Video & Transcript for November Conference on Bishop Ambrose

      But in any case, the first thing is with regard to…(asks a seminarian to get his backpack)… what's the rule about the consecration of a bishop. The root, the issue we’re dealing with here is we need a bishop to do the ordinations, also potentially the confirmations, but of course, primarily, of course, ordination to continue the Catholic priesthood and what are the requirements of the Church for the bishop to do ordinations and confirmations. And what's the law on rule of the Church about ordinations and confirmations. So, I kind of mentioned some of those points in the talk a few weeks ago but that was more about, was more of a call to repentance and more of a dealing with kind of the spiritual side of the gossip that's kind of floating around. Now, we’re going to see that here, we’re only going to consider not so much the gossip that’s floating around, even though it has to be dealt with, but what's the situation of the consecration of bishops and ordination of priests in the Catholic Church. And so, obviously in order to continue the Catholic Church, you need priests and you need the priesthood and the high priest is the bishop who passes on ordination and confirmation and so where this has become an issue for us is that, we actually since the seminarians started we got our first, we have a first case of an actual bishop who's willing to, to try to help us. And so that kind of brings it to the fore because before the Bishop Ambrose came on the scene, it was kind of a non-issue in the sense that it would seem clear to me for instance, that it’s very obvious that we have to do the work, the continuation of the Society Saint Pius X. We have to continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, preparing priests for the priesthood and an independent seminary and this, that is, Archbishop Lefevre started an independent seminary, that's going to be teaching the Catholic faith and then when the priests get ordained they'll still operate independently of modernist organizations. So, this exact same idea that Archbishop Lefevre had in his vision in the car, when he realized as superior general of the Society Saint Pius X, I'm assuming of the Holy Ghost Fathers, that it wasn't enough to establish a seminary, not enough to establish a seminary or good men, but in order for them to be able to function independently they had to be independent of modernist hierarchy. He was the superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers and he could easily have pulled out six or ten really solid traditional, Catholic, ante-modernist, Holy Ghost Father priests and established a seminary, he could easily have done that and then if he did that, many would have made them their own little itty bitty subgroup within the Holy Ghost Fathers and they would functioned more like the Holy Ghost Fathers function. But he realized that even though he’s Superior general, after twelve years his superiorship would cease and not only that but the crisis of the Church would not cease. He also realized that they would probably get worse in the next twelve years, not better. And then, he realized also that the Holy Ghost Fathers missionary order, which only works with those people that are of the Holy Ghost Fathers, whereas the crisis of the Church is a global crisis and there will be many people who need the Catholic faith, who are being trained by modernist or underneath modernist priests, who will not be able to function if there's not just a seminary producing solidly trained priests. Because in 1962 there were still seminaries producing solidly trained priests, there were still some of those seminaries around throughout the world. The good professors still teaching in the old way, be an anti-modernist. But the big, big problem was when they would be ordinated, they will be under the local superiors, may be incorporated in the regular dioceses and they would not be able to do any kind of stable work preserving the faith.

      You can foresee the Saint Athanasius situation where being driven out of the Church we have to operate independently and so, in 2012, after many discussions, with Bishop Williamson especially, he was kind of my spiritual director at the time, and the many conversations we had about this crisis and society we're beginning to notice that there's a change of faith, change of spirit in the priests of the Society and that if there isn't a turning around in the General Chapter of 2012, we needed to establish this independent seminary maintaining fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre by the fall of 2012, as in immediately. And of course, the Bishop said, we discussed it many times, ‘yes, it is true, yes yes yes’, and Bishop Williamson should be the rector and ‘yes yes yes, of course’, he always, oh now think back, he always said, ‘yes yes yes’, in principle, in principle, in principle. But of course, that turned out that obviously he didn't do those things. And so that we have to, because it's necessary to continue the work of the Society which means we need to have priests who are validly ordained, who are going to be Catholic priests professing the Catholic Faith but they must be operated independently so that they can respond to the call of the faithful wherever the faithful call. Because the practical charism of the SSPX is a global missionary society which is, and there are many global missionary societies we’re not the only one, all missionary societies are global theoretically, but what was specific about us is that, we have to be able to operate independently of the local bishops and that's what makes us different from the other dioceses, the other religious orders, because we're going to be going into dioceses of where bishops and priests are not going to be happy and why are we going to go there? Because of the crisis of Faith. Now we’re in 2012, we find ourselves in a very similar situation. That now the priests who are conservative or maintain the faith, they're only localized and the people that need that faith are all over and so therefore, there’s a need to continue exactly what Archbishop Lefevre did, independent seminary and continue the work. So, we discussed that multiple times, that we have to do it.

      2012, we tried to start, Bishop Williamson did not accept. Not only did he not come to the seminary but in 2012 he didn't step out of the Society. We weren't ready, it was too quick because I was officially expelled October the 3rd, 2012 there was still some hope to not be expelled, October is time to begin the seminary. So, we determined, alright 2013, is the next year, we're going to start the seminary by 2013, no matter what. And during the year 2012-2013, our primary going around the world speaking with priests, speaking with the faithful, and the primary purpose was to establish this seminary and that it needed to be done, no matter what the adverse circumstances, it had to be done and then finally in October 2013 we started the seminary. And then it became clear that Bishop Williamson, who was supposed to be our bishop, do the ordinations, he's told me in the very, very beginning that I asked him, ok we're gonna have the seminary, going to start in October and can you come in, next year in February 2nd? Do the, the, the blessing of the cassocks and the tonsure? And he said, ‘well no. I may not, may not come for the tonsure and I may not come for anything’. So, he told me that back in 2012, well back in 2013, before the seminary started and tried to encourage me, of course, to not start the seminary. And this is because, ‘I don't think it's a time for seminaries. You can't make seminaries now’, and I said, well the seminary has to be established, Bishop Williamson refuses and he made it clear of that. He did come and bless the seminary when we started October 2013, he visited. But even though he visited and blessed the seminary…(Asks seminarians about length of Bishop Williamson’s visit in 2013)…Three or four days or something, just a few days he was here but it wasn't a full week. It was his second visit, first visit he came in 2012, right after he was expelled from the Society and we had a conference here and then the second visit was in 2013, and he blessed the seminary. So, he refused and I didn't worry about it. And I remember we had a priest retreat and I told Bishop Williamson, I said, look you're the only pebble on the, the only bishop, you're the only one, we have only these four bishops, you're the only one standing with the truth. He says, ‘I'm not the only pebble on the beach’, I said, yes you are and you know you are, because there aren't any other bishops in the world that are valid bishops, that aren't sedesvacantism or whatever, and who are going to be able to come forward and help us, you're the only ones, you or one of these four bishops. He says, ‘no, no, no, no. I'm not the only one’. And so, we continued the seminary and I said, we’re not worried about it, God will provide in His own due time.

      In 2015, the Arch-, Bishop Williamson then opened up his public attack against us, that's when he kind of opened up his public attack, was 2015. He had been working underneath, trying to get every seminarian to leave the seminary, trying to get everyone who wanted to be a sister or a nun to not become a sister or a nun, trying to shut things down before they can get started. Trying to, when we went around the parishes, I always traveled with Bishop Williamson because I knew that at each parish, he would tell people to leave, and he would tell them to go back to the Society, I knew exactly what he was doing. So, I traveled with him and smiled and whenever he talked to somebody and said, ‘leave’, I would tell them, ‘stay’.

