Author Topic: additional research into the ambrose case  (Read 2163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sea leopard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Reputation: +116/-0
  • Gender: Male
additional research into the ambrose case
« on: November 08, 2015, 11:17:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ms Suzanne Romano has done additional research into the Ambrose case and posted on the other forum.  It supports what has been posted on CI.
    Quote:

    We are left with quite a few unresolved questions, a massive fabrication, and proof only of Ambrose's long term association with schismatics.

    Consider that Ambrose mounted a Catholic pulpit, turned his back on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, and lied with impunity. Then he desecrated the altar by impersonating a Roman Catholic Prelate and simulating Catholic ritual worship. He was given permission to do this LONG AFTER Fr. Pfeiffer became aware of his association with schismatics.

    Subsequently scads of information tending to prove that Ambrose is a pathological liar surfaced. Fr. Pfeiffer did the same thing: He invited him to come to Kentucky, allowed him to simulate the Catholic Mass on his altars, and gave him access to his seminarians. This is beyond egregious and sacrilegious. It is so against the laws of reason that one must question Fr. Pfeiffer's sanity.

    I'll have you know that on September 28th, I was able to score Ambrose's phone number. I sent him a text asking his permission to call him. I had in mind to ask him some questions. I received a one word answer in reply: NO. Thus I left him alone.

