Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2018 18:34:03 GMT
Ambrose Moran was neither ordained a Catholic priest nor consecrated a Catholic bishop.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 23, 2018 20:43:48 GMT
Remy let's consider ALL of Fr. Hewko's words on this topic. Fr. Hewko states he is still not satisfied and waiting for that big evidence.
@ 55:50 I'm one of the biggest opposers to Bp. Ambrose in this scene. I am not all for it and I'm going very slow. I want to see clearly that this is truly the hand of God behind this. That he truly teaches the faith and he's not some fly by night garage bishop. You know, I'm kind of the biggest, loudest mouth at Boston, KY against this. But I am not closed to the will of God being manifest. f this is His will, let it be clearly seen. And how will we know it that he's clearly a priest, clearly a Catholic Bishop and clearly teaches the Catholic faith? Now I've heard a few of his sermons and they're right on. He condemns Vatican II, the New Mass, he talks about the freemasonic infiltration of the Catholic Church, which is true. He praises Archbp Lefebvre. He preaches the faith the way it's supposed to be preached, at least in the sermons I heard. So I'm not jumping on this either. If it's of God I don't want to say to God I closed the door to you. And if it's not of God I'm begging the good Lord and the Blessed Mother make it clear that this is not to be the path to go. We're in a time, it reminds me of the time of the consecrations of the Bishops in 1988. He put out a pelogias,(sp ??) he put out explanations for why he would have to do this.
This is what Fr. Pancras suggested to Fr. Pfeiffer- put out to the public a clear explanation of his history, of his ordinations, and his consecrations. Fr. Pfeiffer says we're still waiting for one more document to seal the objective evidence that he was consecrated a bishop in Rome by Cardinal Slipyj. There's already a lot of evidence for it but we need one more big evidence according to Fr. Pfeiffer to seal it. If that evidence shows up, which most likely is in the Cathedral in Chicago, if that comes up then it probably could be a clear sign that you have here a Bishop in the line of Cardinal Slipyj, which goes right back to St. Peter, in the Apostolic succession. So he would be truly a bishop, truly a priest, although of the Catholic Eastern rite, who professes the faith and condemns the modern errors of Vatican II and the new Mass. That's what we're looking for. That's what we hope to find because the Bishops of Archbp. Lefebvre they're not doing this any more. They're making excuses for the new Mass to give grace. They're making excuses for making canonical solution with modernist Rome without Rome's conversion to tradition.
So we're in a rock and a hard place, all of us, so we can wait also. I've told Fr. Pfeiffer, look we're not in a rush for ordinations. We have 3 more years before we really need ordinations. But I ask you and I speak openly. I've been attacked for doing this for just opening up this question to the faithful, but I don't think we should be hiding anything either. This is something we are all involved. We all want to see the Catholic faith restored in Rome. .......
@ 1:00:14 What is God's will in this? I'm on my knees at this Mass begging His light also. Join me also asking Our Lady show us thy will. Show us if Bp. Ambrose is truly what God wants. Make it very clear with no shadow of doubts that this is what you want. That's what we need to ask. And if he's not Your will oh Blessed Mother, make it clear he's not to be the one.
I have read and heard of several who have scoffed at Fr. Hewko for slowly and patiently asking God and the Blessed Mother to show us how to consider all the information about Bp. Ambrose.
Yet we know Our Lady does not always show Herself and the will of Her Divine Son immediately. Just one example: Our Lady of Guadalupe. She allowed the bishop to ask three times for a sign that the messages of Juan Diego were genuinely from God through His holy Mother.
It was right and proper for the bishop to ask for a sign that Our Lady was the source of the messages of Juan Diego.
What Fr. Hewko has asked of all of us is what the Church does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2018 21:25:10 GMT
The difference is that Fr. Hewko has wavered back and forth on Ambrose Moran after making a decision to accept him. I accept Ambrose Moran; I question him; I accept him; I question him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 15:20:22 GMT
And Fr. Pfeiffer provided in his two conferences there was a turf war in the cathedral between factions. Whoever was in control at the time controlled the information. This 'turf war' doesn't appear in the online annals of this group. Not to say it didn't happen but I believe Fr. mentioned it had been going on since 1942 till the 1970's or 1980's? Thats a long time. It should be popping up somewhere. If anyone can find it online, please share here. If I remember correctly, Father mentioned it as something that was verbally related to him? I started to listen again to the conference but didn't get to that particular point again, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks to those who are taking their time to translate important talks.
