|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2018 18:48:45 GMT
One more bit of evidence, from Bishop Ambrose himself, that Bishop Hryhorij was never Catholic - see number four in the screenshot below:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 18:57:23 GMT
Don't ask me. I only provided an email which I happen to agree with. The understanding and comprehension is already provided in Fr. Pfeiffer's talk. I am not an authority for Fr. Pfeiffer or Cardinal Slipyj. Your questions appear you did not listen or read the transcript in full or understand the importance of what is said. See the comprehension in his own talk. He already provided those answers and its important contexts. Start with the paragraph about half way down "And so, now we apply the codes there to the situation of Archbishop Ambrose. What do we know certain about Archbishop Ambrose?"
How can you agree to something you don't understand?
While I appreciate your advice to read the transcript again, I actually have printed out and read and re-read Fr. Pfeiffer's transcript many times over [thank you again, Initiation, for all the hard work you have done in providing the transcript] . There are many notes in the margins of my copy 
Sadly, these and many other questions were not fully answered. In some instances they were only alluded to but never resolved. I hope Fr. will give another conference to clarify these concerns and doubts.
Where is it said "I do not understand"? I have said nothing of the sort. Please read carefully before you misconstrue further. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 19:05:32 GMT
One more bit of evidence, from Bishop Ambrose himself, that Bishop Hryhorij was never Catholic - see number four in the screenshot below:
Had you missed the first part of father's catechism explaining canon law to this regard in relation to Cardinal Slipyj and Bishop Moran? It would be appreciative not to dissect parts of evidences from its total context. I think (whoever) made the summary was very patient to go through father's talk to relate an orderly context to the whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2018 19:46:46 GMT
The following questions [in red] are some of those that have been raised in the past months. The email shared by Remy outlining the summary of Bishop Ambrose's biography and status have prompted us to post those concerns and we are very grateful to him for giving us a working outline with which to work off of.
The following questions and concerns are part of a continued effort to see if this Bishop is indeed sent by God or are we to wait for another, as Fr. Hewko has counseled us to pray to know.
Everything the Church does is methodical and reasonable, slow and deliberate. These concerns are in no way intended as a personal attack against Bp. Ambrose. And while we all realize that these questions may have been answered partially, there are some lingering concerns. This is in no way to imply that they can't be answered more clearly in the future.
+++
thecatacombs.org/post/3672[All emphasis - mine]
remy (From an email)
Summary of Fr. Pfeiffer’s catechism toward Bishop Ambrose Moran [Please note that this first half of the email is a biography, not a catechism. Fr. Pfeiffer refers to the first half of the conference to the seminarians as a catechism wherein the application of canon law was elaborated on]: - Bishop Ambrose Moran was baptized catholic in the Catholic Church of the Roman Rite (proved by an authentic Catholic Baptismal certificate). [It is said that Bp. Ambrose was also baptized in the Orthodox by triple immersion. So it would appear he has both baptisms.]
- He entered a catholic seminary; fulfilled his seminary pre-ordination three year teaching assignment (proved by news clippings and more). ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/
- In 1974, Ordained a priest by an orthodox bishop (Bishop Ilnytskyy).
Bishop Ilnytskyy was a bishop of the "Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox
Church of America", and when he ordained a Father William
Ambrose Moran in the Catholic chapel there in Long Island, he ordained him as a
Catholic priest and he functioned as a Catholic priest under a Catholic
Bishop Boretsky serving with jurisdiction incardinated into the Toronto
Canada Diocese (proved by an incardination letter, Ibid ).
- In 1975, he accepted to serve with jurisdiction under Cardinal Slipyj in Rome (news clippings prove this, Ibid ).
- In 1975, he was conditionally re-ordained by Cardinal Slipyj; received the customary Adamencium (signed Greek Corporal, Ibid). [Sadly this antemensium was subsequently desecrated by Bp. Ambrose applying his signature to the antemencium, which Fr. Pfeiffer refers to in quoting an authority on this Eastern Catholic rite corporal in the conference.]
- In 1976, he consecrated bishop twice; once in secret by Cardinal Slipyj
earlier in that year (supplied by circumstantial evidence, Ibid ); the second was
in July 1976 verified by a certificate of consecration and historical
accounts within an Ukrainian [Orthodox] Cathedral in Chicago by an unprecedented
eight bishops. [Until its been made more clear, for all intents and purposes – with the evidence we have before us at this time – this was an Orthodox consecration. If this is the case, then a Catholic priest undergoing an Orthodox consecration, complete with an Orthodox profession of faith, would incur automatic excommunication for schism? Perhaps this is why there is so much time spent in the beginning of the conference on the application of canon law with respect to excommunicated bishops? This is not clear from the conference. Hopefully this is not the case.]
- Bishop Ambrose Moran served as a Ukrainian Bishop under the auspices of the
title “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America”. Remembering
the historical union between the Orthodox Bishop Hryhorij, who
established a USA jurisdiction in 1942, and was a bishop who devoted his
whole life trying to unite the Ukrainian church and separate it from
the Russian and Greek churches. He was friends with Cardinal Slipyj,
and worked with Cardinal Slipyj, to try to separate his orthodox
jurisdiction making it into a quasi-jurisdiction with the Ukraine (hence
the title of the jurisdiction “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church
of America” ) allowing one of Bishop Hryhorij’s priests of his
jurisdiction, or Bishop of his jurisdiction, to draw a union with the
Ukrainians under Cardinal Slipyj. In consequence, the “Autocephalous
Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America” was divided into two parts, one
was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not, yet all under
auspice title “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America”.
