Author Topic: Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?  (Read 3350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul FHC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Reputation: +145/-6
  • Gender: Male
Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:19:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does anyone know if Ambrose is secretly saying mass at the olmc missions? We all know that he's saying mass in Colorado but I heard recently by accident that he went up to Minnesota as well.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23003
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #1 on: January 08, 2016, 06:28:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I believe it is appropriate to point out that Fr. Pfeiffer, in his most recent sermon, defended the priesthood of Ambrose Moran.

    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest, and he has gone back to fully defending him (he sees no problem with his schismatic and shady background), why wouldn't he make use of this available "priest" to say "Mass" at the various SSPX-MC missions?

    I would be surprised if Fr Pfeiffer did otherwise.

    The problem is the confusion in Father's head. He overlooks 35 pages of analysis by Fr. Ortiz (which delineates the problems with Ambrose Moran in the most sober and orderly of manners.)
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #2 on: January 08, 2016, 07:24:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.

    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #3 on: January 08, 2016, 08:22:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2557
    • Reputation: +1545/-428
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #4 on: January 08, 2016, 08:28:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.


    Bringing things back to square one, I see.
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #5 on: January 08, 2016, 08:32:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.


    Bringing things back to square one, I see.


    This whole situation has taken a tail spin. It should be brought to square one, and kept to the facts. Calling Father Pfeiffer a schismatic is unfounded, in the vein of the yellow kid of journalism days gone by.

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #6 on: January 08, 2016, 09:20:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Let's stick to the facts, and get the story from the sources, such as Father Pfeiffer and others involved in the situation.


    Father Pfeiffer isn't going to admit that he has turned to a schismatic fraud to advance the visions of his ego--ordination of his seminarians necessary for the success of his seminary and his episcopal aspirations--rather than 1) conciliardom (they wouldn't touch him); 2) SSPX (burned that bridge); 3) Bishop Williamson or Bishop Faure (nope--Fr. Pfeiffer isn't that humble); 4) sedevacantist (can't eat that crow).

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2557
    • Reputation: +1545/-428
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #7 on: January 08, 2016, 09:27:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    This is the proponent of scandal, of calumny and uncharitable actions. (See attached photo)

    Let's stick to the facts, and get the story from the sources, such as Father Pfeiffer and others involved in the situation.

    I do hope that this situation will work out according to God's will, not ours.

    What questions could I ask Father Pfeiffer to help clear up this situation further?




    Has Fr. Pfeiffer ever admitted he was wrong about anything? Has he ever said, "I made a mistake."? Is he able to come out and say he made a mistake?

    Instead of getting "facts" from Fr. Pfeiffer and insisting others do, start asking yourself the fundamental questions and stop being such a follower.

    (Please note the use of quotation marks in the last sentence. Feel free to ask about their meaning. They are not cute decorations.)
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #8 on: January 08, 2016, 09:31:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    This is the proponent of scandal, of calumny and uncharitable actions. (See attached photo)

    Let's stick to the facts, and get the story from the sources, such as Father Pfeiffer and others involved in the situation.

    I do hope that this situation will work out according to God's will, not ours.

    What questions could I ask Father Pfeiffer to help clear up this situation further?




    Has Fr. Pfeiffer ever admitted he was wrong about anything? Has he ever said, "I made a mistake."? Is he able to come out and say he made a mistake?

    Instead of getting "facts" from Fr. Pfeiffer and insisting others do, start asking yourself the fundamental questions and stop being such a follower.

    (Please note the use of quotation marks in the last sentence. Feel free to ask about their meaning. They are not cute decorations.)


    Always ask questions. Don't ever stop asking questions. You may not like the answers, and not everyone will tell you straight, but don't leave it to speculation and idle rumor.

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #9 on: January 08, 2016, 09:32:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.


    The farce of the Pope in Red hierarchy is more believable than that Ambrose is not a schismatic fraud.  So suddenly he just comes gallavanting in just as Fr. Pfeiffer has nowhere else to turn for a bishop.  Quite the fairytale.

    The insinuations that Father took the short bus through seminary have not gone over my head.  But I don't think he's that stupid.  I don't think you are either, but I'm not as certain.  The evidence is that Father has practically nowhere else to turn for ordinations (and concecration for himself--see previous post).  That's what in my business is known as motive.  Motive for what?  Motive to seek to pass some schismatic jackass fraud off as a bishop who is willing to go along with the carnival act.

    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #10 on: January 08, 2016, 09:40:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.


    The farce of the Pope in Red hierarchy is more believable than that Ambrose is not a schismatic fraud.  So suddenly he just comes gallavanting in just as Fr. Pfeiffer has nowhere else to turn for a bishop.  Quite the fairytale.

