www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Question about a Vagante Bishop

Hello friends,

I’ve watched Ambrose’s sermon in full. I won’t call him Bishop, not because I’m certain he isn’t, but because I’m just not sure yet. I also want to avoid using quotes like “Bishop” Ambrose because the connotation is typically reminiscent of referring to Novus Ordo bishops. So I will refer to him mainly just as Ambrose.

As I see it, there are a few possibilities:

Ambrose is 100% genuine


He is 100% fake


He is a mix of both, and not dissimilar to the way people view Malachi Martin. Keep in mind that Rama Coomorswamay claimed to have been ordained a priest by Martin, who (through Coomorswamay) is alleged to have been consecrated bishop for the same purposes that Ambrose claims. If he is anything but 100% genuine, I wouldn’t trust him with a house plant. He’d be far too convincing and calculating a con-man.

Introduction

I am mainly interested in whether or not Ambrose has jurisdiction. In Jurisdiction lies the power to restore the Church. None of our priests or bishops—Pfeiffer, Chazal, Williamson, Cekada or Sanborn have jurisdiction. While they can learn the faith and be devoted to servicing souls, the only substantial difference between them and us is that they have Holy Orders. But neither I nor any of you nor any of these priests have any real authority. They were not sent by the Church and as such, cannot restore it. They can simply be a Band-Aid and inspiration in the time being.

If Ambrose turns out to be legitimately with Orders, that’s nice. But it’s not monumental, it just means that we’ll have another source for men possessing Holy Orders. If, on the other hand, he really possesses jurisdiction then there are a variety of tasks he can perform and facilitate: the true consecration of places of worship, cemeteries, he could conceivably even appoint priests to offices and even (again, conceivably and theoretically) call a council, possibly even a conclave. The implications of this man being a true bishops (not simply a man with episcopal orders like Williamson or Pivarunas or Fellay) is that he actually wields a legitimate authority as a successor to the apostles—something none of the traditional bishops can claim.

Ambrose has made very specific claims. This is good, because they are then verifiable. I have composed a transcript of sorts, after carefully listening to the entire sermon. I do not have any conclusions, but only want to present his claims in an organized fashion so that those with the means can investigate. I will investigate as I’m able. I have provided timestamps, but they are general and may be a little off. I was more concerned with reliably expressing the content than with a true, professional transcription. I will begin with a profile of sorts, and then follow with a chronological transcription, interspersed with my own comments, especially highlighting claims that can and should be verified. I have yet to perform any serious research on any of his claims. While some of his claims are more fantastic than others, all claims should be verified because if it can be found that he is lying about minor claims, that provides insight to his personality. If more minor claims can be verified, their verification does not also prove major claims, but at least gives insight to his personality and whether or not he is (at least moderately) honest. Without further ado:



Profile

Ambrose has an east coast accent, claims to be from Long Island (Brooklyn Dioceses) and says he is 66 ½ years old, which means he would have been born around 1949. He has a showmanship style about him, a la Fr. Voigt, who also spent time on the east coast. So the showmanship style could be a ruse, or could just be the way he is. Uses his hands a lot, employs very exaggerated shifts in tone, makes his eyes pop out, etc. He seemed very prepared to address an SSPX resistance audience. This is either because he is an excellent con-man, or really believes the sort of things this crowd believes about a pope that’s no more than a figurehead and is unphased at the idea of an entire Catholic hierarchy with legitimate authority but without the Catholic faith. I personally find it difficult to believe that, as a protégé of Slipyj, he doesn’t find difficulty in many of these ideas. But on the other hand, if he’s legit, maybe he just doesn’t want to cause waves when first meeting people. Time will tell. He wears a red cap like a cardinal. I’m not a professional with liturgical garments, so maybe someone can explain that. There was a crying baby throughout—and he never flinched. This, again, either means that he is so adept at conning people that he can keep to a script, or he really does have lots of experience in front of traditional congregations and a crying baby doesn’t bother him. I’ll end the profile with this: he claims to be trained as a spy. He says that he was trained by Russian Jesuits and was sent to Soviet Russia to secretly consecrate bishops. This makes it very difficult to interpret his body language and expressions.

Chronological Transcript with Comments:

The first verifiable claim he makes is that he attended a minor [preparatory/proprietary] seminary called St. Pius X. This claim is made around the 2:00 mark. This is something that should be able to be verified. I’m unsure where this seminary is, exactly when he entered (though likely in the sixties, given his dates of ordination and consecration), or under whose care the seminary was. Likely on the east coast.



