CathInfo.com

Quote from: + PG +

Materdominici - I did email the fr. william bill moran a photograph of the newspaper article image after I spoke with him on the phone.  He did not respond.  When I was on the phone with him about it I was asking him if he knew fr. john ropke(that is all we had at the time), and his temperament changed and he just starting denying me without even thinking about it.  This was 40 years ago, that does take some time to recollect, but he just basically hung up.  I am suspicious of the guy.  And, I do think there is a connection.  But, as new information began to come out, I felt it became irrelevant.  Because, his lies, forged docuмents, doctored images are more than sufficient to reject this guy.  

The citi ministries bill moran revelation I think came before ambrose' website really started turning out all we needed.  So, for me, it became a dead issue, especially after citiminiestries manager cut me off.  I emailed them all of this, and they no longer respond.  

I have spoken with the sspv about it, and they may be able to get bp. kelly to identify him.  But, his health is not good.  So that may not happen.  I would like to know, but at this point we have enough.  And, I want to personally move on.  I have a lot of things I have/want to do, and this ambrose has taken me away from it(for good reason).  But, I think it is over, and I am glad.

PG, I completely agree with all you said here, but just want to add two points of consideration:

1) Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko are leaning on Ambrose's Orthodox past as being a "lie" despite the fact that such a claim made no logical sense from the beginning. Therefore, I'm worried that they might disregard any statements of his as being part of this "lie".

2) I wonder if Bill Moran would be responsive if he considers that he could be caught up in something illegal by Ambrose using his likeness to commit fraud.

Quote from: + PG +

What is interesting about that +gregory response is that it appears he no longer considers ambrose a bishop(despite the "papers").  And, I wonder if the title "fr." in orthodoxy always means priest like it does in catholicism.  Because, he calls him "fr." because he was tonsured a monk.  And, ambrose was tonsured before he became a priest. So, I wonder if he doubts his ordination as it appears he does his consecration.  I am filling in blanks and assuming.  But, that is how it appears.

That's a good possibility.  I admit that this was the first thing that entered my mind after reading the response of Gregory.  I dismissed it because it doesn't matter one way or the other.  I figured that it was probably as to say that Ambrose was not an archbishop because he has no territory/diocese, and even if because he thought that Ambrose wasn't a bishop, he wasn't going off of conclusive proof so it wouldn't really help.

The reason the question of two Bishops was so important was because the Apostolic rules were about consecrating new Bishops. Two Bishops could consecrate a new Bishop in times of emergency. But a single Bishop could receive in a Bishop properly consecrated who had fallen to heresy. Gregory never believed Ambrose’s consecration was real; thus, he needed to be reconsecrated as a Bishop. But Abp Makarios had no intention of doing such a thing, and at this point probably regrets picking up the telephone.