Author Topic: More info about Mr Bishop Ambrose Moran (Read 94490 times)

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #150 on:** October 10, 2015, 02:28:25 PM »

In this sermon Fr Pfeiffer makes the following statements:

13:59 [Ambrose]"says Mass in other places for our people."

He also says "Archbishop Ambrose" numerous times. The takeaway is he says that they haven't finished their investigation but Fr Pfeiffer sees no problem with allowing someone who hasn't conclusively proven to Fr Pfeiffer that he is a Catholic bishop and priest. He says that if Ambrose is a charlatan God will judge him.

Thus far Ambrose has said Mass in Kentucky, Colorado, and New Mexico for Resistance groups despite his admission that he has not determined with certainty that Ambrose is a Catholic bishop/priest.

While this may not affect you directly Hollingsworth it will certainly affect your family and friends who are receiving their sacraments from this SSPX-MC group.

JPaul · « **Reply #151 on:** October 10, 2015, 02:37:50 PM »

Real MC,

Quote

The takeaway is he says that they haven't finished their investigation but Fr Pfeiffer sees no problem with allowing someone who hasn't conclusively proven to Fr Pfeiffer that he is a Catholic bishop and priest. He says that if Ambrose is a charlatan God will judge him.

And how will God judge the man [Fr. Pfeiffer -mod.]who exposed the souls under his care to him [Ambrose Moran -mod.]?

What a glib attitude these men are displaying throughout this affair.

JPaul · « **Reply #152 on:** October 10, 2015, 02:42:58 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

TheRealMcCoy:
Quote
Because he's (Bp."Ambrose?) already administering sacraments at the established Resistance mass locations in the US (New Mexico and Colorado). Post Falls isn't too far from there.

Really? I guess I'm out of the loop on that one. Are you saying that right now "Bp. Ambrose" has administered sacraments at a number of the SSPX-MC sites in the U.S. serviced normally by Fr. Pfeiffer and Hewko? If so, this comes as news to me. I did not realize that he might be doing this, when it seemed to be made clear by Fr. Hewko that they were only looking at the man, and had made no decisions regarding him. So, are you saying that "Ambrose" is now integrated into the "Resistance" circuit of chapels? Please tell us more.

News to me as well. These men [those in Boston, KY -mod.] seem to be telling us selected parts of what is happening.

Matthew · « **Reply #153 on:** October 10, 2015, 04:13:20 PM »

Quote from: Colombiere

Matthew said, "Reading Colombiere's "charitable spontaneous biography" of Ambrose brought this to my mind."
Your warning here is true. People fill in blanks and explain away contradictions very easily if they want something to be true or are trying to be charitable. It's easy to do. You can see it done in modern times with fake visionaries and imposters like Anna Anderson "Anastasia". The charitable side might be correct about Bishop(?) Ambrose but it's flimsy right now. Our priest used to say using one's intuition about something might be right but it was right "at the wrong time" or in other words right without hard facts, which is not the way to make good judgements. Praying for discernment and detachment is the best way to go. Then get the paperwork and witnesses.

But I must point out: this Ambrose Moran case isn't matter for charity or "benefit of the doubt".

You don't give a man who claims to be a priest or bishop the "benefit of the doubt", not for reasons of charity or any other reason.

The Catholic Church is quite clear on this matter. The Sacraments are not a joke. Adoring bread during a simulated "mass" is not a joke. The faithful going to confession with mortal sins and not getting them absolved is also not a joke!

We can be charitable, yes -- we shouldn't run him out of town on a rail, lynch him, etc. We can treat him with respect and politeness, smile, say please and thank you. But we shouldn't let him say Mass for us in the meantime, or "assume he's telling the truth, because that's the only way to be charitable. Otherwise we're assuming he's lying which is rashly judging our fellow man of sin."

No, it doesn't work that way. A priest should be happy to provide evidence of his ordination. A priest is a public man, and ordination must be a public act. The Catholic Church doesn't expect Catholics to endure doubts or doubtful sacraments, or else we're all in-the-wrong as Traditional Catholics! If doubts are fine, or even commanded by the Church, then we all better head back to our local parishes. Remember, our right to doubt-free sacraments is one of the core beliefs and justifications of the Traditional movement.

Are we "uncharitable" or "mean" for ASSUMING that our own particular local parish is A) doubtfully ordained B) has invalid Masses C) would cost us our Faith? How many of us have actually attended Mass at our local parish?

If we go down that road of "nitheness" and "chawity", it could lead to all kinds of nonsense. And I'm not being ridiculous here, either: countless Indult and Novus Ordo attendees have gone down that PRECISE road.

