catholic Church?
-
There are seven seminarians attending classes, one brother, a handful of support staff, many chickens (too many hens though), three ducks, two priests and a Pablo without a pear tree.
:laugh1:
Don't forget up a river without a paddle!
-
Returning to the unanswered question, is it possible that the "association with Ambrose might be renewed at some point to ordain seminarians if Bishops Williamson and Faure will not.
Would that be a possible manifestation of God sending someone? What do the Father's have to say about that?
-
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.
Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.
-
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.
Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.
Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.
They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.
-
Another question Manuel, do the Priests still consider Ambrose to be a Catholic Priest and Bishop?
-
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.
Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.
Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.
They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.
Don't bet on it! Last I heard, "the people aren't ready yet"
.
-
Another question Manuel, do the Priests still consider Ambrose to be a Catholic Priest and Bishop?
Yes, they do. :facepalm:
-
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.
Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.
Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.
They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.
Don't bet on it! Last I heard, "the people aren't ready yet"
.
I don't have to bet. I asked.
-
Yea right. Those plans "are firmly set in place" - until they change.
And they will change.
-
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.
Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.
Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.
They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.
Then- Is there a plan for a public acknowledgement of their serious mistake, and an apology to those who might have been harmed in this mess? A warning to other trads wherever Ambrose may go that he is not a Catholic bishop so they won't fall into the same trap?
The fiasco was public, the harm was public, the acknowledgement needs to be public too; and more than just the shabby 2 sentences or so in their obscure announcement. They might regain some of their credibility.
Or are they just going to ignore it and hope it falls down the memory-hole?
Are these the same priests who criticized +Fellay for refusing to acknowledge his mistake in 2012 and refusing to correct the damage done? (Oh wait- recent developments may show why he (+F) wouldn't do that...)
-
Well, if they still believe him to be a Catholic Priest and Bishop then, they would see no reason to apologize. In that case, it would be appropriate to explain why suddenly they decided not to associate with him.
But which one is it? I'm trying to find out....
-
Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:
What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?
-
Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:
What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
-
So, if you are reading this, your excellencies, I would love to whip you up a fancy feast, and show you around the much-improved seminary.
Come see for yourselves the progress made here in Boston. That goes for anyone else who have reasons to doubt the validity and integrity of the seminary.
He just publicly accused Bishops Faure and Williamson of doubting the integrity and validity of the seminary. I'm not saying he is wrong; I just don't think it is a good way to address two bishops. Surely they could care a less about his blog. It is rather boring. Day in and day out. I guess he is justified somewhat for his assumption because at this point the entire world doubts the "validity and integrity" of the seminary, even many once friendly priests. It is silly to talk about how they need another priest when they effectively achieved running off one of the last priests that was willing to work with them.
I don't think that his blog is having the desired result.
-
So, if you are reading this, your excellencies, I would love to whip you up a fancy feast, and show you around the much-improved seminary.
Come see for yourselves the progress made here in Boston. That goes for anyone else who have reasons to doubt the validity and integrity of the seminary.
He just publicly accused Bishops Faure and Williamson of doubting the integrity and validity of the seminary. I'm not saying he is wrong; I just don't think it is a good way to address two bishops. Surely they could care a less about his blog. It is rather boring. Day in and day out. I guess he is justified somewhat for his assumption because at this point the entire world doubts the "validity and integrity" of the seminary, even many once friendly priests. It is silly to talk about how they need another priest when they effectively achieved running off one of the last priests that was willing to work with them.
I don't think that his blog is having the desired result.
I was once looking forward to visiting. But I won't do so now until they publicly renounce and apologize for what was at the very least a flirtation with schism.
This is one of the best points I have seen in this thread:
Then- Is there a plan for a public acknowledgement of their serious mistake, and an apology to those who might have been harmed in this mess? A warning to other trads wherever Ambrose may go that he is not a Catholic bishop so they won't fall into the same trap?
The fiasco was public, the harm was public, the acknowledgement needs to be public too; and more than just the shabby 2 sentences or so in their obscure announcement. They might regain some of their credibility.
Or are they just going to ignore it and hope it falls down the memory-hole?
Are these the same priests who criticized +Fellay for refusing to acknowledge his mistake in 2012 and refusing to correct the damage done? (Oh wait- recent developments may show why he (+F) wouldn't do that...)
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
I have seen no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis, nor do I indulge in such unfounded, conspiratorial notions. It is a waste of time and resources.
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Manuel, may I ask where Fr. Pfeiffer is/was this past weekend. It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission these past two weeks, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US?
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
Does a 1 or 2 difference really matter, Chiara?
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Manuel, may I ask where Fr. Pfeiffer is/was this past weekend. It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission these past two weeks, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US?
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
The nine included the brother. One seminarian left, which leaves seven seminarians and one brother, for a total of eight.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
I have seen no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis, nor do I indulge in such unfounded, conspiratorial notions. It is a waste of time and resources.
Keep your head up your ass. I'm sure the smell isn't great, but it's safer there in light of your naïveté.
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
I have seen no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis, nor do I indulge in such unfounded, conspiratorial notions. It is a waste of time and resources.
Keep your head up your ass. I'm sure the smell isn't great, but it's safer there in light of your naïveté.
Ad hominem attacks are not legitimate debate tactics. These words exhibit an immaturity which is unbecoming of a traditional Catholic.
Above all, charity.
-
St. Francis de Sales is a Catholic Saint who was holy and gentle. He is also patron saint of journalists and writers.
What is so unbecoming is that?
-
St. Francis de Sales is a Catholic Saint who was holy and gentle. He is also patron saint of journalists and writers.
What is so unbecoming is that?
What is unbecoming is OHCA's uncharitable and vulgar writing.
Saint Francis de Sales is a good Saint.
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Manuel, may I ask where Fr. Pfeiffer is/was this past weekend. It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission these past two weeks, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US?
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
This is a valid question. I don't see why anybody would down-thumb it. Where has Fr. Pfeiffer been? A good follow up question is if he still communicates with Ambrose. I find it extremely hard to believe that he hasn't communicated with him since stating that they will not have him in Boston.
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Manuel, may I ask where Fr. Pfeiffer is/was this past weekend. It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission these past two weeks, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US?
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
This is a valid question. I don't see why anybody would down-thumb it. Where has Fr. Pfeiffer been? A good follow up question is if he still communicates with Ambrose. I find it extremely hard to believe that he hasn't communicated with him since stating that they will not have him in Boston.
Yes, very good questions which Manuel should have answered promptly. Fr. Pfeiffer himself has said he does everything in the open, so Manuel should understand by this that he needs to be responding to all without hesitation, and without "clearing it first".
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
I have seen no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis, nor do I indulge in such unfounded, conspiratorial notions. It is a waste of time and resources.
Keep your head up your ass. I'm sure the smell isn't great, but it's safer there in light of your naïveté.
Ad hominem attacks are not legitimate debate tactics. These words exhibit an immaturity which is unbecoming of a traditional Catholic.
Above all, charity.
I WILL NOT BE RESTRAINED BY YOUR JEW-TAUGHT "LEGITIMATE DEBATE TACTICS!!!" AD HOMINEM = CONSIDER THE SOURCE--THE LAST THING PIECE OF $#!+ WEASELS SUCH AS YOU WANT ANYBODY TO DO!!!
-
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.
He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.
Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.
St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
I have seen no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis, nor do I indulge in such unfounded, conspiratorial notions. It is a waste of time and resources.
Keep your head up your ass. I'm sure the smell isn't great, but it's safer there in light of your naïveté.
Ad hominem attacks are not legitimate debate tactics. These words exhibit an immaturity which is unbecoming of a traditional Catholic.
Above all, charity.
I WILL NOT BE RESTRAINED BY YOUR JEW-TAUGHT "LEGITIMATE DEBATE TACTICS!!!" AD HOMINEM = CONSIDER THE SOURCE--THE LAST THING PIECE OF $#!+ WEASELS SUCH AS YOU WANT ANYBODY TO DO!!!
Please calm down. This is unnecessary.
-
I think people should take it easy on manuel. Don't misunderstand me, but some of the comments are drifting off from the focus, preserving the Faith. Being overly antagonistic with Manuel is only going to confirm him further in his blind support for the two priests in Kentucky. Listen to Fr. Pfeiffer speak: They are attacking us and that is how we know that we are right. We are doing what God wants and the devil attacks us. (paraphrase)
My opinion is that the best thing to do is let it pass. Pray for them. And try as best as possible to be charitable to them. True charity is instructing the ignorant, but aggressively it isn't working. Give Manuel a break, and hope that God gives him the light to see his way out of Kentucky.
-
On his twenty-fourth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-four cheesy curds,
Twenty-three french fries,
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.
I have seen no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis, nor do I indulge in such unfounded, conspiratorial notions. It is a waste of time and resources.
Keep your head up your ass. I'm sure the smell isn't great, but it's safer there in light of your naïveté.[/quote]
Ad hominem attacks are not legitimate debate tactics. These words exhibit an immaturity which is unbecoming of a traditional Catholic.
Above all, charity.[/quote]
I WILL NOT BE RESTRAINED BY YOUR JEW-TAUGHT "LEGITIMATE DEBATE TACTICS!!!" AD HOMINEM = CONSIDER THE SOURCE--THE LAST THING PIECE OF $#!+ WEASELS SUCH AS YOU WANT ANYBODY TO DO!!![/quote]
Please calm down. This is unnecessary. [/quote]
Whatever you say Mr. Rogers.
-
Manuel, on your blog, you state, "You've got questions? We've got answers!" Well, I am asking again, where was Fr. Pfeiffer these past weeks? Is he back in Boston? It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US? Thank you and God bless.
-
Manuel, on your blog, you state, "You've got questions? We've got answers!" Well, I am asking again, where was Fr. Pfeiffer these past weeks? Is he back in Boston? It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US? Thank you and God bless.
He has been in and out, bringing the sacraments to the missions. He is here now, as is Father Hewko. I have not asked which missions he visited.
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Manuel, may I ask where Fr. Pfeiffer is/was this past weekend. It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission these past two weeks, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US?
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
The nine included the brother. One seminarian left, which leaves seven seminarians and one brother, for a total of eight.
You and Fr. Hewko should get together for roll call because in the sermon I'm listening to now (from Sunday) he says there are 9 seminarians.
-
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Manuel, may I ask where Fr. Pfeiffer is/was this past weekend. It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission these past two weeks, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US?
Also, the statement coming out of OLMC regarding Ambrose mentions 9 seminarians and brothers, but you mention 7 seminarians and 1 brother. Did someone leave or was this a typo?
The nine included the brother. One seminarian left, which leaves seven seminarians and one brother, for a total of eight.
