Author Topic: Thirty Days in the Boston Seminary (Read 94949 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #75 on:** October 30, 2015, 09:38:44 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Your last paragraph is unwarranted and shows a bias against the seminary in Kentucky. Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?

This is a clear manifestation of your narrow view. A bishop is a bishop. If Ambrose turns out to be a valid bishop than that can be both positive and negative. What kind of bishop is he? Is he a bishop that also happens to be a pathological liar? There is very little difference between you writing to see if he is a real bishop with your two possible conclusions or inconclusion and someone writing to see if there is a valid consecration in the new Mass with the same possible outcomes. That's because our fight has never been absolutely for valid sacraments. Arians had valid sacraments. Hey ya know what, so do the Orthodox schismatics. For traditionalists it is the combat for the Faith. A veteran valid priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre approaches a Pfeiffer flock and is told that we don't know where he stands on the Faith, and clearly he has proven to be a more reliable and well balanced priest since this. On the other hand, we have this mickey mouse with a ponytail show up and we can't even confirm he is a priest, much less a bishop, we haven't a clue where he really stands on the Faith without seeing any real evidence, but everyone is sidetracked with just wondering if he is a priest since he has at least offered one Mass on the main altar. This is a clear cut example of how poorly founded the Kentucky establishment is. Do they know anything about Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer? What kind of formation will they seriously have? The Combat for the Faith? Do they know what it is? Or are they caught up in persons and personalities? The mundane daily photos of food, lack of depth and contemplative life...

If he is a bishop, he's still been a part of several schismatic sects lately. Where does he stand on the Faith? After confirming if he is even a valid clergyman this is the real question.

JPaul · « **Reply #76 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:19:43 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Recusant Sede
Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who?

Yes!
Why report that you've seen the docuмents and are convinced without sharing even the slightest details with your readers? Isn't that the point of your blog?

I said I have seen the evidence of his ordination. I have also heard of the evidence against his ordination. My intent is to put up both cases, for a better analysis of each.

I never said i was convinced of his ordination. While I feel that the evidence points to him being a validly ordained priest, I am willing to accept otherwise, should the evidence point towards that conclusion.

I hope to answer the issue of his ordination first before dealing with his consecration.

I hope to post the evidence on the blog today. I am writing from my smartphone, which isn't exactly the easiet way to produce a blog. I am limited to one photo before the memory bogs down. I hope to have access to a computer today.

No matter the so called evidence for or against is, this man should never have been allowed access by the Kentuckians to their faithful until there was no doubt as to his validity!
In matters of the sacraments the Church demands that one always follow the safer course.
These priests ignored this solemn teaching and irresponsibly exposed their faithful to what is possibly a great danger by following their own judgements instead of the Church's doctrine, while snickering and mocking those who raised concerns.

If this man turns out to be a false personality, then this group will have forfeited the trust place in them and sacrificed that whole enterprise placing itself upon a permanent no go list. Not to mention, that they will be a laughing stock for their enemies, and a black eye for Tradition. Were not these serious considerations enough to motivate them to act humility and prudence?

It is a thoroughly scandalous mess regardless of the outcome.

Matthew · « **Reply #77 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:53:50 AM »

Quote

I am going to get the complete answers to these any many other questions. I will write everyday, not just when everything is settled. Things change day by day, and this is my thirty days in the Boston seminary, so I will write without the full picture. If during these thirty days, I find out that Ambrose is a total fraud, then that is what I will write. If I find that there is some truth to his story, then that is what I will write. If I have no conclusion at the end of my thirty days, then I will write this too.

Your last paragraph is unwarranted and shows a bias against the seminary in Kentucky. Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?

This isn't about personalities, teams, grudges, or whether or not we like Martin Dougherty, Pablo, or Fr. Pfeiffer. It is not open for debate whether or not we all have a bias against Kentucky. Maybe a few members have gotten fed up, fueled by the repeated violations of their trust. I can't really blame them. But the vast majority of those posting in the Ambrose thread are motivated by love of the Faith, love of Tradition/the Resistance, love of the souls involved, and love of the truth.

We should not have our motives questioned. All we want is the truth. We'd be as quick to accept a genuine Bishop Ambrose as a fake one. But we're objective enough to acknowledge the reality when the is-it-real meter's needle buries itself firmly in the "Fake" range.