    The insinuations that Father took the short bus through seminary have not gone over my head.  But I don't think he's that stupid.  I don't think you are either, but I'm not as certain.  The evidence is that Father has practically nowhere else to turn for ordinations (and concecration for himself--see previous post).  That's what in my business is known as motive.  Motive for what?  Motive to seek to pass some schismatic jackass fraud off as a bishop who is willing to go along with the carnival act.


    You have taken a few bits of truth and spun a tall tale about Father Pfeiffer, and his alleged desire to be a Bishop, and his intent to deceive the faithful by promoting someone he knows to be a fraud.

    That is the fairy tale, one which is founded on your inclination for conspiracy theories, and your obvious bias against Father Pfeiffer.



    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #11 on: January 08, 2016, 09:59:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.


    The farce of the Pope in Red hierarchy is more believable than that Ambrose is not a schismatic fraud.  So suddenly he just comes gallavanting in just as Fr. Pfeiffer has nowhere else to turn for a bishop.  Quite the fairytale.

    The insinuations that Father took the short bus through seminary have not gone over my head.  But I don't think he's that stupid.  I don't think you are either, but I'm not as certain.  The evidence is that Father has practically nowhere else to turn for ordinations (and concecration for himself--see previous post).  That's what in my business is known as motive.  Motive for what?  Motive to seek to pass some schismatic jackass fraud off as a bishop who is willing to go along with the carnival act.


    You have taken a few bits of truth and spun a tall tale about Father Pfeiffer, and his alleged desire to be a Bishop, and his intent to deceive the faithful by promoting someone he knows to be a fraud.

    That is the fairy tale, one which is founded on your inclination for conspiracy theories, and your obvious bias against Father Pfeiffer.



    If you look back over my posts since 2012, I think you'll find that any "bias" has came about very gradually and as a result of Father's actions.  I largely overlooked his cuddling Pablo and defended him several times here on CI.  I took a giant step back to reassess when he began dissing +Williamson.  And didn't become very vocal until the schismatic fraud incident.  So you're wrong if you think I have always been against Father.  I wanted his seminary to succeed beyond all imagination and hoped that he would be concecrated long before it was speculated that that is what his ego craves.  But he has $#!+ in his bed from my perspective.

    Offline Paul FHC

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 123
    • Reputation: +145/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #12 on: January 08, 2016, 10:05:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The point that I was trying to get at by posting this thread was that perhaps olmc is covertly working with Ambrose despite their issuance of a dissociation letter.

    Ambrose says mass in Colorado , I heard of one mass in Minnesota said for resistance folks as well. He may be traveling to other resistance centers too, but this all seems very hush hush, the Ambrose mass up north certainly wasn't advertised.

    But here's the thing,  we all know how territorial fr Pfeiffer is(as can be demonstrated by the zendejas affair). Any body saying mass for one of fr's established groups has to be doing it with his full approval.

    Thoughts?

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23003
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #13 on: January 08, 2016, 10:11:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Matthew
    Now if Fr. Pfeiffer thinks Moran is a priest. . .


    I don't think so.  I think he is simply willing to stoop to schism to see the visions of his ego Coke to fruition.  I believe he is now a schismatic himself.


    What makes him schismatic? What evidence do you have of this accusation?

    What I see are two sides to this, and each one is certain that they are absolutely correct. Either Ambrose is a fake or he is not.

    Father did his research. Others did theirs. I believe that Father is doing what he believes is correct; that you are wrong in your accusation against him. He is not defending Ambrose to stoke his ego.

    As for Ambrose's validity, I am not convinced in either direction, but I do not believe that Father is acting in a deceptive manner.


    Except that when the results of the research are NEGATIVE or INCONCLUSIVE, the only course is to assume the individual in question is not a priest. Catholic doctrine states "A doubtful priest is no priest".

    Why do we avoid our local Novus Ordo parishes? Because the priests at these parishes were doubtfully ordained, and they all say the Novus Ordo Mass which is statistically likely to cost us our faith. We are not permitted to risk our faith by attending such dangerous and/or doubtful sacraments.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Owner's Wife
    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 4931
    • Reputation: +3672/-68
    • Gender: Female
    Ambrose traveling to olmc missions?
    « Reply #14 on: January 08, 2016, 10:22:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Paul,
    Did you listen to Fr Pfeiffer's sermon from yesterday?
    He's supporting Moran with not a single word or warning of caution to the faithful. He even went so far as to say that those warning about Moran are "attacking the sheep".
    Of course he approves of Moran and any mention to the contrary was a temporary attempt at damage control.

    The OLMC ship is sinking while the captain continues on queuing the orchestra. Anyone--particularly priests and future priests--who'd like their reputation in the Trad world to survive this ship wreak needs to find their way quickly to the lifeboats.
    "If I could only make the faithful sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei ... that would be to me the finest triumph sacred music could have, for it is in really taking part in the liturgy that the faithful will preserve their devotion. I would take the Tantum ...

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16