He initially introduces the idea of himself as a man with Holy Orders around the 5:00 mark, saying that he was ordained by Patriarch Cardinal Josef Slipyj in the “Byzantine/Ukrainian/Ruthenian rite.” It seems unusual to me to describe a rite in such a way, as I believe (though am very unfamiliar with the Easter rites and ceremonies) that these are three separate things. He claims to have said his daily masses at St. Peter’s Basilica at a particular altar. He recalls being in Rome in 1975 to celebrate mass at the papal alter with Slipyj and others. This is a fact that could be verified.



Around the 7:53 mark, he shows us his ring. He says that his ring belonged to Pope Pius XII. It came into the possession of Pope John XXIII, who then gave the ring to Slipyj (unclear when the ring was given to Slipyj). He describes the ring as possessing a Latin rite bishop’s miter, crosier and processional cross. If the picture could be blown up and clarified, this is something worth verifying—the history of this ring, if possible whether it belonged to pope Pius XII, and whether or not its ornamentation is consistent with episcopal and papal rings. Slipyj gave the ring to Ambrose when he consecrated him (8:23 mark). He then describes his reception of orders: deacon in 1973, priest in 1974. In 1975 he was made Archimandrite (sp?) which he describes as being essentially an Abbot. In 1976 [December or summer of, difficult to tell] he says that he was called to Rome.



At this time in Rome, he claims to have been consecrated bishop. The consecrators were three: Slipyj, an unnamed bishop from Patriarch Maximos V [ha Al-Kim?], Melkite Greek patriarch of the Holy Land and an unnamed diocesan Ukrainian Catholic Bishop. He counts these men off on his fingers, one, two and three around the 9:20 mark, staring right at the audience. He describes the ceremony as “secret, not secret, ‘low key’” in “his” [whose? Slipyj’s? If so, this is something for which verification can be sought] cathedral. It is at this time that he explains the purpose of his consecration was to be a spy (he uses this term in a sort of jocose fashion, but what follows makes it clear that if true, he really was a “spy” of sorts). He was sent to Soviet Russia to perform secret consecrations. This is difficult to verify, but I’m sure we’re all familiar with the fact that secret bishops were in fact consecrated and sent to Russia during this tumultuous time.



Around the 10:30 mark he shows his familiarity with Latin and Eastern terminology, describing an Iconostasis and also referring to “Our Blessed Mother with Baby Jesus” (rather than Theotokos). He digresses and describes Eastern priests being hung and murdered in front of their people (11:30 mark) and appears visibly shaken. Again, either legitimate or an incredible actor. He recovers from the digression in a seemingly legitimate way, as if it were unplanned.



12:00 mark: I was a bit uncomfortable with his excited and unexpected tones about the Ukrainian Church resurfacing. At this time (12-13 minute mark) he talks about how there are secret bishops in the East, and we just don’t know who they are. Warns us to be careful. I’m sure this is true—the question remains whether or not he is one of them. At 13:45 he says “the underground Church still exists.” While most of what he says is sympathetic to hardcore SSPXers, this is a sentiment with which sedevacantists will be most familiar.



Around 14:15 he speaks of Slipyj being in communication with “Marcel Lefebvre” (at this time he does not call him Archbishop, but does later). He literally says “now the plot thickens.” Describes how families sent their kids to Ukrainian parishes in the US for school and “true sacraments” (his words). As a result of this, Ambrose was associated with Latin rite families and “the Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate, Ukrainian Catholic sisters.” It is unclear if “Ukrainian Catholic sisters” is a separate group from “Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate” or if “Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate” are a Ukrainian group of Catholic sisters. However, “they” [the sisters, families, or both? Unclear.] asked Ambrose to help start a school, and he claims he did. This is something for which verification can be sought.


This takes us to about the 15 minute mark, and he goes backward a little. Describes how “the sisters” had a big reception for him when he returned to America, because they knew that he was a bishop. When did this happen? Why? Was it because of the briefly mentioned “resurfacing” of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and he was no longer needs? These events bear clarification, and could also be verified. At about 15:21, he says “within two years of having returned to the US and ‘minding his own business’” (again, when did he return to the US and why?) he received a call from Bishop Isadore Beretsky (sp?) of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto. Bishop Beretsky says to him “you’re dual rite, you know Gregorian chant” to which Ambrose affirms and Beretsky says “you’ll receive a call shortly from Slipyj. You’re going to administer confirmation in the Latin rite.”