And we have it there in the documents of the Santa Sophia in Rome that
Cardinal Slipyj accepted Bishop Ambrose Moran under his jurisdiction. Hence,
the appearance of “orthodox”, but existing as an Ukrainian Bishop in
jurisdiction under Cardinal Slipyj under the quasi-Orthodox Metropolitan
trying to draw a Ukrainian union through Cardinal Slipyj and Bishop
Hryhorij. One may say ecumenical in outward practice, but through
Cardinal Slipyj life’s work with the Catholic Ukraine and Orthodox, it
was a gain as a conduit for the orthodox to come back to the Catholic
Church. (See Fr. Pfeiffer’s extended comments on this)
- In 1983, Bishop Ambrose Moran was appointed the Metropolitan and successor to
the orthodox Bishop Hryhorij. This is where the question or concerns or
doubts come in from the people is primarily that, the word Orthodox is
continually used. However the name of the jurisdiction established in
1942 was called the “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of
America”. So now it is led under the Ukrainian Bishop, Bishop Ambrose Moran’s
control, in union with Cardinal Slipyj. This is where we heard in a
sermon by Bishop Ambrose Moran (at OLMC) that he has jurisdiction from Cardinal
Slipyj, who himself had received it from Rome to work undercover in
communist countries to establish Catholic states and jurisdictions. [It is not clear how can one person have two jurisdiction, in two different faiths? Either he is Orthodox or he is Catholic? And if one was given jurisdiction in another faith, wouldn't one repudiate the other jurisdiction in favor of the true jurisdiction rather than continue to claim both?]
- In the following years later however under the tried for union of the
“Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America” (1970’s – and early
80’s), the union to the Ukraine catholic religion did not succeed. The
subsequent meetings turned into a big disaster and they separated once
again. No thanks to Vatican II promoting each religion to remain as
they are. Which fostered more distrust with Cardinal Slipyj against
modern rome to secretly ordain and consecrate more Catholic priests and
bishops [Some clarification would be appreciated regarding what were the traditional Catholic activities of Bp. Ambrose in the many years between 1983-2015? It is unclear also why has there been zero mention of a traditional Catholic bishop, professing the true Catholic Faith for 32 years, except for a few one-time confirmations for sedevacatists, in traditional circles all this time?]
Summary to the main accusations:
Q. “He was ordained a priest and/or consecrated a bishop by an orthodox bishop”.A. Canon law states clearly a baptized catholic who receives a sacrament with good intention from an orthodox priest or bishop receives the sacrament and does NOT receive the penalty. [It would appear that the important distinction here is 'good intention'. Was Fr. Ambrose fully aware he was submitting to an Orthodox consecration?]
Further it states, if there was any ‘suspension’ to the new priest or bishop, it is reversed
once officially accepted and assigned a mission in the Church. Father
William Ambrose Moran was truly ordained a catholic priest and served under the
jurisdiction of a Catholic Bishop within the Catholic Church.
[Again, this does not apply to the Orthodox consecration, perhaps only to his ordination?]
Many certificates, documents, newspaper articles and photos show this (Ibid).
[Sadly, there are also many websites, including his own, that show he was a bishop in the Orthodox religion. Are there any documents, articles, etc. that he served as a Catholic bishop within the Catholic Church, excluding the confirmations for the sedevacantists, with Catholic priests and laity under his Catholic jurisdiction?]
Q. “There are alleged ‘forged signatures and doctored photos’”.
A. This was already explained in Fr. Pfeiffer’s talk. It is
understandable through the layers of administration and corrections
inherent to sacramental records needing corrective dates…unable to fix
otherwise. Regarding any ‘doctored photos’ without forensic evidence
remains only an allegation. [There have been private admittances that photos were indeed doctored.]
However, given a doubt by relying only on
face value and subjective thought, one can ponder too if Bishop Ambrose Moran
felt he later needed to have some other verification to his receiving a
SECRET consecration from Cardinal Slipyj and done so to “prove” his
consecration. Think 1980’s and the Vatican II world. One can
speculate. Still, these are only secondary questions that do not outweigh the primary
verification of a certificate of consecration elevating Bishop Ambrose
Moran to the Episcopacy documented on July 1976 within the Ukrainian
Cathedral signed by the eight consecrating bishops. This makes him a
true valid bishop of the Catholic Church.
[Sadly, again, this does not make him a Catholic bishop at that particular consecration unless more evidence can be produced that shows this without a shadow of a doubt. Archbishop Lefebvre warned against approaching things that were doubtful. And so far there is zero proof that the 1976 consecration in Holy Protection Cathedral was Catholic. Perhaps something will be uncovered in the future but at this time, it has not been clearly shown. If this is of God, it will be provided and clear in the future.]
Q. “But why two consecrations?”
A. There could be reason
Cardinal Slipyj joined this conditional consecration to meet the needs
of the Ukrainian faithful wanting to see a visual consecration than the
prior secret one he gave months ago to Bishop Ambrose Moran so to appease the
Ukrainian movement helping to bring the orthodox in union with them
(isn’t that what people are asking for now, a visual consecration?,
Ironic).