      And so, there was the one case in Saint Mary's Kansas, where he was saying some of the new mass being good and a guy in the back, he says ‘excuse me’, we had about seventy-five or eighty people there at that conference, ‘excuse me Bishop, but did you just say that the new mass was okay?’ And Bishop Williamson began to respond. I was standing on the side and I knew exactly what he was going to say, it was going to be the same crap that he said in 2015, three years, two years later, so when he started to respond, I immediately responded, for him, and said the new Mass was straight from hell and it's evil and intrinsically evil and it's not just secondarily bad. And then the Bishop, Bishop Williamson, went…(Does hand gestures)…He pointed to me and made gestures and then we went on to the next question. Because I knew that he was going to pull out, and if he pulls this stuff out, I'm gonna have to attack him right then and there, so I didn't really want to do that, and so I answered for him, I just answered right for him. Trying to avoid any kind of a public conflict. So, anyway 2015 though, he really opened up, actually, with the put away your toys and he opened up on a public attack, because they're trying to shut down the seminary. And at that same time was when Archbishop Ambrose appeared on the scene. And so, it just feels shortly before that, it was that same summer that he appeared on the scene, and he says, ‘you know, I want to meet with Bishop Williamson, I want to meet with you guys, I like what you’re seeing, what you're doing. My name is Archbishop Ambrose and I’m in Colorado.’ So, I called him up and thought it was just another one of these nut bishops or whatever, but I called him up and then he seemed very unusually knowledgeable for bishops who or priests that came from the non-seminaries or the Thuc line bishops and all that, who never went to a seminary, never studied, they don't know anything.

      And then so, they did investigation, went and visited him and the crisis arose at the very end of October, yeah, the very end of the September. Before the seminarians came. Was end of September, just before the seminary started. Father Voight sent out his letter that I'm a thief and then this it was a Constance sent her letter out. Oh, that was later. No, it was around the same time. That's when he left and that’s when he sent it out. But he sent his letter out, but not her. He said, ‘we have to get, keep these young men from coming to the seminary’. Then the accusations against Paul the Mexican, accusations against myself, accusations about Bishop Ambrose. And it was occasioned by Father, by Greg Taylor putting out a notice that said, that Bishop Williamson has a pedophile priest with him in Father Abraham, in Broadstairs. Now, the faithful tried to asked him quietly not let him continue to come and say the masses, bequeath him off the circuit and he said, no he's not going to do that. And after speaking to him several times and trying to get him to quietly do something about it, he's not. So, he made a notice, public notice. Within six hours or ten hours of that notice, immediately all the vomit came. Because Bishop Ambrose did visit here September the 13th weekend and there was, basically he said mass, it was in the summertime, he said mass and he gave us a little talk about, ‘I’m Bishop Ambrose and came from here and there’ and so on, and there was nothing really happened. There was no fuffle, or no anything. But once the three, two and a half weeks later when Greg Taylor put out that notice there was an immediate massive explosion.

      Then, so continued the investigation of Archbishop Ambrose and so on. And what brought it to an end in 2015, we made it very clear that there's no issue of being able to work with Archbishop Ambrose was when he decided to canonically direct the seminary, he was, ‘I can canonically direct a seminary’. I remember he did that on a private mass that we had, it was the day of the wedding of my nephew, so I left for the wedding, Father Hewko had to leave for the circuit and Bishop Ambrose left for Colorado. And so, my brother, Father Tim, was in Colorado, the wedding was in Colorado, with my brother, my nephew, my oldest nephew Joseph, being married. And then he said a private mass but it was the only Mass with the seminarians… (incoherent)… some of the seminarians went to it because it wasn’t a scheduled Mass and one of them was Martin, who decided to film it and then put it on the internet. And so he says, and that he wanted us to be under his jurisdiction and I said, no we can't do that, we cannot accept jurisdiction because that will be accepting a parallel hierarchy, which we don't accept. Remember that the bishop comes in, does the ordination as in, even when our bishops do ordinations, it’s just an auxiliary bishop providing a valid ordination. So, when I was ordained by Bishop Fellay, Father Schmidberger was the superior of the Society Saint Pius X and when I knelt down and put my hands in the hands of Bishop Fellay and said, ‘do you promise obedience to your superiors?’ Because he was not my superior, he was just a bishop, he did the ordination. And just like now, they'll switch back to that again now that Father Pagliarani is the superior. When he does the ordination you'll say, ‘will you promise obedience to your superiors?’, your legitimate superiors within your religious congregation.

      When every priest is ordained, no priest is allowed to be ordained who is a ‘Vagos’, who is a vagrant priest and then, what I found interesting about that particular issue, is that the ORCM back in the 1970s, Father LeBlanc in Phoenix and many other priests tried to create a seminary for independent young men and there has been an attempt to do that and at least in many states, multiple times, and I'm sure it’s been done in other places ever since Vatican II. And all of the attempts failed the idea was that Father Ringrose, Father LeBlanc, all these priests who are in independent chapels would have one of their young men from their parish go to the seminary, they would study in the seminary after they'd be ordained, they would not be a member of any religious order or congregation, they said they'd come back to the parish where they were and then when the old priest died it would take his place and this way they would continue the priesthood like if they can arrange parish priest. And there was a great desire to do that all throughout the 70s, 80s, 90s and it completely failed, nowhere did it succeed. Only the Society Saint Pius X, their religious order who succeeded in making, okay we're gonna make seminarians who are going to be priests. When you become a priest, you can't just be a validly ordained priest, but you need to have a function, you need to belong to a religious order. So, when here we didn’t have the bishop, we still don't have the bishop to this day, but we have, whenever you get ordained it's to be of the Society Saint Pius X Marian Corps…(Asks seminarian to go get Father Pancras).

      So, in any case so they, with regard to the Code of Canon Law was required for the making of valid Catholic bishop and it's really relatively simple. Any valid bishop, any bishop who has the power of orders, whether he believes in God or there he is Catholic in good standing or whether he is suspended interdicted or excommunicated, whether he is an apostate, a schismatic or a heretic, the only other possibility is dead. So, that's every any kind of living bishop was going to fit in one of those seven categories. A Catholic bishop in good standing or, and that is where our bishops stand by the way, the bishops of the Society, they are Catholic bishops of good standing. They’re called suspended or excommunicated but that's actually not correct because they’re really not suspended or excommunicated. But so, they actually fit into the category of Catholic bishop in good standing. However, a Catholic bishop of good standing or truly suspended, that's legitimately suspended, because it if it’s illegitimate, you fit into category one. Truly interdicted, forbidden to offer any sacraments. Suspended means, suspended and interdicted are very similar to one another. Suspended is they're suspended from the use of their sacraments, interdicted, I think they're even interdicted where they can't receive a Catholic burial I think, it just goes a little bit further I believe is the case of interdicted. And then excommunication, which is practically is similar to interdict, it's more serious so that they’re an excommunicated bishop, a truly excommunicated bishop or priest. And then, there’s an apostate, one who was Catholic and left the Catholic Faith. Schismatic, one who has essentially, theoretically, has the same faith but is separated from the Church and is rarer than the truth that is only a schismatic, because most schismatics are also heretics. And then lastly, the heretic.