This is one of the most verifiable claims, as he says that the first parish he went to was St. Jude’s Shrine in Texas, for which Fr. Louis Campbell is currently celebrating mass. St. Jude’s is a rather famous traditional Catholic site, and at the time, was tended to by (then) Father George Musey. Musey is known by many different traditionalist clerics—any of them could be contacted to see if they were aware of the late Bishop Musey’s dealings with, however remote, Ambrose. For what it’s worth, Musey was consecrated by Thuc in the early-mid-eighties, so Ambrose would have been at St. Jude’s around the late seventies, early eighties.



Around this time, the sermon takes less of a narrative format. He doesn’t really “bounce around”, but the first fifteen minutes are more or less a perfect chronological narrative of his life leading up until the confirmations at St. Jude’s. At around 17 minutes, he says that he’s “tried to remain under the radar” because Patriarch Maximos and Slipyj preached “humility and obedience.” He mentions humility and obedience frequently, and the mention of obedience is one of the few things that doesn’t really “mesh” with his audience, as he doesn’t talk about “true” and “false” obedience, something the crowd would be very sensitive to and appreciative of.



At the 18 minute mark, he says that JPII knew he was administering confirmation, and upon learning so, said “good.” What a strange thing to say, and what a strange thing to repeat. He frequently mentions JPII, Paul VI and “communion with the Holy Father.” I believe he does so to appeal to his audience, the idea of being “in communion with the Holy Father.” He says he was active in the infiltration of the “Uniate” Churches that were plagued with modernism. I’m unsure, but do we really use the term “Uniate” that often? It’s not a Roman term, not a traditional anyways. Not to my knowledge.



Still in the 18 minute or so mark, he says that two years ago he visited Fr. Ward in Colorado and administered confirmation to two postulants and tonsured some seminarians. This is something that can be verified. He says he visited Bishop Sheridan also. I’m not sure who that is, and he didn’t elaborate.



At 19:23 he says he isn’t mentally ill and has doctorates (that’s right, plural) in psychology. Was a leader in the study of neuropsychology (does not elaborate). Says “I’m well educated.” Claims to have studied Eastern Canon law and to have known Fr. Gomar de Pauw (sp? You know of whom I speak). Also claims to have studied under some renowned Easter Canonists (I doubt I’ve spelled these names correctly, but I’ve spelled them as they sounded phonetically) Frs. Waynard and Paubishal (verifiable facts, if these can be spelled correctly). At this point, we’re at about the 20 minute mark. He says “they” (presumably he, Waynard and Paubishal?) found that the Metropolitan of Kiev College review, according to the Treaty of Union (1596), has automatic papal privilege. And since Slipyj named Ambrose his successor, this papal privilege extends to Ambrose.


I’ll pause here for a moment. There is a difference between being consecrated a secret bishop and being consecrated as the successor to a particular see. A huge difference. Being consecrated and appointed to a see means that one has ordinary jurisdiction. Being consecrated to roam about in secret does not necessarily mean that. And with the involvement of Eastern disciplines and laws here, these are things that can be studied, but are very, very complex. And Ambrose doesn’t ever really get into the matter of being Slipyj’s successor, properly speaking.



Slipyj died in 1984. In 1988, Ambrose met with JPII who called him “Josaphat the New.” This shows (if true, of course—and this meeting could possibly be verified) that JPII, for whatever it’s worth, recognized Slipyj as more than just a wandering bishop? Around 21:42, Ambrose claims that he and Josaphat were working to bring all Orthodox bishop to the Catholic Church; their efforts failed but some joined (this is verifiable, though not sure how useful to know which Orthodox prelates joined the Catholic Church due to the efforts of Slipyj). He makes an unusual remark at this point, saying that “all Uniate Churches were at one time Orthodox.” I don’t believe this is true. If memory serves, the Maronites never left the embrace of Rome. In either event, not a major issue, as we’re all human—but someone who claims to be “well educated” and an Eastern bishop to boot, “should” have his history of Eastern Churches straight.


At 22:57 he again mentions working to bring Uniate churches to the Catholic Church, “under the Holy Father.” This could conceivably explain his alleged involvement in GOCA.



