Author Topic: More info about Mr Bishop Ambrose Moran (Read 84520 times)

MaterDominici · « **Reply #285 on:** October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 PM »

For those thinking that Ambrose might be a valid Orthodox priest, this succession list for Bishop Michael Kirkland seems to suggest that Nicholas Ilnyckyj wasn't consecrated until 1978 -- four years after the date on Ambrose's ordination certificate.

http://www.ourchurch.com/member/u/uaoc-oca-sec/index.php?p=1_4_History

Quote

In 1961, at the death of Metropolitan JOSEPH, Archbishop PETER was elected Moderator of the Standing Episcopal Conference. Metropolitan PETER II (Zhurawetzky) and Archbishop JOACHIM (Souris) consecrated Archbishop NIKOLAUS (Ilnyckyj) in 1978 for the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the United States.

This site says the same:
http://www.apostle1.com/aoc-history1.htm

Quote

In 1978, Archbishop +Peter (Zhurawetsky) assisted by Greek Archbishop +Joachim (Souris) and Greek Bishop +Lavrentios (Maniatakis) consecrated Metropolitan +Nicholas (Llnyckyj) for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #286 on:** October 29, 2015, 05:28:31 AM »

Mater, I suspect that those who are accepting Ambrose are doing so either at face value (no pun intended because it's not his real face, is it) or simply because he enjoys the endorsement of Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko. This second factor is so inverted--since when do bishops derive their authority from priests?

Colombiere · « **Reply #287 on:** October 29, 2015, 12:47:18 PM »

It's odd that the certificate stationery is the same from 1974 to 1986 from Catholic to Orthodox from New York to Rome from priest ordination to Bishop consecration. Bishop Kirkland's Orthodox certificate in 1986 and Moran's ordination and his Cardinal Slipyj consecration certificate in 1976 are all printed from the same source. Note that the twelfth star down on the right hand border on all the docuмents have the same stamp imperfection.

Matthew · « **Reply #288 on:** October 29, 2015, 01:15:40 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Mater, I suspect that those who are accepting Ambrose are doing so either at face value (no pun intended because it's not his real face, is it) or simply because he enjoys the endorsement of Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko. This second factor is so inverted--since when do bishops derive their authority from priests?

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

You have to understand the pathology (that's what it is) of this cult mentality.

Equally bizarre is a man who won't attend a Mass until Fr. Pfeiffer approves it. And if Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't give his approval, it doesn't matter HOW Catholic it is, how much the priest in question preaches against Vatican II and modernism, the man won't go to his Mass, purely because Fr. Pfeiffer didn't give his approval.

If someone can be that irrational and brainwashed like a typical cult member, then they can accept a con man like Ambrose as a bishop. It doesn't matter what Fr. Pfeiffer says. What he says is the truth. It doesn't matter what that pesky "reality" tries to interject. Just ignore him -- he's a "hater" and we're persecuted, because we're the true remnant, yadda yadda.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #289 on:** October 29, 2015, 01:15:52 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

For those thinking that Ambrose might be a valid Orthodox priest, this succession list for Bishop Michael Kirkland seems to suggest that Nicholas Ilnyckyj wasn't consecrated until 1978 -- four years after the date on Ambrose's ordination certificate.

http://www.ourchurch.com/member/u/uaoc-oca-sec/index.php?p=1_4_History

Quote
In 1961, at the death of Metropolitan JOSEPH, Archbishop PETER was elected Moderator of the Standing Episcopal Conference. Metropolitan PETER II (Zhurawetzky) and Archbishop JOACHIM (Souris) consecrated Archbishop NIKOLAUS (Ilnyckyj) in 1978 for the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the United States.

This site says the same:
http://www.apostle1.com/aoc-history1.htm

Quote
In 1978, Archbishop +Peter (Zhurawetsky) assisted by Greek Archbishop +Joachim (Souris) and Greek Bishop +Lavrentios (Maniatakis) consecrated Metropolitan +Nicholas (Llnyckyj) for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

It's almost entirely irrelevant whether or not he is a valid Orthodox priest. The important thing to remember is that he is NOT a Catholic priest. Even on the off-chance that he actually was ordained validly by a valid Orthodox bishop would you receive sacraments from him? He's not Catholic!

Nevertheless, since this guy has inserted himself into the traditional Catholic milieu, it would be interesting to find out if he is a valid Orthodox priest. Given that we have caught Moran in many lies already, why would we believe that his ordination was authentic based solely on information that he produces? I would need to hear something from Bishop Ilnyckyj (or his successors) before I would believe it. But then I know nothing about the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of America and Europe. Do they have valid orders? If they don't have valid orders, case closed. But if they do have valid orders, we would still have to contact them and ask them if they will confirm Moran's claims. You know, the claims he made to the GOCA in 2007 which he now denies and instead claims that he was ordained by +Slipyj. So now we are reduced to trying to verify a claim which Moran himself denies. OK.

Matthew · « **Reply #290 on:** October 29, 2015, 01:22:55 PM »

Long story short, if he can't provide any LIVING REFERENCES that we can contact -- and who will speak to us -- how are we to believe his story?

I'm sure there are MANY Trads who would love to believe his story.