Matthew · « **Reply #154 on:** October 10, 2015, 04:25:37 PM »

By the way, Fr. Pfeiffer's implication that everyone scrutinizing his seminary and/or Ambrose Moran must be some kind of "hater" rings very hollow.

"Yes, I know Father. No one actually cares about souls -- except you and your supporters, that is. Everyone else is rotten. No one would actually have enough zeal for souls and for the truth to want to avoid having a charlatan deceive swaths of the Resistance and cause countless evils from simulated masses and fake sacraments."

Just like the neo-SSPX back in 2012 accused the Resistance of being a bunch of sedevacantists who decided to call it quits on trying to stay in the state of grace and have a spiritual life.

We all know the latter is false; and I'm here to tell you the former is false as well!

It's so easy to dismiss your critics as being "out to get you", "they just hate me", etc.

The FACTS don't line up with this sweeping implication/accusation. I stand here as a former Fr. Pfeiffer supporter. I invited Fr. Pfeiffer here several times. He came here twice, but cancelled a third time. Fr. Hewko came twice. I spoke in glowing terms of Father to a bunch of people at my SSPX chapel, trying to get them to come to his Masses here. As recently as May 2015 I was having one of his other priests, Fr. Voigt, come here on a monthly basis.

Does this sound like someone who just hates Fr. Pfeiffer?

I don't want to see him destroy the Resistance, no. This Ambrose guy is bad news. Just like Pablo is bad news. And Father doesn't seem to see it! What can I do? Just stay silent out of loyalty for the good Father has done in the past? I don't think I am supposed to do that, otherwise I would.

PG · « **Reply #155 on:** October 10, 2015, 05:11:53 PM »

Here is fr. hewko talking about ambrose and pablo from a sermon posted 2 days ago. It is short, but is worth hearing. It is about 3 to 4 minutes long. Start listening at minute 10:00. Fr. Hewko may be following these threads, which would be good. He acknowledges that people think pablo is a satanist/witch. Fr. Hewko says it is not true, but if it were true, he would use his knuckles against such a person.

Also, apparently there are many more photographs that will be posted if they conclude ambrose is the real deal, which it appears they still do. But, we still have not seen the ordination papers/pictures.

And, the line they are now using about ambose's schismatic episode is that bishop gregory lied and made up all that orthodox sounding stuff about ambrose. But, we have that written sermon about ambose from that cafe site that sounded real schismatic. So, I don't believe the bishop gregory lie bit. Gregory has made his name from being brutally honest about fraud in orthodoxy.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #156 on:** October 10, 2015, 05:35:38 PM »

At about 30 minutes he assures us that the faith is real (after telling us how he has secret connections in the Vatican and the pentagon and Nixon)...because he has "experienced the Holy Ghost"...

He isn't really a very good con-man. He's actually very disingenuous when he speaks.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #157 on:** October 10, 2015, 05:51:35 PM »

PG, I listened to this sermon. Fr. H talks about fighting the fight of ABL and Tradition, "which all bishops should be doing" Does he infer that Bps. Williamson and Faure are not fighting the fight as ABL would have fought it? I think he may be saying just that. Why don't these SSPX-MC priests turn the matter over to the two bishops? Let them put "Bp Ambrose" before +Williamson and+Faure. Let those two adjudicate it. Or, at the very least, ask for their comments on the man.
I think it is clear that the two Boston, KY priests are looking to run an end around the two bishops. They know that +W and +F look disapprovingly upon their activities, so they're scrambling around for a bishop who can help implement Fr. P's cultish program.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #158 on:** October 10, 2015, 05:56:30 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Also, apparently there are many more photographs that will be posted if they conclude ambrose is the real deal, which it appears they still do. But, we still have not seen the ordination papers/pictures.

I listened to this last night, but there being many more photographs wasn't exactly my take-away ... perhaps I missed something. I know he said they had lots of photos, but did he mention that some have been shared and there are plenty more to come?

Quote

And, the line they are now using about ambose's schismatic episode is that bishop gregory lied and made up all that orthodox sounding stuff about ambrose. But, we have that written sermon about ambose from that cafe site that sounded real schismatic. So, I don't believe the bishop gregory lie bit. Gregory has made his name from being brutally honest about fraud in orthodoxy.

I don't see how the whole episode could be explained away as an untruth. There are a series of photos of Ambrose assisting with the elevation of a new bishop. In what manner could those be false?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #159 on:** October 10, 2015, 06:27:33 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

PG, I listened to this sermon. Fr. H talks about fighting the fight of ABL and Tradition, "which all bishops should be doing" Does he infer that Bps. Williamson and Faure are not fighting the fight as ABL would have fought it? I think he may be saying just that. Why don't these SSPX-MC priests turn the matter over to the two bishops? Let them put "Bp Ambrose" before +Williamson and+Faure. Let those two adjudicate it. Or, at the very least, ask for their comments on the man.
I think it is clear that the two Boston, KY priests are looking to run an end around the two bishops. They know that +W and +F look disapprovingly upon their activities, so they're scrambling around for a bishop who can help implement Fr. P's cultish program.

