Moran back with OLMC -- did he ever leave?

MaryM

Well-Known Member
"He [Fr. Poisson, ex-fraternity of st. Peter] was recently conditionally ordained (privately, as usual) in the old rite by a Traditional Catholic bishop consecrated in the old rite, namely, by Bishop Ambrose Moran, with whom we at OLMC Seminary have recently decided (soon to be announced and factually vindicated) to cooperate for the salvation of souls in the state of necessity in which the Catholic Church is. Therefore, Fr. Poisson's ordination is no longer "suspect", and he may, can, and is publicly working for the seminary and the missions under Fr. Pfeiffer, and will soon officially join the SSPX (MC)."

Wonder how that will go over with the OLMC supporters who are left.
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member
"You will regret the day you had anything to do with Fr. Pfeiffer." -- fr. Chazal.
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member
And what of the photo of moran living in Ohio in the lake house of an OLMC supporter?

It is clear fr. Pfeiffer never cut ties with Moran, as he clearly told the Faithful.
 
Last edited:

Anand

Well-Known Member
"You will regret the day you had anything to do with Fr. Pfeiffer." -- fr. Chazal.
Fr (Pol) Pot calling Fr Kettle black?
There was a seminarian from Winona, a certain American named Joseph Steinmetz (sp), who spent some time in India. He spent time with Fr Chazal in that country. Seek him out and ask his opinion about Fr Chazal. I hear that he was made to act as Chazal's water carrier. So he should know.
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member
Fr (Pol) Pot calling Fr Kettle black?
There was a seminarian from Winona, a certain American named Joseph Steinmetz (sp), who spent some time in India. He spent time with Fr Chazal in that country. Seek him out and ask his opinion about Fr Chazal. I hear that he was made to act as Chazal's water carrier. So he should know.
"Fr. Pol Pot"?

Pot Pot, for the younger generation, was a Cambodian communist revolutionary and politician who led the Khmer Rouge from 1963 until 1997, which killed between 1.5 to 3 million people of a population of roughly 8 million (about 25%), a period later termed the Cambodian genocide.

Fr. Chazal has his problems, as we all do, but he is no Pol Pot.
 

Anand

Well-Known Member
Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.

A feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"[2]—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration,[3] juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.

Satire is nowadays found in many artistic forms of expression, including internet memes, literature, plays, commentary, television shows, and media such as lyrics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
The Kentucky Fathers have in effect reversed their public statement of November 7, 2015 in which they declared that they would not associate with Ambrose Moran.


Fr. Hewko, Mrs. Blaszak, Br. Dominic, at Richards home 2017

Fr. Hewko, seminarians, and brothers at Richards home doing chores 2017

Fr. Hewko and boys' trip boys at Richards 2017

Moran's stuff in garage of Richard's lake house (where he has been living for a few years) 2017


Moran in kitchen of Richard's home, 2017
 
Last edited:

Anand

Well-Known Member
Can anyone please tell us if:-
This Bishop Moran
* does not have any genuine holy orders, whether Catholic or Orthodox
* he has genuine Orthodox holy orders ( but these are not acceptable to Catholics even though valid)
* he has been conditionally re-ordained and consecrated by a Traditional Catholic bishop so he can be used and, therefore, his previous history is irrelevant.
 

Admin

Administrator
Can anyone please tell us if:-
This Bishop Moran
* does not have any genuine holy orders, whether Catholic or Orthodox
* he has genuine Orthodox holy orders ( but these are not acceptable to Catholics even though valid)
* he has been conditionally re-ordained and consecrated by a Traditional Catholic bishop so he can be used and, therefore, his previous history is irrelevant.
I think you will find the answers to your questions HERE

..
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Can anyone please tell us if:-
This Bishop Moran
* does not have any genuine holy orders, whether Catholic or Orthodox
* he has genuine Orthodox holy orders ( but these are not acceptable to Catholics even though valid)
* he has been conditionally re-ordained and consecrated by a Traditional Catholic bishop so he can be used and, therefore, his previous history is irrelevant.
The content from Tony LaRosa and from Fr. Ortiz are purposely maligned based on a bias and fraud. They both are well aware they OMIT the fact that Bishop Ambrose is a baptized Catholic; something of which turns their content calamitous before the Holy Catholic Church.

Here is a website documenting Bishop Ambrose's authenticity; more coming. https://ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/

Those who proffer against the right of the Church and Her children, in addition to destroy the person and character of another, goes against Christ Himself - Be careful what you say!
 

Anand

Well-Known Member
This is an interesting read. The CMRI exists even today. This concerns it's founder Francis Schukardt.
http://www.bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/Godasmywitness.html


Ordination and Consecration

Bishop Daniel Quilter Brown had been born and raised a Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II and chose to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid Episcopal Orders. He recognized that the Old Roman Catholics, although schismatic, had nevertheless not fallen into heresy like the modern post-Conciliar Vatican 2 Church and that they also still retained valid Holy Orders. In 1969, Brown received Episcopal consecration as an “Old Roman Catholic” bishop.