      Whenever a bishop of one of those six categories or a bishop who's in good standing but does not get permission from Rome to consecrate then he would be also in trouble. So, in any case so the Code, the Code of Canon Law here that, so first. So, one who was excommunicated prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the sacraments, sacramentals except for the exceptions that follow. And then that's Canon 2261. So, one was excommunicated or is not supposed to offer the sacraments, except paragraph number two. The faithful will do regard for the prescriptions in paragraph three, can for any just cause seek the sacraments and sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking and then the one who is excommunicate and approached, can administer the sacraments and, and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons for the one requesting. And so, that when there is an excommunication, a really excommunicated bishop, or really excommunicated priest, if the faithful ask him for the sacraments he can give it, assuming he's truly excommunicated, if he’s not excommunicated well then, it’s a nonissue right. That’s why we say with our priests and bishops within in the Society of Saint Pius X priests are not our priests, we are not suspended, even though we're said to be suspended, the bishops are not excommunicated, even though they are claimed to be excommunicated. But even if they were, the faithful could ask them for the sacraments, but from a bad excommunicate, that's the excommunicatis vitantus, other excommunicates after a condemnatory or a declaratory sentence has come, then only the faithful can ask in the danger of death. So, if there is someone who's nominate, named excommunicated, then that person who is, we call of a vitantus excommunicated, then the faithful can only ask the sacraments from him in the danger of death. An excommunicated who is excommunicated but he’s not vitantus, the faithful could ask the sacraments from him and they don't even have to have a reason, they just ask and the excommunicated priest or bishop can administer the sacraments, that would apply for confirmation and also for Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders as well.

      Now, then with regard to the Law of the Church on the excommunication, the Canon 2370, it was changed to an excommunication. A bishop consecrated another bishop and the assistant bishop, or in a place of bishops, priests, and those who receive consecrations without an apostolic mandate against the prescriptions of Canon 953, are by law suspended in the Apostolic See, unless the Apostolic See dispenses them and that's Canon 3370. That's the old law that says that if you consecrate a bishop, you're suspended. Pius XII changed that to an excommunication, so that's the famous changing to an excommunication in 1951 and then 1955 and this is the Canon that's in question here. So, that the bishop who is consecrated or the priest who is ordained, no, no, the priest is suspended, the bishop also excommunicated, if the consecration or, applies to Bishop Ambrose, if he was consecrated by any one of those six unapproved bishops then he would be considered excommunicated according to the new legislation. Because of a violation of the Title 6 and so putting together the titles of the, this is important for us and the Society of Saint Pius X, that we recognized that in 1988, 1988, our four bishops were consecrated without permission of Rome and they were immediately accused of being in schism. And what's interesting about this particular situation with Archbishop Ambrose, is that we’re also accused of being in schism and this accusation we should be familiar with that, they're accused of being in schism for consecrating a bishop without the permission of Rome. So, when you’re talking about the consecration of a bishop, John Paul II vaguely says in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the Schimatic Act, and of course, he claims it's a schismatic act, when according to the Law of the Church, the consecration of a bishop without permission of Rome, and remember as far as the Church is concerned you've got those six possibilities. So, it doesn't matter which one, actually, there’s a seventh possibility, that is an approved Bishop doing it without approval or suspended, interdicted, excommunicated bishop or an apostate, schismatic or heretical Bishop all of those, any one of those when they do it, there is a punishment of excommunication created by Pius XII and before that and in the history of the last two thousand years, suspension. Then you have Canon 2372, just afterwards by the way, which says that they incur upon the fact a suspension from a divinis, this is a communal from saying mass and so on, reserve the Apostolic See, who presumed to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after declaratory or condemnatory sentence or from a notorious apostate heretic or schismatic. But whoever in good faith was ordained by such a one and as these lacks the exercise of the orders received until he is dispensed. So, you got Canon 2372, there's two codes later that says that if a priest received ordination from an act, from one of these excommunicated or suspended, all those seven categories, if he receives, he has himself a punishment, is suspended out of a divinis, the Apostolic See. But if he does it in good faith then he does not receive that penalty he's not suspended, a divinis, he just simply should not exercise his order until he has been dispensed and according to wormwood in the Code of Canon Law, a commentary, that's whenever a bishop gives him an assignment, so he doesn't have to do a suspension but just give him an assignment.

      An example in history is Saint Athanasius, Saint John Chrysostom, and that when they left their diocese because they were thrown out and other saints thrown out their diocese, they were thrown out multiple times, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Athanasius when they were thrown out of the diocese, heretical bishops took their place. Aryan bishops or historian bishops took their place and then those bishops ordained priests in their absence. When the bishops came back, Saint Athanasius restored to his see or Saint John Chrysostom was restored to his see, they did not re-ordain or absolve or reassign those priests, they simply continued as Catholic priests in the diocese. And Saint Augustine, he has the good quote about that. The good Saint Augustine says they left, Saint Augustine talks about the fact that the condemning of the Donatists, that they left worthy of punishment the union makes them corrected and that so there was no issue. Remember multiple times in the Church from the very beginning, the early precursors of the Orthodox, which now the Orthodox, we call them by one name, historians, monophysites, they functioned as bishops without the, you don't need the permission of Rome, of course, in those days but the permission of the Metropolitan of the other Catholic Bishops, consecrated bishops without permission, consecrated bishops who were heretical, consecrated bishops that were schismatic and when the Church came back to its senses, they just simply functioned as bishops, functioned as priests and that's been the practice of Church for basically two thousand years. And it explains why the penalty of consecrating a bishop or ordaining a priest without permission is in Title 6, which means it’s the least, not very important in amongst the Titles.

      So, the penalties and delicts condemned by the Church. Title 1 is on delicts against the Faith in the unity of the Church and then Title 2 on delicts or penalties, I mean crimes, against religion. Title 3 on delicts against ecclesiastical authorities, persons and things and I think this is, and then this is where you attack the reputation of a bishop or you attack a bishop or attack the priests and so on, delicts against ecclesiastical authorities, persons and things, desecrating a church. On delicts against life liberty, property, good reputation and good morals and so that's Title 4. So, these are all and they're more serious crimes than ordained a bishop, ordained a priest without permission and then Title 5 on the crime of falsehood. And I think that's in regard to accusing priests of, that's a crime specifically where a woman accuses a priest of impurity in the confessional and she's lying and of course, the priest can't defend himself because of the seal of the confessional and then they also refer to the falsehood in court but I think it's primarily the crime of falsehood in regard to violations of the confessional on the part of the faithful and that. So, and then, Title 6 on delicts in the administration and the reception of orders and the other sacraments and this is the one we're dealing with here, the less Title 6. So, the other five titles one of which is destroying the reputation of another, destroying churches, sending, you’ll notice that all these are most serious delicts against these other crimes, these other sins, these other penalties, or other crimes in the Church, they don't make one cease to be Catholic, they receive a punishment and it depends on the degree of the crime. And so, we arrive at Title 6 and I think what's interesting about the history of Title 6 is that it brings up a really big question of why did Pope Pius XII make an excommunication for a crime that said like, the listed number of say sixty or sixty-five, so you got the most serious crimes and crime number of sixty gets an excommunication. But the thirty or forty crimes above it have almost no excommunications but fifty of the crimes got no excommunications.