[This explanation is a direct contradiction to the need for a secret consecration in the first place. It seems an unreasonable explanation for the second consecration.]
Moreover, there is a document that suggests this, archived
within the Ukrainian Cathedral in Chicago verified by a letter (in the
Ukraine language) addressed by the orthodox bishop, Bishop Hryhorij, to
the eight consecrating bishops, stating father William Ambrose Moran, Bishop
Ambrose Moran, was already consecrated earlier that summer by Cardinal
Slipyj. This also confirms the knowledge of that secret consecration by
Bishop Ambrose Moran to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2018 19:50:10 GMT
One more bit of evidence, from Bishop Ambrose himself, that Bishop Hryhorij was never Catholic - see number four in the screenshot below:
Had you missed the first part of father's catechism explaining canon law to this regard in relation to Cardinal Slipyj and Bishop Moran? It would be appreciative not to dissect parts of evidences from its total context. I think (whoever) made the summary was very patient to go through father's talk to relate an orderly context to the whole.
I am positive it took a great deal of time to go through Fr.'s conference. That is not the issue.
The issue is that it is frequently implied that Bishop Hryhorij was a converted Catholic at the time of Bp. Ambrose's consecration in Holy Protection Cathedral. This does not seem to bear up with what is recorded of him, including by B. Ambrose himself. This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen but it seems there’s no proof of it. Fr Hesse tells us we can only judge things based on evidence, what is ‘publicly manifest’. Once this is clarified, we can move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 0:33:50 GMT
The following questions [in red] are some of those that have been raised in the past months. The email shared by Remy outlining the summary of Bishop Ambrose's biography and status have prompted us to post those concerns and we are very grateful to him for giving us a working outline with which to work off of.
The following questions and concerns are part of a continued effort to see if this Bishop is indeed sent by God or are we to wait for another, as Fr. Hewko has counseled us to pray to know.
Everything the Church does is methodical and reasonable, slow and deliberate. These concerns are in no way intended as a personal attack against Bp. Ambrose. And while we all realize that these questions may have been answered partially, there are some lingering concerns. This is in no way to imply that they can't be answered more clearly in the future.
+++
thecatacombs.org/post/3672[All emphasis - mine]
remy (From an email)
Summary of Fr. Pfeiffer’s catechism toward Bishop Ambrose Moran [Please note that this first half of the email is a biography, not a catechism. Fr. Pfeiffer refers to the first half of the conference to the seminarians as a catechism wherein the application of canon law was elaborated on]: - Bishop Ambrose Moran was baptized catholic in the Catholic Church of the Roman Rite (proved by an authentic Catholic Baptismal certificate). [It is said that Bp. Ambrose was also baptized in the Orthodox by triple immersion. So it would appear he has both baptisms.]
- He entered a catholic seminary; fulfilled his seminary pre-ordination three year teaching assignment (proved by news clippings and more). ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/
- In 1974, Ordained a priest by an orthodox bishop (Bishop Ilnytskyy).
Bishop Ilnytskyy was a bishop of the "Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox
Church of America", and when he ordained a Father William
Ambrose Moran in the Catholic chapel there in Long Island, he ordained him as a
Catholic priest and he functioned as a Catholic priest under a Catholic
Bishop Boretsky serving with jurisdiction incardinated into the Toronto
Canada Diocese (proved by an incardination letter, Ibid ).
- In 1975, he accepted to serve with jurisdiction under Cardinal Slipyj in Rome (news clippings prove this, Ibid ).
- In 1975, he was conditionally re-ordained by Cardinal Slipyj; received the customary Adamencium (signed Greek Corporal, Ibid). [Sadly this antemensium was subsequently desecrated by Bp. Ambrose applying his signature to the antemencium, which Fr. Pfeiffer refers to in quoting an authority on this Eastern Catholic rite corporal in the conference.]
- In 1976, he consecrated bishop twice; once in secret by Cardinal Slipyj
earlier in that year (supplied by circumstantial evidence, Ibid ); the second was
in July 1976 verified by a certificate of consecration and historical
accounts within an Ukrainian [Orthodox] Cathedral in Chicago by an unprecedented
eight bishops. [Until its been made more clear, for all intents and purposes – with the evidence we have before us at this time – this was an Orthodox consecration. If this is the case, then a Catholic priest undergoing an Orthodox consecration, complete with an Orthodox profession of faith, would incur automatic excommunication for schism? Perhaps this is why there is so much time spent in the beginning of the conference on the application of canon law with respect to excommunicated bishops? This is not clear from the conference. Hopefully this is not the case.]
- Bishop Ambrose Moran served as a Ukrainian Bishop under the auspices of the
title “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America”. Remembering
the historical union between the Orthodox Bishop Hryhorij, who
established a USA jurisdiction in 1942, and was a bishop who devoted his
whole life trying to unite the Ukrainian church and separate it from
the Russian and Greek churches. He was friends with Cardinal Slipyj,
and worked with Cardinal Slipyj, to try to separate his orthodox
jurisdiction making it into a quasi-jurisdiction with the Ukraine (hence
the title of the jurisdiction “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church
of America” ) allowing one of Bishop Hryhorij’s priests of his
jurisdiction, or Bishop of his jurisdiction, to draw a union with the
Ukrainians under Cardinal Slipyj. In consequence, the “Autocephalous
Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America” was divided into two parts, one
was in union with Cardinal Slipyj, the other one was not, yet all under
auspice title “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America”.