You and Fr. Hewko should get together for roll call because in the sermon I'm listening to now (from Sunday) he says there are 9 seminarians.
Take the square root of how ever many Pablo says.
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
Here is something missing from itinery: WORK.
Who is feeding the chickens a and planting the crops?
Probably the support staff. Maybe Pablo when he is not performing exorcisms.
-
Manuel, on your blog, you state, "You've got questions? We've got answers!" Well, I am asking again, where was Fr. Pfeiffer these past weeks? Is he back in Boston? It seems you mention Fr. Hewko going on mission, but no mention if Fr. Pfeiffer was on a mission circuit, only about him returning later in the week. Is he visiting outside of the US? Thank you and God bless.
I would also like to ask if there is a linkage between an article published from England and the simultaneous arrival in Boston of Archbishop Ambrose, and also the circulation of a letter from Mexico and the arrival of Bishop Faure in North America.
-
If Frs Hewko and Pfeiffer are out saying mass in all these missions then who is teaching the classes?
-
What classes are being taught?
-
I notice in the schedule they have "grand silence." Is that really the monastic grand silence or is that the silence of consideration for the others who are trying to sleep?
-
Mr Dougherty, Please answer the questions being put to you otherwise what is the point of your 30 days blog? Or is it just a cookery blog as some call it.
Here are some more questions =
1. Why did Paul Hernandez choose to be photographed and then post that photograph on one of his YouTube videos with the sedevacantist/TECOS Carmelite monks in Mexico?
2. Why does Faul Hernandez who is joined at the hip with Fr Pfeiffer not received the sacraments?
3. When will Fr Pfeiffer make some form of 'apology' for letting 'bishop' moran into the seminary.
4. Who will cover the seminary this weekend when Fr Pfeiffer is overseas and Fr Hewko is serving the missions closer to home?
5. Why have you chosen to ignore all the points and questions raised in Fr Voigt's letter. Either he is not telling the truth or he is. If he is telling the truth then those points need addressing or the seminary should close immediately.
Here's hoping for some real answers and no blustering, otherwise you will lose all credence.
-
I notice in the schedule they have "grand silence." Is that really the monastic grand silence or is that the silence of consideration for the others who are trying to sleep?
That is don't discuss the scandals kind of silence--it's bad for enrollment.
-
. . .otherwise you will lose all credence.
That ship has sailed. That ship had sailed before Mr. Rogers started his infomercial blog and infomercial CI thread.
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
Here is something missing from itinery: WORK.
Who is feeding the chickens a and planting the crops?
Probably the support staff. Maybe Pablo when he is not performing exorcisms.
As I have said earlier, this schedule was taken from a site made as a demo for a seminary website back in July 2013. This schedule is not entirely reflective of the current schedule, which I have highlighted on my blog.
Manualia means work, by the way.
-
Mr Dougherty, Please answer the questions being put to you otherwise what is the point of your 30 days blog? Or is it just a cookery blog as some call it.
Here are some more questions =
1. Why did Paul Hernandez choose to be photographed and then post that photograph on one of his YouTube videos with the sedevacantist/TECOS Carmelite monks in Mexico?
2. Why does Faul Hernandez who is joined at the hip with Fr Pfeiffer not received the sacraments?
3. When will Fr Pfeiffer make some form of 'apology' for letting 'bishop' moran into the seminary.
4. Who will cover the seminary this weekend when Fr Pfeiffer is overseas and Fr Hewko is serving the missions closer to home?
5. Why have you chosen to ignore all the points and questions raised in Fr Voigt's letter. Either he is not telling the truth or he is. If he is telling the truth then those points need addressing or the seminary should close immediately.
Here's hoping for some real answers and no blustering, otherwise you will lose all credence.
Your question No.4. He is going overseas. Where? Will he be carrying 30 piece sets of silver I wonder?
-
On his twenty-sixth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-six feasts a-daily,
Twenty-five onion rings!
Twenty-four cheesy curds,
Twenty-three french fries,
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
This whole situation and the accompanying activities have become difficult to make sense of, and more opaque as time goes on.
Best to avoid the place and the people, until something sorts it.
Pray for them but, keep your distance.
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
Here is something missing from itinery: WORK.
Who is feeding the chickens a and planting the crops?
Probably the support staff. Maybe Pablo when he is not performing exorcisms.
As I have said earlier, this schedule was taken from a site made as a demo for a seminary website back in July 2013. This schedule is not entirely reflective of the current schedule, which I have highlighted on my blog.
Manualia means work, by the way.
So what is the real schedule of the day over there> I didn't ask for a schedule of the other SSPX seminary> I wanted to know the schedule of the day over at Boston Ky. You should know, after all you are there.
-
I notice in the schedule they have "grand silence." Is that really the monastic grand silence or is that the silence of consideration for the others who are trying to sleep?
That is don't discuss the scandals kind of silence--it's bad for enrollment.
No, the idea of Grand Silence in the monastic sense is a time of absolute silence for the monks to pray and reflect while they sleep. The idea of silence of consideration is to be quiet but you can talk in a low voice if it will not wake someone up who is trying to sleep.
If a monk talks during the Grand Silence it is a sin. If someone talks in a low voice in a silence of consideration and doesn't wake anybody up then that may be ok.
-
I notice in the schedule they have "grand silence." Is that really the monastic grand silence or is that the silence of consideration for the others who are trying to sleep?
That is don't discuss the scandals kind of silence--it's bad for enrollment.
No, the idea of Grand Silence in the monastic sense is a time of absolute silence for the monks to pray and reflect while they sleep. The idea of silence of consideration is to be quiet but you can talk in a low voice if it will not wake someone up who is trying to sleep.
If a monk talks during the Grand Silence it is a sin. If someone talks in a low voice in a silence of consideration and doesn't wake anybody up then that may be ok.
I doubt that's what Pablo's "Grande Silence" is like and I seriously doubt that's the purpose for his "Grande Silence."
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
Here is something missing from itinery: WORK.
Who is feeding the chickens a and planting the crops?
Probably the support staff. Maybe Pablo when he is not performing exorcisms.
As I have said earlier, this schedule was taken from a site made as a demo for a seminary website back in July 2013. This schedule is not entirely reflective of the current schedule, which I have highlighted on my blog.
Manualia means work, by the way.
So what is the real schedule of the day over there> I didn't ask for a schedule of the other SSPX seminary> I wanted to know the schedule of the day over at Boston Ky. You should know, after all you are there.
But instead you got more disingenuity, and hacking and shilling for "the cause."
You should know, after all you are there.
Do I detect that you have doubts about this too?
-
As I have said before, that schedule was taken from a website that was made in 2013 to show what a seminary website could look like. It is still up, but it has not been altered since 2013, and is not considered an official site. It was for demonstration purposes only.
The schedule for this year is a variation of this schedule, which is a copy of the schedule from Winona.
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
-
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
OK, here is direct. Please answer the following 5 questions, put to you several days ago:
Mr Dougherty, Please answer the questions being put to you otherwise what is the point of your 30 days blog? Or is it just a cookery blog as some call it.
Here are some more questions =
1. Why did Paul Hernandez choose to be photographed and then post that photograph on one of his YouTube videos with the sedevacantist/TECOS Carmelite monks in Mexico?
2. Why does Faul Hernandez who is joined at the hip with Fr Pfeiffer not received the sacraments?
3. When will Fr Pfeiffer make some form of 'apology' for letting 'bishop' moran into the seminary.
4. Who will cover the seminary this weekend when Fr Pfeiffer is overseas and Fr Hewko is serving the missions closer to home?
5. Why have you chosen to ignore all the points and questions raised in Fr Voigt's letter. Either he is not telling the truth or he is. If he is telling the truth then those points need addressing or the seminary should close immediately.
Here's hoping for some real answers and no blustering, otherwise you will lose all credence.
Selectively responding ONLY to things which only portray some positive angle, is disingenuous.
So here is your chance to to be forthright and disprove the allegations...
-
As I have said before, that schedule was taken from a website that was made in 2013 to show what a seminary website could look like. It is still up, but it has not been altered since 2013, and is not considered an official site. It was for demonstration purposes only.
The schedule for this year is a variation of this schedule, which is a copy of the schedule from Winona.
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
I don't think I have ever seen a school or a seminary or even a boarding house publish a daily schedule "for demonstration purposes only," and "to show what a (seminary) website could look like." And how would any visitor to the website know that's the purpose of the schedule shown when the website does not explain that purpose?
You say it "is not considered an official site," but does the website say anywhere that it's not an official site?
This is looking pretty shady.
-
Neil Obstat,
This is looking pretty shady.
You noticed that............................... :scratchchin:
-
It's obvious at this point Manuel does not speak for OLMC seminary and he doesn't know the answers to those questions and never will.
-
As I have said before, that schedule was taken from a website that was made in 2013 to show what a seminary website could look like. It is still up, but it has not been altered since 2013, and is not considered an official site. It was for demonstration purposes only.
The schedule for this year is a variation of this schedule, which is a copy of the schedule from Winona.
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
I don't think I have ever seen a school or a seminary or even a boarding house publish a daily schedule "for demonstration purposes only," and "to show what a (seminary) website could look like." And how would any visitor to the website know that's the purpose of the schedule shown when the website does not explain that purpose?
You say it "is not considered an official site," but does the website say anywhere that it's not an official site?
This is looking pretty shady.
The website was designed by someone for the seminary. It was given as an example of a website for the seminary. I am going to see if anyone has access to that site, and if so, if it can either be incorporated into the current situation or shut down.
-
It's obvious at this point Manuel does not speak for OLMC seminary and he doesn't know the answers to those questions and never will.
Maybe he's just having a good time at our expense. Playing cat-and-mouse, you know?
-
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
OK, here is direct. Please answer the following 5 questions, put to you several days ago:
Mr Dougherty, Please answer the questions being put to you otherwise what is the point of your 30 days blog? Or is it just a cookery blog as some call it.
Here are some more questions =
1. Why did Paul Hernandez choose to be photographed and then post that photograph on one of his YouTube videos with the sedevacantist/TECOS Carmelite monks in Mexico?
2. Why does Faul Hernandez who is joined at the hip with Fr Pfeiffer not received the sacraments?
3. When will Fr Pfeiffer make some form of 'apology' for letting 'bishop' moran into the seminary.
4. Who will cover the seminary this weekend when Fr Pfeiffer is overseas and Fr Hewko is serving the missions closer to home?
5. Why have you chosen to ignore all the points and questions raised in Fr Voigt's letter. Either he is not telling the truth or he is. If he is telling the truth then those points need addressing or the seminary should close immediately.
Here's hoping for some real answers and no blustering, otherwise you will lose all credence.