    On October 19th, out of the clear blue sky, I received a text from Ambrose. Our dialogue follows. Take note that he texted me AFTER I put up my announcement that I left OLMC, and AFTER I blasted OLMC on ABL 2.0. Thus when he refers to my "prayers and support," he speaketh against the truth. My only prayer for him is that he get lost. Here is the dialogue with all spelling and punctuation errors included:
    ________________________________________________________________
    AMBROSE: Thank you for your prayers and support. Will speak with you soon in Kentucky. Investigation completed. Documents and photos authentic. I hope you are happy to know this.
    SUZANNE: Will you be making a public announcement soon?
    AMBROSE: Yes.
    SUZANNE: And does this mean you are moving to Kentucky, or will you do as previously indicated: come once per month?
    AMBROSE: ???
    SUZANNE: I don't understand your question marks. Let me rephrase. What is the character of your official affiliation with the organization in Kentucky?
    AMBROSE: None at this time. There are several traditionalist groups that are requesting my assistance.
    SUZANNE: Will you be saying Mass, and providing ordinations for minor orders and the priesthood for the Kentucky seminary?
    AMBROSE: It would appear so.
    SUZANNE: When will you come snd give tonsure?
    AMBROSE: Up to Fr. Pfeiffer as Rector to request such on his schedule.
    SUZANNE: You said you would speak with me soon in Kentucky. When are you coming?
    AMBROSE: Date not set yet . probably soon.
    SUZANNE: Ok thanks.
    AMBROSE: Will let you know as soon as a date is set.
    SUZANNE: K
    SUZANNE: Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?
    Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure will have nothing to do with you. Fr. Chazal in the Philippines, who is very close to the bishops and priests of the so-called resistance, released a conference last weekend wherein he proclaimed that the priests of the resistance reject you in toto. He said that if Pfeiffer absorbs you, he will die.
    The catholic people of all trad camps reject you. Certainly you are aware of this.
    Fr. Pfeiffer's good name and reputation are not recoverable. He destroyed his credibility over the course of the past three years because of the scandals associated with Pablo. Just as the news of Ambrose hit the internet, Fr. Voigt published his own little tell all. And that's not all. An ex-seminarian is dishing the dirt like it was taco night at the Con Tiki.
    They lost all but one of their seminarians from last year.
    Your absorption into the Ky apostolate is going to put the finishing touches on the implosion-in-progress.
    You are an expert in psychology. Why would you want to involve yourself in a disaster that was a disaster even before you showed up, and that will go to thermite levels at your first ordination ceremony?
    Secondly why does Pfeiffer so love his own death and destruction?
    I'm in all sincerity.
    AMBROSE: Several groups have asked my assistance. Many do not accept SSPX or the bishops who come from that source.
    I am in no wat attached to Kentucky. I have no jurisdiction over Fr. Feiffer or Paul the Mexican. Many people do not trust Fr. Chezal!,
    I have been asked to confirm people who had been confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre....who doubted his validity and that of the whole SSPX.
    SUZANNE: I'm not even sure that God has jurisdiction over Pfeiffer and his Mexican!!! ☺️
    AMBROSE: I have not requested any contact with these bishops!
    SUZANNE: You are speaking then about certain strains of the sedevacantsists. Correct?
    AMBROSE: I have been helping traditional Catholics for over 40 years...I have jurisdiction. No other trade. [traditional] Bishops or priests have this. I am doing what Patriarch Josef Cardinal Slipyj told me to do. I am not involved with any other jurisdiction.
    Non SSPX resistance priests.
    The documents and photos on the internet are only the tip of the iceburg.
    SUZANNE: How are you going to present your evidence to the public?
    Also will you submit to interrogatories?
    You have an uphill climb with an almost perfectly vertical slope when it comes to making people believe you.
    They will not give you a hearing unless you submit to a public grilling.
    People are gravely offended by the pablo the Amateur Exorcist production videos you participated in.
    What you may not realize is that you are now inextricably linked to pablo the Amateur Exorcist in men's minds. This is not a good thing for any human being, let alone a prelate.
    By your association with Pfeiffer/Pablo you make yourself a laughing stock, and this is exactly what has happened.
    Your reputation is already shot.
    AMBROSE: That is fine. My priests have nothing to do with anything SSPX or Abp. Lefebvre. This is s different reality.
    None of my people behave this way. Gossip is a sin. We do not tolerate this behavior. I have been helping traditionalists for over forty years. We are happy and have the valid sacraments and grace. We focus on our prayer life and not on demonic distractions and factions.
    SUZANNE: But Ky is SSPX and ABL.
    You work for Ky, therefore you are involved with SSPX and all the nastiness that comes with it.
    Ky means endless gossip, endless strife, endless rumors. It is an internet apostolate. They film everything short of using the bathroom. Whatever you do for them will be posted online and then subjected to outraged back lashings.
    Do you have any idea what is being said about Ky all over the world? And this is independent of what you add in to the cauldron.
    Ky is right now being burned in effigy on the internet by outraged Catholics who have just had it with phony clerics and their betrayals, beginning with Fellay and co., and including Williamson/visionary and Pfeiffer/Pablo.
    Have you seen this gem about Pablo which made the rounds two years ago and is still getting play?
    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the ... ernandez...
    What happens when some stupid layman with a mental problem starts making believe that he has the spiritual power and authority to perform exorcisms on his own?
    Add in all the tell all's about Pablo from seminarians, priests, and laity and you've got quite an acrid porridge.
    Perhaps you have been told that all these internet fires are "normal," or that this is just lies and persecutions of a godly apostolate.
    But ask yourself this question. There are numerous resistance priests throughout the world and they are never caught up in scandals. They work quietly and diligently. Their reputations are solid and they have a good name. They are taken seriously and they live peaceful lives. They associate with each other and they have the support of Bishop Faure. Why is Ky on the outs with Faure? Is it because they are doing something right or is it because they have gone off the rails?
    Absolutely everything I have said is verifiable by taking one trip to the cathinfo forum.Go to cathinfo.com and look at all the threads posted in the resistance section about Ky, Pablo, Pfeiffer, and Ambrose Moran. Then go to the anonymous section and look for the same.
    Read everything there.

    Read it. Study it. Contemplate it. Because wherever you go as an employee of Joseph Pfeiffer, you will have to answer for it.
    It is absolutely impossible that you are a true Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church because no true man of God would ever associate with, work for, or promote the fallen, compromised, controversial, corrupt, and torn apostolate of Joseph Pfeiffer.
    Everyone in the traditional world knows this.
    No one in the traditional could ever bring themselves to take "Pablo's bishop" seriously.
    That is a fact.

