Mr. Maccabees is free to continue what he is doing. Father has clarified only what is necessary, not the whole story. The whole truth is known to God, who knows all things and his conscience bears him witness, that:
1. Father always told the priests of his intentions. There are reasons why he left when he did, mostly known to the priests, one being his family.
2. He never asked anyone for orders including the Bishop who ordained him nor made any form of pledge to anyone.
3. He was ordained in accordance with the will and at the time the priest who took charge of him decided.
- Maccabees appears to know father, but does not consider it important to listen to the other side, but rather makes an analysis precisely on the premise he denies; ie that father never sought orders by himself. This is untrue.
- How can anyone ask to leave the seminary with the right to return ? Where does this happen ?
- His decision to leave OLMC does not mean disobedience, nor him seeking anything. This is unfounded. He has his reasons which I'm sure Maccabees will not like to hear.
The priest who made the decisions concerning father and did all the work in regard to his future knows all that.
On the contrary, father contacted Bp. Zendejas only after he left, who tried to help him find a solution to his situation. Finally, he decided to remain with the priest who took him in and was also willing to help him. This is the truth.
- He threatened no one, but saddened by the falsifications after months of suffering from what OLMC tried to do to him, he stated he would be obliged to give the full account of his stay at OLMC.
Bishop Merrill Adamson, is a thuc line Bishop who was consecreted by Bishop José Urbina Anzar, who was consecrated by José Romon Lopez Gaston, himself a thuc bishop through Bishop Christian Datessen, consecrated conditionally by Archbishop Thuc.
.
Hopefully no one cares about the petty politics of Pfeifferville. Now that the man claims to be a priest and has his own wandering ministry, that's all water under the bridge.
.
You say:
Bishop Merrill Adamson, is a thuc line Bishop who was consecreted by Bishop José Urbina Anzar, who was consecrated by José Romon Lopez Gaston, himself a thuc bishop through Bishop Christian Datessen, consecrated conditionally by Archbishop Thuc.
.
Yes, that's the word around town. That's the accepted story, without anything to back it up. I can say that
I was consecrated by them, too. But can I prove it?
.
Can someone inform the Nigerian that there's an onus on him to
be able to prove he's a priest? Did he not learn that in seminary? He's gone through an intricate network of very obscure Thuc bishops to get his orders, and as someone who happens to know a
bit about these things, I've never seen the sort of proofs that these consecrations occurred or occurred rightly. You can't just say "oh, don't worry about it, he's a Thuc bishop." Lots of Thuc bishops are
dubious. The "big three"-- des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora-- aren't, and they aren't only
because we have all the docuмenting evidence showing beyond any reasonable doubt that their consecrations happened and happened rightly, and likewise, we have that same proof for the bishops
they consecrated, and the priests/bishops who were ordained/consecrated
after them, etc.
.
I assume that the man in question probably didn't even
look into Adamson to be sure he actually
was a bishop. Do I assume rightly? That he didn't look at Urbina, at Olivares, at Dattessen and the rest to ensure that
each of those consecrations actually happened, and happened rightly?
Does he know that each of them were even
capable of coming bishops, i.e., that they were actually
priests beforehand? So now he needs to go back and check. And he needs to be ready to satisfy the faithful who rightly require moral certainty regarding the integrity of his orders. That's
his job, not ours.
Topic: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained (Read 18511 times)