I don't think the two -- Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko -- are quite on the same page about this. In Father Pfeiffer's Sept 3rd sermon, he asks the rhetorical question "who will ordain our seminarians?" and without even mentioning Bps. Williamson or Faure, tosses out the idea that Bp Fellay may experience an extreme sequence of events leading to their welcoming him to Boston, KY for ordinations. The fact that he even mentions this as an issue reveals plenty about his relationship with the two bishops.

Meanwhile, Fr. Hewko still mentions Bp Williamson in his sermons -- first that Ambrose and he might be able to meet at some point and then last Sunday asking for prayers for many, including Bp Williamson.

JPaul · « **Reply #160 on:** October 10, 2015, 07:29:37 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: hollingsworth
PG, I listened to this sermon. Fr. H talks about fighting the fight of ABL and Tradition, "which all bishops should be doing" Does he infer that Bps. Williamson and Faure are not fighting the fight as ABL would have fought it? I think he may be saying just that. Why don't these SSPX-MC priests turn the matter over to the two bishops? Let them put "Bp Ambrose" before +Williamson and+Faure. Let those two adjudicate it. Or, at the very least, ask for their comments on the man.
I think it is clear that the two Boston, KY priests are looking to run an end around the two bishops. They know that +W and +F look disapprovingly upon their activities, so they're scrambling around for a bishop who can help implement Fr. P's cultish program.

I don't think the two -- Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko -- are quite on the same page about this. In Father Pfeiffer's Sept 3rd sermon, he asks the rhetorical question "who will ordain our seminarians?" and without even mentioning Bps. Williamson or Faure, tosses out the idea that Bp Fellay may experience an extreme sequence of events leading to their welcoming him to Boston, KY for ordinations. The fact that he even mentions this as an issue reveals plenty about his relationship with the two bishops.

Meanwhile, Fr. Hewko still mentions Bp Williamson in his sermons -- first that Ambrose and he might be able to meet at some point and then last Sunday asking for prayers for many, including Bp Williamson.

I don't know I think it is a matter of not seeming too hostile to the Bishop as that would automatically alienate a lot of people. I agree that this Bishop business is a poke in Bishop Williamson's eye.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #161 on:** October 11, 2015, 06:50:55 AM »

I had to post this in three pieces so I just gave it it's own thread, but we can discuss it here or there...

It's basically a response from the Orthodox Gregory that was sent and has a copy of the con-letter and some pictures and comments.

The letter gives some interesting insight to who he might or might not be because we are told of parent's first names and godparents etc.

One interesting statement he makes is that he was baptized an Orthodox...

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/An-orthodox-bishop-speaks

Centroamerica · « **Reply #162 on:** October 11, 2015, 12:34:31 PM »

Quote from: obscurus

Absolutely great work, Centroamerica.

Thanks. I think that this is enough to question why he is offering Mass in Catholic circles, and the names and info provided could probably be verified. The big thing to me was that he claimed to be born and baptized Orthodox. If this is true then that will require a "second look" by Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer. Especially this business of allowing him to offer Mass for the faithful. We now have a picture image that appears authentic sent from an orthodox bishop, and this can be verified, of this Ambrose signing that he does not accept Rome as the valid Church, well, now he should have to clarify this picture and accusation by the Orthodox bishop.

PG · « **Reply #163 on:** October 11, 2015, 06:51:32 PM »

centro - he claimed in your links to have been an old calendarist(that means schismatic) all his life. And, the ecuмenism with rome by the orthodox these days is their big heresy. The article means that he says he is and was always a schismatic. Athos is the orthodox monastic mountain, and it is all schismatic.

But, we know that he has been working in catholic circles all his life via his pics. So, it really just means that he is a through and through liar.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #164 on:** October 11, 2015, 06:57:41 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

centro - he claimed in your links to have been an old calendarist(that means schismatic) all his life. And, the ecuмenism with rome by the orthodox these days is their big heresy. The article means that he says he is and was always a schismatic. Athos is the orthodox monastic mountain, and it is all schismatic.

But, we know that he has been working in catholic circles all his life via his pics. So, it really just means that he is a through and through liar.

That's what I got out of everything also, and also I think that this lends to the idea that that is not him in those pictures. He claimed to have been a schismatic all his life born and baptized.