Fr. Pfeiffer excerpt.
"And then so, now when he was consecrated bishop, so he’s consecrated a bishop and he was also appointed the Metropolitan in 1983 and successor to Cardinal, to Bishop Reoray and the, where the question in doubt, where the question or concerns or doubts come in from the people, I think, is primarily that there, the, the, the word Orthodox is continually used it’s Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Autocephalous Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox. Well, the Orthodox are not Catholic. Well then, but that was the name of the jurisdiction established 1942, it, it had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not. I did discuss with some of the priests there in Chicago and said the, of course, it’s forty years ago, some of the priests died, there's some few priests that remembered, and they and the, I was, one of the main priests I tried to meet with, he wasn't there. I met with some of the others and they said, yes, yes these things, there was all kinds of dealings in the 1970's and early 80's trying to put together and it just turned into a big disaster but there were many meetings trying to unite the churches and the meetings turned out to basically not succeed. And now they are a lot more intelligent, so to speak, because now they work together in 2015, without uniting the churches they don't want to unite the churches. So they want the Orthodox to stay Orthodox, the Catholic to stay Catholic and they do their ceremonies together, so they want to act, act of pure ecumenism. So, they know that back then they were trying to unite the churches but now we don't need to unite the churches anymore because, you know, there's the Vatican II baloney and then they, uh, that's it for the essential, essential truths about, what’s his name, Bishop Ambrose and then then you have the accusations."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2018 20:20:08 GMT
This 'turf war' doesn't appear in the online annals of this group. Not to say it didn't happen but I believe Fr. mentioned it had been going on since 1942 till the 1970's or 1980's? Thats a long time. It should be popping up somewhere. If anyone can find it online, please share here. If I remember correctly, Father mentioned it as something that was verbally related to him? I started to listen again to the conference but didn't get to that particular point again, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks to those who are taking their time to translate important talks.
Fr. Pfeiffer excerpt.
"And then so, now when he was consecrated bishop, so he’s consecrated a bishop and he was also appointed the Metropolitan in 1983 and successor to Cardinal, to Bishop Reoray and the, where the question in doubt, where the question or concerns or doubts come in from the people, I think, is primarily that there, the, the, the word Orthodox is continually used it’s Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Autocephalous Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox. Well, the Orthodox are not Catholic. Well then, but that was the name of the jurisdiction established 1942, it, it had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not. I did discuss with some of the priests there in Chicago and said the, of course, it’s forty years ago, some of the priests died, there's some few priests that remembered, and they and the, I was, one of the main priests I tried to meet with, he wasn't there. I met with some of the others and they said, yes, yes these things, there was all kinds of dealings in the 1970's and early 80's trying to put together and it just turned into a big disaster but there were many meetings trying to unite the churches and the meetings turned out to basically not succeed. And now they are a lot more intelligent, so to speak, because now they work together in 2015, without uniting the churches they don't want to unite the churches. So they want the Orthodox to stay Orthodox, the Catholic to stay Catholic and they do their ceremonies together, so they want to act, act of pure ecumenism. So, they know that back then they were trying to unite the churches but now we don't need to unite the churches anymore because, you know, there's the Vatican II baloney and then they, uh, that's it for the essential, essential truths about, what’s his name, Bishop Ambrose and then then you have the accusations."
Yes, thank you, I saw this.
However, what Father refers to - I can't seem to find anything related to this anywhere else. If I understand Fr. correctly, when he went to Holy Protection Cathedral, the Orthodox priests there told him that there were many dealings in the 1970's - 1980's but nothing materialized. So it was never a Catholic Cathedral, there were only discussions of making it so? From what I understand, the different Ukrainian Orthodox groups attempted to unite as Orthodox but from what I could see no one became Catholic. They only wanted to unite to get away from the Russian patriarch/metropolitan who was working with/for the Communists? So there was an interest in the Ukrainian Orthodox to unite together to not be dependent on the Russian Orthodox?
This is perhaps why the Holy Protection Cathedral certificate notes that the rite used for Ambrose's consecration was in the Orthodox rite?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 22:08:28 GMT
Thanks to those who are taking their time to translate important talks.
Fr. Pfeiffer excerpt.
