Please do not encourage anyone to read this vile diatribe.

Just as when a rat is backed into a corner, the wrecusant will lash out anyone. It will amuse you to know that Greg Taylor, the editor and only writer, is so busy spewing his venom at Matthew in his editorial that he forgets to mention the Billy Boy Moron fiasco or the letter of Fr Voigt. All this hatred and bitchy sarcasm is ultimately aimed at Bishop Williamson because he will not be the lap dog of Fr Pfeiffer. Then he goes on about himself and how everyone will detest him. Just me, me, me.

God help them all on Judgment Day when they will have to answer for their actions. They have become a complete cult like the Jehovah Witnesses - the more they are attacked, the more they think they are doing right. They are no longer Roman Catholics but Resistance Catholics with Sunday Holy Hours rather than Holy Masses.

Speaking of vile diatribe... It seems that both sides have their share of it.

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.

OK, they didn't know... and they are culpable for letting someone walk in with a tall tale to tamper with the Mass. Let's just all play Pin The Tail On The Bishop while blindfolded! This is their fault and no one else's. It was compounded when for some strange reason they refused to acknowledge their error. I wonder why!

Charity comes in many forms, and when a man is passed out drunk about to vomit in his sleep, a good slap to the face is the best thing you could possibly do for him at that moment. Wake up, Martinuel!

They eventually reached the conclusion that they should not associate with Ambrose.

What were the reasons that caused them to reach this conclusion?  They did not publicly give any.

They must have amassed a quirky list of patrons at this point...

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

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.

For how many years did Ambrose Moran fraudulently represent himself as a valid bishop?

Why did someone not investigate him immediately by asking for his papers? Where were the Ordinaries of the dioceses in which the fraud was perpetuated? Why were they not held accountable?

Unless some measures are put in place, priests can and will be misled again by another vagante bishop.

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.

First, the Ambrose situation should have never entered the "court of public opinion". It took no more than a 5-minute Google search to see that Ambrose Moran worked with and elevated Orthodox prelates. One of the early claims from Fr. Hewko was that "the things about Ambrose on the Internet are not true", but this claim can not explain away the publicly accessible images of him assisting with the consecration of an Orthodox bishop. The next claim was that Ambrose was attempting to convert this Orthodox group. Sorry, "infiltration" is not a Catholic tool of conversion. Good guys don't use tactics of bad guys. Father Pfeiffer said that he spent six months speaking with others and investigating Ambrose, but this simple issue was not resolved in that time. He should have spent another six or twelve or twenty-four months following up to resolve this basic inconsistency before publicizing Ambrose Moran's existence and allowing him to say a public Mass.

Second, we all have people whom we trust and those who we don't. It would be understandable if 100% of the assistance in investigating Ambrose came from unknown or untrusted sources, but that wasn't the case. Take Mr. La Rosa for example. All appearances suggest that he's been a very solid supporter of OLMC for several years now. But, when he presented them with information he obtained regarding Ambrose, rather than thanking him profusely, he was accused of starting war with OLMC. I would be very surprised if there was any reason at all that they might have honestly believed his assistance was merely a "deceptive attack".

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.

Are you suggesting a third party sent Ambrose to OLMC?

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.

I'm intrigued. I look forward to hearing about what you're working on.

Quote from: ManuelChavez

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.

I'm intrigued. I look forward to hearing about what you're working on.

I'm not the least bit intrigued.  I am certain that he is spinning his wheels in the muddy field of naïveté and childish foolishness, that is, if he isn't simply trying to divert attention as part of the OLMC team (which I haven't completely ruled out).

Until something firmer in the nature of a warning and admission of folly with regard to the schismatic fraud comes out of OLMC, nothing can be fixed.  This situation has cast too much doubt on the judgement and concern for souls of those at the helm there, and, frankly, casts them under a cloud of suspicion of schism until they come clean and clear all of this up.

With regard to Boston, I started out very excited about Fr. Pfeiffer's efforts; I went to some level of disappointment once it became clear that he was fully aware of Pablo's antics and wasn't reeling him in; then went to a severe level of disappointment and more clearly recognized the big ego problem and such once attacks on Fr. Zendejas and Bishop Williamson started.  Now this business of the schismatic fraud--wow!

If they are to be believed that they were duped about Ambrose, then they don't have the requisite judgment to run a piss ant farm.  I think it is far worse than them being duped.  They're pretty stupid--but not that stupid.  Ambrose appears on their doorstep and they don't stop and think "hmmm.... How many times in the past 45 years have legitimate unknown bishops been rained down upon tradition?"

The leadership is clearly egotistical and some dreadful combination of ignorant and "mischief."  So short of a crystal clear acknowledgment and firm warning about the schismatic fraud, I'm not interested in any "fixing" suggestions that don't entail an "Under New Management" sign.  In fact, they should probably suspend their seminary efforts until they come to terms with Bishop Williamson and/or Bishop Faure.  Having a seminary without anybody to do the ordinations leads to this kind of desperation, especially in light of the egos involved.