Author Topic: Is Ambrose Moran really a Catholic Bishop? (Read 5509 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2015, 04:12:06 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

The lack of author name I suspect was an oversight. Matthew saw it shared on Facebook and posted it here.

However, the lack of a link I suspect was intentional. I know that he doesn't generally link to EM.com as it's a source of red-light-ism and occasional Pfeifferism (describing Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon slandering Fr. Zendejas as "brilliant and efficacious"). I hope that time will show that Mr. La Rosa has abandoned the latter.

Okay. Thank you for a very good explanation, MD.

Why does the world have to be so complicated? We should all be on the same side. The Church has enough outside enemies without us squabbling over details.

Getting this from FB and being pressed for time, PLUS thinking his readership would be able to figure it out -- of course they did, right away, but I didn't read the second post like I normally do before I started asking questions this time.

There's another thread with a CI member asking if Boston KY should be avoided (as in "red-lighted") for any reasons, and I'm glad to see that the whole CI gang isn't piling in there to denounce the sacraments at Pfeifferville.

BTW, clare, I went to the EM page and saw the little "posted by" box at the end and realized Matthew would have had to deliberately include that, but that did not seem to be something he would have accidentally overlooked, all considered. MD's version does the trick. In the end, the FB version should have had the author's name attached.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

.

NatusAdMaiora · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2015, 11:01:11 AM »

As some of you have pointed out, this is far from new info …. Just seems like the author is ‘late to the punchline’.

The author was cautioned by many faithful for almost a year about the spreading of subversive opinions by Boston KY (just as many of the faithful pleaded with Fr. P before recent events) … the author and some others have been critical of Our Bishop, The Dominicans of Avrille and other ‘resistance’ priests/ groups as is evident from some of their posts and articles on EM and ‘The Recusant’. In the recently published email from Rev. Fr. Chazel dated Nov 14th to Boston KY, Rev. Fr. Chazel writes “Your indulgence is so strange when put face to face with your severity to Bishop Williamson, the Dominicans, Fr Zendejas… and that Quebec sermon putting the sedes in hell. What is the worth of your intransigence towards Bishop Fellay now? “.

Does the author realize that his long standing tacit acceptance of Fr. P and his ‘red-light-ism’ of other ‘resistance’ priests/groups could have led to encouraging such disastrous consequences at Boston, KY?

The author can ‘stop beating a dead horse ‘and let Boston KY heal. During this Thanksgiving, let us be thankful for, support and pray for Our ‘Resistance’ Bishops, Priests and Seminarians. Let us pray for Boston, KY as it shows some signs of moving towards the mainstream ‘Resistance’, as Rev. Fr. Chazel puts it so well “these two priest are still much needed to occupy the terrain and serve the souls that are looking for a direction”.
Finally, let us pray for greater unity within the ‘Resistance’…. and that the author and Boston KY realigns with our ‘Resistance’ Bishops and Priests.

AJNC · « **Reply #17 on:** November 29, 2015, 04:43:22 AM »

Boyle's introduction to his outline of various lineages.

http://tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

Outline of Episcopi Vagantes

(Under Construction: last changed on 10/15/2007
- still much to be added and even more proof-reading to be done)

By "independent Roman Catholic priests" I do not mean clergymen with a self-proclaimed ministry, even if they do call themselves "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic," nor do I mean those clergymen calling themselves "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" who claim "apostolic succession" via the so-called Old Catholic Churches of Europe, especially the many North American clergy with orders descending from Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew (1852-1919).

Nor do I mean clergymen who claim "apostolic succession" by way of an "Eastern Church," especially those claiming valid orders via Joseph René Vilatte (1854-1929) and his reported consecrator, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvarez (1837-1923), or via Abdullah Aftimios Ofiesh (1880-1966) and his reported consecrator, the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Basil Evdokim Mikhailovich Meschersky (1869-1935).

Such "Old Catholic" or "Eastern Church" lineages are the sources for the claimed "apostolic succession" of the vast majority of those clergy in the United States not in communion with the Vatican's hierarchy who say that they have valid "Catholic" orders.

Anyone coming across a congregation lead by any such clergyman can easily obtain, from almost any good library, excellent histories and analyses of the originating communions, sufficient to demonstrate that the congregation can in no sense be truly Roman Catholic.

Furthermore, I do not include in this discussion those clergymen claiming valid "Catholic" orders through some "Eastern Rite" bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly those clergy claiming apostolic succession via Antoine Joseph Aneed (1881-1970) and his reported consecrator, Archbishop Méléce Sawoya (1870-1919) of the (Melkite Catholic) Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, or via Antoine Lefberne (1862-1942) and his reported consecrator, Maran Mar Joseph Emmanuel II Thomas (1900-1947), the (Chaldean Catholic) Patriarch of Babylon. These so-called "Eastern Rite" Catholic cases are both few and problematic; and the validity of their orders is best left to experts to determine on individual bases.

What I do want to talk about are those clergy who claim priestly and/or episcopal orders via certain indisputably Roman Catholic bishops, i.e., bishops who - in the last hundred years - broke with the Vatican's authorities, for one reason or another, and later consecrated bishops of their own.

There are alive to-day many men (and even women) claiming to be priests validly ordained, and/or bishops validly consecrated, by such Roman Catholic bishops (or by the many "independent" bishops who were subsequently consecrated by them).

The bishops and the priests in these lineages really do cover the theological spectrum, ranging all the way from the "certainly valid" through the "doubtful" to the "certainly invalid." They can be grouped in nine distinct lineages, each descending from that small number of Roman Catholic bishops who in the 20th Century broke with the Vatican.

The first five of these "lineage groups" are small, with each comprising but a very few consecrations.

The other four "lineage groups," however, are much more complicated, with each comprising many scores of consecrations.

For all nine "lineage groups," though, I have set forth all the claimed "succession lines" - i.e., not only through the reported "principal consecrators," but also through the "co-consecrators" (whenever there were such).
.

SantiagoJames · « **Reply #18 on:** December 02, 2015, 03:42:02 PM »

Moran is neither Catholic nor a Bishop.

This emoji has more credibility;