Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer and The Recusant keeping up the wicked fight (Read 13450 times)

Croixalist · « **Reply #45 on:** December 22, 2015, 10:13:53 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Croixalist
They must have amassed a quirky list of patrons at this point...

That's an apt way of putting it...

I'm beginning to see what Father Pfeiffer meant when he said that any discourse or explanation of Ambrose would be pointless. None of you (or very few) show any ability or willingness to listen, and you mock everything and everyone, resorting to ad hominem attacks and deceptive information. No wonder why the Fathers in Boston thought the information on Ambrose was a deceptive attack, when many who promoted the information also promoted such disgusting and abominable tactics.

You have condemned Boston a long time ago. Ambrose was just another vehicle for an assault on the seminary. That attack obfuscated the truth, and delayed a proper response.

You will no doubt continue to character αssαssιnαtҽ those who show the least bit of support for Boston, by any means necessary. You have done so without just cause and without remorse.

There is a better way to fix what needs to be fixed. I believe I have an answer, and I am working on a solution. Rumor mongering, character assassination, libel and scandal are not the answers to our problem.

Above all, charity.

Character assassination is one of Father Pfeiffer's specialties. When it came to Father Zendejas and later Bishop Williamson, I was completely fed up with him.

Allowing a fraud to say Mass is plenty of just cause to shout these offenders down. It's not only what they deserve but it's what is needed before more damage is done. So long as you obstruct justice for this twisted triumvirate, you are part of the Pablo/pablum/problem.

Now there may come a time where Boston rises from the ashes, but it will not be under Pfeiffewkablo.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #46 on:** December 22, 2015, 10:16:43 AM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: ManuelChavez
From OHCA:Right--we shouldn't deprive smokescreeners of the opportunity to hear themselves talk, as many love it so very much. I'm not into asking somebody with measured words and a polished script to take a shot at duping me.

My response: So you don't care to hear what they have to say? You don't feel the need to ask questions and get answers, even if the answers may or may not be factual?

It is apparent that you have chosen a closed-minded approach to the situations and events revolving around OLMC, one that supports your biased view, and you will continue to do so with derogatory and inciteful language, to the detriment of yourself and to the reputation of Cathinfo.

Nothing is resolved with sarcasm or closed minds and hearts. This situation will only further degenerate, because no one is willing to listen and learn in all due respect and charity.

Ask questions. Get answers. You may not like the answers, but they will help nevertheless.

Note to Manuel: deflections don't count as answers. We all knew Ambrose was a fake, but Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko let him say Mass. The time for answers is over because there is no question about it; they have thrown their own credibility out the window.

You can continue to be part of this sham and keep posting like a shaken bottle of soda, but one of these days someone around here has to learn to clean up their own mess.

They did not know he was a fake. What information was presented on Ambrose was unfortunately diluted by falsehoods regarding other situations regarding Boston.

They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose. This is because the vital information was shaken free of the surrounding lies, errors and deception that surrounded the truth (examples: animal sacrifices, curses, etc).

The real sham is the lack of charity and humility, and the unwillingness to listen, to ask questions and to understand. Both sides of the argument are guilty of this. Both have caused the mess, each in their own ways.

I pray that there can be a good solution for the many problems facing the resistance today.

Manuel, this is completely untrue. Both Fathers had been shown by people (who they consider(ed) reliable) that Billy-Bob Moran was a fraud by mid-September of this year. That included content of some personal conversations with William Moran which was already ringing all sorts of alarm bells in well-formed and reasonably discerning minds. This information was presented to the Fathers aside from any "dilution by falsehoods" to paraphrase your pathetic excuse for this travesty.

Making overtly stupid excuses for people is a breach of charity.

It is not untrue. I was there and saw and heard these conversations, and I asked them questions. It was a long process, but eventually they could not account for certain problems within Ambrose's claims. There was a lot of dilution, and it took time to sort through it all. I believe that I was able to help in some small way in sorting through this material, and in helping Father recognize the validity of the information presented.

