Author Topic: Problems with Pfeiffer dismissal of Ambrose (Read 3812 times)

Matthew · « **on:** November 09, 2015, 10:21:36 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! How many times was it insinuated that the amateur investigators of Ambrose were a bunch of "haters", gossip-mongers, evil Internet denizens, etc.? Since they decided in the end against working with Ambrose, were the investigators correct or what?

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. Fr. Pfeiffer still hasn't admitted to being behind the anonymous "Ambrose Moran" website. I mean, come on. We're not stupid. Ambrose Moran (whether he's 66.6 or 76 years old) didn't make that website. Cui bono? Who else in the whole world is interested in convincing the world of Ambrose Moran's legitimacy? The site came into being RIGHT AFTER Ambrose appeared in Boston, KY. I, for one, don't believe in those kind of coincidences. It has to be Fr. Pfeiffer's group behind the site. Fr. Pfeiffer must have given at least tacit permission to create that website. After all, they did get their hands on all those photos.

9. 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.

What can we conclude?

That Fr. Pfeiffer is playing more games with us. Is he going to "have nothing more to do with Ambrose" because he's already been (or will be) consecrated by him? Is that why they are insistent on believing his ordination/consecration stories and calling him Archbishop, even as they show Ambrose the door?

To put it delicately, Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't have a love affair with the truth. Mental gymnastics, mental reservations, distortion, exaggeration, sneaking around, hiding, redirection, ignoring inconvenient truths (and worse) pepper most of Fr. Pfeiffer's activities. For him, the ends justifies the means.

covet truth · « **Reply #1 on:** November 09, 2015, 11:27:54 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

To put it delicately, Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't have a love affair with the truth. Mental gymnastics, mental reservations, distortion, exaggeration, sneaking around, hiding, redirection, ignoring inconvenient truths (and worse) pepper most of Fr. Pfeiffer's activities. For him, the ends justifies the means.

Sadly, I think it safe to say we can conclude the same about Fr. Hewko.

BJ5 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2015, 02:39:59 PM »

I believe they have decided to select their own SSPX-MC trajectory which does not intersect the trajectory of any other priest or Bishop associated with the resistance. It would be self-sufficient, akin to what Fr. Kelly did at Round Top with a seminary, priests, nuns, and a succession of Bishops.

Problem is, referring to Fr. Voigt's letter, the seminary is a disaster due to a lack of any ability to form priests. It reads like a home school version of priestly formation with a fluid regiment of coursework and one priest doing the formation as he is available.

He wants the whole enchilada with a staff of one priest, Pablo, and a cook. Expect an SSPX-MC convent and SSPX-MC Third Order announcement soon.

Marlelar · « **Reply #3 on:** November 09, 2015, 02:47:13 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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?

Would revealing his reasons serve a purpose? Aside from giving a public pat on the back to those who were correct in the first place I cannot think of any good purpose that would be served.

I am thankful that he made the right decision even if it was late in coming.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2015, 02:52:35 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote from: Matthew
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?

Would revealing his reasons serve a purpose? Aside from giving a public pat on the back to those who were correct in the first place I cannot think of any good purpose that would be served.

I am thankful that he made the right decision even if it was late in coming.

Here's the problem: if they have a doubt about any of the evidence, then why do they say there is NO doubt that his orders are valid? This does NOT make any sense at all! Also, why do they refer to him as an archbishop not just a bishop. Who gave him the office of archbishop?

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** November 09, 2015, 03:54:30 PM »

Good point!

What's all this "Archbishop" stuff? Thinking he was validly consecrated is one thing; there are lots of independent and "garage" bishops. All it takes to become a bishop is to be consecrated by another bishop. But being an Archbishop doesn't add anything to the fullness of Orders -- it's purely a question of authority and jurisdiction (coming from where? his James Bond past as a spy and helper of Cardinal Slipyj and various popes?)

Also, I forgot to mention in the OP something QUITE IMPORTANT.

Think about it -- Fr. Pfeiffer was FORCED (against his will) by his flock to dismiss him. But notice he didn't denounce him or say anything was wrong with him in particular. AND he felt bad for him so he "gave him a good reference" on the way out. In fact, now Mr. Ambrose Moran has that many more pictures of himself (this time in Latin Rite Trad attire) to help him dupe the next group!

Great.

That's almost as bad as keeping Ambrose on -- helping him dupe the next guy. Giving him more material for his resume and promising to give him a good reference.

Well, I hope the next group Googles his name. They will get an eyeful, I assure you. Anyone want to guess how long these Ambrose threads will stay here? If you guessed "until the end of the world", you guessed correctly.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #6 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:16:01 PM »

You, in turn, make a great point. He probably will use those pictures for future scams.

PG · « **Reply #7 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:18:34 PM »

Matthew - it should be good enough for the future with all this info staying up on cathinfo. But, pablo in his latest video sermon mentions how he is doing the opposite. He is removing all of his ambrose sermons from his sites. And, surely it is because it harms ambrose's cause(at duping the next guy).

Pablos recent video showing all sorts of orthodox religious Jєωs getting expelled from a south american town by the indigenous people is a very telling, timely, and accurate subliminal message. Because, the same is happening to them(pablo/ambrose/pfieffer/hewko)

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:20:08 PM »

So, to connect the dots --

OLMC insists on calling him "Archbishop" which acknowledges NOT ONLY HIS EPISCOPATE but also his ridiculous, Malachi Martin wannabe, spy story nonsense about having special jurisdiction from the Pope.

Even that latest consecration docuмent (claiming to have the signatures of 8 bishops who consecrated him) says nothing about appointing him Archbishop of anything.