    AMBROSE: Thank you for your information.
    My dear friend ..do not focus in these distractions. Focus on the inner life of prayer with Jesus and Our Blessed Mother.
    SUZANNE: Thank you for that counsel. I have chosen exactly this path. I have severed all ties with OLMC. My life and my soul are in the hands of Our Lady.
    My prayer for you is that you retreat and retrace your steps before both God and the devil make a quick work of you.

    AMBROSE: God bless you for your kindness. For forty years I have been working for Church unity in the Catholic faith while protecting the Byzantine rite from heresy and also helping the Latin rite traditionalists who we ten independent of SSPX.
    Fr. Anthony Ward and his priests know who I am. He was the first SSPX superior in the US.
    _____________________________________________________________
    My conversation with Ambrose took place on October 19th. He showed up in Kentucky on or about October 27th. Kind of interesting, to say the least.
    Posted Nov 6, 2015

    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #1 on: November 08, 2015, 11:39:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This discourse is a good representation of how Catholics should NOT behave, in person or through the written word. One must be able to control one's emotions, and retain sound use of logic and reason, which this letter lacks.

    It is too hot-tempered, and accusatory, while also posing questions that she answers before Ambrose has a chance to answer them. If you ask a question, let the other person answer it.


    Offline cebu

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +193/-49
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #2 on: November 09, 2015, 01:05:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.

    Offline sea leopard

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 108
    • Reputation: +116/-0
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #3 on: November 09, 2015, 01:12:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This discourse is a good representation of how Catholics should NOT behave, in person or through the written word. One must be able to control one's emotions, and retain sound use of logic and reason, which this letter lacks.

    It is too hot-tempered, and accusatory, while also posing questions that she answers before Ambrose has a chance to answer them. If you ask a question, let the other person answer it.

    .............................................................

    Seems after midnite  your time, boston time, shouldn't you be sleeping, resting for early Mass and making of breakfast for seminarians, etc.

    You say Catholics ie only two folks on text msg, I know Suzanne is Catholic (Roman),
    Is it an indisputable fact ambrose is ?

    What specifically is your opinion of her behavior, define it and show by her text.

    Obviously it is an unedited replay of the memory from her cellphone.

    Rather than accept more info on ambrose you choose to (somebody pick a good word equal to his intellect and insert)

    I think "the fat lady has not yet sung" and there will be more revelations about the man who would be "bishop"

    Good nite   01:11 Mon

    Offline sea leopard

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 108
    • Reputation: +116/-0
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #4 on: November 09, 2015, 01:16:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is why I have 2 firewalls, one hardware and one software plus no windows, linux.  SAFE!!


    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #5 on: November 09, 2015, 05:54:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #6 on: November 09, 2015, 06:19:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.


    Mr. Rogers and the jew-tube taught you well how to be an emasculated ?#$$¥

    It is apparent to me that your presence here is a not so effective damage control agenda cooked up by the small minds of Pfeifferville.

    I hope Matthew disabuses us of your presence soon.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4571
    • Reputation: +3917/-380
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #7 on: November 09, 2015, 06:35:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.


    These are TEXT MESSAGES.  How on earth does one prevent someone from answering a question in a TEXT?  Do you cut someone off mid-text?  Do you interrupt their text?  

    If an answer to a question isn't made, it is not the questioner that doesn't "let" the individual reply.  It is the individual who chooses not to answer the question.  Perhaps that is why the questioner "lets loose".

    In any event, I have no dog in this fight.  I just thought the complaint that a person didn't allow another to answer in a text message exchange was so utterly ridiculous, I had to comment.


    Offline ultrarigorist

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +801/-5
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #8 on: November 09, 2015, 07:07:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.


    The text correspondent detailed what she was doing in a followup post. It was nowhere near "hysterics", but was a calculated method to draw the fraud Ambrose out. She was successful as could be expected, because he defaulted to a script after realizing that HE was the one being played this time. Too bad none of those closer to the "investigations" possess even 2% of discernment this lady has.