Selectively responding ONLY to things which only portray some positive angle, is disingenuous.
So here is your chance to to be forthright and disprove the allegations...
I felt that the questions exhibit a bias, which undermines their credibility. However, here are the answers to these questions:
1. The nuns, as far as I am aware, are not connected to TECOS. I am not aware of their sedevacanist connection either. All I know is that he appeared with a few nuns. Other than that, it would be speculation.
2. Pablo is not joined at the hip with Father Pfeiffer. That is a ridiculous comment. As for his not receiving the sacraments, that is between Pablo and God only.
3. I have asked Father about releasing a more complete statement on Ambrose. It is up to Father to determine when and if this statement will be released.
4. With the exception of one Saturday, one priest has been on site for the spiritual welfare of the seminarians. There may be one or two more days in the coming year without a priest on site, but I hope that this will not be the case, as it was more often in the last two years.
5. I have chosen not to deal with Father Voigt's letter because I fear it would only do more harm than good, to all involved, including Father Voigt and Pablo. I will not participate in any character assassination. Rather, I will continue to pray for an amiable solution for that particular crisis, and I ask all to do the same. God hears all prayers, and His will be done.
-
Listen Mr. Rogers, they were sedevacantist Carmelite friars, not nuns. Why don't you ask Fr. Pfeiffer?
-
Mr Dougherty
Please actually read the questions.
1. Paul put on a YouTube video of his, a picture with the Carmelite MONKS in Mexico, hence my comment (rudely dismissed by you a few days ago) about his connection with the TECOS. Please ask Paul why he posted this picture. Is it another veiled threat to his perceived enemies?
2. I think that was Fr Voigt's term about being joined at the hip. Why is it ridiculous? Paul has been left in charge of the seminary on occasion and consequently seminarians, so it is a matter of public concern if he is lapsed from the Church. Can you honestly not see the importance of this?
3. You have not said what Fr Pfeiffer actually said when you asked him about Mr Moran. Please relay these comments now.
4. Read the question again. Who will cover the seminary THIS weekend when Fr Pfeiffer is overseas and Fr Hewko out servicing the missions within the US ?
5. Why will it do any harm to Fr Voigt to address the points raised in his letter. There were many points in that letter which could be truthfully answered without involving any character assassination.
After you leave Boston, perhaps I could suggest in a career in politics based on your ability in avoiding or fudging questions.
May the Holy Ghost enlighten you.
-
Listen Mr. Rogers, they were sedevacantist Carmelite friars, not nuns. Why don't you ask Fr. Pfeiffer?
You are right, they are not nuns. That is my mistake. I will ask Father when he is available. I will also ask Pablo about the photograph.
There's a lot going on over here right now, but regardless, it is a beautiful day in this neighborhood.
Please pray for the sick, and for those in danger of death.
-
Especially those persistant questioners!
-
Here we are on a Catholic forum and I'm forced to look at a profile picture of a deceased Presbyterian minister who hosted a secular kiddie show.
-
Do you want answers?
Mr Dougherty
Please actually read the questions...
...After you leave Boston, perhaps I could suggest a career in politics based on your ability in avoiding or fudging questions.
May the Holy Ghost enlighten you.
Here is your answer:
There's a lot going on over here right now, but regardless, it is a beautiful day in this neighborhood.
Please pray for the sick, and for those in danger of death.
At least Mr. Rogers is recommending prayers for the infirm now.
-
Here we are on a Catholic forum and I'm forced to look at a profile picture of a deceased Presbyterian minister who hosted a secular kiddie show.
Hey ~ nobody is forcing you to look at it!! :tv-disturbed:
-
There's a lot going on over here right now, but regardless, it is a beautiful day in this neighborhood.
-
From OLMC website
http://olmcseminary.blogspot.com/p/daily-schedule.html
Daily Schedule
Weekdays Sundays & Major Feasts
6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Rise
6:30 am Prime 6:40 am Breakfast
Meditation 7:00 am Lauds
7:15 am + Holy Mass + 7:30 am + Low Mass +
8:00 am Breakfast 10:00 am + Solemn High Mass +
9:00 am First Class 12:15 pm Sext
10:00 am Second Class 12:30 pm Lunch
11:00 am Third Class 1:00 pm Recreation
11:50 am End of 5:30 pm Vespers and Benediction
Morning Classes
12:15 pm Sext 6:30 pm Dinner
12:30 pm Lunch 7:00 pm Recreation
1:00 pm Recreation 7:45 pm Study
2:00 pm Study / Manualia 8:45 pm Compline / Grand Silence
3:30 pm Coffee Break 10:00 pm Lights Out
3:45 pm Study
5:30 pm Spiritual Conference
6:00 pm Rosary
6:30 pm Dinner
7:00 pm Recreation
7:45 pm Study
8:45 pm Compline /
Grand Silence
10:00 pm Lights Out
Here is something missing from itinery: WORK.
Who is feeding the chickens a and planting the crops?
Probably the support staff. Maybe Pablo when he is not performing exorcisms.
As I have said earlier, this schedule was taken from a site made as a demo for a seminary website back in July 2013. This schedule is not entirely reflective of the current schedule, which I have highlighted on my blog.
Manualia means work, by the way.
So what is the real schedule of the day over there> I didn't ask for a schedule of the other SSPX seminary> I wanted to know the schedule of the day over at Boston Ky. You should know, after all you are there.
But instead you got more disingenuity, and hacking and shilling for "the cause."
You should know, after all you are there.
Do I detect that you have doubts about this too?
It is not that I doubt it but I am interested to know what the order of the day is. If he is there he should know. If he is writing about what is going on over there as a person who is there then I thin it is reasonable for him to give us an idea of what the order of the day is. What kind of classes are currently being taught there at the time. Who the teachers are. How the fathers are managing to teach in a seminary and be on the road for long periods of time.
-
As I have said before, that schedule was taken from a website that was made in 2013 to show what a seminary website could look like. It is still up, but it has not been altered since 2013, and is not considered an official site. It was for demonstration purposes only.
The schedule for this year is a variation of this schedule, which is a copy of the schedule from Winona.
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
How is their schedule variant. Could you fill us in on what the actual schedule is? Have you been participating in any of the prayers? Vespers? Lauds? Prime? Rosary?
-
I notice in the schedule they have "grand silence." Is that really the monastic grand silence or is that the silence of consideration for the others who are trying to sleep?
That is don't discuss the scandals kind of silence--it's bad for enrollment.
No, the idea of Grand Silence in the monastic sense is a time of absolute silence for the monks to pray and reflect while they sleep. The idea of silence of consideration is to be quiet but you can talk in a low voice if it will not wake someone up who is trying to sleep.
If a monk talks during the Grand Silence it is a sin. If someone talks in a low voice in a silence of consideration and doesn't wake anybody up then that may be ok.
I doubt that's what Pablo's "Grande Silence" is like and I seriously doubt that's the purpose for his "Grande Silence."
Since the schedule was a "demonstration schedule" then they may not have a grand silence I would like to know something about the schedule over there from someone who is actually there, not a demonstration schedule. Also I would like to know what kind of classes are being taught. Who are the teachers? And what is the spiritual life like over there? Since you are cooking (which I think Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko appreciate) have you been able to attend any of the community prayers? Which ones?
-
I am not hacking or shilling for the cause, nor have I been dishonest or disingenuous. Please do not make such unfounded accusations.
If you have an issue with anything I have written, then please be direct, highlight these areas of contention and allow me to explain whatever it is that I have done that you consider as disingenuous or shilling for the cause.
OK, here is direct. Please answer the following 5 questions, put to you several days ago:
Mr Dougherty, Please answer the questions being put to you otherwise what is the point of your 30 days blog? Or is it just a cookery blog as some call it.
Here are some more questions =
1. Why did Paul Hernandez choose to be photographed and then post that photograph on one of his YouTube videos with the sedevacantist/TECOS Carmelite monks in Mexico?
2. Why does Faul Hernandez who is joined at the hip with Fr Pfeiffer not received the sacraments?
3. When will Fr Pfeiffer make some form of 'apology' for letting 'bishop' moran into the seminary.
4. Who will cover the seminary this weekend when Fr Pfeiffer is overseas and Fr Hewko is serving the missions closer to home?
5. Why have you chosen to ignore all the points and questions raised in Fr Voigt's letter. Either he is not telling the truth or he is. If he is telling the truth then those points need addressing or the seminary should close immediately.
Here's hoping for some real answers and no blustering, otherwise you will lose all credence.
Selectively responding ONLY to things which only portray some positive angle, is disingenuous.
So here is your chance to to be forthright and disprove the allegations...
I felt that the questions exhibit a bias, which undermines their credibility. However, here are the answers to these questions:
1. The nuns, as far as I am aware, are not connected to TECOS. I am not aware of their sedevacanist connection either. All I know is that he appeared with a few nuns. Other than that, it would be speculation.
2. Pablo is not joined at the hip with Father Pfeiffer. That is a ridiculous comment. As for his not receiving the sacraments, that is between Pablo and God only.
3. I have asked Father about releasing a more complete statement on Ambrose. It is up to Father to determine when and if this statement will be released.
4. With the exception of one Saturday, one priest has been on site for the spiritual welfare of the seminarians. There may be one or two more days in the coming year without a priest on site, but I hope that this will not be the case, as it was more often in the last two years.
5. I have chosen not to deal with Father Voigt's letter because I fear it would only do more harm than good, to all involved, including Father Voigt and Pablo. I will not participate in any character assassination. Rather, I will continue to pray for an amiable solution for that particular crisis, and I ask all to do the same. God hears all prayers, and His will be done.
Isn't the "bias" the fact that these questions and most/all of their answers don't fit your storyline?
-
Mr Dougherty
........
After you leave Boston, perhaps I could suggest in a career in politics based on your ability in avoiding or fudging questions.
You're right that he has the bobbing & weaving down pretty good. But I think he would have to at least slightly feign that he has a pair for that to have any hope of getting off the ground.
-
On his twenty-eighth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-eight mouths a-munching,
Twenty-seven snackers snacking,
Twenty-six feasts a-daily,
Twenty-five onion rings!
Twenty-four cheesy curds,
Twenty-three french fries,
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
You guys need to give Manual a break. He's not a chronicler; he's a journalist. And if he had any formal journalism training he suffers an inherent bias towards his own points of view. He chooses to print what supports his views and he ignores what he doesn't like. That's called Catholic Journalism.
-
Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:
What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Did Father Pfieffer or Father Hewko respond to my question?
-
Guys, guys, guys! You're going about this all wrong! This was never set up to be a genuine investigation, open Q&A, truth-seeking event. This is Manuel's version of a Mr. Rogers soundboard prank call. Every time you ask a question, imagine it going something like this:
Q: Hey Manuel, when is Fr. Pfeiffer going to get rid of Pablo?
