Author Topic: Thirty Days in the Boston Seminary (Read 94946 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #60 on:** October 29, 2015, 09:28:10 AM »

Absolutely ridiculous. Quote spock to us and post your homemade cinnamon bread and fertilize your b-shop story to us...nobody's buyin it. Mickey mouses.

Croixalist · « **Reply #61 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:35:41 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Absolutely ridiculous. Quote spock to us and post your homemade cinnamon bread and fertilize your b-shop story to us...nobody's buyin it. Mickey mouses.

B-shop? How dare you! The Archphotoshop commands much more respect...

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #62 on:** October 29, 2015, 02:51:57 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Absolutely ridiculous. Quote spock to us and post your homemade cinnamon bread and fertilize your b-shop story to us...nobody's buyin it. Mickey mouses.

I didn't fertilize anything, as I have no fertilizer.

I seek the truth in these matters. I am also cooking for everyone at the seminary. My blog is about my thirty days in the Boston seminary. This includes what I have done during these thirty days.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #63 on:** October 29, 2015, 06:01:23 PM »

I have a feeling 30 days isn't going to be enough for you. It seems journalism isn't your forte.

You've been there 3-4 "business" days. How many professors have taught classes those days? Is there an obvious schedule apart from meal times? Is Mr. Hernandez on the premises or is he gone since you're doing the cooking this month?

JPaul · « **Reply #64 on:** October 29, 2015, 06:11:42 PM »

It's a lovely day in the neighborhood.................................. :chef:

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #65 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:29:32 AM »

On your blog for Thursday October, 29 you say : "I see evidence that he was ordained as a priest. I want to see more evidence for his Episcopal consecration."

Can you give me the evidence that seems convincing to you that he was ordained a priest and by who? Was it Cardinal Slipyj, as he claimed in the sermon video or was it Nicholas Ilnyckyj? I know for a fact that he told Father Hewko that he was ordained by a bishop that was so humble that they called him "the janitor"! Isn't that funny, my priest friend who knew him back in the seventies said that when Bishop Kelly, who was with the SSPX at the time, investigated Moran, they traced his ordaining "bishop" to a janitor at a school in Long Island.

MC, are you after the truth or are you just obeying what the policy is right now in Boston?

There is so much evidence, that this man is a fraud, that it baffles the mind that anyone but a 5 year old would believe him.

I think it was P.T. Barnum who said that "there is a sucker born every minute, and two to take him". I contend that I am being extremely charitable by believing that this is true, I loath to think that the reason is something sinister.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #66 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:45:24 AM »

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?

Croixalist · « **Reply #67 on:** October 30, 2015, 02:21:02 AM »

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

Centroamerica · « **Reply #68 on:** October 30, 2015, 04:10:23 AM »

Pablo probably proof reads and edits the blog posts before giving the final ok to post.

Matthew · « **Reply #69 on:** October 30, 2015, 05:57:01 AM »

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 agree, and I will give this a seminarian, Thomistic twist:

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Your voice doesn't carry the thunder or authority of the Voice in the Burning Bush, so don't expect us to treat it with that much reverence or awe. Just saying something does NOT make it so, nor does it make it accepted by everyone.

Do you think this is a game?

There's a pile of evidence 10 feet tall against Ambrose's credibility. Frankly, you have your work cut out for you. And if you call this an attempt to refute all that well-docuмented evidence -- then I'm here to tell you, you've utterly failed.

You have a basement filled with 7 feet of water, and so far you've done the equivalent of clear your throat. The basement's still wet, Martin... In other words, you haven't done jack squat.

You're trying to clean the Augean stables, only you are no Hercules, and there is no convenient river running nearby.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #70 on:** October 30, 2015, 06:17:14 AM »

At the 5 minute mark, on the video below, is where Moran says that he was ordained by Cardinal Slipyj:

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #71 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:02:16 AM »

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.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #72 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:14:25 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Pablo probably proof reads and edits the blog posts before giving the final ok to post.

I have yet to see any definitive proof that Pablo knows how to read, let alone proofread...

No, he does not proofread or edit my material.

If you have any questions or concerns, please ask, rather than creating false notions which could spiral into more character assassination.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #73 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:22:10 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.

It's pointless. He says he has seen the "evidence", but talks in circles when asked about what this alleged evidence is. Then he tries to spin by acting as he is "open-minded" and "analytical" and will weigh everything out for himself. This while ignoring that there are real questions that should be answered and asked before this character is even around making impressions on the seminarians. Meanwhile, behind the scenes everything is already probably in the works about who will be ordained, consecrated, confirmations etc..or at least the simulations of such.

Let's be more coherent. The bafoonery behind ignoring the issues behooves me.

1.) Where did Ambrose attend seminary and what years? Does he have any contacts from there? Anybody who can affirm this?

2.) What year was he ordained to the priesthood? In what rite? Which diocese and church? Who was the bishop?

3.) When was he consecrated a bishop, year? What diocese did this take place? What church? What bishop?

Until you can at least even coherently put together a detailed summary of this information and make it public, you should just not post because it just makes you look more and more ridiculous and may jeopardize and future attempt at a vocation you might have for instance if you came out of that mess and went to a place to get real priestly training like in the seminary in France with Bishop Faure.

If I were you, I would think about this.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #74 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:52:02 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

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.

It's pointless. He says he has seen the "evidence", but talks in circles when asked about what this alleged evidence is. Then he tries to spin by acting as he is "open-minded" and "analytical" and will weigh everything out for himself. This while ignoring that there are real questions that should be answered and asked before this character is even around making impressions on the seminarians. Meanwhile, behind the scenes everything is already probably in the works about who will be ordained, consecrated, confirmations etc..or at least the simulations of such.

Let's be more coherent. The bafoonery behind ignoring the issues behooves me.

1.) Where did Ambrose attend seminary and what years? Does he have any contacts from there? Anybody who can affirm this?

2.) What year was he ordained to the priesthood? In what rite? Which diocese and church? Who was the bishop?

3.) When was he consecrated a bishop, year? What diocese did this take place? What church? What bishop?

Until you can at least even coherently put together a detailed summary of this information and make it public, you should just not post because it just makes you look more and more ridiculous and may jeopardize and future attempt at a vocation you might have for instance if you came out of that mess and went to a place to get real priestly training like in the seminary in France with Bishop Faure.

If I were you, I would think about this.

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?