At 24:44 he makes a remark that disturbs me. He claims that Vatican II created the title “major Archbishop”, and that this title is the equivalent of Patriarch. Because Slipyj was the Major Archbishop of the Metropolitan of Kiev, he is therefore Patriarch. Honestly, I don’t know enough about Eastern discipline to explore the implications yet. But if Ambrose’s supposed jurisdiction rest upon a novelty introduced by Vatican II and bestowed upon Slipyj, it seems difficult to take his claims of jurisdiction seriously—if, in fact, they rest upon this title creation at Vatican II. I suppose if they do, something could be said about common error actually bestowing certain requisite powers (if, in fact, they were missing). But it’s far less convenient and difficult to determine.



At about 25 minutes he describes a picture which took place right after his consecration. This would be good to see. Better to see pictures of the consecration itself, but a picture immediately afterward where he is wearing bishop’s garb with Slipyj would be helpful.



At around 25:50 he draws attention back to his opening question: “who am I?” Says “as much as I want to hide out, in conscience I have to be active and help the people.” He says when he asked Bishops Beretsky and Slipyj, “how can I go into the dioceses of bishops in the Roman rite and perform confirmations…” (Which, incidentally, shows that he believes these “bishops” truly hold offices in their respective dioceses) the reply was that “we cannot leave these people alone.”



At 27 minutes he claims to have been praying and fasting in Colorado for the last seven years, and speaks of his awareness of GOCA and thought that he could receive them into communion with “not modernist Rome, but Rome.” Again, he is very prepared to address an audience with the SSPX vernacular.



A minute or so later he begins to quote Archbishop Lefebvre and: “it’s not just the Mass… it’s the faith.” Very topical.



Around minute 30 he says he thinks it is “probably” good that we work with the resistance, and that he thinks we should have bishops who are teaching the true faith if something goes wrong at the top (with the pope).


Kind of strange around the 32-33 minute mark, he claims to have connections in the Vatican, received info from the Pentagon and knew Nixon. “I can get certain information,” he says. And then he says “My faith… is not just ‘I believe’… I have experienced the Holy Spirit. The faith is true, it’s all true. Humility and obedience…” It’s just a really weird syntax. He’s not rambling, but he’s kind of rambling. To go from “I have connections in the Vatican and can get certain information” to “I have experienced the Holy Spirit [not Ghost, though that could just be indicative of his Eastern heritage] and the faith is true” is just such a strange, unrelated series of expressions. Especially for someone who has been so cogent until now. It’s either really earnest, or really dishonest. Difficult to tell.



Around the same time, interspersed with the above, he declares “I’m Metropolitan Archbishop of Kiev with the Status of Patriarch from Cardinal Slipyj. We have papal privilege. I have letters, documents, photographs… You can’t deny it… I’m wearing a ring, no Orthodox bishop wears a ring.” I say let him show us the letters, documents and photographs!



At 34:45 he quotes quintessential St. Athanasius: “They may have the buildings…” And says to the faithful that you don’t so much have to “belong to the Catholic Church that owns the buildings, but to the Catholic Church that knows the faith.” Around this time he says he’ll be “back and forth”—teaching seminarians, etc. Not sure exactly where the “back” in the back and forth is to, presumably Colorado.



Around this time he provides some medical history. Difficult to verify because you’d have to find a doctor willing to violate HIPAA, but says that he hast two herniated lumbar disks, a right hip replacement, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis and is in constant pain. This should be visibly obvious. He says it’s a great privilege to hang on the Cross with Our Lord.



He closes his sermon by asking for prayers for himself and the priests.



Brief Summary and Concluding Thoughts

There are a variety of different claims that can be verified. His minor seminary attendance, his involvement with Slipyj along with his diaconate and priesthood (and of course Episcopacy). The ring he wears, his starting of schools and involvement with Ukrainian sisters and his involvement at St. Jude’s. From where I sit, the major issues after the validity of his orders lies in the status of the Metropolitan College of Kiev, and exactly what privileges come with that Office, and which of those privileges were granted by Vatican II. There is also the question of where Ambrose has been from ~1990-2005. There is a very large gap in his “story” from meeting JPII circa 1988 to moving to Colorado “about seven years ago.”

Ned,

I can tell you a fair bit about the gentleman's background, but I'm not sure where he's gone to ground. Last time that I heard his name was when he apparently departed the UAOC (Sobornoprava) and was ordained to the episcopate by Archbishop Gregory of the GOCA - that was about 3-4 years ago, as I remember. A quick check on-line just now produced nothing, as you noted.

Many years,

Neil