A: "There are no such things as real monsters."
Q: Why is Pablo left in charge of anything over the seminarians?
A:"Are there things that make you angry?"
Q: Manny boy, what do Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko think of the sacrilege they permitted?
A: "I remember one time some of our neighbors who were studying ballet dancing got dressed up to look like raccoons. One of them was a mother raccoon, and the other a father raccoon. And there was a boy raccoon and a girl raccoon, and they made up a dance about that family."
Q: Why doesn't Pablo ever go to Mass?
A: "Do you know what a pediatrician is?"
Q: Why such a charade of an investigation?
A: "My grandmother Rogers taught me how to answer the phone."
Q: What's with all the food?
A: "Have you ever seen anybody play the game called soccer?"
Q: What's with the schedule that's not the schedule?
A: "When I first heard about that game, I thought that people were socking each other. I don't like to see people hurting one another, but that's not what the game is! No, that's not what soccer is supposed to be."
Q: Why do these priests still think Ambrose is an Archbishop?
A: "Have you ever watched people using REAL heavy equipment?"
Why do you think Bishop Williamson wants nothing to do with Boston?
A: "There aren't even any live dinosaurs anymore."
-
I've got some exclusive footage of just one of the many highly edifying spiritual exercises at the seminary!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fw_GnjE-des[/youtube]
-
Guys, guys, guys! You're going about this all wrong! This was never set up to be a genuine investigation, open Q&A, truth-seeking event. This is Manuel's version of a Mr. Rogers soundboard prank call. Every time you ask a question, imagine it going something like this:
Q: Hey Manuel, when is Fr. Pfeiffer going to get rid of Pablo?
A: "There are no such things as real monsters."
Q: Why is Pablo left in charge of anything over the seminarians?
A:"Are there things that make you angry?"
Q: Manny boy, what do Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko think of the sacrilege they permitted?
A: "I remember one time some of our neighbors who were studying ballet dancing got dressed up to look like raccoons. One of them was a mother raccoon, and the other a father raccoon. And there was a boy raccoon and a girl raccoon, and they made up a dance about that family."
Q: Why doesn't Pablo ever go to Mass?
A: "Do you know what a pediatrician is?"
Q: Why such a charade of an investigation?
A: "My grandmother Rogers taught me how to answer the phone."
Q: What's with all the food?
A: "Have you ever seen anybody play the game called soccer?"
Q: What's with the schedule that's not the schedule?
A: "When I first heard about that game, I thought that people were socking each other. I don't like to see people hurting one another, but that's not what the game is! No, that's not what soccer is supposed to be."
Q: Why do these priests still think Ambrose is an Archbishop?
A: "Have you ever watched people using REAL heavy equipment?"
Why do you think Bishop Williamson wants nothing to do with Boston?
A: "There aren't even any live dinosaurs anymore."
This is probably the most intelligent post on this entire thread.
-
Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:
What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Did Father Pfieffer or Father Hewko respond to my question?
From my brief words with Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson does not support the seminary for various reasons, but the largest is that the Bishop is against having a seminary at all. Even if they met all the demands of the Bishop, Williamson will not support the seminary. The issues are secondary or tertiary to the idea that the Bishop is against the seminary.
I remember his visit in 2013, and I spoke with the Bishop on a few occasions during his stay. He spoke of the last age of the church, the end of the world. It is a subject that seems to be on his mind a lot. It is a negative theological viewpoint which has affected his decisions and actions. I believe this is why he has not supported the seminary. I hope he will support the seminary someday, and can step in to help out, to set in motion what must be set, for the good of all souls.
We need a seminary. We need priests now.
-
That's odd because Bp Williamson supports the French seminary. Fr Voigt's letter is a simple list of why no right thinking person should support the seminary in Boston. There is a fully functioning seminary in France which merits our support. Let us pray and support it. If anyone knows French perhaps they can help any potential seminarian learn that language, especially anyone in Boston currently whose Faith hasn't been destroyed by the scandals there.
-
That was Manuel's version of "Where is Thumbkin?" I believe we are currently here:
"Where is Tall Man?
Where is Tall Man?
Here I am!
Here I am!
How are you today sir?
Very well I say sir!
Run away.
Run away."
-
Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:
What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Did Father Pfieffer or Father Hewko respond to my question?
From my brief words with Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson does not support the seminary for various reasons, but the largest is that the Bishop is against having a seminary at all. Even if they met all the demands of the Bishop, Williamson will not support the seminary. The issues are secondary or tertiary to the idea that the Bishop is against the seminary.
I remember his visit in 2013, and I spoke with the Bishop on a few occasions during his stay. He spoke of the last age of the church, the end of the world. It is a subject that seems to be on his mind a lot. It is a negative theological viewpoint which has affected his decisions and actions. I believe this is why he has not supported the seminary. I hope he will support the seminary someday, and can step in to help out, to set in motion what must be set, for the good of all souls.
We need a seminary. We need priests now.
Even if that were the case, it would not eliminate Bp Faure from providing for the seminary. He is certainly not against one in principle. There were reports that he might visit KY in October, but that didn't happen. He's in the US now also with no plans to visit the seminary. Has he been invited to visit the seminary?
Also, did you have an opportunity to ask Fr. Hewko the same questions?
-
Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:
What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?
I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.
Did Father Pfieffer or Father Hewko respond to my question?
From my brief words with Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson does not support the seminary for various reasons, but the largest is that the Bishop is against having a seminary at all. Even if they met all the demands of the Bishop, Williamson will not support the seminary. The issues are secondary or tertiary to the idea that the Bishop is against the seminary.
I remember his visit in 2013, and I spoke with the Bishop on a few occasions during his stay. He spoke of the last age of the church, the end of the world. It is a subject that seems to be on his mind a lot. It is a negative theological viewpoint which has affected his decisions and actions. I believe this is why he has not supported the seminary. I hope he will support the seminary someday, and can step in to help out, to set in motion what must be set, for the good of all souls.
We need a seminary. We need priests now.
Even if that were the case, it would not eliminate Bp Faure from providing for the seminary. He is certainly not against one in principle. There were reports that he might visit KY in October, but that didn't happen. He's in the US now also with no plans to visit the seminary. Has he been invited to visit the seminary?
Also, did you have an opportunity to ask Fr. Hewko the same questions?
He was invited multiple times to visit the seminary. He was talked out of visiting by a few people.
-
From my brief words with Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson does not support the seminary for various reasons, but the largest is that the Bishop is against having a seminary at all. Even if they met all the demands of the Bishop, Williamson will not support the seminary. The issues are secondary or tertiary to the idea that the Bishop is against the seminary.
I remember his visit in 2013, and I spoke with the Bishop on a few occasions during his stay. He spoke of the last age of the church, the end of the world. It is a subject that seems to be on his mind a lot. It is a negative theological viewpoint which has affected his decisions and actions. I believe this is why he has not supported the seminary. I hope he will support the seminary someday, and can step in to help out, to set in motion what must be set, for the good of all souls.
We need a seminary. We need priests now.
This is exactly my personal opinion of the situation: +Williamson doesn't support an AMERICAN seminary because he believes our nation will be destroyed in WW3 or Chatisement.
Again, only my personal opinion based on his many talks on the Ages of the Church and other clues given in ECs and talks.
-
He was invited multiple times to visit the seminary. He was talked out of visiting by a few people.
I can only think of two possibilities here:
1. The information given to him was so cut-and-dry that he felt no need to investigate himself.
2. The information came to him from a source which has knowledge of the situation and he trusts to be a reputable source.
Declining a visit to the only English-speaking seminary of the Resistance is no small matter. I might not know exactly what Bp Faure's reasons are, but the fact that they exist and that Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko are dismissing them is significant.
-
I am still waiting for Manual Chavez to answer some questions about life in that seminary.
What is the order of the day over there? I don't want a sample schedule but a general overview of the schedule at that seminary.
I am also interested in what the spiritual life is like over there. I understand you have been cooking for them. I am sure that the fathers really appreciate all that you are doing for them. Have you been able to attend any of the spiritual exercises at this place? What is the prayer life like? Lauds? Vespers? the rosary?
What kinds of classes are being taught over there? Who is teaching them? Who is doing the teaching while the two fathers are off saying mass here and there?
-
I am still waiting for Manual Chavez to answer some questions about life in that seminary.
What is the order of the day over there? I don't want a sample schedule but a general overview of the schedule at that seminary.
I am also interested in what the spiritual life is like over there. I understand you have been cooking for them. I am sure that the fathers really appreciate all that you are doing for them. Have you been able to attend any of the spiritual exercises at this place? What is the prayer life like? Lauds? Vespers? the rosary?
What kinds of classes are being taught over there? Who is teaching them? Who is doing the teaching while the two fathers are off saying mass here and there?
If you really want to know that much, why don't you just visit Boston and spend a week at the seminary? Maybe your enthusiasm could help them get the chores done!! :detective:
-
I am still waiting for Manual Chavez to answer some questions about life in that seminary.
What is the order of the day over there? I don't want a sample schedule but a general overview of the schedule at that seminary.
I am also interested in what the spiritual life is like over there. I understand you have been cooking for them. I am sure that the fathers really appreciate all that you are doing for them. Have you been able to attend any of the spiritual exercises at this place? What is the prayer life like? Lauds? Vespers? the rosary?
What kinds of classes are being taught over there? Who is teaching them? Who is doing the teaching while the two fathers are off saying mass here and there?
If you really want to know that much, why don't you just visit Boston and spend a week at the seminary? Maybe your enthusiasm could help them get the chores done!! :detective:
I was hoping to get the information from someone who was already there.
:reporter: :reporter: :reporter:
-
6:00 ... Rise
6:30 ... Prime
7:15 ... Mass
8:00 ... Breakfast
9 -12 ... Classes
12:15 ... Sext
12:30 ... Lunch
1300- 1430 ... Recreation/ Manualia
1430- 1700 ... Classes/ study
1730 ... Rosary
1800 ... Dinner
1845- 1930 ... Recreation
1930 - 2030 ... Study
2100 ... Compline
2200 ... Silence
This is the usual weekday schedule.
-
Well, there's your answer for you. Happy now?
And your enthusiasm isn't helping to get the chores done. :fryingpan:
-
On his twenty-ninth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Twenty-nine pounds accruing,
Twenty-eight mouths a-munching,
Twenty-seven snackers snacking,
Twenty-six feasts a-daily,
Twenty-five onion rings!
Twenty-four cheesy curds,
Twenty-three french fries,
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
According to a notification from olmc, mass has been canceled today due to flight cancellation.