It is not an excuse. While they could have improved on their response, this is what happened and why it happened.

Really? So you also read the emails and texts to both priests concerning "Ambrose" Moran? Whatever you saw and heard was only a small piece of the info, so it's really disingenuous for you to make the ridiculous claim that they weren't aware that he is a fraud.
Considering your role as a soapy PR functionary, you've made a good choice of avatar.

It is not disingenuous. I talked also to Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko. I asked them questions. They did not know he was a fraud. Your claim, that they knew, insinuates that the Fathers actively perpetrated a fraudulent scheme against the faithful, instead of being unwitting victims in a scheme perpetrated by Ambrose.

I am not PR for Boston. I want the best for the seminary, nothing more and nothing less. I spoke with Father about the Ambrose situation. I have told him what I think and about what could have been done better, and what can still be done better.

Why do a few people have issues with my avatar? It seems that it is an easy way to attack my reputation, and a way to undermine my writing.

Croixalist · « **Reply #47 on:** December 22, 2015, 10:32:49 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

The real sham is the lack of charity and humility, and the unwillingness to
It is not disingenuous. I talked also to Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko. I asked them questions. They did not know he was a fraud. Your claim, that they knew, insinuates that the Fathers actively perpetrated a fraudulent scheme against the faithful, instead of being unwitting victims in a scheme perpetrated by Ambrose.

I am not PR for Boston. I want the best for the seminary, nothing more and nothing less. I spoke with Father about the Ambrose situation. I have told him what I think and about what could have been done better, and what can still be done better.

Why do a few people have issues with my avatar? It seems that it is an easy way to attack my reputation, and a way to undermine my writing.

They are either evil and knew or were incredibly incompetent and evil for not knowing then covering up their mistake. Did they actually admit to being wrong with Ambrose other than simply not associating with him?

If you're not PR from Boston, how come this topic consumes over 90 percent of your posts here? There really isn't anyone on here agreeing with you on what you're saying, so I can't figure out why you persist unless you had some pressure coming from the outside. Regardless, whether you are following a prime directive from Boston or you simply have a misplaced sense of duty for them, you are still functioning as a PR man.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #48 on:** December 22, 2015, 10:54:16 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: ManuelChavez
The real sham is the lack of charity and humility, and the unwillingness to
It is not disingenuous. I talked also to Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko. I asked them questions. They did not know he was a fraud. Your claim, that they knew, insinuates that the Fathers actively perpetrated a fraudulent scheme against the faithful, instead of being unwitting victims in a scheme perpetrated by Ambrose.

I am not PR for Boston. I want the best for the seminary, nothing more and nothing less. I spoke with Father about the Ambrose situation. I have told him what I think and about what could have been done better, and what can still be done better.

Why do a few people have issues with my avatar? It seems that it is an easy way to attack my reputation, and a way to undermine my writing.

They are either evil and knew or were incredibly incompetent and evil for not knowing then covering up their mistake. Did they actually admit to being wrong with Ambrose other than simply not associating with him?

If you're not PR from Boston, how come this topic consumes over 90 percent of your posts here? There really isn't anyone on here agreeing with you on what you're saying, so I can't figure out why you persist unless you had some pressure coming from the outside. Regardless, whether you are following a prime directive from Boston or you simply have a misplaced sense of duty for them, you are still functioning as a PR man.

I write about Boston because people have lied about Boston. I will fight lies and deception whenever possible. Animal sacrifices are one such lie. Pablo finding Ambrose for Boston is another lie. The accusation of me being PR is another error (I don't consider it a lie, but a misunderstanding of the situation).

There have been others, which is why I have written about Boston as much as I have.

I have also offered poems and stories for your entertainment, in the arts section.

Croixalist · « **Reply #49 on:** December 22, 2015, 11:28:11 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

I write about Boston because people have lied about Boston. I will fight lies and deception whenever possible. Animal sacrifices are one such lie. Pablo finding Ambrose for Boston is another lie. The accusation of me being PR is another error (I don't consider it a lie, but a misunderstanding of the situation).