      Why do they have an excommunication there? I think it's true, we can say that the reason for the addition of the excommunication for the consecration of a bishop is specifically because of Vatican II. It had to be the reason, it’s not because of the Communists in China, it’s with the communists in Rome. So, to the level of excommunication, why do that? Because of the fear that when Vatican II comes into play that there will be bishops who will stand up against Vatican II and will consecrate priests who are not heretics, priests that are not in favor of the good liberal garbage going on in the council and they'll only be suspended and so they'll only get a slap on the wrist and these bishops will end up being a massive headache. So therefore, there’s an addition of an excommunication. Reading one of the Latin Canon lawyers Capello, I think it was Capello, or another guy with a C, he said the excommunication of Pius XII does not apply to the consecration of a bishop who's an auxiliary bishop. So, in other words according to them the excommunication wouldn't even apply to the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. The excommunication could only apply to a bishop who's being consecrated in order to take on jurisdiction and the diocese. And this is what makes the penalty excommunicable. Because it's absurd to excommunicate somebody just for consecrating a bishop or for ordaining a priest, ordaining a priest is a suspension, consecrating a bishop is an excommunication. It's absurd to do that because there's no bad, there's no proportion between the punishment and the crime and he said the reason that therefore that punishment only applies when a bishop is consecrating another bishop who is going to take on jurisdiction, auxiliary bishops. If a bishop was a consecrated bishop and a priest a bishop without jurisdiction the excommunication of Pius XII will not apply. I think that's Capello, or Colo, or something, I think it’s Capello but it might not be Capello, but somebody with a C, a Canon lawyer, Colley or something, commenting on that Code of 1955, it was 51’, then repeated in 55’.

      So, what happens if an excommunicated apostate Bishop ordains a Catholic priest or any priest to the Episcopacy? What happens is, if he doesn't do it, if he does it in good faith there's no excommunication, no penalty. If does it in bad faith, there is excommunication but the excommunication does not affect anyone else. Remember it was one of the points we made, when we look at the consecration of Archbishop Lefevre, he consecrated four bishops without the permission of Rome. What should have happened from the Roman perspective, if they were honest, on July 2nd or 1988 was, we declare that Bishop, Archbishop Lefevre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier, Bishop de Galarreta and the, Bishop Fellay, are excommunicated for consecration without permission. That's it, one paragraph. That's it, that's all that could legally be done and morally be done. But what was done? What was done is that they're excommunicated for violating the code, Canon 2370 and violating Code 2370, the old Code, whatever the number is in the new code, it just says the same thing, and this schism means we’re going to establish Ecclesia Dei commission and this schism. But wait there is no schism. When a priest is consecrated by a bishop without permission even if it's an apostate, schismatic or heretical bishop, and maybe he can get them all together at once cover everything, so it could be an apostate, schismatic and heretic so that he can get all the best of all worlds. And so he's an apostate, schismatic, heretic. If he does the consecration, so in this case Bishop Hryhorij consecrating Bishop Ambrose, that would at the worst-case penalty make him receive an excommunication which would have be a personal punishment and because that the punishment is for the minister not for those that receive sacraments from the minister. I think it's from the Saint, Saint Thomas I think it is.The punishment is for the minister, not for those who received from the minister because remember it’s an individual punishment. So, we used to point out in 1988 they said, if you go to Bishop Williamson’s Mass or if you go to Bishop Fellay's mass or if you accept Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay, you're excommunicated and you’re part of a schism.

      Number one, excommunication cannot go from person to person. Penalties cannot travel from person to person. And that if one person is a penalty it cannot be passed on to someone else and so penalties don't travel from person to person. Penalties have to be accepted strictly so the penalty is applied if you strictly violate the law then you receive a penalty, if you don't strictly violate the law, you don't receive the penalty. So, and then of course, excommunication does not equal schism or heresy or sinning against unity of the Church. If it did, the composers of the Canon law under Saint Pius X and, Gregory, and Benedict XV, they knew what the crimes were, they would have put it under Title 1, as we mentioned multiple times in the defense of Archbishop Lefebvre. There is no schism, it's impossible to even consider schism. Even if you really believe that these four bishops or these six bishops are excommunicated, that punishment only applies to them, you can even have your kids confirmed by them, you can even do that, according to Canon Law. So that you, if you did, even if you firmly believe that these six bishops are excommunicated, even though you're wrong they're not excommunicated, but supposing they really were, according to the Code of Canon Law any of the faithful can ask the sacraments of the excommunicated and that means they can receive them. So, what is the worst-case scenario of an apostate, a schismatic or a heretical bishop consecrating another priest to the Episcopacy? Personal punishment for that person and nothing more. Punishment does not pass to others.

      Secondly, when the consecration takes place most of, an apostate atheist consecrates a priest, he doesn't make the guy an atheist, if he's a Catholic and consecrates the priest, he doesn’t make the guy Catholic. Because now we have Catholic Bishops who have tried to ordained women and we have Catholic Bishops who have ordained non-Catholics. It's happened since Vatican II, they've done it secretly but they've done it. There have been Catholic Bishops that have ordained non-Catholics to the priesthood and may have ordained them to the Episcopacy. Now that ordination, obviously, is illegitimate and they would be excommunicated for doing that, legitimately excommunicated for doing that because they obviously didn’t have a good reason to do it and it's wrong. But their ordination would neither make the ordainand a Catholic or make them a non-Catholic. Ordination is a sacrament puts an indelible mark on the soul and it's a sacrament instituted by Christ and Saint Thomas Aquinas says in the Summa, Christ is the number one, He's the principal minister of the sacrament and the priest is only a secondary minister, he's just a secondary minister, so all he has to do is intend to carry the message. It's just like a messenger who has a sealed message, he doesn't have to agree with the message. Like I remember in the case of the, Hamlet he was carrying a message and the message says execute Hamlet. He didn't know that, oh of course he opened the message and kind of made an adjustment to the message, didn't execute the guys who were executing the other guys. But you’re made to carry a message you don't know what the message says, you don't believe in the message, you don't like the message, you're just carrying the message. When you deliver the message, it's delivered, and when you find out the messages are going to kill you, that stinks, but you are simply intending to carry the message, you carry the message, you deliver the message, it's delivered. And so, you don't have to believe in the message, you don’t have to like the message, you don't have to, you just simply carry it.