Despite the fact that Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Roman Catholic Church, he and his followers called themselves “Roman Catholics” and refused to use the title of “Old Roman Catholic.” Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Roman Catholics and soon became acquainted with Brother Francis, whom he tried to persuade to accept ordination from him, because “in view of the fact that we cannot exist for long as Catholics without the sacraments, I would propose to ordain to the priesthood a qualified member of your group (from the information I have, this would probably be yourself)...” (Letter from Bishop Brown to Francis Schuckardt - Sept. 17, 1970). Later he offered to consecrate Brother Francis to the episcopacy in addition to ordaining him to the priesthood.

Brother Francis sought the advice of some traditional Catholic priests, most notably Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J., about Bishop Brown's proposal. He was advised that under the grave circumstances which presently engulfed the Church, that it was well within Catholic law and principles to accept consecration from Bishop Brown. Nevertheless, even though the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of Old Catholics Orders, Brother Francis told Bishop Brown that he was unwilling to receive Holy Orders from him because of the schismatic origins of his consecration.

There upon Bishop Brown openly repented of having received consecration from the Old Roman Catholics, made a public “Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith” to the Catholic Church, confessed his sins and received absolution from a traditional priest. Bishop Brown’s return to the Catholic Church cleared the sole obstacle that obstructed Brother Francis from receiving consecration from him.

On October 28, 1971, in the presence of some loyal Fatima Crusaders, Bishop Brown tonsured and bestowed the four Minor Orders on Francis Schuckardt. On October 29, 1971, Bishop Brown conferred the Major Orders of Subdeacon and Deacon upon him. On October 31, 1971, Bishop Brown ordained Francis Schuckardt to the priesthood, and on November 1, 1971, the Feast of All Saints, Bishop Brown consecrated Fr. Francis Schuckardt a bishop according to the traditional Roman Catholic Rite. The fact of his consecration and the source of his Episcopal Orders were not announced publicly until December 8, 1971. He celebrated his first public Mass for the Community at Mary, Immaculate Queen Church in northern Idaho on December 12, 1971. All but a tiny fraction of the Community accepted his consecration.

At first Bishops Brown and Schuckardt worked peaceably together. Shortly afterwards, Bishop Brown saw “splinter groups” forming and desired that Bishop Schuckardt lead the Church. (Holding a leadership position was a difficult one for Bishop Brown because among other things, he was married and held a full-time job.) In writing to Bishop Schuckardt, Bishop Brown deemed it “urgent that these people be united into one body with one leader who would be, logically, yourself.” (Letter of Bishop Brown to Bishop Schuckardt - March 4, 1972). Eventually, however, differences broke out between them and they separated and went their own ways. Bishop Brown eventually returned to the Old Catholic Church.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
The content from Tony LaRosa and from Fr. Ortiz are purposely maligned based on a bias and fraud. They both are well aware they OMIT the fact that Bishop Ambrose is a baptized Catholic; something of which turns their content calamitous before the Holy Catholic Church.

Here is a website documenting Bishop Ambrose's authenticity; more coming. https://ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/

Those who proffer against the right of the Church and Her children, in addition to destroy the person and character of another, goes against Christ Himself - Be careful what you say!
That's what you're going with? That he's a baptised catholic, so he's o.k.? I think not.

You mean to say that information from a person not aligned with Moran and will not profit from a relationship with Moran has false information, while a website set up by Moran himself has truth? I think not.

EM has done an excellent job identifying moran, pulling up documents, checking authenticity of documents, etc.

I might have it wrong, but this is what I gather, in a nutshell:

Moran did not graduate from don bosco college seminary, nor was he on the board of the alumni association, as he claims.

He was "ordained" Ukrainian autocephalous orthodox church of kiev (not catholic).

1976 "Consecrated" in the same orthodox church, holy protection cathedral in Chicago. Not Catholic.

1976 claims he was conditionally reconsecrated by cardinal Slipyj, but the church cardinal Slipjy was associated with claims Moran's document is false.

1980 letter he wrote, he signed "fr." Why would he sign it this way if he was consecrated twice in 1976, one of the supposed consecrations done by the person he was writing to?

1983 Moran appointed successor of metropolitan in the same orthodox church in the USA.

1984 Slipyj died. Why was Moran appointed to the above orthodox position if he was still under Slipjy?

2007 Joined the GOCA, orthodox (photos still online), "consecrated" a bishop for them, stayed a while, then left.

He has never been Catholic since, perhaps, his baptism. He is orthodox.

Shortly after the OLMC fathers told their faithful they cut ties with Moran, and the older woman he lived with died, he was moved by fr. Pfeiffer to the Richards lake house. -- photos and reliable accounts

Did I get anything wrong, EM?
 
Last edited:
The content from Tony LaRosa and from Fr. Ortiz are purposely maligned based on a bias and fraud. They both are well aware they OMIT the fact that Bishop Ambrose is a baptized Catholic; something of which turns their content calamitous before the Holy Catholic Church.

Here is a website documenting Bishop Ambrose's authenticity; more coming. https://ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/

Those who proffer against the right of the Church and Her children, in addition to destroy the person and character of another, goes against Christ Himself - Be careful what you say!