And we have it there in the documents of the Santa Sophia in Rome that
Cardinal Slipyj accepted Bishop Ambrose Moran under his jurisdiction. Hence,
the appearance of “orthodox”, but existing as an Ukrainian Bishop in
jurisdiction under Cardinal Slipyj under the quasi-Orthodox Metropolitan
trying to draw a Ukrainian union through Cardinal Slipyj and Bishop
Hryhorij. One may say ecumenical in outward practice, but through
Cardinal Slipyj life’s work with the Catholic Ukraine and Orthodox, it
was a gain as a conduit for the orthodox to come back to the Catholic
Church. (See Fr. Pfeiffer’s extended comments on this)
- In 1983, Bishop Ambrose Moran was appointed the Metropolitan and successor to
the orthodox Bishop Hryhorij. This is where the question or concerns or
doubts come in from the people is primarily that, the word Orthodox is
continually used. However the name of the jurisdiction established in
1942 was called the “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of
America”. So now it is led under the Ukrainian Bishop, Bishop Ambrose Moran’s
control, in union with Cardinal Slipyj. This is where we heard in a
sermon by Bishop Ambrose Moran (at OLMC) that he has jurisdiction from Cardinal
Slipyj, who himself had received it from Rome to work undercover in
communist countries to establish Catholic states and jurisdictions. [It is not clear how can one person have two jurisdiction, in two different faiths? Either he is Orthodox or he is Catholic? And if one was given jurisdiction in another faith, wouldn't one repudiate the other jurisdiction in favor of the true jurisdiction rather than continue to claim both?]
- In the following years later however under the tried for union of the
“Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America” (1970’s – and early
80’s), the union to the Ukraine catholic religion did not succeed. The
subsequent meetings turned into a big disaster and they separated once
again. No thanks to Vatican II promoting each religion to remain as
they are. Which fostered more distrust with Cardinal Slipyj against
modern rome to secretly ordain and consecrate more Catholic priests and
bishops [Some clarification would be appreciated regarding what were the traditional Catholic activities of Bp. Ambrose in the many years between 1983-2015? It is unclear also why has there been zero mention of a traditional Catholic bishop, professing the true Catholic Faith for 32 years, except for a few one-time confirmations for sedevacatists, in traditional circles all this time?]
Summary to the main accusations:
Q. “He was ordained a priest and/or consecrated a bishop by an orthodox bishop”.A. Canon law states clearly a baptized catholic who receives a sacrament with good intention from an orthodox priest or bishop receives the sacrament and does NOT receive the penalty. [It would appear that the important distinction here is 'good intention'. Was Fr. Ambrose fully aware he was submitting to an Orthodox consecration?]
Further it states, if there was any ‘suspension’ to the new priest or bishop, it is reversed
once officially accepted and assigned a mission in the Church. Father
William Ambrose Moran was truly ordained a catholic priest and served under the
jurisdiction of a Catholic Bishop within the Catholic Church.
[Again, this does not apply to the Orthodox consecration, perhaps only to his ordination?]
Many certificates, documents, newspaper articles and photos show this (Ibid).
[Sadly, there are also many websites, including his own, that show he was a bishop in the Orthodox religion. Are there any documents, articles, etc. that he served as a Catholic bishop within the Catholic Church, excluding the confirmations for the sedevacantists, with Catholic priests and laity under his Catholic jurisdiction?]
Q. “There are alleged ‘forged signatures and doctored photos’”.
A. This was already explained in Fr. Pfeiffer’s talk. It is
understandable through the layers of administration and corrections
inherent to sacramental records needing corrective dates…unable to fix
otherwise. Regarding any ‘doctored photos’ without forensic evidence
remains only an allegation. [There have been private admittances that photos were indeed doctored.]
However, given a doubt by relying only on
face value and subjective thought, one can ponder too if Bishop Ambrose Moran
felt he later needed to have some other verification to his receiving a
SECRET consecration from Cardinal Slipyj and done so to “prove” his
consecration. Think 1980’s and the Vatican II world. One can
speculate. Still, these are only secondary questions that do not outweigh the primary
verification of a certificate of consecration elevating Bishop Ambrose
Moran to the Episcopacy documented on July 1976 within the Ukrainian
Cathedral signed by the eight consecrating bishops. This makes him a
true valid bishop of the Catholic Church.
[Sadly, again, this does not make him a Catholic bishop at that particular consecration unless more evidence can be produced that shows this without a shadow of a doubt. Archbishop Lefebvre warned against approaching things that were doubtful. And so far there is zero proof that the 1976 consecration in Holy Protection Cathedral was Catholic. Perhaps something will be uncovered in the future but at this time, it has not been clearly shown. If this is of God, it will be provided and clear in the future.]