       And that's what's required for a bishop or a layman or to administer a sacrament because laymen can administer the sacrament of Baptism. And so that when they administer the sacrament of Baptism like in 1887, there's some bishops here in America who said that Methodist baptisms are invalid because Methodists do not believe in removing original sin, they don't believe in the doctrine of baptism, they think baptism is just a nice little fluffy ceremony, and it's in the doctrine of the Methodists, Methodists don't believe in baptism they do not have the Catholic belief of baptism. So how can an Methodist minister who publicly and knowingly does not believe in baptism, how can he be a minister of baptism? So, it's invalid. So, the case was sent to Rome 1887. Rome responded saying, no Methodist baptisms are valid, period. You cannot conditionally re-baptize, you only take a Methodist convert and make him make a profession of faith because the minister of the sacrament is Christ, not the Methodist minister. And when the Methodists or the atheist or the Jew or the pagan or the Catholic, the father of the child, when they pour water over the head of the baby, they're saying the words of the Church, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and their pouring the water over the head and the baby is baptized by Christ through the secondary administration of that minister. The ministers do not need to have faith, they do not need to believe in the sacrament. And this came up again in the Archbishop Lefebvre case because many people have claimed that the Archbishop Lefebvre and all the priest that come from him, like myself, Father Hewko and Father Chazal, we're all invalid priests. I'm learning it in the last night, let's see, there's a family of several ten or fifteen people there in Canada who have been twenty or fifteen, twenty years ago they left because of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a priest and I got twenty, twenty people over in Malaysia, they left because Archbishop Lefebvre was not a priest and we appear to be running across people who decide that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a priest because Cardinal Lienard ordained him without the intention to do what the Church does.

      So, with regard to, the minimum requirements of the Church to make a valid sacrament. Minister applies sacrament and tends to say the prayers. That's it, and he's not making a mockery of those prayers. The only way to invalidate my intention is to play, to play the Mass or to play the Baptism, that is to make an external mockery of it. Saint Thomas Aquinas points out must be an external, thing he's playing, he’s playing, he's not doing the sacrament, he's playing the sacrament. Like when I was a kid and played mass, if I was secretly ordained when I was a baby, I wouldn't have known that but if I was ordained secretly when I was a baby I would be truly a valid priest but when I was six years old and playing Mass, it wouldn't make Christ present because I was playing Mass, I wasn't intending to say Mass, I was just playing Mass. So, the sacrament is necessarily valid if the matter and form are applied by the minister intentionally. In other words, he intends to do it, not doing it in his sleep, and he's not mocking the sacrament, it's a free willed human act, he doesn't have to believe in the sacrament, doesn’t have to have faith etc. So, the Church said that about the Methodists in 1887, and then of course, many times about, the Orthodox and the others.

      It's interesting, it’s in My Catholic Faith Catechism, there on page 335 of the My Catholic Faith Catechism, on the duties and obligations of a priest that the Catholics know that all of the heretical bishops of the heretical churches, except the Anglicans because England's are clearly invalid because the… (incoherent word) …says they're invalid, by Pope Leo XII. But the Orthodox, but I think it's got the Polish National Church, and the old Catholics, the Jansenist, they have valid priests, valid bishops and continued apostolic succession and in the danger of death any Catholic can call on an Orthodox priest to anoint him, could hear his confession and bring him also viaticum and so the sacraments can be received by them. And in many cases in the history of the Church, one recent case is that Costa in 1945, he started his own religion. He basically was a communist in Brazil and he blew the whistle on the Pope Pius XII letting Nazis escape into South America. And so, Costa consecrated at least three bishops, he may have consecrated more, he started his own church and it's called the Apostolic Church of Brazil and he consecrated three bishops while he did that and the one of the, two of the bishops, came back to the Catholic Church, I don't know if they joined his religion or just got themselves consecrated by him, and there were two bishops received at Vatican II, they were two of the bishops at Vatican II. And so, they were consecrated by Costa and then came back to the Catholic Church. They just wanted to be bishops, so they got themselves consecrated a bishop, they came back and they were accepted and they were bishops at the council. And then another bishop who, just got consecrated by Costa and he remained a, he went to England and he's like the bishop that and he's the bishop who consecrated a lot of like, Taylor, a lot of the non-sedesvacantist bishops floating out there and so that the Church would not question their ordination, their consecration and then they were received back in the Church and never do they re-ordain the ones that are received back into the Church.

      So, with regard to the faithful, if a faithful receives a sacrament from an excommunicated bishop or a priest, if there's legitimate reason, then there's no problem. If they have good faith that there is legitimate reason, there's no problem, if there's common error, like in Canon 202 of the Old Code, there's no problem and if they do it wrongly, there's a problem and they shouldn't do that but there's no actual canonical penalty for that.

      And so, now we apply the codes there to the situation of Archbishop Ambrose. What do we know certain about Archbishop Ambrose? And that's not a matter of the dispute and that is number one, of course that he's either baptized in the Church of the Nativity in New York City in 1949, shortly after his birth as a Catholic in the Roman Rite. So, he's baptized Catholic in the Roman Rite. And then of course, he went to Catholic seminaries, it's part of New Jersey and he went to the Catholic Minor Seminary in New York and he also did his three years of teaching, like the Jesuits do, do three, several years of teaching before they get ordained, he did that teaching in Incarnation School as a seminarian, as a brother, in Long Island, New York, he did it for three years the appropriate time, 70’ to 73’ and then shortly afterwards was ordained a priest. And when he was ordained a priest by Bishop Ilnytskyy, in 1974, and Bishop Ilnytskyy was a bishop of the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America, of the USA, and when he ordained a Father William Moran in the Catholic chapel there in Long Island, he ordained him as a Catholic priest and he functioned as a Catholic priest under Bishop Boretsky and we have of the letters in file of the eparchy of Toronto that he, with certainty, that he was a priest of the diocese, incarnated in the Diocese of Toronto for two years. This is one thing Tony La Rosa can't understand. He says a temporary incardination is not an incardination, but of course it is. In the Code of Canon Law, when a priest transfers from one diocese to another he has to be incardinated from the moment he’s ordained and then he could be reincarnated in other diocese, they can receive him for a trial period. When they receive him, they receive him as incardinated into the diocese but with the right to remove him later on, that's only done by a revocation, if there's no revocation, he's incardinated.

      It's also interesting as our case in the Society of Saint Pius X because the SSPX was approved in 1970, provisionally, this is our enemies make that note all the time, that it was a provisional temporary approval for only five years as a Pius Association, the Society of Saint Pius X and we're just a Pius Association, we’re just a Pius Association. Father Roberts likes bringing that one up, Pius association, we're not pious, and so that part doesn't apply. But this is not a Pius Association and yet in 1972, a priest here in Kentucky, the Father Urban Snyder, he was incardinated by Rome into the Society of Saint Pius X, he had to get a special approval from Rome, the reason why he had to get a special approval from Rome is because Father Urban Snyder from Kentucky, he’s one of the priests who lived here at the property, one of the priests who raised me, he's one of only two priests who were incarnate into SSPX in the entire world. One of them happens to be from here, in this place, and the other priest is a French priest, I don't know him, but I know Father Urban Snyder and that he was incardinated in 1972 in the SSPX with the approval of Rome. And why did it had to be done? Because Father Urban Schyder is a Trappist monk. The SSPX is a religious congregation and according to the Law of the Church, you can't go down. So, you can go from congregation to monk but you can't go from monk to congregation. Therefore, in order for Father Urban Snyder to be incorporated, to be incardinated in the SSPX, under Archbishop Lefevre, he had to receive a special permission, indult, from Rome, which he received in 1972 and then he was incarnated into the Society Saint Pius X, which means according to Rome in 1972, that temporary, so-called temporary, approval of the SSPX was an approval of the SSPX. It's like a standard way to approve of things, it's like when you read in the Bible. We were doing Book of Daniel with Bishop Williamson. He says Daniel comes and says, ‘Oh King live forever’. What does that mean? Means ‘hi’. It’s how you say ‘hi’ to a king. Does it mean the King’s going to live forever? No, it’s just that’s the way you greet a King, makes him feel good and so, all it means is ‘hi’, it's just a procedure. ‘Oh King live forever’, ‘Oh King live forever’, ‘Oh King live forever’.