"And then so, now when he was consecrated bishop, so he’s consecrated a bishop and he was also appointed the Metropolitan in 1983 and successor to Cardinal, to Bishop Reoray and the, where the question in doubt, where the question or concerns or doubts come in from the people, I think, is primarily that there, the, the, the word Orthodox is continually used it’s Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Autocephalous Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox. Well, the Orthodox are not Catholic. Well then, but that was the name of the jurisdiction established 1942, it, it had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not. I did discuss with some of the priests there in Chicago and said the, of course, it’s forty years ago, some of the priests died, there's some few priests that remembered, and they and the, I was, one of the main priests I tried to meet with, he wasn't there. I met with some of the others and they said, yes, yes these things, there was all kinds of dealings in the 1970's and early 80's trying to put together and it just turned into a big disaster but there were many meetings trying to unite the churches and the meetings turned out to basically not succeed. And now they are a lot more intelligent, so to speak, because now they work together in 2015, without uniting the churches they don't want to unite the churches. So they want the Orthodox to stay Orthodox, the Catholic to stay Catholic and they do their ceremonies together, so they want to act, act of pure ecumenism. So, they know that back then they were trying to unite the churches but now we don't need to unite the churches anymore because, you know, there's the Vatican II baloney and then they, uh, that's it for the essential, essential truths about, what’s his name, Bishop Ambrose and then then you have the accusations."
Yes, thank you, I saw this.
However, what Father refers to - I can't seem to find anything related to this anywhere else. If I understand Fr. correctly, when he went to Holy Protection Cathedral, the Orthodox priests there told him that there were many dealings in the 1970's - 1980's but nothing materialized. So it was never a Catholic Cathedral, there were only discussions of making it so? From what I understand, the different Ukrainian Orthodox groups attempted to unite as Orthodox but from what I could see no one became Catholic. They only wanted to unite to get away from the Russian patriarch/metropolitan who was working with/for the Communists? So there was an interest in the Ukrainian Orthodox to unite together to not be dependent on the Russian Orthodox?
This is perhaps why the Holy Protection Cathedral certificate notes that the rite used for Ambrose's consecration was in the Orthodox rite?
Bishop Hryhoriy Ohiychuk of the Holy Protection Cathedral (died in 1985) was never Catholic and didn't want to become Catholic. He was an Old Calendarist fighting against the ecumenical Orthodox, which are like Catholic Traditionalists fighting against the Novus Ordo. The Holy Protection Cathedral was Orthodox in its founding, Orthodox throughout the years, and Orthodox now. 1. Cleric of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America
Here are some of the comments this cleric made to me over various e-mails:
“There was never such a creature as a ‘Catholic version of the UAOC’…..it is plain silliness…..”
“Hryhorij NEVER became Catholic at any time. I’ve been around for 44 years in my church and Ukrainian community and believe me I would have heard about such a matter…..It is silliness. If some thinks he or she can prove me wrong with complete and irrefutable documentation, let him try. “
2. Cleric #1 of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyvian Patriarchate, in the United States and Canada
This is the same cleric Fr. Pfeiffer visited at the Holy Protection Cathedral in Chicago, Illinois on October 27, 2015. I had a few phone conversations with him regarding Bishop Ambrose Moran. He confirmed to me that the consecration of Bishop Ambrose Moran did indeed take place at the Holy Protection Cathedral. Prior to giving me confirmation, he contacted Bishop Ambrose Moran directly via phone to ask him some questions in order to prove his identity and was satisfied with the answers. My last phone conversation with this cleric was on October 31, 2015. I specifically asked him on this occasion whether Bishop Hryhorij and the Holy Protection Cathedral were ever Catholic; he responded in the negative.