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
There are currently no other priests in the area who will say Mass for the seminarians.
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
There are currently no other priests in the area who will say Mass for the seminarians.
[/b] This a confusing sentence and here is how I unconfused it: There are other priests in the area who have been asked to say Mass for the seminarians but they are unwilling to do so. If this is a poor interpretation on my part then can you correct me and clarify your statement? Thanks
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
There are currently no other priests in the area who will say Mass for the seminarians.
[/b] This a confusing sentence and here is how I unconfused it: There are other priests in the area who have been asked to say Mass for the seminarians but they are unwilling to do so. If this is a poor interpretation on my part then can you correct me and clarify your statement? Thanks
I do not know of any other resistance priests in the area. The Society priests are in the area, but I doubt they will say Mass for the seminarians.
-
Did the seminarians get Sunday Mass today? I know the faithful didn't. :sad:
-
Did the seminarians get Sunday Mass today? I know the faithful didn't. :sad:
There was no Mass. He was supposed to have Mass here at 18:30, but there were technical difficulties.
-
6:00 ... Rise
6:30 ... Prime
7:15 ... Mass
8:00 ... Breakfast
9 -12 ... Classes
12:15 ... Sext
12:30 ... Lunch
1300- 1430 ... Recreation/ Manualia
1430- 1700 ... Classes/ study
1730 ... Rosary
1800 ... Dinner
1845- 1930 ... Recreation
1930 - 2030 ... Study
2100 ... Compline
2200 ... Silence
This is the usual weekday schedule.
How about on the weekends?
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
There are currently no other priests in the area who will say Mass for the seminarians.
So, what do you all do when there is no mass on Sunday?
-
Did the seminarians get Sunday Mass today? I know the faithful didn't. :sad:
There was no Mass. He was supposed to have Mass here at 18:30, but there were technical difficulties.
I understand it wasn't completely his fault this time (flight cancelled) but nevertheless, this is what happens when (2) priests try to run a seminary as well as a national worldwide apostolate.
It's also the classic problem of the jack-of-all-trades: you become a master of none.
I'd like to think Fr. Pfeiffer were off giving sacraments to the sacramentally destitute. But no, I can't fool myself with that. The reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer is off "thanking" his yes-man/media tool/partner in crime Greg "Recusant" Taylor in England by flying overseas to offer Mass for him (and who else? a few other +Williamson haters?) It isn't like the Resistant faithful in England don't have the Sacraments...+Williamson is right there. I think The Resistance is covered in England by a few other priests as well.
But I see...Fr. Pfeiffer completely sympathizes with Greg's hatred of +Williamson, enough that he'd fly overseas to bring him the Mass (trans-Atlantic tickets aren't cheap -- I hope Greg is paying for that!)
-
Did J. Paul's question every get answered:
Who's saying Mass today for the seminarians?
The question generated a bit of dancing, but alas, no definitive answer.
Let us rephrase, who says mass for the seminarians, other than these two priests?
There are currently no other priests in the area who will say Mass for the seminarians.
[/b] This a confusing sentence and here is how I unconfused it: There are other priests in the area who have been asked to say Mass for the seminarians but they are unwilling to do so. If this is a poor interpretation on my part then can you correct me and clarify your statement? Thanks
I do not know of any other resistance priests in the area. The Society priests are in the area, but I doubt they will say Mass for the seminarians.
How about the seminarians all going to a place where there is mass?
-
But the jack-of-all-trades analogy is not strong enough in this case; it doesn't hurt anyone if I take on 4 hobbies and end up poor at all of them.
If I were to take up novel writing, violin playing, small engine repair and gardening and end up unable to do any of them well, it wouldn't hurt anyone (except perhaps my neighbors who were forced to hear violin playing that sounded like a cat being murdered)
But in this case, the victims are all the Catholics who came to depend on his group for the Mass and Sacraments, but especially the seminarians who placed their vocation in his hands.
So in this case, if Fr. Pfeiffer ends up taking on too much so that he "can't do any of them well", there are actual victims suffering real spiritual harm. It's not just an "oh well" like a stamp collection book with 5 stamps in it before the would-be collector decided to quit and throw the book in a dark closet somewhere. Such failure harms no one.
-
There are two other Masses within an hour of this seminary right in Louisville. One is SSPX, St. Benedict's - and the other is Our Lady of the Pillar, independent. But when they have no priest in Boston, the seminarians miss their Sunday Mass rather than go to either of these two nearby places: St. Benedict's probably because it is SSPX, and OLOP probably because it is, as they put it, "Feeneyite" ... though Pablo has nevertheless shown up there a few times, evidently to check it out.
-
Here we are on a Catholic forum and I'm forced to look at a profile picture of a deceased Presbyterian minister who hosted a secular kiddie show.
Hey ~ nobody is forcing you to look at it!! :tv-disturbed:
Really?
-
What I would like to know is more about the spiritual and academic aspect of life over there if Manual Chavez could answer me. What classes are being taught over there? Who is doing the teaching? What do they do about the classes when the priests are not available?
About the spiritual life, have you had an opportunity to attend any of the common prayers of the community?
-
Did the seminarians get Sunday Mass today? I know the faithful didn't. :sad:
I'd like to think Fr. Pfeiffer were off giving sacraments to the sacramentally destitute. But no, I can't fool myself with that. The reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer is off "thanking" his yes-man/media tool/partner in crime Greg "Recusant" Taylor in England by flying overseas to offer Mass for him (and who else? a few other +Williamson haters?) It isn't like the Resistant faithful in England don't have the Sacraments...+Williamson is right there.
I agree with the first part of byour post,
but in fact, Bp Williamson wasn't in London this sunday... because I saw him in another country. (if he have not the gift of ubiquity)
-
On his thirtieth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...
Thirty completely pointless posts!
Twenty-nine pounds accruing,
Twenty-eight mouths a-munching,
Twenty-seven snackers snacking,
Twenty-six feasts a-daily,
Twenty-five onion rings!
Twenty-four cheesy curds,
Twenty-three french fries,
Twenty-two layer cakes,
Twenty-one crumbs in a fudge tray!
Twenty twitching eyelids,
Nineteen nervous gnashers,
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a (withered) fig tree!
-
Thank you Croixalist for that. You kept us laughing as we read the ludicrous postings from Mr Dougherty. What have we ACTUALLY learnt about Boston over the last 30 days. NOTHING at all. If it was meant to be a PR exercise, it failed miserably.
One final question for Mr Dougherty, please ask Fr Pfeiffer whether he is more likely to give up Paul Hernandes than he is geo-centrism which has become a SUPER dogma in Boston. Before you leave please get a proper, true and real answer to at least one question such as this.
-
What I would like to know is more about the spiritual and academic aspect of life over there if Manual Chavez could answer me. What classes are being taught over there? Who is doing the teaching? What do they do about the classes when the priests are not available?
About the spiritual life, have you had an opportunity to attend any of the common prayers of the community?
I covered much of this in my blog, however, I am glad to answer all the questions I can.
They have Latin, apologetics, history, Scripture and others. The priests do the major of the teaching, with the head seminarian filling in as needed. I have attended several of the common prayers.
-
Thank you Croixalist for that. You kept us laughing as we read the ludicrous postings from Mr Dougherty. What have we ACTUALLY learnt about Boston over the last 30 days. NOTHING at all. If it was meant to be a PR exercise, it failed miserably.
One final question for Mr Dougherty, please ask Fr Pfeiffer whether he is more likely to give up Paul Hernandes than he is geo-centrism which has become a SUPER dogma in Boston. Before you leave please get a proper, true and real answer to at least one question such as this.
It was meant to docuмent my thirty days in Boston; what I saw and what I experienced. It was not a PR exercise.
I am sorry you learned nothing from the blog, but at least you got some laughs, I suppose.
I did get answers to some questions during my time, and I did take some concerns to the Fathers, and they did respond to some of these concerns. I believe I did something of value while in Boston, other than provide for your occasional amusement.
I believe that the seminary has a good future ahead of it. It does not deserve to be shut down or avoided. It does not deserve all the ridicule it has received. It is not perfect, but it is far from a lost cause.
-
Your writing style on your blog did remind me somewhat of St. Rafael Baron, Among the Vegetables.
-
Your writing style on your blog did remind me somewhat of St. Rafael Baron, Among the Vegetables.
A link -
https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/st-rafael-arnaiz-baron-among-the-vegetables-or-the-trappist-as-a-conquistador/
-
This would be seminary still does not have a proper permanent teaching staff, it still does not have permanent and continuous clerical oversight, it still has not had approval or consultation with a Bishop, it still does not have the proper physical facilities for the formation of sound Catholic priests. The seminarians are being mostly taught by two priests who have been waist deep in a scandal and who remain part time residents, and otherwise they are taught by themselves, the moral circuмstances in their surrounding environment have not been corrected, and they have no immediate prospects of the Episcopal faculties which they need to to become priests.
Activity should have been suspended until these factors were corrected, but instead they began another "school year" with the same problems and deficiencies, and disregard for both moral and educational propriety. One has no idea what sort of, or the quality of priest they will produce, if that should come to pass.
The thirty days adventure did nothing to alter the facts or situation at that place, save to put a happy face upon it and attempt to project a sheen of normalcy on a disfunctional entity.
It thus has made itself a lasting "do not enter zone"
-
What are the chances of them becoming accredited?
-
ZZZZZZ EEEEEEE RRRRR OOOOOOO
OR 0 times 0 is still Zero
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona NOT ACCREDITED
-
Do you plan on returning?
-
Who do they anticipate the bishop will be that will ordain them once they are ready?
-
ZZZZZZ EEEEEEE RRRRR OOOOOOO
OR 0 times 0 is still Zero
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona NOT ACCREDITED
I am not asking about the St Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona. I am asking Manuel about the seminary in Boston Ky. Have the fathers told you anything about their plans?
-
Do you plan on returning?
There is still more work to do, and more changes to be made, in order to secure a good future for the seminarians. I plan to continue this work as soon as possible.
The seminary is in a better position than it was in its first two years, and things have changed for the better. I think Boston is the closest the resistance has to a fully functioning and viable seminary.
-
This would be seminary still does not have a proper permanent teaching staff, it still does not have permanent and continuous clerical oversight, it still has not had approval or consultation with a Bishop, it still does not have the proper physical facilities for the formation of sound Catholic priests. The seminarians are being mostly taught by two priests who have been waist deep in a scandal and who remain part time residents, and otherwise they are taught by themselves, the moral circuмstances in their surrounding environment have not been corrected, and they have no immediate prospects of the Episcopal faculties which they need to to become priests.