Q. “But why two consecrations?”
A. There could be reason
Cardinal Slipyj joined this conditional consecration to meet the needs
of the Ukrainian faithful wanting to see a visual consecration than the
prior secret one he gave months ago to Bishop Ambrose Moran so to appease the
Ukrainian movement helping to bring the orthodox in union with them
(isn’t that what people are asking for now, a visual consecration?,
Ironic).
[This explanation is a direct contradiction to the need for a secret consecration in the first place. It seems an unreasonable explanation for the second consecration.]
Moreover, there is a document that suggests this, archived
within the Ukrainian Cathedral in Chicago verified by a letter (in the
Ukraine language) addressed by the orthodox bishop, Bishop Hryhorij, to
the eight consecrating bishops, stating father William Ambrose Moran, Bishop
Ambrose Moran, was already consecrated earlier that summer by Cardinal
Slipyj. This also confirms the knowledge of that secret consecration by
Bishop Ambrose Moran to be true.
Your questions distinctly show you either do not understand or are distracted to what the rule of canon law is regarding this circumstance involving the work and mission of Cardinal Slipyj together with Bishop Moran. It also appears you are separating Father Moran and Bishop Moran from the continued involvement with Cardinal Slipyj since 1975 to help build the Ukrainian movement in this country. The evidence is there they have been working together to form a Ukrainian movement. Do not separate these facts. Otherwise nothing will make sense for you, so you are conveying.
Fr. Pfeiffer spent a lot of time expounding what the Church teaches in the first half of his talk adding many examples in Church history verifying the application of Canon law. Simply, when a baptized catholic is ordained or consecrated within apostolic succession by a bishop apostate, bishop heretic, or anyone bishop excommunicated, the sacrament or consecration is valid. If the recipient receives in bad faith, seeking in bad faith, he is still valid but receives the penalty of excommunication. However, if in the same circumstance the recipient receives in good faith wanting to do what the catholic church does, the sacrament is still valid of course but there is no penalty.
No layman or ecclesiastical can judge there was not good faith. Canon law always provides that there was good faith unless explicitly otherwise. In this circumstance, Bishop Moran shows every good intention following what the church does after his ordination and following consecration united with Cardinal Slipyj though each junction. The evidence is abundant ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/Father Moran's catholic seminary years, and subsequent ordination by Bishop Ilnytskyy?, was established and provide with an assignment by the incarnation letter within the Toronto Catholic Diocese.
Then Bishop Moran subsequent consecration was established and provided within the conjunction with Cardinal Slipyj who was approved by rome to have jurisdiction.
All of this is what Fr. Hewko, a trained catholic priest, recognizes when he consistently declared Bishop Moran to be valid.
The handicap is with the western catholic laity who need to educate themselves on canon law and the Catholic Ukrainian customs and Rites to understand the direct relationships with the Orthodox. They both live and dwell in the Eastern church as Catholics in the western roman rite live and dwell with the protestants and Anglicans, who are mostly apostate Catholics through apostolic succession (using catholic sacraments until pope ? declared them not to have succession anymore after a certain date.), and we have to bring them back to the one true faith.
It's conveyed Bishop Moran continued working in jurisdiction and union with Cardinal Slipyj until the cardinal's death in 1984 and subsequent breakdown of the “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America”. Fr. Hewko gave a conference with Bishop Moran relaying that time period and after. Why pablo the mexican took it off line is wrong. However, Bishop Moran continues to this day declaring he still has a valid jurisdiction from the Ukrainian Patriarch Cardinal Slipyj.
I'm sure more can be expounded, but the essential legitimacy of Bishop Moran validity is there if one wants to be honest and see it. Or maybe not. Regardless, apostolic succession is present which is the most important first step Now it is whether he conforms faithfully to the perennial Catholic faith. This too is showing to be true. thecatacombs.org/thread/1508/sermons-bishop-ambrose-moran
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 10, 2018 13:15:33 GMT
Your questions distinctly show you either do not understand or are distracted to what the rule of canon law is regarding this circumstance involving the work and mission of Cardinal Slipyj together with Bishop Moran. It also appears you are separating Father Moran and Bishop Moran from the continued involvement with Cardinal Slipyj since 1975 to help build the Ukrainian movement in this country. The evidence is there they have been working together to form a Ukrainian movement. [Where is the evidence that they have been working together? There is zero mention of Bp. Ambrose at Santa Sophia in Rome except for one draft letter considering him to be taken under the Cardinal's jurisdiction as a priest, not as a bishop.] Do not separate these facts. Otherwise nothing will make sense for you, so you are conveying.
Fr. Pfeiffer spent a lot of time expounding what the Church teaches in the first half of his talk adding many examples in Church history verifying the application of Canon law. Simply, when a baptized catholic is ordained or consecrated within apostolic succession by a bishop apostate, bishop heretic, or anyone bishop excommunicated, the sacrament or consecration is valid. If the recipient receives in bad faith, seeking in bad faith, he is still valid but receives the penalty of excommunication. However, if in the same circumstance the recipient receives in good faith wanting to do what the catholic church does, the sacrament is still valid of course but there is no penalty.