    And while we're at it, Pablo is far worse than hardheaded. He is foul of thought, word, and deed. And just like Ambrose, he is a pretender. Why don't you develop that subject a bit?

    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #9 on: November 09, 2015, 07:13:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ultrarigorist
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.


    The text correspondent detailed what she was doing in a followup post. It was nowhere near "hysterics", but was a calculated method to draw the fraud Ambrose out. She was successful as could be expected, because he defaulted to a script after realizing that HE was the one being played this time. Too bad none of those closer to the "investigations" possess even 2% of discernment this lady has.

    And while we're at it, Pablo is far worse than hardheaded. He is foul of thought, word, and deed. And just like Ambrose, he is a pretender. Why don't you develop that subject a bit?


    She was not successful in her attempts to unmask him. She only made herself look bad.

    I see no evidence of a script. To which script do you refer?

    I see no evidence that he "realized" he was the one being played.

    No. This is a bad dialogue, any way you slice it. That is, of course, my opinion, based on my limited experience and education in journalism (four semesters). It is not a good interview, that much is certain.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2557
    • Reputation: +1545/-428
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #10 on: November 09, 2015, 07:15:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: ultrarigorist
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.


    The text correspondent detailed what she was doing in a followup post. It was nowhere near "hysterics", but was a calculated method to draw the fraud Ambrose out. She was successful as could be expected, because he defaulted to a script after realizing that HE was the one being played this time. Too bad none of those closer to the "investigations" possess even 2% of discernment this lady has.

    And while we're at it, Pablo is far worse than hardheaded. He is foul of thought, word, and deed. And just like Ambrose, he is a pretender. Why don't you develop that subject a bit?


    She was not successful in her attempts to unmask him. She only made herself look bad.

    I see no evidence of a script. To which script do you refer?

    I see no evidence that he "realized" he was the one being played.

    No. This is a bad dialogue, any way you slice it. That is, of course, my opinion, based on my limited experience and education in journalism (four semesters). It is not a good interview, that much is certain.



    Manuel is right, up to this point nobody has been able to unmask him or prove anything to the contrary of what he says.  The right thing to do is to accept him as a valid Catholic bishop and submit to his authority and beg him to consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer a bishop....give me a break.  What world is Manuel living in...
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #11 on: November 09, 2015, 07:19:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.


    Mr. Rogers and the jew-tube taught you well how to be an emasculated ?#$$¥

    It is apparent to me that your presence here is a not so effective damage control agenda cooked up by the small minds of Pfeifferville.

    I hope Matthew disabuses us of your presence soon.


    My presence here is not authorized nor is it "cooked up" by anyone here in Boston. What I write, I do of my own free will. Your assumption is incorrect.

    What have I done that warrants removal? What are my transgressions? How have I broken the rules of this forum?

    Offline ultrarigorist

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +801/-5
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #12 on: November 09, 2015, 07:26:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This script (condensed for the slow of wit who so far just don't get it):


    AMBROSE: Several groups have asked my assistance. Many do not accept SSPX or the bishops who come from that source.
    I am in no wat attached to Kentucky. I have no jurisdiction over Fr. Feiffer or Paul the Mexican. Many people do not trust Fr. Chezal!,
    I have been asked to confirm people who had been confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre....who doubted his validity and that of the whole SSPX.
    AMBROSE: I have been helping traditional Catholics for over 40 years...I have jurisdiction. No other trade. [traditional] Bishops or priests have this. I am doing what Patriarch Josef Cardinal Slipyj told me to do. I am not involved with any other jurisdiction.
    Non SSPX resistance priests.
    The documents and photos on the internet are only the tip of the iceburg.
    AMBROSE: That is fine. My priests have nothing to do with anything SSPX or Abp. Lefebvre. This is s different reality.
    None of my people behave this way. Gossip is a sin. We do not tolerate this behavior. I have been helping traditionalists for over forty years. We are happy and have the valid sacraments and grace. We focus on our prayer life and not on demonic distractions and factions.
    AMBROSE: Thank you for your information.
    My dear friend ..do not focus in these distractions. Focus on the inner life of prayer with Jesus and Our Blessed Mother.
    AMBROSE: God bless you for your kindness. For forty years I have been working for Church unity in the Catholic faith while protecting the Byzantine rite from heresy and also helping the Latin rite traditionalists who we ten independent of SSPX.


