Author Topic: Fr. Hewkos Comments on Ambrose (Read 4697 times)

brianhope · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:45:22 PM »

Can you tell us what point in the sermon he talks about Ambrose so we can go straight to that part of the video? Thank you.

cathman7 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:46:36 PM »

It was a rather good sermon I must admit. However, I didn't hear him talk about Ambrose. Am I missing something?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:50:29 PM »

Quote from: brianhope

Can you tell us what point in the sermon he talks about Ambrose so we can go straight to that part of the video? Thank you.

begins at 3:38, talks about Ambrose for a couple of minutes

Chiara · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:55:18 PM »

He also seems to imply a rift with the priests in Europe.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2015, 08:13:48 PM »

So much modernist contradictory speech is coming from fr. hewko. He continues to label all of us here at cathinfo as devils and or doing the work of the devil. The sooner kentucky crashes and burns the better. I am reminded how their house burnt down years ago. God is not with them.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2015, 09:31:41 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

So much modernist contradictory speech is coming from fr. hewko. He continues to label all of us here at cathinfo as devils and or doing the work of the devil. The sooner kentucky crashes and burns the better. I am reminded how their house burnt down years ago. God is not with them.

What in particular did you find modernist and contradictory?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #7 on:** November 09, 2015, 01:06:03 AM »

Here's a comment from Manuel's blog that I think sums up Fr. Hewko's statements pretty well:

Anna November 8, 2015 at 6:42 PM
Fr. Hewko slams those who did the investigation and exposed this "Ambrose Moran", and then says he and Fr. Pfeiffer will have nothing to do with him, and then gives no explanation as to why not. And then he promotes Eric GaJєωski. Mega Facepalm.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** November 09, 2015, 02:36:58 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: brianhope
Can you tell us what point in the sermon he talks about Ambrose so we can go straight to that part of the video? Thank you.

begins at 3:38, talks about Ambrose for a couple of minutes

He gives announcements until 10:25 then starts the sermon.

.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2015, 10:06:20 AM »

So OLMC announces that they won't have anything to do with Ambrose Moran for unspecified reasons.

Where do I BEGIN with this?

1. No thank you for all those Internet dwellers who (Deo Gratias!) exposed the very real problems with Ambrose -- enough to "not have anything to do with him".

2. On the contrary, they were attacked!

3. No apology was made for being stubborn, ignoring CathInfo's investigation (for example), attacking good, honest CathInfo members (among others), rashly supporting Moran, having him simulate "mass" on the OLMC altar and other places, etc.

4. No mention was made about what they found to be unacceptable. Perhaps because it would highlight their need for an apology and/or thanks to those who brought this to light?

5. They continue to call Ambrose an archbishop (out of stubbornness?) so what part of Ambrose, or his story, don't they like? If they still believe him, then they should believe the part about having special jurisdiction from Cardinal Slipyj. So his saying "I consider this seminary to be canonically erected" should make them happy, not upset.

6. Even their official damage control (Manuel Chavez/Martin Dougherty) can't give us the actual reasons why they eventually did an about-face and decided to dismiss Ambrose. Perhaps they don't want us connecting any dots or drawing any (correct) logical conclusions? Those logical conclusions might point Fr. Pfeiffer in a direction he doesn't want to go.

7. Remember the 30 days post from a couple days ago? They were defending him right to the end. Ambrose (or someone) had a whole new story concocted to fit all the evidence.

8. Long story short, I think we can conclude that Fr. Pfeiffer RELUCTANTLY was forced to distance himself somewhat from Ambrose for the very practical reason that people all over the country were cutting him off (financially, support, attending his Mass centers, etc.) and he was forced. But he wasn't happy about it: look at numbers 1-7.

Croixalist · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2015, 10:17:17 AM »

What a travesty. Hewko would rather give his arm than concede anything on CathInfo. At this point, he's going to wish he'd never become a priest for all the sacrilege he's been an accessory to. Enjoy your schism Boston, you definitely earned it!

At least they did us the favor of clustering together.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2015, 10:28:34 AM »

From Matthew:6. Even their official damage control (Manuel Chavez/Martin Dougherty) can't give us the actual reasons why they eventually did an about-face and decided to dismiss Ambrose. Perhaps they don't want us connecting any dots or drawing any (correct) logical conclusions? Those logical conclusions might point Fr. Pfeiffer in a direction he doesn't want to go.

My response: I am not their official damage control. What I write, I do so independently of the Boston seminary.

I have listed potential reason for this about-face:

The photograph, the supposed consecration by Cardinal Slipjy and the sermon from October 31.

However, this is only speculation. I have talked to Father about releasing this information for the edification of all, and I will talk to him when he returns on Tuesday.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2015, 03:13:56 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

I am not their official damage control. What I write, I do so independently of the Boston seminary.

I have listed potential reason for this about-face:

The photograph, the supposed consecration by Cardinal Slipjy and the sermon from October 31.

But Fr. Pfeiffer had been staunchly defensive of these things previously.

He had said the photograph (obviously a fake) was authentic.
He had said the consecration by Cardinal Slipjy was real (against all the evidence).

That leaves Ambrose' sermon on Oct. 31st:

Post

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I'd really like to know why the decision was made-- the letter doesn't say.

If you find any credibility in what Paul H. has to say, he blames Ambrose's Oct 31 sermon.

Quote from: OLMC 'unofficial' website
Subsequent to statements made during a sermon given by His Excellency, the following has been decided: (link to statement in OP)

I recorded that Sermon, and I put it on the internet. In it, he mentioned that he considered the seminary as canonically erected. I believe this is what caused a big issue, and why I was asked to remove the sermon from the internet.

It is one reason why they released their letter, I firmly believe.

He had nothing to say about the 'Holloween' sermon when it happened.

The question is, what OTHER thing made him suddenly do an about-face?

Because to hang the sudden about-face entirely on one mention in his sermon that the seminary is canonically erected seems to be over the top. That couldn't be the "last straw" because everything else was hunky-dory.

Matthew's proposition seems to be quite reasonable, even if Pheifferville doesn't like it.

.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2015, 06:42:18 AM »

Well for starters if it's canonically erected by Ambrose you can guarantee +Williamson and +Faure will never ever have anything to do with them again.

Anyone starting to think this looks like "flirting with the woman next door to make the wife jealous"?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2015, 01:02:49 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Anyone starting to think this looks like "flirting with the woman next door to make the wife jealous"?

Except the woman next door is obese, bald, and has five missing teeth.

It will make your wife think you've lost touch with your rational faculties, that's for sure.