Moran back with OLMC -- did he ever leave?

Ecclesia Militans

Well-Known Member
Machabees accused me of calumny, that is, that I have deliberately lied about Ambrose Moran in order to tarnish his reputation. How does Machabees know this? Did I reveal that to him? Can he read into my soul? Shame on you, Machabees!
 

Ecclesia Militans

Well-Known Member
MaryM, my responses are in red below each of your points.
That's what you're going with? That he's a baptised catholic, so he's o.k.?

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 doesn't?

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.

Correct.

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

Correct.

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

Correct.

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

The first statement is incorrect. Rather, he was allegedly conditionally consecrated by the Orthodox. The second statement is correct.

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?

Correct. Bishop Borecky was supposedly a co-consecrator.

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

Correct.

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

Correct.

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

Correct.

He stayed in the Colorado area living with an older widow, who received social security, until she died in 2014.

I haven't done enough investigation into this to affirm or deny this.

He also had a "seminarian" living with him for a time, sharing the same bedroom. -- first hand eyewitness account

I do not know.

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

I am not certain, but I believe that he was baptized Catholic.

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.

I do not know.

Did I get anything wrong, EM?
 

Ecclesia Militans

Well-Known Member
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.

..
The Denzinger 1151 proposition quoted above by the Admin is a CONDEMNED proposition.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
MaryM, my responses are in red below each of your points.
Thank you, EM.
It is so much easier for me to have the Readers Digest version. :)
I have updated. Hope it is correct now.

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 allegedly conditionally consecrated by the Orthodox. 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 (Bishop Borecky)?

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 stayed in the Colorado area living with an older widow, who received social security, until she died. -- reliable eyewitness accounts

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. -- reliable accounts and photos online dated 2017.
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member
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.
You are so right, Anand, it DOES make one's head spin.

Traditional Catholics, and I have been no exception, improperly use the term "valid".

There are legitimate Eastern rites which ARE Catholic (byzantine, Maronite, Ukranian), as long as the masses are said by a legitimate priest with proper matter, form, and intent.

Traditional Catholics do not accept Orthodox as Catholic.
Novus Ordo catholics do because, with them, anything goes.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
I will pass your message on to Ecclesia Militans privately. It has no place on a public forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
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.

..
................."genuine research material in good faith"?

Admin, how is "MaryM's" researched material genuine and in good faith when she clearly states unverified bias all over CorMariae forum unchecked, and says quote, "I might have it wrong, but this is what I gather, in a nutshell"?

Admin Reply:
MaryM made a summary and openly asked EM if she had interpreted HIS report correctly.
EM has corrected her. She thanked him and corrected her summary. Everything is out in the open. So your question is dishonest for a start.

'Unverified bias all over Cor Mariae'?
This is a typical example of your sweeping one-size-fits-all condemnations.

And you wonder why you have been cautioned!

And do you think it is any recommendation that the Catacombs has banned her? That when she tried to post under different names Catacombs sanctimoniously and judgementally condemned her?

For the rest, I will pass on your full message to her privately. Admin.

..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Anand

Well-Known Member
You are so right, Anand, it DOES make one's head spin.

Traditional Catholics, and I have been no exception, improperly use the term "valid".

There are legitimate Eastern rites which ARE Catholic (byzantine, Maronite, Ukranian), as long as the masses are said by a legitimate priest with proper matter, form, and intent.

Traditional Catholics do not accept Orthodox as Catholic.
Novus Ordo catholics do because, with them, anything goes.
MaryM,
I believe that even in pre-Vatican II days the sacraments of the Orthodox were considered to be valid. They did not have to re-do their orders when and if they joined the Catholic Church. Or did they?
Recent posts on other websites seem to cast doubt on the whole Orthodox set-up. The T.Boyle site on Thuc and other lineages expressly excludes those lineages originating from the Orthodox Church.

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 Harris 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).
.
 

Admin

Administrator
I will pass your message on to Ecclesia Militans privately. It has no place on a public forum.
The following is Machabees' post I (Admin) forwarded to EM privately:
Of course you are well away (for last three years) knowing Bishop Ambrose is a baptized Catholic. You were given repeated knowledge of this. Your deliberate OMISSION of this fact is proved in your archives and on your website. Why do you choose to hide it only to pass a bias and fraudulent information to the innocent?. Moreover, you always run away when confronted with this fact. Yet you say to the world you have "investigated Bishop Ambrose" and come off as some "moral authority". Say that again before the Blessed Sacrament! Playing the "I do not know game" is your typical ignore button the public knows of you all over the forums. You were banned twice on this forum Cor Mariae for the SAME round robin. Shall I expose your private emails to me over this very subject during the past years? I still have ALL of the correspondence and I saved every post on the past three (defunct) forums you deliberately narrated your lie Bishop Ambrose is not a Catholic; when you knew. So no need to play dumb even though the admin now lets you and others proffer your false narrations you were twice banned for.

I will say to you again for the fiftieth time. Go talk to the fathers and ask them about the Baptismal certificate. But the real question is, why haven't you asked them all these years? Bias? Duplicity? Wanting a different narration as others do? Why continue your lie when you can find out AGAIN very easily?

No need to respond in your obtuse manner until you get your facts right. If you really want to.

