Odd, the thread you link provides citations to the New Advent encyclopedia published by the Latins as quoting the prophecy. The report of a deathbed prophecy by Edward the Confessor doesn't seem to have originated with Moss, even if he might have been the first to give it an Orthodox interpretation in seeing the calamity to befall England not as protestantism, but the imposition of papal rule.
The "Deathbed Prophecy" is found in a document from the time the Vita Aedwardi
which was written in Latin by an anonymous author and is available (though scarce) in an excellent English translation by Frank Barlow a historian and Emeritus Professor at the University of Exeter in England. I have a copy along with his biography of Edward the Confessor. It was never said that Mr. Moss "originated" it, but that he first did not provide a source for it in the short form in which it may be found on the 'net such as in the OP of the linked thread here on OC.net. The second problem is with the added paragraph which in not in the original, would seem therefore to be Mr. Moss interpretation and is, in historical fact simply wrong. There is an simple and easily checked error in his claim that the "year and a day" of the prophecy came true. The exact quote from that is
"King Edward died on January 5, 1066. One year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, the Roman Catholic William the Conqueror was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey."
That is not true. Edward the Confessor did die on January 5th and this is attested to in the primary sources including the Vita
. But William of Normandy was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066.
Furthermore, the "calamity" that would come to England mentioned in the Prophecy was because the clerics and rulers in that country were not righteous but "servants of the devil"
and it was taken to be by those writing in the ensuing years about the live of Edward the Confessor to be the Normans not anything about a different religion.
Both Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition and Moss's The Fall of Orthodox England have footnotes. The argument either holds or it doesn't whoever is making it. (If one dismisses something because its author gave a controversial interpretation of a prophecy, do you think we should throw the writings of Evagarius of Pontus out of The Philokalia? After all he was condemned as an Origenist. Or should we stop reading Tertullian?)
Yes, he gives footnotes in those works but in some cases, such as those on the "Orthodox" saints in Scandinavia he cites his own work. Mr. Moss is claiming his own authority to support his argument. I have put out an inter-library loan for three other books that he cites, all by Frank Barlow interestingly enough, so that I can check his references.
He may make a "controversial interpretation" as much as he likes, but that does not mean that he is either unbiased or correct. Given a choice in the presenting and interpretation of history Frank Barlow and Sir Steven Runciman (an well-known scholar of the middle ages with works on Constantinople and the EO Church as well) among others are much more to be preferred.