      And so likewise, when you receive someone into an organization, you receive the first temporarily. How many organizations do that? Every single organization in the Catholic Church. One of them is called the Society of Saint Pius X. When you take your promises on December the 8th, you're going to be received temporarily into the Society Saint Pius X and according to Canon Law, if you never renew them, like you're supposed to, but you stick around, guess what? Your still in the Society Saint Pius X and you have the responsibility, the Society Saint Pius X has a responsibility to take care of you and that's clear in Canon Law because of the fact that bishops love dumping priests, it's one of the things that they like to do. Bishops have always liked to dump priests and so as a protection for the priests the Church says, you gave a temporary approval to a priest fine, unless you publicly or clearly revoke that permission and expel him, that temporary permission equals permanent, and that's basic Canon Law. Basic Canon Law and the reason is because of the problem, so in the case of Archbishop Ambrose when he was Father William Moran incorporated into the, incarnated to the Diocese of the Eparchy of the Catholic, Eparchy of Toronto, he's a Catholic priest and you only need to be incarnated for one minute to be clearly a Catholic priest. You’ll also function certainly as a Catholic of the Diocese of Toronto, we've got the letters of Archbishop Ambrose, ‘can you can help out in the various parishes wherever needed, you could stay in New York City in America and help wherever needed, fine’. So that's what he did, he functioned only in Catholic places, Ruthenian and other places, the Eastern Rite Catholic churches and then you get to the 1976, 1976 consecrated bishop.

      We got two consecrations in 1976, one is the consecration, that's a secret consecration in Rome and that secret consecration in Rome was the one with Cardinal Slipyj. And this consecration is the one that can't fully, fully, fully seal the verification of, nonetheless, is a very solid and good evidence that he really was consecrated there in Rome and one of the, I mean he was truly, we know for certain that he was truly connected with Cardinal Slipyj and there is because of the recent discovery of, actually, of Tony La Rosa, who wrote to the Santa Sophia in Rome and the church where Cardinal Slipyj was. And in the response, to this response 2018, 2015 he wrote in and the priests there said, we've got no record of any William Moran here in the records, there's no such thing as the consecration in Santa Sophia. Writing back in 2015, “Let me give you a brief response to your request concerning the presence and the historical archives of the UGCC in Rome of the documents testifying to possible bishop ordination of William (Vasyliy, Amvrosiy) Moran by Patriarch Josyph. Checking the main archival funds and cases reveal the complete absence of such documents.” So, no document of the consecration found in their archival funds as bishop. “Moreover, the comparison of signatures of the beatitude Bishop Josyph and his Excellency Isydor Boretskyy from that period with the signatures in the ‘document’”. Quote-unquote. “sent by you, certifies that your document is a falsification and the signatures are false.” And so, he denies the consecration and the signatures in the consecration certificate. “We have found instead a letter from Bishop Boretskyy to Patriarch Josyph containing a petition for acceptance under the jurisdiction of the Bishop, under the jurisdiction of Bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America Mykolay Ilnytskyy with two priests, Ivan Ropke and William Moran, from November 29, 1974. In a draft of the response letter Patriarch Josyph asks Boretskyy to send the original documents and to find out more about the canonical status of the petitioners.” So, there we have a clear connection of Father William Moran and Bishop Ilnytskyy, specifically mentioned to receive Ilnytskyy of the Orthodox Autocephalous Church of America under the jurisdiction of Cardinal Slipyj, so, and the, Cardinal Slipyj says yes. In 1975, I got the newspaper clipping, actually the physical clipping, of a newspaper article in 1975, that says here is Father Ropke and with him Father William Moran, who are going to Rome for the holy year to meet their bishop, to meet their bishop. And so there, and they established, Father Ropke established a new Catholic parish, a new Ukrainian parish in a school nearby, ‘and we're looking for help for ladies to join the choir’. And the newspaper article, clipping, it says in 1975, a few months after this, that Father Ropke and Father William Moran are on their way to Rome to be with their bishop and the bishop is mentioned here, who's that Bishop? Bishop is the Cardinal Slipyj, so that they're under the jurisdiction of Cardinal Slipyj, and that they accept the jurisdiction under Cardinal Slipyj.

     We will also have the priest who’s with them, Father Ropke, consider the facts of Father Ropke and a letter to Father Chirovsky, November from Father Chirovsky, November 10th, 2015… (Incoherent sentence) …said, what do you know about Bishop Ambrose? We’re gonna put up a little website, Ambrose Moran whatever it is, dot wordpress, a website of pictures and chronicle, so she asked him to look at that and see if he recognized anything and Chirovsky answers. “It may well be that William Moran was ordained a priest. Nothing in the documents or photos suggest to me that he was consecrated a Catholic bishop. The photographs and captions are a mixture of the real, the fake. The photo, purporting to be taken after his consecration at Santa Sophia, Rome is manifestly doctored picture. Cardinal Slipyj would have been falling down to appear at such an angle, simply ridiculous. The photos of Father John Ropke”, that's the priest whose, he's listed, so the John Ropke, he is in these several documents here. “May well be authentic. Father Ropke was known to me and served in the Saint Joseph at Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of… (incoherent word) …Ohio. In his later years, the photos of the… (Incoherent word) …of Toronto include, Deacon Chuck Bell, who fancily like to use the name Constantine Belisarius”, which Bishop Ambrose told me the same thing about that Bell whatever his name is. “Belisarius and the late Father Sergey Keller, who was a secretary to Bishop Isydor Boretskyy and may have been the source of the Eparchy of Toronto letterhead.” So, we have what is the witness here? These priests, he can verify that the priests in the pictures, at least three of them, they are known to him, of the eparchy of Toronto, one was a secretary of Isydor Boretskyy and they're Catholic. So, even though Father Chirovsky, who was ordained in 1980, was a bit younger than Bishop Ambrose, he was ordained in a 1980 by Cardinal Slipyj, so he didn't personally know Archbishop Ambrose, but he knew the same Catholic priest that Ambrose knew. So, this is proof that, yeah these are Catholic priests that are in those photos, of course, we also verify the churches, we have hundreds of photos and these photos demonstrate, is called circumstantial evidence of in court, that the Bishop Ambrose as a priest was in all these Catholic parishes, celebrating the Catholic Mass for the Catholic faithful and so it's all showing him to be Catholic and that's throughout.

