Author Topic: Thirty Days in the Boston Seminary (Read 97077 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #405 on:** November 16, 2015, 11:53:31 AM »

Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.

Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #406 on:** November 16, 2015, 12:42:15 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.

Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.

Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.

They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.

johnD · « **Reply #407 on:** November 16, 2015, 12:48:09 PM »

Another question Manuel, do the Priests still consider Ambrose to be a Catholic Priest and Bishop?

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #408 on:** November 16, 2015, 01:11:19 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: J.Paul
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.

Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.

Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.

They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.

Don't bet on it! Last I heard, "the people aren't ready yet"

.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #409 on:** November 16, 2015, 01:16:23 PM »

Quote from: johnD

Another question Manuel, do the Priests still consider Ambrose to be a Catholic Priest and Bishop?

Yes, they do.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #410 on:** November 16, 2015, 01:17:55 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: J.Paul
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.

Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.

Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.

They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.

Don't bet on it! Last I heard, "the people aren't ready yet"

.

I don't have to bet. I asked.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #411 on:** November 16, 2015, 01:25:11 PM »

Yea right. Those plans "are firmly set in place" - until they change.
And they will change.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #412 on:** November 16, 2015, 01:26:29 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: J.Paul
Another very important question, will the Fathers please clear up the speculation that one or both of them has been secretly consecrated as a Bishop.

Can they give us an unequivocal no to that question, so that the matter can be put to rest. It could definitely help to restore trust in them.

Neither were consecrated bishops. The speculation, it seems, was designed to further an agenda against the seminary, and to further discredit the seminary in Boston.

They are not associating with Bishop Ambrose. There are no plans to associate with him, and it seems that those plans are set firmly in place.

Then- Is there a plan for a public acknowledgement of their serious mistake, and an apology to those who might have been harmed in this mess? A warning to other trads wherever Ambrose may go that he is not a Catholic bishop so they won't fall into the same trap?

The fiasco was public, the harm was public, the acknowledgement needs to be public too; and more than just the shabby 2 sentences or so in their obscure announcement. They might regain some of their credibility.

Or are they just going to ignore it and hope it falls down the memory-hole?

Are these the same priests who criticized +Fellay for refusing to acknowledge his mistake in 2012 and refusing to correct the damage done? (Oh wait- recent developments may show why he (+F) wouldn't do that...)

johnD · « **Reply #413 on:** November 16, 2015, 01:33:16 PM »

Well, if they still believe him to be a Catholic Priest and Bishop then, they would see no reason to apologize. In that case, it would be appropriate to explain why suddenly they decided not to associate with him.

But which one is it? I'm trying to find out....

MaterDominici · « **Reply #414 on:** November 16, 2015, 03:44:57 PM »

Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:

What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #415 on:** November 16, 2015, 04:20:28 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Manuel,
Given your recent posts about the improvements at OLMC and your request for Bps Williamson & Faure to come and visit the new-and-improved seminary, I have the following question for the priests of OLMC:

What issue(s) caused Bp Williamson to stop visiting OLMC and why were the issues not addressed immediately upon the bishop's recommendation?

I will ask as soon as Father Pfeiffer returns.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #416 on:** November 16, 2015, 06:24:22 PM »

Quote from: Manuel

So, if you are reading this, your excellencies, I would love to whip you up a fancy feast, and show you around the much-improved seminary.

Come see for yourselves the progress made here in Boston. That goes for anyone else who have reasons to doubt the validity and integrity of the seminary.

He just publicly accused Bishops Faure and Williamson of doubting the integrity and validity of the seminary. I'm not saying he is wrong; I just don't think it is a good way to address two bishops. Surely they could care a less about his blog. It is rather boring. Day in and day out. I guess he is justified somewhat for his assumption because at this point the entire world doubts the "validity and integrity" of the seminary, even many once friendly priests. It is silly to talk about how they need another priest when they effectively achieved running off one of the last priests that was willing to work with them.

I don't think that his blog is having the desired result.

OHCA · « **Reply #417 on:** November 16, 2015, 06:47:26 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Manuel

So, if you are reading this, your excellencies, I would love to whip you up a fancy feast, and show you around the much-improved seminary.

Come see for yourselves the progress made here in Boston. That goes for anyone else who have reasons to doubt the validity and integrity of the seminary.

He just publicly accused Bishops Faure and Williamson of doubting the integrity and validity of the seminary. I'm not saying he is wrong; I just don't think it is a good way to address two bishops. Surely they could care a less about his blog. It is rather boring. Day in and day out. I guess he is justified somewhat for his assumption because at this point the entire world doubts the "validity and integrity" of the seminary, even many once friendly priests. It is silly to talk about how they need another priest when they effectively achieved running off one of the last priests that was willing to work with them.

I don't think that his blog is having the desired result.

I was once looking forward to visiting. But I won't do so now until they publicly renounce and apologize for what was at the very least a flirtation with schism.

This is one of the best points I have seen in this thread:

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Then- Is there a plan for a public acknowledgement of their serious mistake, and an apology to those who might have been harmed in this mess? A warning to other trads wherever Ambrose may go that he is not a Catholic bishop so they won't fall into the same trap?

The fiasco was public, the harm was public, the acknowledgement needs to be public too; and more than just the shabby 2 sentences or so in their obscure announcement. They might regain some of their credibility.

Or are they just going to ignore it and hope it falls down the memory-hole?

Are these the same priests who criticized +Fellay for refusing to acknowledge his mistake in 2012 and refusing to correct the damage done? (Oh wait- recent developments may show why he (+F) wouldn't do that...)

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #418 on:** November 16, 2015, 07:08:24 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.

He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.

. So was St Francis de Sales.

Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.

St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.

OHCA · « **Reply #419 on:** November 16, 2015, 07:35:15 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
Why Mr. Rogers as profile picture? He wasn't Catholic.

He was a good man, and his calm demeanor, even temper and charitable outlook is rare these days.
. So was St Francis de Sales.

Mr Rodgers was a Protestant minister who never talked about God on his children's program. A lot of the children who watched his program grew up to be atheists and pagans.

St. Francis de Sales is the Catholic patron saint of journalists and writers.

I don't get how Manuel dismisses the notion that the program was a cog in furthering the jew agenda by encouraging passivity and effeminacy--traits in the goyim which make it easier to advance freemason/jew radicalism.