There have been others, which is why I have written about Boston as much as I have.

I have also offered poems and stories for your entertainment, in the arts section.

If you were as concerned about the lies coming out of Boston as you were coming from without, no one would have a problem with what you're doing. Okay, so Pablo isn't an outright devil-worshipper yet he does not attend Mass on a regular basis and is put in charge of a seminary when the priests are away which is often. He has taken complete advantage of at least one priest's financial generosity. He has zero accountability for a job which absolutely requires it. That trend has carried over to Pfeiffer and Hewko who likewise show absolutely no capacity for self-correction on an embarrassingly obvious case of fraud perpetrated in slow motion in front of their faces.

Their tough guy/bad cop front is perfectly complemented with your nice guy/good cop approach as you attempt over and over again to excuse the inexcusable. No one can claim invincible ignorance and proceed to deny said ignorance with a mere renunciation of affiliation. If they honestly believed Ambrose was who he said he was, why withdraw support? If on the other hand they had discovered their grave error and refused to acknowledge it or make reparations for it, then what are we left with? Public sinners, going on a sinful rampage at every priest and layman who doesn't go along with them!

Classic cult leader mentality, coupled with a perfect cult following.

OHCA · « **Reply #50 on:** December 22, 2015, 01:13:00 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Why do a few people have issues with my avatar?

He is an effeminate frocked heretic who is a pioneer of the jewtube.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #51 on:** December 22, 2015, 01:26:35 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Why do a few people have issues with my avatar?

He is an effeminate frocked heretic who is a pioneer of the jewtube.

That is your unfounded and distorted view of Mister Rogers.

If you want to make that kind of libelous claim of a dead man, you'd better have some hard evidence of such a claim. Otherwise, stick to what you know. He was a Protestant minister. He had a show on PBS. He studied music and child development, and used his knowledge of both in his show.

Those are facts. The rest is mud. Stop flinging mud at others.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #52 on:** December 22, 2015, 01:31:51 PM »

"Mr. Rogers was a vegetarian. He didn’t smoke or drink or seem to have any major vices. He also stayed married to the same woman until his death; their marriage lasted 47 years. About the only even slightly “scandalous” thing Mr. Rogers seemed to do, which he revealed in an interview, was that he swam laps completely in the buff nearly every morning of his adult life at various clubs that allowed nude swimming at certain times of the day."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/02/15-interesting-mr-rogers-facts/

OHCA · « **Reply #53 on:** December 22, 2015, 01:41:05 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

I write about Boston because people have lied about Boston. I will fight lies and deception whenever possible. Animal sacrifices are one such lie. Pablo finding Ambrose for Boston is another lie. The accusation of me being PR is another error (I don't consider it a lie, but a misunderstanding of the situation).

I have seen the animal sacrifice repeated by you fifty fold more times than I have seen it actually alleged--I'm not sure that I have ever seen it alleged although it seems like perhaps several weeks ago I dug around and found it after seeing your reference to it. Nothing would surprise me out of that character, but that is an accusation that I do not take seriously.

I have my suspicions regarding how Ambrose was dug up--and--no--I am not going to automatically believe some exculpatory account coming from those who have the most at stake riding on the spin of the story and who have been so secretive about the matter thus far.

You are, at least, a de facto PR man--not a very good one--but that's what you are.

What about the "lies" about the porn, which isn't really "porn" by 2015 standards, but clearly material inappropriate for any Catholic, not to mention in a role with a seminary, to be viewing.

I don't care if Pablo was accused of making like a mohammadean with a goat, your defense of the Pfeifferville crowd has become silly.

OHCA · « **Reply #54 on:** December 22, 2015, 01:46:50 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Why do a few people have issues with my avatar?

He is an effeminate frocked heretic who is a pioneer of the jewtube.

That is your unfounded and distorted view of Mister Rogers.