I think you have the wrong mindset. You act like we're a bunch of Packers fans and the Boston, KY seminary is the Chicago bears. We're on "the rival team" rooting against you. Or we're a bunch of Android users and the Boston seminary is Apple headquarters. You get the idea.

Even those who ARE objectively "biased" against Kentucky today were likely among Fr. Pfeiffers greatest supporters last year and the year before. So it's really beside the point. WHY has there been this change? That is the real question.

Did they wake up one day and say, "I'm sick of fighting for the Faith; I think I'll attack what I formerly supported"? or, "I've fought on the side of God long enough; let's try out the devil's camp for a while"? Ridiculous.

This is about trust, validity, the Faith, and certainty of the sacraments.

Matthew · « **Reply #78 on:** October 30, 2015, 11:00:24 AM »

Seriously, the more I think about this, the more messed up it appears.

Martin, your WHOLE TACTIC here is fundamentally flawed. You honestly believe (because of a delusion) that you are going to solve the problems in Boston, KY for the whole world to see, by (being the first one to?) keep a level head, a sanguine attitude/outlook, objectivity, politeness, and niceness.

You don't say it outright, but you certainly suggest it.

Just like you firmly suggested that YOU were going to get to the bottom of this by resorting to FIRST HAND INVESTIGATION as if everything posted here so far was so much rumor and hearsay. BZZZ! Wrong. If anything, your testimony is worth LESS than the other posters recent testimonies, because your family is a die-hard supporter of Boston, which (I am told) makes large donations to the seminary, up to the present day. Yourself included.

And as I pointed out, your little experiment is fundamentally flawed because everyone there KNOWS they're on display. They're going to put on a good show for 30 days and then it's back to dysfunctional "normal". But nevertheless, even now things are far from perfect. I heard there won't be Mass there for All Saints Day (Sunday). Also, you haven't mentioned squat about classes. Doesn't a seminary teach the students anything?

Anyhow, your premise seems to be that "the main problem is a lot of emotions running high and people saying things they shouldn't in the heat of anger." Too bad that isn't the case.

Yeah right! If only it were that simple. I wish I could believe that. It must be nice to live in such a comfortable delusion.

No, Martin, the problems are much deeper and much more objective than that. You say you're charitable, objective, dispassionate, polite? Welcome to the club! Nice to have you here. But we've been objective, motivated by charity, polite, etc. all along.

What did you think the Ambrose thread was, an emotional lynch mob? BZZZ! Wrong. I am offended for everyone in that thread. We are working together to try to uncover the truth about this mysterious man with an outlandish story. He has given us SO LITTLE to go on, in terms of references to prove who he really is.

You don't have a monopoly on "wanting to get to the truth", objectivity, charity, or any of those virtues. I'm not merely defending myself here, but mostly the others in the thread. I know many of them personally.

The burden is on Boston, KY to prove Ambrose is legit. No other resistance priest outside of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko believes him. Why is that? Only they are smart enough? Or are they the only ones duped by the con man?

Oh, and I should point out that nowhere else in the Resistance is a
"keen need for a bishop" felt, outside Boston, KY. Resistant groups all over the world have their Confirmation needs met, and other seminaries have their ordination needs met, by the two resistant bishops, +Williamson and +Faure.

This basically proves that they are neither unwilling to help, nor are they difficult to get along with. They go to all the "groups" in the resistance, wherever there is a need. Why is Fr. Pfeiffer (and Fr. Hewko) alone have a problem with these 2 bishops? Might it have to do with Fr. Pfeiffer's animus dominandi (desire to dominate)? Maybe that's why he is understanding to Pablo -- he has the same tendencies to "lord it over" his subjects.

StarOfTheNorth · « **Reply #79 on:** October 30, 2015, 12:17:21 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The burden is on Boston, KY to prove Ambrose is legit. No other resistance priest outside of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko believes him. Why is that? Only they are smart enough? Or are they the only ones duped by the con man?

So if Ambrose is legit we are accepting the AUTHORITY of Frs. Pfeiffer and Co.?

No matter if it was the SSPX , Frs. Pfeiffer and Co. , Manuel, etc. who chooses to give the whole world a "new" Trad Bishop, by what authority???

Only the Church has the authority.

