The con-artist laymen, Mr. William Edward Moran, weaves a few more lies as he preaches to the birds.
So Mr. Moran, if it is highly doubtful that Abp. Lefebvre is a priest much less a bishop as you say, why have you been hanging out with two ex-Society priests for the past four years? How do you keep your lies straight Mr. Moran?
The Mexican Exorcist from Arizona who, ‘No hablo español’, has reached his decision.
The layman who styles himself ‘archbishop’ has excommunicated another person* in the video comments for doubting the conclusion of this video! You can’t make this insanity up!
*Sadly Mr. William Edward Moran removed this comment, “You are certainly excommunicated” as his reply to the comment from the user Byron Roy and we at Call Me Jorge... didn’t get a screenshot of it.
January 16 2019
Dear Archbishop Ambrose,
Please
be Advised that to this date final sufficient verification required by
the Church to use your episcopal powers for our Seminary is not in our
hands. You have been asked and given ample time to provide the necessary
certificates with real clear authentication. You have not done so. We
did all we could on our part to facilitate your obtention of all
necessary proofs. Hence, We cannot proceed with any allowance of your
services in capacity of Bishop for Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Seminary.
Remember, Fr. Pfeiffer had this con-artist laymen, Mr. William Edward Moran: offer masses at his seminary; told pewsitters to attend Mr. Moran’s
masses; then said the seminary would not associate with Mr. Moran; while
he stashed Mr. Moran at one of his supporters homes; and had Mr. Moran conditionally ordain a Novus Ordo priest, Fr. Poisson.
The one thing that is consistent here is the sheer insanity of it all!
Every time Francis comes forward with a new prayer request disaster befalls the intentions. Most famously was the war in the Ukraine. Almost no one recalls Francis praying for the Ukraine because that was the same infamous day his two ‘peace doves’ were attacked. The result of Francis’ prayers for Ukraine was that the president decided to dissolve the parliament and thing hurriedly got worse.
Francis has been asked about the Vatican’s diplomacy concerning Venezuela in two interviews. In the first both sides criticized the Vatican’s meddling. Francis explained that everyone has to come out a winner except for the Vatican in Venezuela. What!? How about acting like a pope and condemning the un-Catholic behaviors that are happening for starters? In the second interview Francis says that the reason for failure is that the parties involved can’t agree on anything. Isn’t this the same chaotic way that Francis runs his bureaucracy? Hey Francis, what happened to that ‘unity in diversity’ bunk? It doesn’t work in the real world does it?
Here’s what the situation looks like: the dictator of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, says that the bishops don’t want to dialogue; Francis tells the bishops he has their back; the opposition is upset with the Vatican for dillydallying around; behind close doors Francis attempts to help Venezuela with refinancing their debts; and very quietly, Francis says he is concerned about the situation. And it goes on-and-on-and-on around in a merry-go-round of insanity spiraling ever so more out of control with each revolution. It is becoming increasingly apparent to the world and to Venezuelans that Francis has no clue about leadership and that he is not about to publicly castigate a fellow revolutionary.
“We know that our commander (Chavez) has gone to heaven and is face to face with Christ. He must have made such an impression for a South American to be chosen Pope.”
“A new hand arrived and Christ said, ‘Well, the time for South America has come.’ At any moment now (Chavez) will call for a constituent assembly in Heaven to change the Church, so that the people, the true people of Christ will govern the world.”
The delusions of the Talmud - Mishnah Tractate Parah
Nine red heifers were offered from the time that they were commanded to fulfill this mitzvah until the time when the Temple was destroyed a second time. The first was brought by Moses, our teacher. The second was brought by Ezra. Seven others were offered until the destruction of the Second Temple. And the tenth will be brought by the King Moshiach; may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be G‑d’s will.
