Question Directed to OLMC Supporters regarding the Receiving of the Sacraments from the Fake Resistance

In the conference linked below, Fr. Pfeiffer said that he invited Bishop Richard Williamson and the three other Fake Resistance bishops to come and conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson prior to asking Ambrose Moran.  In the sermon linked below, Fr. Pfeiffer said that Fr. Pancras Raja wrote a letter to Bishop Williamson dated May 28, 2019, to ask on behalf of OLMC for His Excellency to come and ordain Fr. Pfeiffer’s seminarians.  But wait a minute!  Is not Bishop Williamson the unofficial head of the Fake Resistance?  Has not Fr. Pfeiffer himself condemned the Fake Resistance?  Why, then, is Fr. Pfeiffer willing for his seminarians to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Fake Resistance bishop?  What kind of example is Fr. Pfeiffer setting for the True Resistance faithful and his own seminarians?  So my question is:

Why don’t you, OLMC supporters, ask Bishop Williamson, the other three Fake Resistance bishops, or even the Fake Resistance priests to come and administer the sacraments to you and your families?

Think about the benefits.  You will receive the Sacrament of Confirmation for your children without question of validity.  You will have Mass more frequently.  You will receive Our Lord more frequently.  As Fr. Pfeiffer is setting the example, why don’t you follow suit?

My friends, you are either for the True Resistance or not.  Unfortunately, this combined with other things has shown Fr. Pfeiffer to be NOT for the True Resistance.  Therefore, I urge you to please make the choice for the True Resistance and join the fight with True Resistance priests like Fr. David Hewko.



Question Directed to Fr. Pfeiffer and/or OLMC Supporters regarding the Validity of Ambrose Moran’s Episcopal Consecration

In the conference linked below, Fr. Pfeiffer said that he visited again the cathedral in Chicago in January 2019 where Ambrose Moran was allegedly consecrated a bishop in 1976 and spoke to the same Orthodox priest he spoke to in October 2015. This time Fr. Pfeiffer got the runaround which caused his certainty about the 1976 consecration to become a doubt. This doubt caused Fr. Pfeiffer to “can” Ambrose Moran.  Despite this, Fr. Pfeiffer still states that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop.  My question is:

Considering that Ambrose Moran’s alleged 1976 consecration is now doubtful in Fr. Pfeiffer’s mind and considering that Ambrose Moran’s alleged consecration by Cardinal Slipyj is even more doubtful in Fr. Pfeiffer’s mind, then what are the grounds for Fr. Pfeiffer still accepting Ambrose Moran as a valid bishop?

This is an important question because recently some of Fr. Pfeiffer’s faithful invited Ambrose Moran to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. See the link below the conference. They were obviously influenced by Fr. Pfeiffer’s insistence that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop.


Is Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer Still Part of the True Resistance?

Last month in this post I asked four questions of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer to which he answered (not directly to me) in a conference he gave on July 28 in St. Mary’s, Kansas.  Here are the four questions and the answers in my own words along with some commentary.

1) Why did Fr. Pfeiffer have Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained by Ambrose Moran if Fr. Pfeiffer believes that the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid?

Fr. Poisson was conditionally ordained by Ambrose Moran to put at ease the minds of the faithful.

First of all, a conditional ordination ought not to be done for the sake of the faithful.  It ought only to be done when there is positive doubt about the first ordination.  Otherwise, a sacrilege, objectively speaking, is committed.  Here are the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in a conference he gave in 1983 to the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (full text can be downloaded from this post; note that the “NB” and the words that follow in parentheses were added and hence are not the words of Archbishop Lefebvre):

Now Fr. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that he had no doubt about Fr. Poisson’s ordination administered by the Novus Ordo bishop and yet he proceeded to have Ambrose Moran conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson for the sake of the faithful.  Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer, objectively speaking, participated in an act of sacrilege.  Nevertheless, did Fr. Pfeiffer succeed in putting at ease the minds of the faithful?  No.  Fr. Pfeiffer admitted that this act backfired.  My question is, “How could Fr. Pfeiffer not think otherwise beforehand?”  He quietly brought back onto the scene a man who he disassociated from back in November 2015 because of the concerns of the faithful.  How then was this supposed to put at ease the minds of the faithful???