Help us out here. No, we're not so crazy we are willing to deceive ourselves. But short of that, I'd love to believe him.

If I applied for a job and gave NO references, or gave a few references to people from 20 years ago who either wouldn't answer the phone or were dead, would you hire me?

It's not too much to ask -- really it isn't.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #291 on:** October 29, 2015, 01:27:27 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

If I applied for a job and gave NO references, or gave a few references to people from 20 years ago who either wouldn't answer the phone or were dead, would you hire me?

Oh, I don't know. If you provided a picture of yourself typing away on a keyboard, I would, based on that alone, certainly be convinced that you're a programmer.

Matthew · « **Reply #292 on:** October 29, 2015, 01:40:02 PM »

We need to really think deeply about this, and it will all become clear.

Would Fr. Zendejas (for example -- feel free to replace his name with any other valid Trad priest) EVER be in this position, even if the bishop who ordained him (Bp. De Galarreta) passed away tomorrow and then 20 years passed?

No, there would still be tons of places he worked for years, plenty of witnesses to his ordination, plenty more who saw it in the Verbum that year (1989), etc.

So even being old is no excuse for "all my witnesses are dead, and hello, of course the bishop who consecrated/ordained me is dead."

Well there should be priests/bishops who can vouch for your ordination/consecration.

And let's not forget the most basic thing: All we need is ONE docuмent to prove ordination and ONE docuмent to prove consecration. Everything else is fluff, or actually CHAFF (material ejected from fighter jets to confuse heat-seeking missiles, so they chase after and destroy a piece of the chaff instead of the plane itself) Most grains of chaff are wasted. But that one blessed, blessed piece does the job and diverts the missile, and all the expense of the whole "load" of chaff is more than covered, since the jet was saved from destruction.

Note that ALL liars, deceivers, and even those who just have something to hide, engage in this. If you don't throw around a bunch of talk, people will focus on the lie, which is A) uncomfortable and B) dangerous. That's why liars are very talkative.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't ALL voices from the past been emphatically negative about Ambrose Moran and his "story"? Yes, a single layman (who never saw his ordination or an ordination certificate) vouching for him as a priest wouldn't be much proof -- but do we even have that?

The only people we've been able to contact have been firmly in the negative about Ambrose.

Matthew · « **Reply #293 on:** October 29, 2015, 01:49:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

If I applied for a job and gave NO references, or gave a few references to people from 20 years ago who either wouldn't answer the phone or were dead, would you hire me?

Oh, I don't know. If you provided a picture of yourself typing away on a keyboard, I would, based on that alone, certainly be convinced that you're a programmer.

And see, I wrote world-famous games!

See the author on the bottom of the box?

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #294 on:** October 29, 2015, 03:33:38 PM »

I wanted to keep this a secret but....

StarOfTheNorth · « **Reply #295 on:** October 29, 2015, 04:36:05 PM »

Keep a secret...... :confused1: something new we don't already know? Nothing will surprise me now.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #296 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:59:12 PM »

Quote

My friend contacted retired Bishop Basil Losten (Eparchy of Stamford, CT) and Bishop Losten has confirmed, that to his knowledge, this man is not a priest nor is he a bishop.

having lived in NY and having attended one of the ukranian parishes on and off for over 10 years, if Bishop Losten does not believe him to be a priest. the orthodox and catholic churches are very friendly. the diocese that ambrose claims to have been in is under CT. then he is not a priest.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #297 on:** October 31, 2015, 01:38:46 AM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

Quote
My friend contacted retired Bishop Basil Losten (Eparchy of Stamford, CT) and Bishop Losten has confirmed, that to his knowledge, this man is not a priest nor is he a bishop.

having lived in NY and having attended one of the ukranian parishes on and off for over 10 years, if Bishop Losten does not believe him to be a priest. the orthodox and catholic churches are very friendly. the diocese that ambrose claims to have been in is under CT. then he is not a priest.

This is what bishops are for -- but here is this layman pretending to be a bishop, when it's a bishop's place to announce that he's not a bishop - or a priest!

How many of the faithful have received so-called holy communion from him, and will Frs. P & H step in to put this scandal out of its misery?

.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #298 on:** October 31, 2015, 08:30:27 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

This is what bishops are for -- but here is this layman pretending to be a bishop, when it's a bishop's place to announce that he's not a bishop - or a priest!

How many of the faithful have received so-called holy communion from him, and will Frs. P & H step in to put this scandal out of its misery?.

Exactly. As I have posted in several threads--it's an inversion of ecclesiastical order to have priests declaring the validity of a bishop.

Even if he was valid I wouldn't have anything to do with him or OLMC--he's Orthodox. End of sentence. Case closed.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #299 on:** October 31, 2015, 10:50:52 AM »

TRM:

Quote

Even if he was valid I wouldn't have anything to do with him or OLMC--he's Orthodox. End of sentence. Case closed.

No, the case is not closed. This is the thread that never dies. I am beginning to suspect that Matthew likes the view numbers (approaching 50,000). It makes people believe, perhaps, that there are more people following the topics on Cathinfo than actually are, that the Cathinfo population is much larger than it actually is. I suspect Matthew will take umbrage at my remarks. I hope he does.