      So, then the important revelation of Father Chirovsky and… (Speaks to a seminarian) … Father Chirovsky, “it's absurd to claim the way Moran was consecrated and in the Church of Santa Sophia. All ordinations, even the priesthood, much less the episcopate, within the borders of the city of Rome must be registered with the vicariant of Rome.” And it's interesting here that Father Chirovsky is saying this, when just a couple paragraphs before, he admits that there were three secret consecrations. They were not registered with the vicariant of Rome. In fact, they weren't registered until after around 1991, many years later. They weren't registered with the vicariant of Rome. But then normal ones are registered with the vicariant of Rome, ones that are approved by the Pope. These consecrations, these at least four consecrations that he missed, and other consecrations done by Cardinal Slipyj, no one knows how many but he did multiple consecrations, they were not approved by Rome, they were not approved by Rome. And in fact you said… (Unsure of spelling for Polish seminarian’s last name) …that when you were there, you said there were, they said there were many bishops in the Ukraine or several bishops?

      Polish seminarian speaking: They don't really know but there were secret consecrations. They said that the Ukraine, they don’t really know who is a real bishop and who knows, even in those days.

      Back to Father Pfeiffer: Cause he did the secret consecrations and then, of course, not only did he do secret consecrations but remember that under the iron curtain there were secret consecrations, all consecrations were secret, that was like normal. Cardinal Slipyj himself was consecrated secretly, in fact they weren't supposed to know that he was a bishop and but the communists, of course, knew and the second that Bishop Andrew, whatever his name was, the Bishop before him died, Sheptytsky died, immediately they arrested Slipyj. It's so, they were supposed to know him only as Father Slipyj but in fact he was already a bishop, he'd already been consecrated secretly and the Communists found out about it, but they didn't arrest him until after till, what's his name? How do you say his name? Sheptytsky died.

      So, in any case so here, the important revelation here of Father Chirovsky, “that is why all married candidates to the priesthood are ordained in the…(incoherent word)… monastery Casa de Dovo, now within the city limits of Rome. That is where I was ordained to the priesthood on June 8th, 1980.” Oh, I see he's a married priest. “June 8th, 1980. I was immediately given an adamencium like that which William Moran has.” This is the key. “I was immediately given an adamencium like that which William Moran has.” Well, we say Greek corporal. “But he had the audacity to scribble his own name on the line reserved for the signature of Cardinal Slipyj.” He has no way of knowing that's just a rash claim. “The Cardinal’s signature is where he usually signs, not on that line because it was too small for his large signature.” And so that's the one here, that we have the actual, the actual real document here. You can see there’s the …(incoherent)…of Cardinal Slipyj. You see how he signed across? And this is the physical cloth document, forty or fifty years old and there was a custom to give this, this is a definitive proof that the conditional ordination to the priesthood done by Cardinal Slipyj, was really done by Cardinal Slipyj, he gave the certificate. We know that he was, he went to Rome, Father William Moran and he said that Cardinal Slipyj conditionally re-ordained him and it's what he always did coming from his Eastern ‘we don't trust anybody’ background and what did he do? He gave him this exact cloth. I mean you see how it's got the relics sewed to the back and so on, and that's the actual signature. And what's interesting to know, and Father Chirovsky is a witness, that's a very powerful witness, because he's against Archbishop Ambrose he doesn't believe in him. So, when a witness is against you, much more powerful than your friend, cause your friend he might lie for you. Maybe he isn’t, maybe he is. But when your enemy says something it's a lot more powerful and that is a signature of Cardinal Slipyj, that huge signature. He is supposed to sign on this little bitty line here but he didn't. And he signed there and gave this document to, gave this cloth, this is the actual physical cloth, so this is a lot better than a normal certificate. A normal certificate is actually a copy provided by the, it’s a copy provided by the diocese but that's not what we have. Not a copy provided by the diocese, or it is the church, this is the actual cloth. So, that is definitive proof that Father William Moran was with Isydor Boretskyy, 1974-1975 and of course, we have him in the holy year 1976, I think it is, in Rome, at the Mass of the, and he said there could be a lot of priests were there at that Mass, so he could have been there like many others. And of course, he was, we know that he was there. All these point to the fact that he said, what he says about Cardinal Slipyj happen to be true.

      Now then, you have the consecration in Chicago in June, in July of 1976, and that consecration is again, verified, it's still on the website of Tony La Rosa. You’ll recognize that on October, was it October the 17th? Anyway, October the 17th, he contacted the Cathedral there in Chicago, October the 16th he contacted the Holy Protection Cathedral the wrong one, the Russian one. When he contacted that one, they said, no there's no Ambrose consecrated here, then he realized he contacted the wrong Cathedral, so then he contacted the correct Cathedral, the Ukrainian Cathedral, and they said, yes there are only two bishops, I think, consecrated here one of them was Bishop Ambrose-Dolgorouky, he was one of the bishops consecrated here. We could verify that that the certificate is correct, that's the 1976 certificate of consecration with the eight bishops in it and then I also went to meet the priest in charge in Chicago and he verified that, yes, that he was really and truly consecrated here and also the Father told us that they, told me, he told me that he saw several different groups of documents when he went through the archives. One was the certificate of consecration, of course, in 76’ by those eight or nine bishops. Then the other was a document that's from Bishop Hryhorij, written in Ukrainian to all those bishops saying that Father William Moran, Bishop William Moran was already consecrated earlier that summer by Cardinal Slipyj and he told me about that that document and then a third, there are various documents about the dealings between the various Ukrainian churches trying to unite. Because Bishop Hryhorij, who established his jurisdiction in 1942, and was a bishop, Orthodox bishop, a mainline Orthodox bishop, he devoted his whole life to trying to unite the Ukrainian church and separate it from the Russian and Greek churches. And so Cardinal Slipyj, he was friends with Cardinal Slipyj and worked with Cardinal Slipyj to try to separate his jurisdiction and that's why one of the priests of his jurisdiction or Bishop of his jurisdiction, Bishop Ilnytskyy, would easily be accepted by Cardinal Slipyj and we have that, we have it there in the documents of the Santa Sophia that Cardinal Slipyj accepted him and accepted him under his jurisdiction. Father Ropke, Father William Moran and Bishop Ilnytskyy of the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America.

      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 Hryhorij. Where the question in doubt, where the question or concerns or doubts come in from the people, I think, is primarily that, 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 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, 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 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 there's the Vatican II baloney and then that's it for the essential truths about Bishop Ambrose and then you have the accusations.

      So, we can say with the accusations, the principal accusations we got what? The doctored picture of him with Cardinal Slipyj. You have the, they say the changes that appear to be made in the documents, particularly in the 1976 document of the consecration in Chicago because somebody wrote in 1976 and they put the wrong date to June 13th, to Sunday June 13th and June 13th wasn't a Sunday that year, they did a mistake in the typing and they did a sloppy job of putting that together. Those in fact, I talked to a lawyer, of a lawyer in England he says those are actually, we would consider those in court as proofs of that it’s legitimate document. Because when you have many people signing the document they get a secretary to sign it up, to type it up and the secretary very often screws it up and remember in the days before computers, you had to physically type it in, if they screwed it up it's really annoying, it's really difficult to do, especially when you get many people to sign it. It used to happen to me a lot with marriage documents. In the marriage documents you have the witnesses come in, they sign and then you put the wrong date, spell the name wrong and then they all leave and now you got the wrong information. So, what do you do? You can't go back and get them and get the signatures again so you cross out, put the correct information in, send it into the government because it happens a lot in marriage certificates. So, because you've got all the witnesses come in, they sign, you signed on the wrong line you idiot, they're the ones of the witnesses they're not the ones getting married and so there's all kinds of screw-ups that happen. And when you have multiple people signing a document it's very common because the documents been then prepared in advance, some secretary prepares it, it's quite common that gets screwed up. Now it's easy to fix those things, now you can do computer signatures and you can redo the documents with, and those kinds of documents which multiple people sign those kinds of things can happen.