What I am going to say here has nothing to do with Bishop Ambrose. It is just an observation.

You are basically saying that anyone who has been baptized Catholic is a Catholic all their lives, but Catholic history has proven otherwise, multiple times. Luther, Henry VII, Arius, etc. were all baptized Catholics and yes they were Catholic for awhile, but their baptisms didn't stop them from making, believing, and living in heresy.

Baptism doesn't stop me from renouncing my faith, apostatizing, or joining another religious sect. Baptism also doesn't guarantee us heaven and doesn't stop us from going to hell.
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Three and only three of the Sacraments each imprints on the soul an indelible character, which is never removed. Neither great sin, nor great virtues, nor sincere prayer, nor apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor even condemnation to Hell can ever remove any of these indelible characters.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “698 The seal is a symbol close to that of anointing. ‘The Father has set his seal’ on Christ and also seals us in him. Because this seal indicates the indelible effect of the anointing with the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, the image of the seal (sphragis) has been used in some theological traditions to express the indelible ‘character’ imprinted by these three unrepeatable sacraments.”
..
 

Admin

Administrator
Those who proffer against the right of the Church and Her children, in addition to destroy the person and character of another, goes against Christ Himself - Be careful what you say!
Be careful what YOU say Machabees. Cor Mariae will not tolerate implied judgments on members who proffer genuine research material in good faith. A previous post of yours was deleted when you used one of the commandments to arbitrarily judge a member to be destroying the character of another. Here you do it again. Any more and you will be banned from this forum.
__________________

Extract:

Even if one accepts that the Orthodox ordination and consecration ceremonies did truly occur and that they were probably valid, it is still not sufficient in the moral order to receive the sacraments from him (refer to Denzinger 1151). * Yet recently we had Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko approve of Ambrose Moran conditionally ordaining Fr. Poisson, former priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Now that the Fathers have gone down this road, do not be surprised if Ambrose Moran sooner or later administers the Minor and Major Orders to their seminarians.


*
Denzinger 1151: It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.

..
 
Last edited:

Anand

Well-Known Member
The content from Tony LaRosa and from Fr. Ortiz are purposely maligned based on a bias and fraud. They both are well aware they OMIT the fact that Bishop Ambrose is a baptized Catholic; something of which turns their content calamitous before the Holy Catholic Church.

Here is a website documenting Bishop Ambrose's authenticity; more coming. https://ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/

Those who proffer against the right of the Church and Her children, in addition to destroy the person and character of another, goes against Christ Himself - Be careful what you say!
My query about the Bishop Ambrose is because I want to clear something in my own mind.
I have always heard that the Orthodox have valid sacraments. A few years ago I thought that if ( in the most unlikely event) a local priest decided to say the Latin Mass, I would suggest he gets conditionally by one of the various Orthodox bishops around. Logistically, the best option. A friend who was then the receptionist at a Catholic Shrine gave me the names of a few Orthodox bishops who visited the shrine and signed the register. I then went on the net to try to get the addresses.

Recently the Bishop Ambrose issue has brought this matter to the fore for me. I thought the matter was simple but it is not. Lucky for me that my imaginary priest has not turned up! Would a priest who wants to say the TLM agree to conditional ordination from an Orthodox bishop?. Would such a bishop agree to do this?
A man I know went with a companion to an Orthodox priest for Confession. They told him that they were Catholics but that was no problem to him. Then my friend mentioned that he felt the Vatican II Holy Orders to be invalid. The Orthodox priest blew his top and asked them with what authority they speak like this. They then made a nearly 2000 round trip to get Confession from an SSPX priest.

For me, these sort of hurdles are not there in the case of Bishop Ambrose other than than the question of whether he has genuine Orthodox orders. This matter can make one's head spin. An example of this is this very recent post on Traditio:

Dear TRADITIO Fathers:


I am considering joining the Eastern Orthodox sect because of the many problems coming out in Newchurch. I have been told that its sacraments are valid and that it has apostolic succession. Is that true? What advice would you give me?


The TRADITIO Fathers Reply.


You would just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. You think that Newchurch is bad? It is, but the Eastern Orthodox sects are just as bad. The Eastern Orthodox sects have been formally schismatic for a millennium. Therefore, no true Catholic can become a member without subjecting himself to the historic Penalty of Excommunication.


Moreover, many Orthodox sects are not even valid, as they have deviated from the "catholic and apostolic" faith and worship and have vulgarized themselves. The liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue once wrote: "The ruthless destruction of the ancient rites in favor of uniformity has been the work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople. Since the thirteenth Century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the one center of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and ancient liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the Orthodox to use its own late derived rite."


Those Orthodox sects that have retained the catholic and apostolic Eastern liturgies are these days few and far between. The Russian Orthodox are a good example of this fact. Theirs is not a catholic and apostolic liturgy, but something concocted many centuries thereafter.


A true Catholic will shun anything not Catholic. That certainly includes the invalid, anti-Catholic New Order sect, as you say, but it also includes the Eastern Orthodox schismatics.
 
Top