3. Cleric #2 of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyvian Patriarchate, in the United States and Canada – Fr. Victor Poliarny, Secretary of the Vicariate
Fr. Poliarny is currently the highest ranking cleric of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP within the United States and Canada and as such has jurisdiction over Cleric #1 of the KP and the Holy Protection Cathedral. He reports to the KP’s patriarch, Filaret. He moved to Chicago in 1959. He knew Bishop Hryhorij. Fr. Poliarny has given me permission to use his name publicly. I spoke to him over the phone on November 13, 2015. Fr. Poliarny adamantly denied the claims that Bishop Hryhoriy ever became Catholic and that the Holy Protection Cathedral was ever under the control of the Catholic Church. He said that they were both always Orthodox.www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2015/11/23/ambrose-moran-is-he-really-a-catholic-bishop/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 22:11:35 GMT
There is no mention of Catholic bishops or conversion to Catholicism in this screenshot taken from Ambrose Moran's website before he took it down in October 2015. It is all about the Orthodox schismatics. Ambrose Moran was involved with schismatic activities. He was neither ordained nor consecrated by a Catholic bishop. There is no doubt about it. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 22:23:01 GMT
So it was never a Catholic Cathedral, there were only discussions of making it so? From what I understand, the different Ukrainian Orthodox groups attempted to unite as Orthodox but from what I could see no one became Catholic. I spoke to Fr. Kris Pitirim, the Orthodox priest that Fr. Pfeiffer visited. He did not mention anything to me about discussions between Bishop Hryorij and Cardinal Slipyj regarding conversion to Catholicism. As a matter of fact, when I told him what Fr. Pfeiffer told me (similar story to above) after Fr. Pfeiffer returned from Chicago, Fr. Pitirim said that he did not speak about the Cathedral or Bishop Hryorij becoming Catholic. There are always attempts for Orthodox groups to unite. Schism and uniting amongst the Orthodox is not considered a big thing because remember, they have no supreme head. Thank you, Admin, for bringing some sense to this discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 14:59:18 GMT
Thanks to those who are taking their time to translate important talks.
Fr. Pfeiffer excerpt.
"And then so, now when he was consecrated bishop, so he’s consecrated a bishop and he was also appointed the Metropolitan in 1983 and successor to Cardinal, to Bishop Reoray and the, where the question in doubt, where the question or concerns or doubts come in from the people, I think, is primarily that there, the, the, the word Orthodox is continually used it’s Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Autocephalous Orthodox, Autocephalous Orthodox. Well, the Orthodox are not Catholic. Well then, but that was the name of the jurisdiction established 1942, it, it had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not. I did discuss with some of the priests there in Chicago and said the, of course, it’s forty years ago, some of the priests died, there's some few priests that remembered, and they and the, I was, one of the main priests I tried to meet with, he wasn't there. I met with some of the others and they said, yes, yes these things, there was all kinds of dealings in the 1970's and early 80's trying to put together and it just turned into a big disaster but there were many meetings trying to unite the churches and the meetings turned out to basically not succeed. And now they are a lot more intelligent, so to speak, because now they work together in 2015, without uniting the churches they don't want to unite the churches. So they want the Orthodox to stay Orthodox, the Catholic to stay Catholic and they do their ceremonies together, so they want to act, act of pure ecumenism. So, they know that back then they were trying to unite the churches but now we don't need to unite the churches anymore because, you know, there's the Vatican II baloney and then they, uh, that's it for the essential, essential truths about, what’s his name, Bishop Ambrose and then then you have the accusations."
Yes, thank you, I saw this.
However, what Father refers to - I can't seem to find anything related to this anywhere else. If I understand Fr. correctly, when he went to Holy Protection Cathedral, the Orthodox priests there told him that there were many dealings in the 1970's - 1980's but nothing materialized. So it was never a Catholic Cathedral, there were only discussions of making it so? From what I understand, the different Ukrainian Orthodox groups attempted to unite as Orthodox but from what I could see no one became Catholic. They only wanted to unite to get away from the Russian patriarch/metropolitan who was working with/for the Communists? So there was an interest in the Ukrainian Orthodox to unite together to not be dependent on the Russian Orthodox?
This is perhaps why the Holy Protection Cathedral certificate notes that the rite used for Ambrose's consecration was in the Orthodox rite?
Saying "no one became catholic" is not true. Father relayed clearly "[it] had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not." In union with Cardinal Slipyj is in union with Catholicism which the records show had brought in many priests including Fr. Moran at the time. This historical part is a key element showing a working relationship and involvement with Cardinal Slipyj rome acknowledges he had ordained/conditionally ordained and consecrated/ conditionally consecrated many priests and bishop through that apostolate. Records show Fr. Moran is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2018 15:59:25 GMT
Yes, thank you, I saw this.
However, what Father refers to - I can't seem to find anything related to this anywhere else. If I understand Fr. correctly, when he went to Holy Protection Cathedral, the Orthodox priests there told him that there were many dealings in the 1970's - 1980's but nothing materialized. So it was never a Catholic Cathedral, there were only discussions of making it so? From what I understand, the different Ukrainian Orthodox groups attempted to unite as Orthodox but from what I could see no one became Catholic. They only wanted to unite to get away from the Russian patriarch/metropolitan who was working with/for the Communists? So there was an interest in the Ukrainian Orthodox to unite together to not be dependent on the Russian Orthodox?
This is perhaps why the Holy Protection Cathedral certificate notes that the rite used for Ambrose's consecration was in the Orthodox rite?