No layman or ecclesiastical can judge there was not good faith. Canon law always provides that there was good faith unless explicitly otherwise. In this circumstance, Bishop Moran shows every good intention following what the church does after his ordination and following consecration united with Cardinal Slipyj though each junction [Again, please show what junction's you are talking about, specifically after Bp. Ambrose's consecration. Father only mentioned a few Catholic confirmations in the late 1970's before the sedevacantists rejected Bp. Ambrose.]. The evidence is abundant ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/Father Moran's catholic seminary years, and subsequent ordination by Bishop Ilnytskyy?, was established and provide with an assignment by the incarnation letter within the Toronto Catholic Diocese.
Then Bishop Moran subsequent consecration was established and provided within the conjunction with Cardinal Slipyj [what does this phrase mean? How is a consecration "provided within the conjunction" of a cardinal?] who was approved by rome to have jurisdiction. [Cardinal Slipyj's jurisdiction was never in question, this has been firmly established. There seems to be nothing but Bp. Ambrose's word on this succession to Cardinal Slipyj - which you mention further below.]
All of this is what Fr. Hewko, a trained catholic priest, recognizes when he consistently declared Bishop Moran to be valid.
The handicap is with the western catholic laity who need to educate themselves on canon law and the Catholic Ukrainian customs and Rites to understand the direct relationships with the Orthodox. They both live and dwell in the Eastern church as Catholics in the western roman rite live and dwell with the protestants and Anglicans, who are mostly apostate Catholics through apostolic succession (using catholic sacraments until pope ? declared them not to have succession anymore after a certain date.), and we have to bring them back to the one true faith. [Agreed. No problem here in living side by side with other religions. But the Catholic Church, as you well know, always insisted on conversion to the True Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre said this clearly: “Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978). So the fundamental 'direct relationships with the Orthodox' must have a foundation in conversion.]
It's conveyed Bishop Moran continued working in jurisdiction and union with Cardinal Slipyj until the cardinal's death in 1984 and subsequent breakdown of the “Autocephalous Ukrainian-Orthodox Church of America”. Fr. Hewko gave a conference with Bishop Moran relaying that time period and after. Why pablo the mexican took it off line is wrong. [It would go far if 469 Fitter reposted all the old interviews and sermons of Bp. Ambrose from 2015 when he explained himself and his life and his beliefs more clearly.] However, Bishop Moran continues to this day declaring he still has a valid jurisdiction from the Ukrainian Patriarch Cardinal Slipyj. [More on this below...]
I'm sure more can be expounded, but the essential legitimacy of Bishop Moran validity is there if one wants to be honest and see it. Or maybe not. Regardless, apostolic succession is present which is the most important first step Now it is whether he conforms faithfully to the perennial Catholic faith. This too is showing to be true. thecatacombs.org/thread/1508/sermons-bishop-ambrose-moran
Remy, you have highlighted an important fact. None of us are theologians or canon lawyers. But we are very much trying to understand this situation in the context of our Catechism and the teachings of our beloved Catholic Church. The concerns listed in response to your 'summaries' are just that, concerns that can be easily addressed more fully. Right now there is still doubt until these concerns are resolved.
No one has yet said that Bp. Ambrose is not valid. At the very least, he appears to be an Orthodox bishop, which as we all know, would make him a valid bishop. But it would not necessarily make him a licit one. The legitimacy of his episcopal status is not yet clear. But his validity is.
There are three additional concerns that have come up in the last few days.
1. Lawful age of a bishop
From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: Bishop Ambrose was born in 1949. At the time of both consecrations, in 1976, he would have been 27 years old.
This means that Cardinal Slipyj, if he did secretly consecrate him, which again is only proven with thin circumstantial evidence, would have violated the laws of the Council of Trent. This would also mean that Bp. Ambrose would have consented to this violation. Again, this is a question for the priests. In this first alleged consecration, would it have been licit, even if it was valid?
It would appear that the age requirement is even stricter in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches [Catholic] for elevation to the episcopacy:
Notice too here that the minimum time before a priest can be elevated to the episcopacy is five years. Here again, Cardinal Slipyj would have had to violate the Eastern Code of Canon Law in consecrating someone who was only a priest for two years: Bp. Ambrose was ordained in 1974 and supposedly consecrated by Slipyj in 1976.
From all one can read of the life of Cardinal Slipyj, he was not know to break the laws of the Church. He willingly remained in a Soviet prison rather than become Orthodox. His adherence and love for the Catholic Faith is interwoven into everything we know of him.
2. Chicago Cathedrals
We know that Cardinal Slipyj was a Ukrainian Greek Catholic. Why would Cardinal Slipyj recommend Bp. Ambrose to get 'reconsecrated' in what is publicly known as an Orthodox cathedral when there is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral that the Cardinal had already visited and was aware of in the very same city of Chicago, the St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral?
From the St. Nicholas website:
Here we have a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral in Chicago, known to Cardinal Slipyj, and yet he would 'send' Ambrose to a Cathedral publicly known as Orthodox? That doesn't make sense. This next question segues off the above consideration:
Why would Cardinal Slipyj, who worked all his life to build up again a Ukrainian Greek Catholic clergy after its near total decimation by the Communists, send Bp. Ambrose to be consecrated by two Greek Melkite Catholic bishops and six Orthodox bishops - especially in view of the Cardinal knowing that there was, again, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral in the same city of Chicago, with a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church clergy and hierarchy?