It's not just that the law of the Red Heifer cannot be logically explained; indeed, there exists an entire category of mitzvot, called chukim ("decrees"), whose defining criteria is that they transcend human understanding. What's unique about the Red Heifer is that while the other chukim at least follow an internal logic of their own, the laws of the Red Heifer are fraught with paradox and inconsistency. To cite but several of numerous examples:
a) The ashes of the Red Heifer remove the most severe of all impurities; yet those involved in its preparation become ritually impure themselves.
b) The Red Heifer must be completely red (as few as two hairs of a different color disqualify it)a color which has connotations of sin and deficiency in Torah and Torah law; yet it must also be "perfect, without blemish."
c) The Torah commands that it be slaughtered outside the holy city of Jerusalem (in contrast with other korbanot, which must be slaughtered in the courtyard of the Holy Temple). On the other hand, it must be slaughtered within the sight of the Holy Temple and its blood is sprinkled "toward the Holy of Holies"; according to one opinion, it must be slaughtered by the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) himself, wearing the "white garments" reserved for the Yom Kippur service in the Holy of Holies.
d) The two components of the purifying mixture--ashes and spring water--represent two contradictory forces: fire, which represents the power of ascent, and water, which embodies the quality of "settling down" and saturation.
Thus the laws of the Red Heifer are introduced by the Torah with the words "This is the chok of the Torah", as if to say: this is the Torah's ultimate chok, the mitzvah that most vividly demonstrates to supra-rationality of its divine commandments.
“‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ ‘Obeying all the commandments, all of them…’ Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is like when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is cowardliness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope.”
The modernist, Rev. Antonio Spadaro, whom has interviewed Francis more than once and written a book, La mia porta è sempre aperta (My Door is always Open), about these conversations offers his insights in to who Francis is and what makes his pontificate. He singles out five characteristics of Francis’ reign and explains each of them. They are:
— A pontificate of discernment and «incomplete thought» — A pontificate of tension between spirit and institution — A pontificate of frontier and challenges — A pontificate for a Church, «field hospital» — A pontificate of geopolitical impact
What is interesting is here is a Jesuit, Spadaro (often referred to as a Jesuit’s Jesuit), justifying even excusing his fellow Jesuit’s un-Catholic behaviors and concluding that none of this is really planned. Do these revolutionaries really tell themselves the lie that they are on a mission from God as they destroy Catholic tradition? Or are these men so filled with hubris they no longer care about Our Lord nor fear Him? If Antonio Spadaro had wanted to be accurate he would have started the blog entry with this:
— A pontificate where the jaw is always in movement
...and proceeded from there. Alas, he did not.
The post is still an insightful one as the reader can see glimpses of the insanity of a modernist,
“If you say you are in communion with the Lord, then walk in the light. But no to double lives! Not that! That lie that we are so used to seeing and where we too sometimes fall (into temptation), don’t we? To say one thing and do another, right? It’s the never ending temptation. And we know where that lie comes from: in the Bible, Jesus calls the devil ‘the father of lies’, the liar. It’s for this reason that this grandfather says with infinite tenderness and meekness to the ‘adolescent’ Church: ‘Don’t be a liar! You are in communion with God, walk in the light. Do works of light, don’t say one thing and do another. No to double lives and all that.”
We are confused! Today, Francis said don’t lead double lives because they are built on lies. In Amoris Laetitia however, he says those in “irregular” situations (aka divorced and remarried, cohabiting, etc...) are no longer living in a state of mortal sin, receive sanctifying grace, and may remain in these “irregular” situations because to go back to their spouses might cause further sin! We fail to see any logic here. Is Francis insane?
‘LOL, The sheep will never catch on that us wolves are in charge!’
Below is Mr. William Edward Moran's or Mr. Ambrose W. Moran's or Mr. Ambrose E. Moran's or 'bishop' Mickey Mouse's or 'bishop' Moran's or 'bishop' Ambrose's video whichever one nomenclature prefers to call him by, we at Call Me Jorge... are simply confused which name is it?