As faithful, we can investigate and find out if he is valid, and if not (as all the investigations have proven), we are obliged to stay away untill there has been an official investigation that tells us by the authority of the Catholic Church that he is valid and legit and licit.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #80 on:** October 30, 2015, 12:41:19 PM »

Since when do priests confer validity on bishops?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #81 on:** October 30, 2015, 12:57:14 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?

It doesn't matter if he's a bishop or not. It has been proven that he's given 2 different answers as to who ordained him. He either lied to the Ukrainian Catholics in Toronto or he lied to Boston, KY or he lied both times. A, B, or C ... he's already been proven as a fraud.

And then there are the other problems with OLMC which have nothing to do with Ambrose. Bp Williamson had sufficient reason to avoid Boston, KY long before Ambrose appeared on the scene.

wallflower · « **Reply #82 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:24:23 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Will you be willing to drop those biases if it turns out that Ambrose is a Bishop, or will you continue to hold those biases?

It doesn't matter if he's a bishop or not. It has been proven that he's given 2 different answers as to who ordained him. He either lied to the Ukrainian Catholics in Toronto or he lied to Boston, KY or he lied both times. A, B, or C ... he's already been proven as a fraud.

And then there are the other problems with OLMC which have nothing to do with Ambrose. Bp Williamson had sufficient reason to avoid Boston, KY long before Ambrose appeared on the scene.

I agree. We have barely followed the Ambrose story because we had concerns even before it so how it turns out doesn't really affect us except perhaps to confirm previous suspicions.

JPaul · « **Reply #83 on:** October 30, 2015, 02:28:46 PM »

Common practice and common sense, if there is one photo or docuмent that is false by such means as forgery, Photoshop, etc. The all related docuмents fall under the suspicion generated by the fraud until proven absolutely genuine.

One falsification among them raises the bar or standard by which all others are required to pass over.

Such a validation cannot be made by an interested party, that simply will not stand.

That goes for the priests, the assistant, and the assistant's assistant, (the cook).

Croixalist · « **Reply #84 on:** October 30, 2015, 04:32:09 PM »

On his eighth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...

Eight minds a-melting
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!

Montfort · « **Reply #85 on:** October 30, 2015, 05:13:47 PM »

One issue I see with this 30 days blog and with OLMC defenders in general is it seems like they're quick to pass over serious issues (priestly integrity, laity harassment, and suspicious clerical history for example) and over hype other good things done at the seminary (manual labor and personal piety for example.)
Any good done there is great to see but that does not wash away or cancel out the dangers at OLMC. It's good to see that the members on this forum are not so easily fooled.
It's silly for some at OLMC to label any questions or concerns as "attacks from the devil." As if the Church Herself never had questions or concerns about anything that could possibly be harmful to the Church Herself or Her members...and in fact did attack if it was proven to be harmful. Attacking isn't always an evil action.

JPaul · « **Reply #86 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:25:00 PM »

Should have been called "Thirty Days in the Boston Kitchen"

Many more culinary diversions than useful facts. A perfect vehicle by which to gauge the traditional public's reactions and manipulate the narrative and perceptions.

Honestly, this whole effort seems to be a very transparent damage control PR campaign, and as a Catholic lady reminded me today, this blog and its contents could not be going forward without Father Pfeiffer's knowledge, oversight, and consent.

Cui Bono folks...............................

Hot Dogs and beans tomorrow?..................................... :scratchchin:

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #87 on:** October 30, 2015, 09:21:45 PM »

Ambrose certainly will be teaching the cook all his favorite recipes handed down from his babushka. :chef:

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #88 on:** October 30, 2015, 09:23:26 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Should have been called "Thirty Days in the Boston Kitchen"

Many more culinary diversions than useful facts. A perfect vehicle by which to gauge the traditional public's reactions and manipulate the narrative and perceptions.

Honestly, this whole effort seems to be a very transparent damage control PR campaign, and as a Catholic lady reminded me today, this blog and its contents could not be going forward without Father Pfeiffer's knowledge, oversight, and consent.:

This blog is entirely without Father's oversight and consent. He does know about it, though.

I write what I see. Since most of my first week has been spent in the kitchen, that is what I have written about.

I hope to wrote more soon, and more than just about food. There are plenty of things going on here at the seminary. It is a busy place.

Motorede · « **Reply #89 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:32:05 PM »

Where will the seminarians and the cook be going to Mass this coming Sunday with the two padres out of town?