2) If Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop, and since he conditionally ordained Fr. Poisson, why is the argument now directed towards proving the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration?

Fr. Pfeiffer visited again the cathedral in Chicago in January 2019 where Ambrose Moran was allegedly consecrated a bishop  in 1976 and spoke to the same Orthodox priest he spoke to in October 2015.  This time Fr. Pfeiffer got the runaround which caused his certainty about the 1976 consecration to become a doubt.  This doubt caused Fr. Pfeiffer to “can” Ambrose Moran.

Despite this, Fr. Pfeiffer still states that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop.  My question is, “Considering that Ambrose Moran’s alleged 1976 consecration is now doubtful in Fr. Pfeiffer’s mind and considering that Ambrose Moran’s alleged consecration by Cardinal Slipyj is even more doubtful in Fr. Pfeiffer’s mind, then what are the grounds for Fr. Pfeiffer still accepting Ambrose Moran as a valid bishop?”

Note that at about 1:29:00 of the conference Fr. Pfeiffer admits that Ambrose Moran was consecrated (allegedly) in an “Orthodox” cathedral in 1976.  Yet all this time Fr. Pfeiffer has been saying that the principal consecrating bishop and the cathedral were both Catholic in 1976.  Hmm.

3) If Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop, what is the paperwork problem that now prevents Fr. Pfeiffer from using Ambrose Moran to ordain the OLMC seminarians?

See the answer to Question 2.

4) If there is a now a paperwork problem that prevents Fr. Pfeiffer from using Ambrose Moran to ordain the OLMC seminarians, why was this paperwork problem not a problem at the time that Fr. Pfeiffer used Ambrose Moran to conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson?

Fr. Pfeiffer was certain that Ambrose Moran was consecrated a bishop in 1976 based on his first visit to the cathedral in Chicago.

Now we come to the question asked in the title of this post, that is, is Fr. Pfeiffer still part of the True Resistance?  First, let us define the True Resistance.  The True Resistance is the Catholic response in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre to the errors promoted by the neo-SSPX.  More broadly speaking, the True Resistance is the adherence to Catholic Tradition and the countering in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre the errors of Vatican II and the erroneous responses to the crisis caused by the errors of Vatican II.  The Fake Resistance, unofficially led by Bishop Richard Williamson, can fall into either of these two definitions.  Second, let us list a few principles of the True Resistance that are in accord with the Catholic Faith and the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, but that Fr. Pfeiffer has violated:

  1. A sacrament that places an indelible mark on the soul ought not to be repeated unless there is a positive doubt about the validity of the first administration of that sacrament.
  2. A sacrament ought not to be allowed to be administered or be received without a moral certitude regarding the validity of that sacrament and that the one administering the sacrament is faithful to Catholic Tradition and the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, except in circumstances where the Catholic Church has allowed it otherwise (e.g., receiving the Sacrament of Penance by a heretical priest due to an emergency).
  3. One ought not to unite in worship in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a priest or bishop who holds to error or is silent on error (see In Defence of the Red Light Position,  which was approved by Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko at the time).
  4. One ought not to engage in tradecumenism (see a sermon on this topic here)
  5. When citing the Church’s canon law, one ought to first and foremost look towards citing the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Regarding the first point, we have already seen above how Fr. Pfeiffer violated this principle.