Activity should have been suspended until these factors were corrected, but instead they began another "school year" with the same problems and deficiencies, and disregard for both moral and educational propriety. One has no idea what sort of, or the quality of priest they will produce, if that should come to pass.
The thirty days adventure did nothing to alter the facts or situation at that place, save to put a happy face upon it and attempt to project a sheen of normalcy on a disfunctional entity.
It thus has made itself a lasting "do not enter zone"
When I read of the early Church and the bishops who went to foreign countries to evangelize, ordaining priests and spreading the Faith, I have to wonder if their teaching facilities might have been a lot like what you're describing above, with the exception of the episcopal faculties. But the Faith was spread by them, nonetheless.
.
-
This would be seminary still does not have a proper permanent teaching staff, it still does not have permanent and continuous clerical oversight, it still has not had approval or consultation with a Bishop, it still does not have the proper physical facilities for the formation of sound Catholic priests. The seminarians are being mostly taught by two priests who have been waist deep in a scandal and who remain part time residents, and otherwise they are taught by themselves, the moral circuмstances in their surrounding environment have not been corrected, and they have no immediate prospects of the Episcopal faculties which they need to to become priests.
Activity should have been suspended until these factors were corrected, but instead they began another "school year" with the same problems and deficiencies, and disregard for both moral and educational propriety. One has no idea what sort of, or the quality of priest they will produce, if that should come to pass.
The thirty days adventure did nothing to alter the facts or situation at that place, save to put a happy face upon it and attempt to project a sheen of normalcy on a disfunctional entity.
It thus has made itself a lasting "do not enter zone"
When I read of the early Church and the bishops who went to foreign countries to evangelize, ordaining priests and spreading the Faith, I have to wonder if their teaching facilities might have been a lot like what you're describing above, with the exception of the episcopal faculties. But the Faith was spread by them, nonetheless.
.
Yes, but there were bishops willing to ordain said priests.
-
Do you plan on returning?
There is still more work to do, and more changes to be made, in order to secure a good future for the seminarians. I plan to continue this work as soon as possible.
The seminary is in a better position than it was in its first two years, and things have changed for the better. I think Boston is the closest the resistance has to a fully functioning and viable seminary.
I think it would be really helpful to understand the scope of changes if you could list them out. Like compare Year 1 to Year 3 to highlight the improvements to the program (not the buildings).
-
Do you plan on returning?
There is still more work to do, and more changes to be made, in order to secure a good future for the seminarians. I plan to continue this work as soon as possible.
The seminary is in a better position than it was in its first two years, and things have changed for the better. I think Boston is the closest the resistance has to a fully functioning and viable seminary.
As we stand today, there is no Bishop that has committed to administering tonsure. minor and major orders. How can a future seminarian put himself at risk in such a place? How do you answer Fr. Voigt's allegation, as fresh as your recent experience, that the formation is pitiful and without structure or plan or dependability?
-
This would be seminary still does not have a proper permanent teaching staff, it still does not have permanent and continuous clerical oversight, it still has not had approval or consultation with a Bishop, it still does not have the proper physical facilities for the formation of sound Catholic priests. The seminarians are being mostly taught by two priests who have been waist deep in a scandal and who remain part time residents, and otherwise they are taught by themselves, the moral circuмstances in their surrounding environment have not been corrected, and they have no immediate prospects of the Episcopal faculties which they need to to become priests.
Activity should have been suspended until these factors were corrected, but instead they began another "school year" with the same problems and deficiencies, and disregard for both moral and educational propriety. One has no idea what sort of, or the quality of priest they will produce, if that should come to pass.
The thirty days adventure did nothing to alter the facts or situation at that place, save to put a happy face upon it and attempt to project a sheen of normalcy on a disfunctional entity.
It thus has made itself a lasting "do not enter zone"
When I read of the early Church and the bishops who went to foreign countries to evangelize, ordaining priests and spreading the Faith, I have to wonder if their teaching facilities might have been a lot like what you're describing above, with the exception of the episcopal faculties. But the Faith was spread by them, nonetheless.
.
I understand what you are saying but,
do you believe that is the same as what is happening in this particular situation?
-
This would be seminary still does not have a proper permanent teaching staff, it still does not have permanent and continuous clerical oversight, it still has not had approval or consultation with a Bishop, it still does not have the proper physical facilities for the formation of sound Catholic priests. The seminarians are being mostly taught by two priests who have been waist deep in a scandal and who remain part time residents, and otherwise they are taught by themselves, the moral circuмstances in their surrounding environment have not been corrected, and they have no immediate prospects of the Episcopal faculties which they need to to become priests.
Activity should have been suspended until these factors were corrected, but instead they began another "school year" with the same problems and deficiencies, and disregard for both moral and educational propriety. One has no idea what sort of, or the quality of priest they will produce, if that should come to pass.
The thirty days adventure did nothing to alter the facts or situation at that place, save to put a happy face upon it and attempt to project a sheen of normalcy on a disfunctional entity.
It thus has made itself a lasting "do not enter zone"
When I read of the early Church and the bishops who went to foreign countries to evangelize, ordaining priests and spreading the Faith, I have to wonder if their teaching facilities might have been a lot like what you're describing above, with the exception of the episcopal faculties. But the Faith was spread by them, nonetheless.
I understand what you are saying but,
do you believe that is the same as what is happening in this particular situation?
Things aren't looking so good in KY based on our modern expectations of seminary life, but I'm saying that the formation of priests hasn't always been so highly refined, and perhaps our judgment may be a bit severe.
Do you plan on returning?
There is still more work to do, and more changes to be made, in order to secure a good future for the seminarians. I plan to continue this work as soon as possible.
The seminary is in a better position than it was in its first two years, and things have changed for the better. I think Boston is the closest the resistance has to a fully functioning and viable seminary.
As we stand today, there is no Bishop that has committed to administering tonsure. minor and major orders. How can a future seminarian put himself at risk in such a place? How do you answer Fr. Voigt's allegation, as fresh as your recent experience, that the formation is pitiful and without structure or plan or dependability?
The absence of a bishop is obviously a problem. And yet, Fr. Pfeiffer keeps saying that God will provide. I think that is noteworthy, and something to remember.
.
-
Neil Obstat,
Things aren't looking so good in KY based on our modern expectations of seminary life, but I'm saying that the formation of priests hasn't always been so highly refined, and perhaps our judgment may be a bit severe.
I quite agree. I was simply making the point that there was no good reason for them not to be better with a bit of patience and better organization. In such a matter as the formation of priests, a very serious approach is required regardless of the material surroundings. Recklessness and haste are a bad mix for spiritual formation.
-
Neil Obstat,
Things aren't looking so good in KY based on our modern expectations of seminary life, but I'm saying that the formation of priests hasn't always been so highly refined, and perhaps our judgment may be a bit severe.
I quite agree. I was simply making the point that there was no good reason for them not to be better with a bit of patience and better organization. In such a matter as the formation of priests, a very serious approach is required regardless of the material surroundings. Recklessness and haste are a bad mix for spiritual formation.
I'm sure you know what you're talking about, J.Paul, for you're not the only critic around here. I don't pretend to know anything about seminary organization, for I have no experience in that, whereas others here like Matthew actually attended a good seminary. These are trying times and I have to give the seminarians who are sticking it out in Boston a lot of credit for their persistence. It must be disheartening for them to hear about criticisms. What they need from us is prayers and support.
Come to think of it, I'd like to know what they did today for Thanksgiving Day. Were they able to have a nice meal and perhaps some visitors? My wife and I went to a local Senior Center for their annual Thanksgiving Feast and it was wonderful to have all the high school volunteers socializing and serving tables. It made for a great kick-off for the Christmas season -- Advent begins in a few days.
-
Neil Obstat,
Things aren't looking so good in KY based on our modern expectations of seminary life, but I'm saying that the formation of priests hasn't always been so highly refined, and perhaps our judgment may be a bit severe.
I quite agree. I was simply making the point that there was no good reason for them not to be better with a bit of patience and better organization. In such a matter as the formation of priests, a very serious approach is required regardless of the material surroundings. Recklessness and haste are a bad mix for spiritual formation.
I'm sure you know what you're talking about, J.Paul, for you're not the only critic around here. I don't pretend to know anything about seminary organization, for I have no experience in that, whereas others here like Matthew actually attended a good seminary. These are trying times and I have to give the seminarians who are sticking it out in Boston a lot of credit for their persistence. It must be disheartening for them to hear about criticisms. What they need from us is prayers and support.
Come to think of it, I'd like to know what they did today for Thanksgiving Day. Were they able to have a nice meal and perhaps some visitors? My wife and I went to a local Senior Center for their annual Thanksgiving Feast and it was wonderful to have all the high school volunteers socializing and serving tables. It made for a great kick-off for the Christmas season -- Advent begins in a few days.
I cooked a Thanksgiving meal last Thursday, because I would not be in Kentucky for the actual Thanksgiving. They had quite a meal that day. They did not have a Thanksgiving today.
-
6:00 ... Rise
6:30 ... Prime
7:15 ... Mass
8:00 ... Breakfast
9 -12 ... Classes
12:15 ... Sext
12:30 ... Lunch
1300- 1430 ... Recreation/ Manualia
1430- 1700 ... Classes/ study
1730 ... Rosary
1800 ... Dinner
1845- 1930 ... Recreation
1930 - 2030 ... Study
2100 ... Compline
2200 ... Silence
This is the usual weekday schedule.
Perhaps this is the SSPX way, and I am spoiled in that I was never with the SSPX, and have found my own way. But it pains me greatly that Matins, and the wonderful Lessons, with writings of the Church Fathers, which is so complementary to the Mass and seasonal liturgical themes is just lopped off. And no, it is not done privately, because my seminarian friend rejoicingly told me that he would not have to spring for the full breviary, because only the partial is used. And I who would give almost anything short of spiritual things to get a breviary from the 40's with all nine lessons...Sigh. How closely is that schedule actually followed? I would think two recreations would be less important than Matins, but then who am I? Just an old lady in love with the Divine Office. Thank you for the schedule.
-
You guys need to give Manual a break. He's not a chronicler; he's a journalist. And if he had any formal journalism training he suffers an inherent bias towards his own points of view. He chooses to print what supports his views and he ignores what he doesn't like. That's called Catholic Journalism.
You left something out of your post: #Sarcasm
-
I remember his visit in 2013, and I spoke with the Bishop on a few occasions during his stay. He spoke of the last age of the church, the end of the world. It is a subject that seems to be on his mind a lot. It is a negative theological viewpoint which has affected his decisions and actions.
The tenor of this bull$#!+ that you're babbling makes think even more that you're a modernist liberal freemason/jew plant.
Your subtleness is neither innocent nor harmless and will be called out.
