I'd like to see the part they cut out at 32  minutes when he started to talk about the seminary.

Thanks so much for posting this video. What a breath of fresh air to hear this. And I was glad to hear Father Chazal's comments on Pablo as well. Hard to imagine how Boston, KY can continue on with him in charge and still receive support/approval from anyone after the events and revelations of the last month.

I listened to Fr. Chazal with a great deal of skepticism.  Yes, “Bp Ambrose” is probably a fake.  In that, I would certainly agree with Fr. Chazal.  But what is Father’s end game?  Is he trying to deliver Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko, and by extension, the so-called Boston, KY “resistance” movement from the clutches of a phony bishop?  Then why would  Fr. Chazal not speak out just as strongly now, as he might have in the past, against Pablo?  

Pablo brought Ambrose into their midst, didn’t he?   If there is no Pablo, there is no Bp. Moran.  It is Pablo who gives this “bishop” a false relevance.  It is Pablo who brought him to their attention in the first place, didn't he?  It is because of Pablo, that Fr. Chazal is compelled to stand up before a bunch of the faithful a world away in Australia, his fist full of papers, and be forced to debunk the allegedly false claims of this person with a pony tail.   Yet, when asked about Pablo, Fr. Chazal says that he is another matter, or problem, and, as I understand him anyway, needs to be taken up as a separate issue altogether.  Really!?

I have been brought to the point of rejecting Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko wholesale, as well as the phony SSPX-MC “resistance” to which Fr. P gave birth.  These priests, IMO, are not fitted for the task to which they think they have been called.  IMO, Fr. Pfeiffer is not a powerful preacher, as, apparently, Fr. Chazal infers during the Q & A..  I can get along quite well for the rest of my life without hearing another word from Fr. Pfeiffer.  And I won’t be any closer or further away from Heaven for having done so.

Fr. Chazal mentions that Bp. Williamson is an ‘irritation’ to Fr. Pfeiffer.  No, it is quite a bit more serious than that.  Fr. P does not think that the bishop is on the right track.  H.E. is not going about it in the right way.  Fr. P. accuses the bishop of refusing to lead.  He has absolutely no confidence in Bp. Williamson, and has said as much publicly.  I repeat, Bp. Williamson does far more than just ‘irritate’ Fr. Pfeiffer.

Another thing:  Why did Fr. Chazal not make at least a passing reference to the fact that both Bps. Williamson and Faure seem to be entirely absent from the vetting process?  Would it not have been natural for Frs. P and H to have consulted with real bishops about “Ambrose?”  Yet, I hear nothing about any such consultation(s).  Rather, it seems, they take counsel with one another, and, probably alas, with Pablo.

IMO, Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko have made for us all a real ‘pig’s dinner.’  They have strengthened the hand of Fellay & Co, IMO.  They have made a mockery of real “resistance” by forcing our attention away from the monumental issues surrounding the Great Vatican Apostasy, and focusing them, instead, upon a few sorry megalomaniacal individuals who need to be rejected out of hand and just plain spit out of our memories.

Hopefully,  we can start realizing that resistance to modernism is a worldwide phenomenon rather than Boston Kentucky. OLMC is really making us faithful, Catholics lose credibility. For that reason I can no longer defend them.

Minute 15:39 Bishop Ambrose is 666!  :really-mad2:
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!! 66 years and 6 months.

Quote from: Ecclesiae

Minute 15:39 Bishop Ambrose is 666!  :really-mad2:
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!! 66 years and 6 months.

Technically, Ambrose was 66 years and 9 months when he gave that sermon.

Assuming we know his real birthday.