Regarding the second point, Fr. Pfeiffer admits in the conference that he asked Bishop Williamson (and the other False Resistance bishops) to come and administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders before approaching Ambrose Moran.  Then in having Ambrose Moran conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson, the validity of the sacrament is placed into question because Ambrose Moran was not ever consecrated by a Catholic bishop.  Furthermore, Ambrose Moran seems to have the implicit approval to say Mass at (at least) one chapel where Fr. Pfeiffer does (see the story here and note that Fr. Pfeiffer’s latest disassociation from Ambrose Moran was only in regards to his episcopal powers and not his priestly powers).  But remember that Ambrose Moran was not ever even ordained by a Catholic bishop.  Hence, even the validity of his Masses is placed into question.  To boot, we now have Ambrose Moran confirming Fr. Pfeiffer’s faithful with or without Fr. Pfeiffer’s approval (see here).  And these inroads of Ambrose Moran amongst Pfeiffer’s faithful are happening despite the fact that Ambrose Moran has publicly placed into doubt the validity of the episcopal consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre himself (which by the way demonstrates Ambrose Moran’s poor knowledge of Catholic sacramental theology)!  Incredible!  Where is Fr. Pfeiffer’s condemnation of Ambrose Moran by name as he has often done so in the past of others???

Regarding the third point, uniting in worship in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with one who holds to error would most likely happen if Bishop Williamson were to come and ordain the seminarians because the Sacrament of Holy Orders is usually conferred during Mass.  Nevertheless, in actuality, we have the case of Fr. Pancras Raja, who has been welcomed to be part of OLMC and celebrate Mass for nearly a year now despite the fact that he held (and perhaps still does) the position that one must attend, under pain of mortal sin, the Masses of the neo-SSPX when no Resistance Mass is available (hear here at 31:20 Fr. Pfeiffer’s weak defence when questioned regarding taking on Fr. Raja).

Regarding the fourth point, it is shown by what was said in the second and third points.  Understand that associating in the sacraments with the False Resistance and/or those who do not red light the Masses of the neo-SSPX after all that has happened since 2012 are variants of tradecumenism, a term originally coined for the neo-SSPX’s association with the Indult/Ecclesia Dei communities.

Regarding the fifth point, after Ambrose Moran declared that I excommunicated myself, Fr. Pfeiffer got his seminarians together and defended Ambrose Moran’s statement by referring, as did Ambrose Moran, to the “Apostolic Canons” which have not had canonical force since the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  Why was not the 1917 Code cited as Fr. Pfeiffer usually does?

There are others matters that Fr. Pfeiffer has contravened that simply deal with prudence and common sense.  For example, Fr. Pfeiffer has stated to several people that even if Ambrose Moran was found to have lied about some aspects of his past (e.g., whether he was truly sacramentally involved with schismatics, whether he was truly guilty of complaints raised to police about him, etc.), he would still use Ambrose Moran because he is a valid bishop.  Really?  Is this the type of person we want in the True Resistance?

Given all that I stated above, I can no longer accept Fr. Pfeiffer as being part of the True Resistance.  This would even be the case if he always acted in good faith because it would still demonstrate poor judgment over and over again on his part.  As such, I cannot place my soul or the souls of those I love into his hands.  The damage he has done to the True Resistance is significant by placing the good of his seminary and apostolate above it.  The motto I see now guiding Fr. Pfeiffer is “if you are a valid priest or bishop and you are willing to help me, I will take you”.  This is insufficient for a Catholic and a faithful follower of Archbishop Lefebvre to go by.  I ask you instead to please support the apostolate of Fr. David Hewko.  His sermons may be found here.  Leaving Fr. Pfeiffer was a blessing as it got him back on track the path of the True Resistance.  Nevertheless, please let us keep Fr. Pfeiffer and all priests in our prayers.  We know that it is only through Our Lady that this mess in the Church will finally be cleaned up.


Questions Directed to Fr. Pfeiffer and/or OLMC Supporters

For the background of the following questions, please refer to this thread on The Catacombs Forum.