These two Catholic Melkite bishops were very modern and very ecumenical which could explain why they would perhaps participate in a consecration in an Orthodox cathedral, using an "Orthodox rite" and under the 'jurisdiction' of the UAOC-USA, as the consecration paperwork states. The Melkite Greek Catholics use the same Byzantine rite as the UGCC but their liturgical language is distinct and different.
As for Cardinal Slipyj, he was known to be in dialogue with the Ukrainian Orthodox throughout his life. But it would appear from the many articles available on his life, it was in an effort to build up a Ukrainian Catholic clergy after its near total decimation by Communism. If he could get the Orthodox to convert to Catholicism, they were already valid but not licit... but if they converted and professed the Catholic faith [and were absolved from the schism by the pope?] then a strong Ukrainian clergy could spring up to foster the faith of the Ukrainian Catholic people. The Cardinal's whole life speaks to his love of his people and his solicitude for them. This also explains why he worked so aggressively to establish the Ukrainian clergy and hierarchy:
Nothing we read in the Cardinal life's alludes to an illicit working with the Orthodox. Dialogue, yes, attempts at conversion, yes. Ecclesiastical functions without conversion, no.
3. Reconsecration
If the first alleged consecration by Cardinal Slipyj occurred, then wouldn't a second second 'reconsecration' incur a profanation? I was always under the impression that that would have been the case? It is only if there is a doubt about the validity or licitness of the original ordination or consecration that a repeat of the sacrament of Holy Orders could be allowed. Why would a solemn [eight bishops] be required to 'fix' a consecration of the great Cardinal Slipyj, whom all - Orthodox and Catholic - alike considered a hero of Ukraine and whose ecclesiastical reputation was well established?
It would seem that once again we are back at the point of serious doubt and lingering questions about a consecration at the hands of Cardinal Slipyj.
So, we cling to Archbishop Lefebvre and wait until things are more sure and certain, that these concerns are answered and given context. We know our saintly prelate never steered us wrong. It would seem to be the most prudent course to continue to wait until things are clearer. Validity is not the only concern, as we all know. We are surrounded by valid bishops...
We must continue to pray very much for our priests, for Bp. Ambrose - that's God's will be manifest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Initiation on Dec 10, 2018 23:06:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 12:54:23 GMT
Remy, are you Machabees?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 12:59:01 GMT
Admin, thank you for using your mind and not blindly accepting Fr. Pfeiffer's arguments like so many have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 13:54:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 14:08:31 GMT
One more bit of evidence, from Bishop Ambrose himself, that Bishop Hryhorij was never Catholic - see number four in the screenshot below:
Yes. There it is for everybody to see written by Ambrose Moran himself. And guess who told him to take down the website in October 2015? That's right. Fr. Pfeiffer. Hmm. I wonder why. Perhaps because it is doesn't fit Ambrose Moran's narrative! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 18:15:02 GMT
Have you trads lost your critical thinking? The disingenuity is disturbing. "Why one cathedral is not used over another, or, why the age requirement is different in this circumstance, or he's an "orthodox" through and through and can't be accepted............! Give me "MORE" proof he was associated with cardinal Slipyj.........!" People, Cardinal Slipyj and Bishop Moran are from novus ordo land. They operated in novus ordo land. Ecumenism was and is still a practice of the main stream.........this is normal stuff. Get it! The universe of the 70'-80's was ecumenical co-mingling as is 90's onward......... Why are you trads so smug with a legitimate bishop who CONVERTED recently to the fight of traditionalism right in front of you and you reject him because it is not to your view of a 'saint'.
I recently came from the novus ordo land, through the sspx conspiracy, through bishop Williamson's mockery. You trads can't even see providence right in front of you? You act like pharisees quibbling separating facts making incoherent conspiracies while looking for a different 'savior' to help. Who's church is it?
It's so simple. Stick to the facts. Fr. Pfeiffer explained what the church teaches. He said when you are catholic there is a different criteria making valid, even done by an orthodox bishop, harmonious to other catholic sacraments. If you are not catholic, NOTHING happens. So you trads either follow what the church teaches or continue to make your own counterfeit church.
The summary of father's talk is clear proving catholic heritage. Look at all the many photos on the Bishop Moran website showing Catholicisms. ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/ Are you denying what your eyes can see as catholic? Why are you trads mocking the church?
Look at all the photos of him professed as a catholic priest and a catholic bishop! Stop living in denial.
Administering the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Latin Rite:
Archbishop Ambrose after offering Mass in the Tridentine Rite:
It's only when I found that Bishop Moran website I was convinced Larossa and others were committing fraud conjecturing conspiracies.
Look at the newest perpetuation of fraud Larossa put on his site yesterday in his "Massachusetts Mission Breaks with the Kentucky Fathers". He conspires with people in massachusetts to openly lie making a false quote from Fr. Pfeiffer as if father said such a thing.
A. Father does not call him Ambrose Moran. Larossa who calls him that. Father calls him Archbishop Ambrose.
B. The first sentence is not written in the singular, 'I intend'. It reads as a third person's interpretation.
C. Father never said in any of his public talks he has a doubt of lying. That is a third person's fraudulent message. Father said clearly he first bases the legitimacy of Bishop Moran through canon law on the consecration from the eight bishops. Like Fr. Hewko said, it is a "small matter" regarding Cardinal Slipyj's consecration. D. They ended it by putting fathers name as stating those are his actual words.
