.
And HERE is an example of a missed opportunity, when the image(s) at the above link was/were not saved as a file on CI.
.
Because now, the page is "Not Found [CFN #0005]" -- IOW it got scrubbed. Can't have incriminating evidence drifting around the Internet!
.
However, the same suspicious photo showing the two figures obviously pasted in using editing software is still online: (see below -- uploaded for safekeeping on CI).
.
(In the quote below, the clear implication is that members of CI are "socialist Catholics")
.
When questioned, the hunkered-down self-appointed/anonymous-like Catacombs defender of Pfeifferville, just yesterday, has said:

...the socialist Catholics and EM [EM is code for Ecclesia Militans, a Catacombs member] alleges a narration Bishop Ambrose is not a catholic, not a catholic priest, not a catholic bishop against evidence Bishop Ambrose is. [evidence Ambrose is ... what?]

Why their obstinance? [sic.]  Human respect, they feel they need to keep his brand?  I have no idea and I do not care.  The fact is there is a Catholic baptismal certificate of Bishop Ambrose they refuse to put in their narration, there is the fact of evidence already provided that Bishop Ambrose is a bi-ritual Ukraine rite and roman rite priest they refuse to put in their narration, there is amble evidence BY BEING A BAPTIZED CATHOLIC Bishop Ambrose is a Catholic Bishop they refuse to put in their narration.    ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/    The problem is their and others obstinance like the problem of those others CAUSING crises where there is none is at their feet not ours. [emphasis added]

[Note: obstinance (not obstinacy), amble evidence (not ample evidence) : all it takes is Catholic Baptism - then Orthodox consecration makes one a Catholic bishop! -- the "evidence" of his bi-ritual status consists of a collection of photographs where he is seen participating in both rites, that is, presuming the Photos are not Photoshop.]

Second is the teaching of the Church already explained in prior posts  (please see them)  in short, that if a baptized catholic receives priesthood or consecration from an orthodox doesn't mean he is an orthodox.  Contrarily, there are some people who refuse to submit to the Church teaching on this matter that once you are baptized you are always catholic even if you are in hell.  The orthodox perform the Catholic rite in their schismatic environment so it would be valid but not legal. [But if they were validly baptized why would they not be validly Catholic too, such that all Orthodox are actually validly Catholic?]  As if a protestant performs the catholic rite of baptism the recipient receives a catholic baptism not a protestant one. [And if a Protestant is ordained an Orthodox priest he would become a Catholic priest due to his having had a valid Baptism, no?]  There are a lot of nuances, issues and a whole host of complexities.  I get it. The point is these detractors throw out the baby with the bath water the Church teaches to placate their own thinking.  Which is wrong and is always wrong.  For these socialist Catholics they just goes around in circles like a broken wind up toy saying the same thing without any mature development in a conversation.  [quod demonstrandum]

The main issue is if Bishop Ambrose is truly a baptized catholic, which he is, everything changes in their fixed narration.  This is what they arrogantly do not want to see nor change their selective thinking.  Agenda?   You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

Bottom line.  Bishop Ambrose is a valid catholic, valid catholic priest, and a valid bishop.

The socialist left will need to see who they are fighting like Paul persecuting the Church until he was knocked off his horse by Christ to become St. Paul and serve the Church.
.
.
.
I have to wonder, when I see sentences like this one: "The problem is their and others obstinance like the problem of those others CAUSING crises where there is none is at their feet not ours,"* whether the author was simply too upset at the time of typing it, or, if there isn't some deeper cause going on. Like, perhaps the author is French by native tongue and English is a Second Learned Language? What else could explain this "point" that the Church teaches "baby with the bath water?" -- which, he says is always wrong.
.
It's curious he would make the comparison to Saul, who, when knocked off his horse had not been baptized, for his name was changed to Paul at his baptism; to say that when the already-baptized Ambrose-Moran was knocked off HIS horse (after defecting to Orthodoxy he returned to the Catholic Church, allegedly) neither did he change his name, and his baptism had preceded both his defection AND his Orthodox episcopal consecration.
.
If their argument holds true, then anyone who is baptized Catholic who then later defects to Orthodoxy and is ordained and consecrated as an Orthodox priest and bishop, thereby automatically has become a Catholic priest and a Catholic bishop as a consequence of his Catholic Baptism!
.
I must admit, this is the first time I have ever heard this explained. And I find it quite alarming. You?
.
.
On a personal note, this principle that our Baptism is what makes us equivalent to any priest, bishop or pope, is a principle that is being promoted in Newchurch through the (French/Jansenist/Gallican) CCC which attempts to make amends with Protestants by making Baptism into a super-sacrament which overshadows and effectively obviates all the other sacraments -- since Protestants have a valid Baptism (presuming it was done properly, etc.) whereas the Protestants don't have the other 6 sacraments, which the Newchurch has pegged as an obstacle to Christian unity, etc.
.
*For the sake of clarity, that sentence would be rendered properly thus: The problem is, their and others' obstinacy is at their feet not ours, like the problem of those others causing a crisis where otherwise none exists. The French are seen making this kind of translation into English a lot, so that's why I suspect this author is French.

.
The two figures are identified as Bishop Ambrose-Moran (left) and Cardinal Slipyj (right), but close scrutiny of the shadowing reveals that the sun was in two different positions, one for each figure. Also, Moran is posing as standing still, while Sipyj is posing as if taking a step, probably going down stairs. -- I realize this photo has already been analyzed previously here on CI;  I am referring to it now because it is found on the website the Pfeifferites have apparently set up for the purpose of validating the Catholicity of Ambrose-Moran, to whom they like to refer as "Bishop Ambrose" and thus drop the "Moran" for whatever reason, perhaps because someone teased them for having associated with a moron? Don't know.

I would like to add one small comment --

That house where Moran was photographed is QUITE the upscale house. That's not your typical middle class home. If that home were in Texas (where real estate is relatively cheap), it would probably be $450,000 or more.

I can tell just by looking at the background, the granite countertops, the size of the kitchen, etc.

I guess it's no surprise -- isn't that what a con artist does? They push their story(ies) on various victims -- particularly the rich -- and thus make a living?

I think it is wonderful that a world-renowned neuropsychologist, Jesuit spy from the Ukranian royal house, deployed by Pope JPII behind the Iron Curtain, pentagon insider and aide to President Nixon, wearing a ring originally worn by Pope Pius XII to signify his succession of Cardinal Slypyj (and who introduced himself to us at 66.6 yrs-old), has decided to join the Resistance!

What's the problem?