1) Why did Fr. Pfeiffer have Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained by Ambrose Moran if Fr. Pfeiffer believes that the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid?
2) If Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop, and since he conditionally ordained Fr. Poisson, why is the argument now directed towards proving the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration?
3) If Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop, what is the paperwork problem that now prevents Fr. Pfeiffer from using Ambrose Moran to ordain the OLMC seminarians?
4) If there is a now a paperwork problem that prevents Fr. Pfeiffer from using Ambrose Moran to ordain the OLMC seminarians, why was this paperwork problem not a problem at the time that Fr. Pfeiffer used Ambrose Moran to conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson?


The ORCM Newsletters

Please someone find me William/Ambrose Moran mentioned even once in the ORCM Newsletters:

 

The Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement Newsletter

 

What about in The Athanasian:

 

Issues of The Athanasian

 

What about in Fr. Fenton’s audios:

 

Audio of Fr Fenton

 

If Ambrose Moran’s claim is true that he worked with the ORCM, he has to be mentioned at least once, especially if he was consecrated a bishop in 1976.

 

Ambrose Moran, we await evidence from the writings/words of Fr. Fenton that you truly worked with the ORCM.


Ambrose Moran and the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM)

Ambrose Moran has made the claim that he worked with the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM).  If that be the case, then I challenge Ambrose Moran to provide evidence of his name being mentioned in one of the ORCM’s own hard copy publications.  Surely, he must be mentioned in at least one of them if he indeed worked with them.  What say you, Ambrose Moran?


Mr. Pablo Hernandez and Ambrose Moran

In the video below, Ambrose Moran shows his ignorance of both sacramental theology and the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in doubting the episcopal consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre.  My question at this point is whether Mr. Pablo Hernandez, who has promoted this fraud and liar, will publicly apologize for such promotion and for the denigration of those who have opposed Ambrose Moran.  After all, Ambrose Moran has now publicly attacked the modern day St. Athanasius of the Catholic Resistance and the very priests that Mr. Hernandez works with.  What say you, Mr. Hernandez?

 


On the Official Statement of OLMC Seminary regarding Ambrose Moran

This following video contains the official and final statement of the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary in Boston, Kentucky regarding Ambrose Moran.

 

 

Screenshot:

 

 

In this post, I expressed great dissatisfaction with the first communication of Fr. Pfeiffer regarding his putting a stop to using Ambrose Moran’s episcopal services.  Since then, a new communication was posted on January 23, 2019 that included the first communication with additional material.  Let us more closely examine some parts of this new communication.

 

“After a long investigation, it is concluded that while the Archbishop is a valid Bishop….”

 

How did Fr. Pfeiffer come to this conclusion with certainty?  The truth is that, even if we grant that Ambrose Moran was consecrated by schismatic bishops, we cannot have a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop without the competent Church authorities thoroughly investigating his case.  See here and here for more information regarding this matter.  Ahh, but according to Fr. Pfeiffer, Ambrose Moran was consecrated a bishop in 1976 by Bishop Hryhorij, who was Catholic at the time, at the Holy Protection Cathedral.  There were even, again according to Fr. Pfeiffer, other Catholic bishops who acted as co-consecrators at the same ceremony.

 

“….there are nonetheless unexplained anomalies related to his case which have not been able to be verified as true since evidence points in multiple directions in these anomalies.  Ample time has been given to clear up these anomalies, but the results are inconclusive.  Proper sufficient ecclesiastical authentication is therefore lacking.  Hence, the Archbishop cannot be used in his episcopal powers for Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Seminary.”

 

Hold on.  Fr. Pfeiffer started off asserting that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop.  Then he proceeds with putting into question that which he had just asserted as true.  Well, is he a valid bishop or not?  If he is a valid bishop consecrated by Catholic bishops, then what’s the problem?  After all, it cannot be a show stopper that he is a liar because Fr. Pfeiffer, as attested by others, has stated that even if Ambrose Moran was found to have lied about being consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Slipyj, that would not stop him from using his ministerial services.  On the other hand, if he is not a valid bishop, then what are these anomalies that put into question his validity?  I think it is only fair that Fr. Pfeiffer brings forth these anomalies after spending so much time in sermons, conferences, and private discussions asserting that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop and even criticizing those who questioned this assertion.