Who's conning who? Those people have no conscience breaking the 8th commandment of God. And you want us to dialogue with this evil conspiracy.
Back to the real evidence.
Fr. Pfeiffer expounded the Church teaching on the valid consecration by the eight bishops. Bishop Moran is valid. Period. Even if he was consecrated by the orthodox. If you trads want to quibble with the accidentals afterwards, it makes no difference. The same reason in makes no difference from all the millions of catholic people doing crazy things in their life and "converted back" to catholicism in the present. Do you fundamental trads have no mercy on souls in the present? You guys act like a democracy demanding signs and wonders, or saying "he didn't confess to my ears" means nothing to a proud generation.
I don't want to waste your time repeating the obvious and I do not want my time wasted. Use some critical thinking. Why do you remain stiff necked?
Until you trads can first give an answer to all those many catholic photos, you only perpetuate conspiracy AGAINST the teaching church.
What ever happens afterward the consecration happens afterwards. The Fathers said in their conference Bishop Moran made a profession of the catholic faith in front of them......and everything needed through canon law.
Your quibbling otherwise only tears the church apart.
I'm done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 11, 2018 18:33:23 GMT
Is this for sure, 100%, God's Will???  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 11, 2018 18:45:40 GMT
Have you trads lost your critical thinking? The disingenuity is disturbing. "Why one cathedral is not used over another, or, why the age requirement is different in this circumstance, or he's an "orthodox" through and through and can't be accepted............! Give me "MORE" proof he was associated with cardinal Slipyj.........!" People, Cardinal Slipyj and Bishop Moran are from novus ordo land. They operated in novus ordo land. Ecumenism was and is still a practice of the main stream.........this is normal stuff. Get it! The universe of the 70'-80's was ecumenical co-mingling as is 90's onward......... Why are you trads so smug with a legitimate bishop who CONVERTED recently to the fight of traditionalism right in front of you and you reject him because it is not to your view of a 'saint'.
I recently came from the novus ordo land, through the sspx conspiracy, through bishop Williamson's mockery. You trads can't even see providence right in front of you? You act like pharisees quibbling separating facts making incoherent conspiracies while looking for a different 'savior' to help. Who's church is it?
It's so simple. Stick to the facts. Fr. Pfeiffer explained what the church teaches. He said when you are catholic there is a different criteria making valid, even done by an orthodox bishop, harmonious to other catholic sacraments. If you are not catholic, NOTHING happens. So you trads either follow what the church teaches or continue to make your own counterfeit church.
The summary of father's talk is clear proving catholic heritage. Look at all the many photos on the Bishop Moran website showing Catholicisms. ambrosemoran.wordpress.com/ Are you denying what your eyes can see as catholic? Why are you trads mocking the church?
Look at all the photos of him professed as a catholic priest and a catholic bishop! Stop living in denial.
Administering the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Latin Rite:
Archbishop Ambrose after offering Mass in the Tridentine Rite:
It's only when I found that Bishop Moran website I was convinced Larossa [please be respectful and use the correct spelling of La Rosa - I write this in case you were unaware...] and others were committing fraud conjecturing conspiracies.
Look at the newest perpetuation of fraud Larossa put on his site yesterday in his "Massachusetts Mission Breaks with the Kentucky Fathers". He conspires with people in massachusetts to openly lie making a false quote from Fr. Pfeiffer as if father said such a thing.
A. Father does not call him Ambrose Moran. Larossa who calls him that. Father calls him Archbishop Ambrose.
B. The first sentence is not written in the singular, 'I intend'. It reads as a third person's interpretation.
C. Father never said in any of his public talks he has a doubt of lying. That is a third person's fraudulent message. Father said clearly he first bases the legitimacy of Bishop Moran through canon law on the consecration from the eight bishops. Like Fr. Hewko said, it is a "small matter" regarding Cardinal Slipyj's consecration. D. They ended it by putting fathers name as stating those are his actual words.
Who's conning who? Those people have no conscience breaking the 8th commandment of God. And you want us to dialogue with this evil conspiracy.
Back to the real evidence.
Fr. Pfeiffer expounded the Church teaching on the valid consecration by the eight bishops. Bishop Moran is valid. Period. Even if he was consecrated by the orthodox. If you trads want to quibble with the accidentals afterwards, it makes no difference. The same reason in makes no difference from all the millions of catholic people doing crazy things in their life and "converted back" to catholicism in the present. Do you fundamental trads have no mercy on souls in the present? You guys act like a democracy demanding signs and wonders, or saying "he didn't confess to my ears" means nothing to a proud generation.
I don't want to waste your time repeating the obvious and I do not want my time wasted. Use some critical thinking. Why do you remain stiff necked?
Until you trads can first give an answer to all those many catholic photos, you only perpetuate conspiracy AGAINST the teaching church.
What ever happens afterward the consecration happens afterwards. The Fathers said in their conference Bishop Moran made a profession of the catholic faith in front of them......and everything needed through canon law.
Your quibbling otherwise only tears the church apart.
I'm done.
Remy, please be aware that while this is a situation about which many feel very acutely one way or the other, it doesn't mean you can keep using sarcasm and denigration in your defense or apologia of Bp. Ambrose.
Watch yourself.
|
|