    Too bad none of those he ministered to lo these past 40 years, have any recollection...

    Offline Ecclesiae

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 97
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #13 on: November 09, 2015, 07:43:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • AMBROSE:I have been asked to confirm people who had been confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre....who doubted his validity and that of the whole SSPX.

    It seems that he had worked for sedisvacant groups...!
    Even for this they need to apologize!
    Didn´t fr Hewko preached how evil Sedisvacantims is?>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uop6MqCVE8U#t=502


    Offline ManuelChavez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +152/-395
    • Gender: Male
    additional research into the ambrose case
    « Reply #14 on: November 09, 2015, 07:47:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: ultrarigorist
    Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: cebu
    How dare you say that. Say all that to Paul Hernandez if you dare. Watch out that he doesn't cast a spell or curse on you.


    Pablo Has his own problems, and he can be hard headed as well. His hard headedness is not the issue in this particular case. Also, he hasn't cast any spells or curses.

    I am talking about the attitude and nature of the exchange presented here. She unfortunately comes across in a brash and brazen manner. She does not allow Ambrose to answer a question before tossing out the answer and more accusations.

    Ambrose could be a con man and a liar. I am not disputing that his story has holes which should not be ignored.

    However, in this exchange, Ambrose maintains his cool, and avoids any belligerence in the tone of his writing. She started out well enough, but then her messages take on the form of a rant, almost to the point of hysterics.

    It is right after she asked the following questions:

    "Are you aware of the fact that you have been rejected as a fraud by priests, bishops, and laity, and that this rejection is pretty much universal? Have you seen the internet?"

    Rather than letting and answer the questions, she lets loose with a bunch of accusations against Ambrose,  the seminary, Pablo, Father Pfeiffer, etc.

    It falls apart from there. Ambrose's answers are smooth, polished and levelheaded. It is clear that she wasn't looking for answers, but she was issuing a condemnation of Ambrose, Father Pfeiffer, the seminary and Pablo.

    She wasted her opportunity to get any real information. What we are left with is the writing of a very frustrated lady, who cannot keep her cool, and the responses of a cool, collected man who may or may not be a fraud. Its a no-win scenario.


    The text correspondent detailed what she was doing in a followup post. It was nowhere near "hysterics", but was a calculated method to draw the fraud Ambrose out. She was successful as could be expected, because he defaulted to a script after realizing that HE was the one being played this time. Too bad none of those closer to the "investigations" possess even 2% of discernment this lady has.

    And while we're at it, Pablo is far worse than hardheaded. He is foul of thought, word, and deed. And just like Ambrose, he is a pretender. Why don't you develop that subject a bit?


    She was not successful in her attempts to unmask him. She only made herself look bad.

    I see no evidence of a script. To which script do you refer?

    I see no evidence that he "realized" he was the one being played.

    No. This is a bad dialogue, any way you slice it. That is, of course, my opinion, based on my limited experience and education in journalism (four semesters). It is not a good interview, that much is certain.



    Manuel is right, up to this point nobody has been able to unmask him or prove anything to the contrary of what he says.  The right thing to do is to accept him as a valid Catholic bishop and submit to his authority and beg him to consecrate Fr. Pfeiffer a bishop....give me a break.  What world is Manuel living in...


    I did not say that no one has been unable to unmask him. I wrote specifically about this dialogue. I hope this clarifies what I have said.

    As for unmasking, the doctored photograph and the uncertainty of the Slipjy connection speak for themselves. It casts suspicion on the rest of the material, and more research is needed to either confirm or eliminate these doubts.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16