Ecclesia Militans said:
Machabees accused me of calumny, that is, that I have deliberately lied about Ambrose Moran in order to tarnish his reputation. How does Machabees know this? Did I reveal that to him? Can he read into my soul? Shame on you, Machabees!
EM's response (with his permission):
Unfortunately it seems that to Machabees the most important question is whether Ambrose Moran was baptized Catholic. This is not to me. Nonetheless, I did believe at one point that Ambrose Moran was baptized Orthodox. I took this from his letter when he applied to the GOCA in 2007. It was not until I spoke to Fr. Pfeiffer in person at which point he directly told me that he had Ambrose Moran’s baptismal certificate from a Catholic parish. I asked Father for a copy and he said he could not give it out. In good faith, I accepted Father’s claim. It was at that point that I made it public that I accepted that he was baptized Catholic. However, even now, though I believe that Ambrose Moran was baptized Catholic, I am not certain as I have not seen the evidence for myself. If I had his certificate, I would contact the parish in question and ask if it was authentic.

..

ETA : EM wrote this answer before I asked his permission to post it.

..
 
Last edited:

Ecclesia Militans

Well-Known Member
Machabees, you write that I knew Ambrose Moran was baptized Catholic as it was shown to me many times. Therefore, you conclude that I am being calumnious. Did you ever think that whatever evidence you presented at that time did not convince me? Nevertheless, you make such a big deal about Ambrose Moran being Catholic as if that swipes clean his controversial history. Go read my posts on my website and you will see whether or not Ambrose Moran was baptized Catholic is an essential point; it is not. For two and a half years, I have and continue to maintain these two essential propositions to my argument:

1. Ambrose Moran was not ordained a priest by Cardinal Slipyj.
2. Ambrose Moran was not consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Slipyj.

If you can present new evidence that runs contrary to these two propositions, I am willing to take a look at it. Remember that it is Ambrose Moran that publicly stated the contradictions to these two propositions:

1. That he was ordained a priest by Cardinal Slipyj.
2. That he was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Slipyj.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
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.
The Traditio Fathers are right:

"The Orthodox, then, are the Christians in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in communion with the Catholic Church."

http://newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm
 

david

Member
For those who know that Fr. Poisson was conditionally ordained by Bishop Ambrose Moran, do you know if the ceremony was videotaped, or if there are pictures? and where can they be found. This process is much more clearer in the Novus Ordo. For example, one can see the mass of ordination and installation of Auxiliary bishops on EWTN.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
For those who know that Fr. Poisson was conditionally ordained by Bishop Ambrose Moran, do you know if the ceremony was videotaped, or if there are pictures? and where can they be found. This process is much more clearer in the Novus Ordo. For example, one can see the mass of ordination and installation of Auxiliary bishops on EWTN.
I don't know.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
Without giving space to the vile parts, Macabees' post on the catacombs attacking EM today should be addressed.

EM and Mac were asked if they had contacted Moran, to which EM replied a simple "no".

Mac replied, "I am not on a list of investigator." What or whom is preventing him from doing his own investigation?

He replies to this question without being asked: "It is the Fathers who have ALL of the information..." If he is not investigating, how can he be sure the OLMC fathers have all the information?

I don't see the harm but I do see the prudence behind others doing research and investigation into these questionable "clerics" and I, for one, thank EM whole-heartedly.

Macabees seems content towards frequent rash judgments, extrapolations, condemnations, slander and calumny all too easily. For shame.
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member
Macabees seems content towards frequent rash judgments, extrapolations, condemnations, slander and calumny all too easily. For shame.
Pulcheria, jonathan and The Catacombs admin, too...

I was going to defend myself, but The Catacombs has been proven to be deceitful and no longer warrants any explanation. Supporters of OLMC will continue on their path until the Holy Ghost enlightens them, as He did many of us.
 
Last edited:

MaryM

Well-Known Member
"William Moran started as an elementary school teacher in September 1970 and was dismissed from that position some time in the 1972 to 1973 school year." -- EM

Let me get this straight...
According to his website (https://ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/):
"The first two pictures of the future Archbishop Ambrose as a seminarian. The top picture is from 1969, the bottom picture from 1971."

But according to the photos from Incarnation School and the first-hand eyewitness who contacted EM:
1970 - school teacher
1971 - school teacher
1972 - school teacher (looks like he is wearing a roman collar)
1973 - school teacher (no roman collar, dismissed)

Back to his website:
"Fr. Moran was ordained priest in 1974. "

Qs:
How could he have been a seminarian, then ordained in 1974, if he was a school teacher from Sept. 1970 to some time in 1973?

I will admit I don't know the ins and outs of the Orthodox religions, but is it common for them to have seminarians teach at a school and not wear a roman collar while being a seminarian?

And why, if he is a seminarian, is he wearing a roman collar in the first photo and not in the second? This seems to be the case in many of the photos on his website.




http:/
/www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2018/08/05/william-moran-and-incarnation-catholic-elementary-school/
 
Last edited:

Ecclesia Militans

Well-Known Member
Moran was a teacher in 1971 to 1973. How could he have been a seminarian, then ordained in 1974?
William Moran started as an elementary school teacher in September 1970 and was dismissed from that position some time in the 1972 to 1973 school year.
 

MaryM

Well-Known Member
William Moran started as an elementary school teacher in September 1970 and was dismissed from that position some time in the 1972 to 1973 school year.
corrected. thank you.

What I can't wrap my head around, is why so many of the priests and "clergy" associated with OLMC of late have curious backgrounds.
 
Last edited:

david

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.
MaryM, where did the quoted text come from? Who said the above quoted text?
 
Top