If you want to make that kind of libelous claim of a dead man, you'd better have some hard evidence of such a claim. Otherwise, stick to what you know. He was a Protestant minister. He had a show on PBS. He studied music and child development, and used his knowledge of both in his show.

Those are facts. The rest is mud. Stop flinging mud at others.

Effeminate = Passive p#$$ified mannerisms and approach to life.

Frocked heretic = "He was Protestant minister."

Jewtube pioneer = In the early days of television, "[h]e had a show on PBS."

What, precisely, have a misstated?

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #55 on:** December 22, 2015, 02:06:53 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Why do a few people have issues with my avatar?

He is an effeminate frocked heretic who is a pioneer of the jewtube.

That is your unfounded and distorted view of Mister Rogers.

If you want to make that kind of libelous claim of a dead man, you'd better have some hard evidence of such a claim. Otherwise, stick to what you know. He was a Protestant minister. He had a show on PBS. He studied music and child development, and used his knowledge of both in his show.

Those are facts. The rest is mud. Stop flinging mud at others.

Effeminate = Passive p#$$ified mannerisms and approach to life.

Frocked heretic = "He was Protestant minister."

Jewtube pioneer = In the early days of television, "[h]e had a show on PBS."

What, precisely, have a misstated?

That he is effeminate. What exactly makes someone effeminate? How do you determine what that is?

You have claimed that his show was designed to make effeminate men. How exactly did he do so?

What you have done is libel a dead man.

I also suggest you either clarify or reconsider what it means to be effeminate.

OHCA · « **Reply #56 on:** December 22, 2015, 06:35:28 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Why do a few people have issues with my avatar?

He is an effeminate frocked heretic who is a pioneer of the jewtube.

That is your unfounded and distorted view of Mister Rogers.

If you want to make that kind of libelous claim of a dead man, you'd better have some hard evidence of such a claim. Otherwise, stick to what you know. He was a Protestant minister. He had a show on PBS. He studied music and child development, and used his knowledge of both in his show.

Those are facts. The rest is mud. Stop flinging mud at others.

Effeminate = Passive p#$$ified mannerisms and approach to life.

Frocked heretic = "He was Protestant minister."

Jewtube pioneer = In the early days of television, "[h]e had a show on PBS."

What, precisely, have a misstated?

That he is effeminate. What exactly makes someone effeminate? How do you determine what that is?

You have claimed that his show was designed to make effeminate men. How exactly did he do so?

What you have done is libel a dead man.

I also suggest you either clarify or reconsider what it means to be effeminate.

Unmanly.

De Pauw · « **Reply #57 on:** December 23, 2015, 09:07:58 AM »

Alas, at great length, I do get tired of those who go in for pontificating.

Croixalist · « **Reply #58 on:** December 23, 2015, 01:53:59 PM »

I suppose Pope Francis is the embodiment of the Christian ideal with his ever merciful Year of Mercy? Desecration with a sweet smile, the Church of Nice! For me, that's the twist of the knife when it comes to these matters. What we had at Boston was (and continues to be) an utter mockery of Catholic unity.

What's particularly galling is that as long as there's someone to defend it with a wink and a smile, there will always be people who fall for it. I like sugar, but I'm not going to kid myself with powdered toast from Fukushima

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #59 on:** December 23, 2015, 03:48:04 PM »

Quote from: Croixalist

I suppose Pope Francis is the embodiment of the Christian ideal with his ever merciful Year of Mercy? Desecration with a sweet smile, the Church of Nice! For me, that's the twist of the knife when it comes to these matters. What we had at Boston was (and continues to be) an utter mockery of Catholic unity.

What's particularly galling is that as long as there's someone to defend it with a wink and a smile, there will always be people who fall for it. I like sugar, but I'm not going to kid myself with powdered toast from Fukushima

I am neither Pope Francis nor am I Boston. I am not sugarcoating the issues that the seminary faces, nor do I think that the seminary is doomed to failure. I think it can survive, but it needs work; like restoring an old car. It can be done, but not in the spirit of animosity or mockery.