Saying "no one became catholic" is not true. Father relayed clearly "[it] had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not." In union with Cardinal Slipyj is in union with Catholicism which the records show had brought in many priests including Fr. Moran at the time. This historical part is a key element showing a working relationship and involvement with Cardinal Slipyj rome acknowledges he had ordained/conditionally ordained and consecrated/ conditionally consecrated many priests and bishop through that apostolate. Records show Fr. Moran is one of them.
Remy,
I think you missed my point. My point was that there seems to be nothing found online [not to say it didn't happen but one can't seem to find] a record anywhere of this 'union'. Especially in the 1940's to 1970's - of a 'union' of a particular group of Ukrainian Orthodox and Cardinal Slipyj. The Cardinal was arrested in either 1944 or 1945. I believe he was released in 1968. It is this union [between the years 1942 and 1968] that one can't seem to find a record of. No one is disputing the work of the Cardinal post his release, that is all very well documented. It would be most appreciated if anyone can anything that my own feeble efforts have not been able to discern.
Remy, one more thing you wrote that confuses. Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest. Why then did you write that:
What you write here appears to contradict what Fr. Pfeiffer relates that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest? How then could Cardinal Slipyj have 'brought him in'?
Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 16:17:20 GMT
Saying "no one became catholic" is not true. Father relayed clearly "[it] had divided into two parts one was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not." In union with Cardinal Slipyj is in union with Catholicism which the records show had brought in many priests including Fr. Moran at the time. This historical part is a key element showing a working relationship and involvement with Cardinal Slipyj rome acknowledges he had ordained/conditionally ordained and consecrated/ conditionally consecrated many priests and bishop through that apostolate. Records show Fr. Moran is one of them.
Remy,
I think you missed my point. My point was that there seems to be nothing found online [not to say it didn't happen but one can't seem to find] a record anywhere of this 'union'. Especially in the 1940's to 1970's - of a 'union' of a particular group of Ukrainian Orthodox and Cardinal Slipyj. The Cardinal was arrested in either 1944 or 1945. I believe he was released in 1968. It is this union [between the years 1942 and 1968] that one can't seem to find a record of. No one is disputing the work of the Cardinal post his release, that is all very well documented. It would be most appreciated if anyone can anything that my own feeble efforts have not been able to discern.
Remy, one more thing you wrote that confuses. Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest. Why then did you write that: What you write here appears to contradict what Fr. Pfeiffer relates that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest? How then could Cardinal Slipyj have 'brought him in'?
Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide.
You said "no one became catholic". That is what is highlighted. Father said many (mixed) priests from both the orthodox side and Ukraine side went in union with Cardinal Slipyj. No contradiction in that. Evidence proves this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 16:33:45 GMT
The Catacombs position has been very confusing lately. You said "Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest." So do you believe Bishop Moran is a catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2018 17:08:45 GMT
The Catacombs position has been very confusing lately. You said "Fr. Pfeiffer aptly showed that Bp. Ambrose was a Catholic priest." So do you believe Bishop Moran is a catholic/ catholic priest/ and catholic bishop like Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Possion, and Fr. Pancras do?
Can you please elaborate on the confusion?
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Nov 28, 2018 17:44:12 GMT
Remy where does Fr. Pancras say that and where does Fr. Hewko say so unequivocally that he is licit not just valid?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 18:22:13 GMT
Remy where does Fr. Pancras say that and where does Fr. Hewko say so unequivocally that he is licit not just valid? In the sermon Father just gave thecatacombs.org/post/3508/thread He said multiple times Bishop Moran is legitimate in all three (catholic, catholic priest, and catholic bishop)
Fr. Pfeiffer said in his talk there were three other priests present (Frs. Hewko, Possion, Pancras) and all the seminarians who went through all of the evidences. Fr. Hewko confirmed this three days later on Nov. 11 stating Bishop Moran's legitimacy many times and upbraided Tony Larossa for his calamity. He referenced Fr. Pancras support in a positive way advocating to put out more of the historical tibits for the people.
The only problem Fr. Hewko said, in his own words, is whether Bishop Moran is a fly by night garage bishop to trust him.
Fr. Pfeiffer visited our mission a few weeks ago and told us in a talk the whole seminary and priests viewed the large volume of evidences with the amazing newspaper clippings and accepts the legitimacy of Bishop Moran. For Fr. Hewko it is only about accepting him in a practical way.
|
|