 

The communication in the video then proceeds with reiterating the first communication followed by thanksgiving to those who have helped investigate the Ambrose Moran case and then making an apology.  I found the bolded word (emphasis mine) peculiar in the apology:

 

“As for myself, I am sorry for any of my failings in this matter as well. I do not wish to turn down the gifts of Our Lady or to move forward rashly, hence the slow movement forward in this case.”

 

Should that not read did?  I am fairly certain that the communication would have been proofread over and over again before publication.  That the disassociation from Ambrose Moran is final and no longer open for debate is stated in the communication in the video, but it was not stated in the same communication posted on The Catacombs Forum.  Hmm.  Strange.

 

After reading this final communication, the question is:

 

Is this communication sufficient to support again the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and Seminary for those who withdrew support?

 

I do not believe so.  Here are my reasons:

 

1.  I do not believe that this is a sincere retraction.  Up until a couple of weeks ago, Fr. Pfeiffer was moving in the direction to further use Ambrose Moran for his episcopal services.  I say “further” because remember that he used Ambrose Moran to conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson in July 2018.  Fr. Pfeiffer heated up his promotion and defence of Ambrose Moran over the last few months despite the fact that priests and faithful, including mission coordinators, were trying to convince him otherwise.  It was only when Fr. Hewko made his threat to leave OLMC did Fr. Pfeiffer stop.  Furthermore, the first communication, which was awful, was all that Fr. Pfeiffer was originally going to issue.  It was only after being pressed did he issue the second communication.

 

2.  The conditions that caused Fr. Pfeiffer to bring Ambrose Moran back from the dead have not gone away.  Remember that in November 2015 OLMC made a declaration that it would not associate with Ambrose Moran.  Many of us came back after leaving at that time on the trust and hope that Ambrose Moran was gone for good.  Fr. Pfeiffer broke our trust by, without prior announcement, having Ambrose Moran conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson.  Now, the same as in 2015, Fr. Pfeiffer needs a bishop for his apostolate and seminary.  The situation will only get more desperate from here forward.  All Fr. Hewko did was place a stopgap measure in the process.  Therefore, I don’t believe Ambrose Moran is gone for good.  And as the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

 

3.  Faced with the facts as was Mr. Gregory Taylor, who was commissioned by Fr. Pfeiffer himself to investigate the Ambrose Moran case, the only prudent outcome is to call Ambrose Moran what he is, a liar.  Instead, Fr. Pfeiffer uses weak terms like “inconclusive”.  The reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer should denounce Ambrose Moran for the liar he is and to reject his ministerial services even if it can be proven with a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop.  We do not need shady characters like Ambrose Moran in the Resistance.

 

4.  In addition to denouncing Ambrose Moran, there should be some form of reparation made on the part of OLMC.  First of all, to use Ambrose Moran for the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson is, objectively speaking, an act of sacrilege because there is not a moral certitude that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop.  And even if there was a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop, the same conditional ordination would still be morally reprehensible, if not also an act of sacrilege, because Ambrose Moran to this day refuses to publicly admit and repent of his public schismatic past.  Secondly, OLMC has done much damage to the unity of the Resistance with this Ambrose Moran affair (and for the second time).  Next to Bishop Williamson’s public statement about the moral acceptability of actively attending the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances, I would place the Ambrose Moran affair second, perhaps even a close second, in the detrimental effect it has had on the unity of the Resistance.  Thirdly, Fr. Pfeiffer should not state that “this disassociation is final and not open for debate” if by this he means that he will no longer discuss the reasons for the sudden disassociation.  After ramming Ambrose Moran down our throats, causing so much havoc, and criticizing those who provided opposition, elaborating on the “anomalies” seems to be a matter of justice.

 

Let us continue to keep watch and pray!