This post is another example of why you should be banned. It not only betrays your perspective, but also demonstrates that you're maliciously trying to poison the minds of others. You are as big of a fraud as Ambrose.
-
The absence of a bishop is obviously a problem. And yet, Fr. Pfeiffer keeps saying that God will provide. I think that is noteworthy, and something to remember.
I usually agree with you, but I sure don't in this instance. If Kentucky does anything well, it's making bourbon, and breeding racehorses and demagogues. Fr. Pfeiffer is a natural born demagogue. His "God will provide" rhetoric is him instinctively and calculatedly laying the groundwork to justify something like the phony Ambrose that he and Pablo dug up.
-
The absence of a bishop is obviously a problem. And yet, Fr. Pfeiffer keeps saying that God will provide. I think that is noteworthy, and something to remember.
I usually agree with you, but I sure don't in this instance. If Kentucky does anything well, it's making bourbon, and breeding racehorses and demagogues. Fr. Pfeiffer is a natural born demagogue. His "God will provide" rhetoric is him instinctively and calculatedly laying the groundwork to justify something like the phony Ambrose that he and Pablo dug up.
Ambrose reached out to Kentucky. Father Pfeiffer and Pablo did not dig him up.
-
I remember his visit in 2013, and I spoke with the Bishop on a few occasions during his stay. He spoke of the last age of the church, the end of the world. It is a subject that seems to be on his mind a lot. It is a negative theological viewpoint which has affected his decisions and actions.
The tenor of this bull$#!+ that you're babbling makes think even more that you're a modernist liberal freemason/jew plant.
Your subtleness is neither innocent nor harmless and will be called out.
This post is another example of why you should be banned. It not only betrays your perspective, but also demonstrates that you're maliciously trying to poison the minds of others. You are as big of a fraud as Ambrose.
You accuse falsely, based on unfounded speculation and popular, conspiratorial notions, in an attempt to damage or destroy my reputation. I am not a "liberal freemason/new plant", nor are my intentions malicious.
Do not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
-
Do not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Your own words are "witnessing" against you. I'm simply pulling the evidence together.
-
Manuel, is it possible that your perceptions about Bishop Williamson are wrong?
Is it possible that your perceptions about Fr Pfeiffer are wrong?
Is it possible that your perceptions about Pablo are wrong?
-
Manuel, is it possible that your perceptions about Bishop Williamson are wrong?
Is it possible that your perceptions about Fr Pfeiffer are wrong?
Is it possible that your perceptions about Pablo are wrong?
I could be wrong about all three. That is a possibility I must accept. It is the only way to grow, to improve myself. I try to avoid subjective perspective and speculation whenever possible, and try to stick to facts, which are actions and docuмentable evidence.
I have not given much perspective on Bishop Williamson other than his frequent coverage on the last age of the Church. That is his particular area of interest, or one of them. Father Pfeiffer has a particular area of interest in geocentrism. Our interests can affect our actions and decisions, and I think that it is true for both of them.
Perceptions can and should change, based on available evidence and concrete information, and should not be based on personal bias or preconceived notions. Perceptions can and often should be challenged, for some perceptions are sinful, and detrimental to the soul that harbors them.
One such perception is that of myself being a plant for the Freemasons and/or Jews.
-
I have not given much perspective on Bishop Williamson other than his frequent coverage on the last age of the Church. That is his particular area of interest, or one of them. Father Pfeiffer has a particular area of interest in geocentrism. Our interests can affect our actions and decisions, and I think that it is true for both of them.
Perceptions can and should change, based on available evidence and concrete information, and should not be based on personal bias or preconceived notions. Perceptions can and often should be challenged, for some perceptions are sinful, and detrimental to the soul that harbors them.
One such perception is that of myself being a plant for the Freemasons and/or Jews.
Every time Bishop Williamson speaks on the subject he clearly says we're in the fifth age out of seven. Therefore, we are not in the last age.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EQ0d55C69dE[/youtube]
I'm not entirely sure how you came to that conclusion, but it's time to drop that right now.
Do you plan on returning?
There is still more work to do, and more changes to be made, in order to secure a good future for the seminarians. I plan to continue this work as soon as possible.
The seminary is in a better position than it was in its first two years, and things have changed for the better. I think Boston is the closest the resistance has to a fully functioning and viable seminary.
Wwwwwwwwwwhhhaaat?!! :laugh2:
I'm trying to imagine how bad things were that a fake Archbishop could have been an improvement!
-
Another difference is that Bishop Williamson does not make a super dogma out of his opinions unlike Fr Pfeiffer who does so out of Geo-centrism. It may well be true, but to call someone a heretic for not accepting it as Fr Pfeiffer has done is ridiculous.
-
Perceptions can and often should be challenged, for some perceptions are sinful, and detrimental to the soul that harbors them.
One such perception is that of myself being a plant for the Freemasons and/or Jews.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm going to call it a duck.
Scandalously persisting in keeping a frocked heretic as your avi on a Catholic forum is closer to sinful than me using commonsense to assess what you are.
-
Perceptions can and often should be challenged, for some perceptions are sinful, and detrimental to the soul that harbors them.
One such perception is that of myself being a plant for the Freemasons and/or Jews.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm going to call it a duck.
Scandalously persisting in keeping a frocked heretic as your avi on a Catholic forum is closer to sinful than me using commonsense to assess what you are.
You cannot see beyond your flawed understanding and your unsupportable notions of the appearances of things. An avatar is an avatar, nothing more, yet you use the avatar as another piece in your character assassination attempt. You fail to look beyond the surface and see what things really are.
I think I have chosen well this avatar. Those who are willing to listen have not persisted in the attack on my avatar. Those who are unwilling to listen, such as yourself, continue this unnecessary argument. His image is not a scandal. It has become a litmus test, one that you have failed. You mock others uncharitably, and have accused falsely. These are not Catholic actions.
You should step aside from writing further, and reconsider your positions and your attitude. I hope we can amiably resolve this issue. I have had enough of this bitterness and these accusations. No one should be subject to such animosity or ridicule.
Above all, charity. This goes for our friends, our enemies, everyone, at all times.
-
I have not given much perspective on Bishop Williamson other than his frequent coverage on the last age of the Church. That is his particular area of interest, or one of them. Father Pfeiffer has a particular area of interest in geocentrism. Our interests can affect our actions and decisions, and I think that it is true for both of them.
Perceptions can and should change, based on available evidence and concrete information, and should not be based on personal bias or preconceived notions. Perceptions can and often should be challenged, for some perceptions are sinful, and detrimental to the soul that harbors them.
One such perception is that of myself being a plant for the Freemasons and/or Jews.
Every time Bishop Williamson speaks on the subject he clearly says we're in the fifth age out of seven. Therefore, we are not in the last age.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EQ0d55C69dE[/youtube]
I'm not entirely sure how you came to that conclusion, but it's time to drop that right now.
Do you plan on returning?
There is still more work to do, and more changes to be made, in order to secure a good future for the seminarians. I plan to continue this work as soon as possible.
The seminary is in a better position than it was in its first two years, and things have changed for the better. I think Boston is the closest the resistance has to a fully functioning and viable seminary.
Wwwwwwwwwwhhhaaat?!! :laugh2:
I'm trying to imagine how bad things were that a fake Archbishop could have been an improvement!
I stand corrected on Bishop Williamson. He said we are living at the end of the fifth age of the church, not the seventh.
The seminary is in a better position, despite the issue of Ambrose. That could have been handled better, and I told Father Pfeiffer that then I was in Kentucky. Despite this, the seminary has a good group of seminarians, a great head seminarian, a better schedule, one that has been better adhered to so far. The seminary has also benefited from my thirty days, and I look forward to continuing the work sometime in the near future.
There are more things that need to be done in order to secure a good year for the seminarians. While there are issues with the seminary, I do not believe that we should give up on the seminary.
-
The seminary has also benefited from my thirty days, and I look forward to continuing the work sometime in the near future.
More proof that you are an invested biased cheerleader.
-
The seminary has also benefited from my thirty days, and I look forward to continuing the work sometime in the near future.
More proof that you are an invested biased cheerleader.
I care about the seminarians first and foremost. Should the seminary in Boston be forced to close for any reason, I will still support the seminarians in their discernment to do the will of God in whatever way I can.
This is not about Father Pfeiffer, or Pablo, or Boston. This is about supporting vocations. This is about the fight for the truth, and fighting evil, no matter where this evil may be. The elimination of these evils will secure the future of the seminary, so that these future priests may help restore all things in Christ.
-
The seminary has also benefited from my thirty days, and I look forward to continuing the work sometime in the near future.
More proof that you are an invested biased cheerleader.
I care about the seminarians first and foremost. Should the seminary in Boston be forced to close for any reason, I will still support the seminarians in their discernment to do the will of God in whatever way I can.
This is not about Father Pfeiffer, or Pablo, or Boston. This is about supporting vocations. This is about the fight for the truth, and fighting evil, no matter where this evil may be. The elimination of these evils will secure the future of the seminary, so that these future priests may help restore all things in Christ.
It seems you have a perspective of your own regarding what "this evil" is. Please lay it out for me.
-
The seminary has also benefited from my thirty days, and I look forward to continuing the work sometime in the near future.
More proof that you are an invested biased cheerleader.
I care about the seminarians first and foremost. Should the seminary in Boston be forced to close for any reason, I will still support the seminarians in their discernment to do the will of God in whatever way I can.
This is not about Father Pfeiffer, or Pablo, or Boston. This is about supporting vocations. This is about the fight for the truth, and fighting evil, no matter where this evil may be. The elimination of these evils will secure the future of the seminary, so that these future priests may help restore all things in Christ.
It seems you have a perspective of your own regarding what "this evil" is. Please lay it out for me.
There are many evils, some greater than others. There are also minor annoyances, obstacles and malfunctions that also must be overcome, but those are just a part of life.
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
Not all the accusations have been without merit, however, and when the accusations have substance, these must be examined and corrected. One example has been the uncertainty of priestly presence at the seminary. This year has seen improvement in this area, as opposed to the two years prior. I hope that the seminary will continue to improve in this particular area, so that the seminarians may never miss another Mass.
The seminary is not perfect, but it is not a lost cause. God willing, it will continue to improve.
-
Mr Dougherty
If you are truly concerned about priestly vocations, then use any funds you have at your disposal to help the seminarians in Boston learn some French. They will then be equipped to go to Bishop Faure's seminary and enrol there. There there will be free from sinister influences and will find a godly atmosphere and stand the best chance of getting ordained.
God bless.
-
Mr Dougherty
If you are truly concerned about priestly vocations, then use any funds you have at your disposal to help the seminarians in Boston learn some French. They will then be equipped to go to Bishop Faure's seminary and enrol there. There there will be free from sinister influences and will find a godly atmosphere and stand the best chance of getting ordained.