Where's his docuмentation about his special superpowers received from the Pope? Oh, I know...it was a secret, so he can't show us. How convenient.

Oh yeah? Well I was appointed King of America. I don't have any proof or docuмentation, you'll just have to believe me.

:rolleyes:

wallflower · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote from: Matthew
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?

Would revealing his reasons serve a purpose? Aside from giving a public pat on the back to those who were correct in the first place I cannot think of any good purpose that would be served.

I am thankful that he made the right decision even if it was late in coming.

I see where you are coming from and I agree with you to an extent, but at the same time, transparency is a big issue. It is rather hypocritical to call out +Fellay for being veiled and murky in his dealings with Rome yet pull the same moves here. A bishop and his background, or lack thereof, is not a private matter. It has profound impact on the faithful. I wouldn't expect a 10 page essay on the wrongs of Moran but a little transparency and show of good faith go a long way, especially when it requires a small act of humility to do so. You would find many more people edified by the example rather than frustrated by it.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:25:25 PM »

Ambrose might as well just claim the Papacy, consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer and appoint him Cardinal, and be done with it.

Because they've really gone off the reservation on this one. They are in serious twilight-zone, Pope Michael territory here. The fact they claim to have dismissed Ambrose -- at least the manner in which they supposedly dismissed him (while acknowledging his status as ARCHBISHOP!?!) -- doesn't mitigate the situation very much.

Maybe that place Ambrose got his Latin-rite Bishop cassock has a special sale, "Buy 2 cassocks, get 1 free". They could get Ambrose's white Papal cassock and Fr. Pfeiffer's red Cardinal one. They should look into it.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:28:19 PM »

You know what this reminds me of?

2012, a deal was about to be made with Rome, then the Letter of the Three to the One was leaked, the Internet spread the news like wildfire, the Resistance was born, too many people threatened to leave the SSPX, +Fellay was foiled, and the rest is history.

Today, Fr. Pfeiffer was going to accept this con man Mr. Moran as a priest/Bishop/Archbishop/Grand Poobah and have him ordain his seminarians (and probably consecrate himself), but again a HUGE outcry was organized, thanks to the Internet, many of Father's supporters cut him off, and Father's plans were foiled.

In both cases, the perpetrator was not repentant. No apology was given, and no real backtracking was done. More like, "I'll get you next time, Gadget, next time....!" (if Inspector Gadget is too obscure a reference, just think of any cartoon/TV/movie serial where the bad guy is foiled in each episode, and promises to get the hero "next time")

Croixalist · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2015, 04:32:33 PM »

I think Boston will go down in history as an example of men whose spiritual foundations were so shallow that the minute they were put in a position of greater influence they abused the privilege. At the very least, they've proved to me that they were never called to be anything more than parish priests. At worst, they probably forced a vocation that wasn't there.

Again, just look at what they managed to put together:

-Pablo
-GaJєωski
-Ambrose

Truly mind-blowing.

Croixalist · « **Reply #13 on:** November 09, 2015, 05:34:35 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

You know what this reminds me of?

2012, a deal was about to be made with Rome, then the Letter of the Three to the One was leaked, the Internet spread the news like wildfire, the Resistance was born, too many people threatened to leave the SSPX, +Fellay was foiled, and the rest is history.

Today, Fr. Pfeiffer was going to accept this con man Mr. Moran as a priest/Bishop/Archbishop/Grand Poobah and have him ordain his seminarians (and probably consecrate himself), but again a HUGE outcry was organized, thanks to the Internet, many of Father's supporters cut him off, and Father's plans were foiled.

In both cases, the perpetrator was not repentant. No apology was given, and no real backtracking was done. More like, "I'll get you next time, Gadget, next time....!" (if Inspector Gadget is too obscure a reference, just think of any cartoon/TV/movie serial where the bad guy is foiled in each episode, and promises to get the hero "next time")

I've always felt that the SSPX was a check on the mainstream Church when it started to go off the rails and the Resistance was a check on the Society when it appeared a deal was imminent (if it wasn't made already). Had Archbishop Lefebvre not made the stand he did when he did it, I don't know how the TLM would have survived.

Now this extended period of alternating backtracking by Bp Fellay might have been caused by the overall outcry of the Resistance and for that I am very grateful, but it's moments like these when we see things go absolutely haywire that I'm reminded of how deep the crisis goes. It's everywhere and although we may try to get everything right on paper, there's always a way things can fall apart.

There are good Catholic priests and laity who somehow manage not to completely lose their faith through the Ordo, though it's very risky. There are SSPX priests who aren't itching to see an agreement with Rome that would jeopardize the Mass, but it's increasingly dicey. Finally, there are Resistance priests who are doing the best they can to keep to Abp Lefebvre's ideals, but then there was Boston. We all need a true Restoration and however you look at it, it will have to come from a Pope worth his salt.

I'm tired of every man for himself. I'm tired of having to constantly reassess the situation every time a cleric pulls a fast one. I'd like to trust again, but just when things seem to have stabilized, another shake up destroys all progress. That's nothing new, but with every new horrible quote from Francis I feel that WWIII would serve as a pleasant diversion.

Ekim · « **Reply #14 on:** November 09, 2015, 06:39:27 PM »

Marlelar,

I think the answer to your question can be found in the Mass...

"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa"

It is not enough for a wayward person to say the situation was not correct. They MUST explain why the error existed. If not, others may fall victim to the same mistake. In this case, the state of their very soul / eternal salvation/ May be in question. It is a simple matter of justice. Honesty.

A half truth is no truth at all.