      Now this document of 1976, it's the document which we know with certainty is a correct document, I've got a copy of the document and the copy is also on the internet but that's the document of consecration which is verified by the priests and the Cathedral in Chicago. We verified that document. Now then the complaint is made, well I mean why do they change the signatures? Why this, why that? Well that's what happens, it happens frequently actually. And when we check, when I check with some of the signatures of the bishop, there’s three Catholic Bishops in that document, three Melkite Catholic Bishops, one of which is supposed to be Bishop Joseph Tawil, another one is Bishop Joseph Raya which are both Catholic Bishops…(incoherent)…and they were there and there were two of the, the other third, I can’t remember his name, Bishop Andreas something, I think, but there were two, those two I remember their names and they’re Catholic Bishops of the Catholic Church present there and you can see their signatures and one of the commenters and that made, said yeah that's Bishop Joseph Raya signature as he was so old, his hand was so bad, that someone would have to hold his hand, always a messy signature just like that and that's the way that Father, Bishop Joseph did it because he was really old when, at the time of the consecration.

      Also, with the priests there told us there's an old lady in the parish that remembers the young bishop being consecrated. They remember the young bishop, the young twenty-seven-year-old bishop, who was a royalty, Dolgorouky, being consecrated in the Cathedral. They remember that bishop.

      And then, of course, another important circumstantial evidence which is very important. The main proof that somebody is a priest, the general, the main proof you have is that he dresses like a priest, talks like a priest, remember the duck. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. So, the main proof you have is the priest himself and that he's functions and is accepted as a priest because when we go into churches, I'm Father Bob of, where you from? I'm from the diocese of so and so. I'm from the Society of Saint Pius X or whatever, okay fine you can say Mass on the side altar and that they did they functioned as priests. We have charlatan priests, cause we've dealt with charlatan priests in 1980s, usually the charlatan priests were Polish. So, whenever we get a priest with a Polish name, you always check. One of them I served at Mass, I served at a Mass he was at, up here in Indiana and he was a fake priest. He was just, he decided to do traditional, he practiced up the Latin Mass, he heard confessions and said Mass. There were multiples of them in the 1980s and I think as late as the 90s. They usually would last a few weeks or a month. I do remember that he was a little bit weird, I only saw him one time but he wasn't, I can tell you he was different, he wasn't like Father Wathan, he wasn't Father Urban, he wasn't like Father O’Connor, he wasn't like Father Hannifin, I recognized that. I was a sixteen-year-old kid, okay maybe he's just a little different, I did recognize he wasn’t like the other ones. And then he got caught, he didn't last very long. The reason he doesn't last very long, is because the charlatan priests they don't know their theology, when you start asking them ‘where were you?’, ‘yeah I was there man, yeah’, ‘where?’, ‘I mean all around, you know? All around’. So, then when you ask them they can't remember what classes they went to, they can't remember what seminary they went to, they can’t remember where they were assigned, they can’t remember what they did and then of course, they don't know their theology and faith, they don't communicate correctly, they're very ignorant and they can maybe get away with for a few weeks. I've never heard of a case where a charlatan priest got away with it more than a couple of months, if they're really good they could they can pull the wool over the eyes of the faithful for a couple of months, get some rupees and move on to the next situation. And then also charlatans tend to have, they have a proof, this proves I am what I am, they got one proof and they got one story and they keep going over that one proof of that one story. Whereas, when someone is really a priest or really a professor or really a bishop, they don't have just one thing, they have many contacts, they have many things they did and they don't just have one thing and that's a case of Archbishop Ambrose, he doesn't just have one thing, we got the hundreds of pictures.

      I verified, for instance, in 1978, he did confirmations in Texas. The guy is still alive there, he remembers him, actually is the same age as Archbishop Ambrose. Yeah, I remember him, he came in and did confirmations in 1978. If you're a bishop, even if it’s a secret bishop, in 1976, and it's a secret bishop, so most people are not supposed to know that he is a bishop but many do know that he is a bishop, there should be some signs both of them function as a priest and Bishop. See him as father and you see him as bishop and we do see that in the 70s, he confirmed, he consecrated and he did confirmations and sacraments and in a Chapel, a Saint Pius V Chapel down there in Texas and then a couple of other places mainly for the independent …(Incoherent)… and so on. And so those things are verified. He also knew the names of the priests Father Sanborn, Father Kelly, he met with them in 1970s and described the personalities perfectly and how they behave and so on and was rejected by them, he also met with Archbishop Lefebvre, when Archbishop Lefebvre did his visits and he went to confirmations and met the Archbishop in 1975 and, I think it was Huntington, it was at a rented place where we have our confirmations, I was a pastor in New York I know the place, and it was not a church it was a rented place where we happen to do our sacraments and then how could he know about that rented place? It's a rented place, it's not a church, he was there, he knew the rented place where the bishop did his confirmations and where we still sometime use the place, it’s still there, it’s still there. And the American legion, Huntington wherever it is, Long Island, so that any case, there's the we have it for it real that he is, that's those are the things that are certain about, about Archbishop Ambrose. Certainly baptized Catholic, certainly priest, Catholic priest of Diocese of Toronto, certainly consecrated valid bishop in the Holy Protection Cathedral, probably consecrated bishop by Cardinal Slipyj in Rome, certainly connected the Cardinal Slipyj in Rome as a priest and probably as Bishop and then of course, today in 2018, he professes the Catholic faith, made the profession of faith with Father Hewko and I, now a few years ago, that we…(incoherent word)…publish and also he, hates Vatican II and the new mass, ecumenism, and so on.

      So, those are the facts concerning him there. So, in any case then were going to have a little, well that's the bishop, we’ll simply say a prayer then we’ll have a discussion.

      (Says a few prayers)

      Lastly, I forgot to mention with regard to the the intention, there's a very good point made by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa. He says there are two ways of corrupting an intention. One is to not intend to do the sacrament and this is to make a mockery of the sacrament or to play the sacrament, this intention, this would invalidate the sacrament. The other is to not believe in the sacrament or to not believe in what the sacrament does, a lack of faith and this does not vitiate the sacrament. For just as charity is not required to have a valid sacrament, you don't have to be the state of grace, priest could be in the state of mortal sin, so likewise, faith is not required to have a valid sacrament. So, that if the priest doesn't believe the sacrament is still valid and that's the infallible teachings of Church in regard to the intention is concern. And then as regards, the secondary accusations, wearing a suit and tie, being a charlatan, doctored pictures, those things are not relevant to what matters, what matters is, is he a valid priest, is he a valid bishop, does he profess the faith? There may be explanations for those things, there may not be explanations for some of those things or good explanations, bad explanations or true explanations for everything, it doesn't matter, those things are secondary and so that what matters is, valid Bishop, professing faith, willing to help, and if that’s the case…(incoherent)…you can go ahead and close that off.