God bless.
While France is an option, I do not believe that the seminary in Boston is a lost cause. I believe that the problems that the seminary faces can be rectified. It may take a lot of work, but I believe that it can be done, and that these seminarians will be ordained, God willing.
-
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
So these are phony scandals? Who is at the center of these "phony scandals?"
I thought something in the nature of "curses & spells" was pretty much acknowledged a long time back in conjunction with his lay exorcism discussions.
I also found the porn accusations quite credible. Are you in a position to absolutely deny all credibility of the porn accusations, and if so, do you so deny?
-
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
So these are phony scandals? Who is at the center of these "phony scandals?"
I thought something in the nature of "curses & spells" was pretty much acknowledged a long time back in conjunction with his lay exorcism discussions.
I also found the porn accusations quite credible. Are you in a position to absolutely deny all credibility of the porn accusations, and if so, do you so deny?
These scandals were designed to attack both Pablo and the seminary. They are false, but at the same time, they use elements of truth to make these deceptions more credible.
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
-
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
Manuel, since Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko don't use the internet and the seminarians have neither internet or outside access how have then scandals negatively impacted the seminary? Are there people in the Boston community who read the internet and carry these stories to OLMC? Surely people would have the good sense to shield the priests and seminarians from internet gossip.
I'm confused how there has been material harm to the seminary because of false allegations or gossip.
-
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
Manuel, since Frs Pfeiffer and Hewko don't use the internet and the seminarians have neither internet or outside access how have then scandals negatively impacted the seminary? Are there people in the Boston community who read the internet and carry these stories to OLMC? Surely people would have the good sense to shield the priests and seminarians from internet gossip.
I'm confused how there has been material harm to the seminary because of false allegations or gossip.
Scandals have a way of spreading. The seminarians have family that have read or heard this gossip. The faithful in Boston have also been exposed. The seminarians have limited access to the Internet, and to the outside world.
Scandals can discourage support for the seminary. It can affect the ability for the seminary to function. It has hurt vocations and has injured reputations.
-
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
So these are phony scandals? Who is at the center of these "phony scandals?"
I thought something in the nature of "curses & spells" was pretty much acknowledged a long time back in conjunction with his lay exorcism discussions.
I also found the porn accusations quite credible. Are you in a position to absolutely deny all credibility of the porn accusations, and if so, do you so deny?
These scandals were designed to attack both Pablo and the seminary. They are false, but at the same time, they use elements of truth to make these deceptions more credible.
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
What are the "elements of truth" to the story about the porn? What, exactly, gave rise to this story?
-
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
So these are phony scandals? Who is at the center of these "phony scandals?"
I thought something in the nature of "curses & spells" was pretty much acknowledged a long time back in conjunction with his lay exorcism discussions.
I also found the porn accusations quite credible. Are you in a position to absolutely deny all credibility of the porn accusations, and if so, do you so deny?
These scandals were designed to attack both Pablo and the seminary. They are false, but at the same time, they use elements of truth to make these deceptions more credible.
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
What are the "elements of truth" to the story about the porn? What, exactly, gave rise to this story?
While he works on other things, Pablo will occasionally watch a film inside the office, which is adjacent to the priory. These movies may either be rated PG-13 or R (no NC-17 films, however). As with any film these days, they may contain scenes that are not suitable for a younger audience. They are not pornographic films, but may contain suggestive references that could be interpreted as pornographic by some.
-
If the 30 days are up, where are you now?
-
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
So these are phony scandals? Who is at the center of these "phony scandals?"
I thought something in the nature of "curses & spells" was pretty much acknowledged a long time back in conjunction with his lay exorcism discussions.
I also found the porn accusations quite credible. Are you in a position to absolutely deny all credibility of the porn accusations, and if so, do you so deny?
These scandals were designed to attack both Pablo and the seminary. They are false, but at the same time, they use elements of truth to make these deceptions more credible.
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
What are the "elements of truth" to the story about the porn? What, exactly, gave rise to this story?
While he works on other things, Pablo will occasionally watch a film inside the office, which is adjacent to the priory. These movies may either be rated PG-13 or R (no NC-17 films, however). As with any film these days, they may contain scenes that are not suitable for a younger audience. They are not pornographic films, but may contain suggestive references that could be interpreted as pornographic by some.
I see your point--I'm inclined to agree that it's a misrepresentation to lump that in as all out "porn." But it is only a misrepresentation to the extent that the modern world has made it relatively so. So I fall short of fully agreeing that it is a misrepresentation.
Semantics aside, you seem to acknowledge the inappropriateness of the content. A moment before I move on (typing stream of thought)--wouldn't you say that "suggestive references that could be interpreted as pornographic by some" would be inappropriate for audiences of all ages?
Please put your Mr. Rogers sugar-coating aside and tell me whether you think Pablo, in light of his "shortcomings," is in an inappropriate role and/or has too much contact, whether formal or informal, in relation to the seminarians.
-
If the 30 days are up, where are you now?
At home.
-
One of these evils has been the rampant spreading of accusations regarding the seminary, including the accusations of animal sacrifice, curses and spells, pornography and poisonings. These particular accusations have little to no merit or basis in truth.
So these are phony scandals? Who is at the center of these "phony scandals?"
I thought something in the nature of "curses & spells" was pretty much acknowledged a long time back in conjunction with his lay exorcism discussions.
I also found the porn accusations quite credible. Are you in a position to absolutely deny all credibility of the porn accusations, and if so, do you so deny?
These scandals were designed to attack both Pablo and the seminary. They are false, but at the same time, they use elements of truth to make these deceptions more credible.
I deny all of these accusations listed here, based on my many experiences from the seminary. I have seen no evidence that supports these claims.
What are the "elements of truth" to the story about the porn? What, exactly, gave rise to this story?
While he works on other things, Pablo will occasionally watch a film inside the office, which is adjacent to the priory. These movies may either be rated PG-13 or R (no NC-17 films, however). As with any film these days, they may contain scenes that are not suitable for a younger audience. They are not pornographic films, but may contain suggestive references that could be interpreted as pornographic by some.
I see your point--I'm inclined to agree that it's a misrepresentation to lump that in as all out "porn." But it is only a misrepresentation to the extent that the modern world has made it relatively so. So I fall short of fully agreeing that it is a misrepresentation.
Semantics aside, you seem to acknowledge the inappropriateness of the content. A moment before I move on (typing stream of thought)--wouldn't you say that "suggestive references that could be interpreted as pornographic by some" would be inappropriate for audiences of all ages?
Please put your Mr. Rogers sugar-coating aside and tell me whether you think Pablo, in light of his "shortcomings," is in an inappropriate role and/or has too much contact, whether formal or informal, in relation to the seminarians.
I have only seen a few of the titles he has played at the seminary. I did not see any material that could be a cause for concern. I have spoken with some of the seminarians about this issue, and no one I spoke to noticed anything pornographic in these films.
I believe that some people may be overly sensitive to certain situations. I also must admit that I have not seen a full listing of the films that he has watched over the last two years. I do not know how this rumor started. All I know is that I have not seen anything to support the claim.
Pablo has a few shortcomings which would disqualify him as a spiritual adviser, but no layman is a good adviser for seminarians. That role is best left to the priests, or even a religious brother.
Pablo has been involved with the seminarians on a daily basis, due to the necessity of the situation. He cooks when no one else can, which means he does interact daily with the seminarians. He also runs errands, supervises other lay workers, etc.
If the seminary could bring in a brother or two, this would eliminate the need for Pablo to have daily contact with the seminarians. That would be the ideal situation, to have religious handle the daily needs of the seminarians.
Just as with Winona, the seminarians and brothers should also have a hand in running or developing the publication aspect of the seminary, including the websites and the newsletter.
-
I have spoken with some of the seminarians about this issue, and no one I spoke to noticed anything pornographic in these films.
How could the seminarians have any opinion about the content of the films Pablo is watching "inside the office which is adjacent to the priory" unless the seminarians have been watching the films as well?
-
R rated movies nearly always portray sɛҳuąƖ situations and varying degrees of nudity, foul language, and violence. Why should they be on a church's grounds at all? What redeeming qualities could they have as entertainment that outweighs the bad influence? The only movie with an R rating that I can think of that could be an exception is The Passion of the Christ; and I very much doubt that one of movie titles involved.
-
I have spoken with some of the seminarians about this issue, and no one I spoke to noticed anything pornographic in these films.
How could the seminarians have any opinion about the content of the films Pablo is watching "inside the office which is adjacent to the priory" unless the seminarians have been watching the films as well?
That is because the office door is never locked, and seminarians may walk in at any time.
-
Oh, boy, here we go. I'll pass the torch.
.
-
R rated movies nearly always portray sɛҳuąƖ situations and varying degrees of nudity, foul language, and violence. Why should they be on a church's grounds at all? What redeeming qualities could they have as entertainment that outweighs the bad influence? The only movie with an R rating that I can think of that could be an exception is The Passion of the Christ; and I very much doubt that one of movie titles involved.
Violence as in war time violence can give the R rating. One film I remember was a foreign film featuring mediaeval warfare. I do not remember the title, but I believe it was about the Crusades.
-
Fun Fact:
Most "R" and "PG-13" films contain pornographic scenes. In some respects they can be worse than "adult" films because you can be lulled into thinking the movie won't have one of those scenes until it's on the screen without warning.
I'd imagine only within very restricted parameters could such films be studied for academic purposes where the offending scenes are removed or skipped over. Obviously, some films are worse than others. I would assume that anyone without a bobblehead over in Kentucky should know by now that an apostate wretch is not fit to make the seminary their personal living space nor a place to indulge their personal pastimes and entertainments. A seminary run by fulltime laity and part-time priests is not a seminary, it's a glorified YMCA.
-
Fun Fact:
Most "R" and "PG-13" films contain pornographic scenes. In some respects they can be worse than "adult" films because you can be lulled into thinking the movie won't have one of those scenes until it's on the screen without warning.
I'd imagine only within very restricted parameters could such films be studied for academic purposes where the offending scenes are removed or skipped over. Obviously, some films are worse than others. I would assume that anyone without a bobblehead over in Kentucky should know by now that an apostate wretch is not fit to make the seminary their personal living space nor a place to indulge their personal pastimes and entertainments. A seminary run by fulltime laity and part-time priests is not a seminary, it's a glorified YMCA.
That is the state of films these days, where perhaps half of all films include material not suitable for audiences. Even if the main subject is historical in nature, and is made about a great moment in Christendom, one still must be careful as to the contents. The Day of the Siege is one of these previewed films. The Life of Padre Pio was another.