Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: AMDGJMJ on October 25, 2012, 06:35:55 PM
-
Does anyone know what happened to Father James Buckley who formerly offered the traditional Mass in Sanger, Texas? I was told by an acquaintance that he was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Williamson, and that he is a Sedevacantist, yet I can not seem to find any information of whether he still lives in Texas... If anyone knows of a way to find out information about him, I would appreciate it, so that a Sede who live in Texas may be able to go there for Mass. Thank you!
-
On June 29, 2006 I was in attendance and personally witnessed the episcopal consecration of Bp. Buckley. Sadly, it was done by the hand of Ryan St. Anne Scott at the now defunct Holy Rosary Abbey - Galesburg, IL.
This is the only info I have/remember.
-
Concerning "Bp" Buckley, if he was consecrated by Ryan St Anne, then it is doubtful. I would even say you could look at it as invalid since there is positive doubt. The reason is because Ryan St Anne was brought up a Lutheran(or some form of Protestantism) and there is no proof of his having been baptised, either as an or later. However you look at it, one has to disregard the "consecration."
Joe
-
With all due respect, Joe, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but must disagree. Even canon law - at least the 1917 code - made it clear that when there was doubt about a sacrament, validity is always to be presumed and the doubt removed. It is for this reason only that I give +Buckley the benefit of the doubt, and thus refer to him as "bishop." Considering the first-hand experience and knowledge I have of Ryan and his little cult following, my conscience won't let me do the same for Ryan, viz. give him the benefit of the doubt. It's very likely that Ryan's reputation, or lack of in this case, may be what has caused Bp. Buckley to "disappear," and why AMDGJMJ cannot find him.
In addition to being aware of Ryan's alleged Lutheran past from Bp. McKenna's renouncement/denouncement, I know there also used to be an anti-Ryan site that posted a Catholic (i.e. modern V-2) "profession of faith" docuмent (really an altered baptimsal cert.). This kind of docuмent could be a game-changer. At any rate, I think it is safe to say that no prelate in their right mind will touch this man (Ryan) with a 10-foot pole, so the doubt will remain and people will hopefully avoid him and not support his "new monastery" in any manner.
Antonio
-
With all due respect, Joe, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but must disagree. Even canon law - at least the 1917 code - made it clear that when there was doubt about a sacrament, validity is always to be presumed and the doubt removed. It is for this reason only that I give +Buckley the benefit of the doubt, and thus refer to him as "bishop." Considering the first-hand experience and knowledge I have of Ryan and his little cult following, my conscience won't let me do the same for Ryan, viz. give him the benefit of the doubt. It's very likely that Ryan's reputation, or lack of in this case, may be what has caused Bp. Buckley to "disappear," and why AMDGJMJ cannot find him.
In addition to being aware of Ryan's alleged Lutheran past from Bp. McKenna's renouncement/denouncement, I know there also used to be an anti-Ryan site that posted a Catholic (i.e. modern V-2) "profession of faith" docuмent (really an altered baptimsal cert.). This kind of docuмent could be a game-changer. At any rate, I think it is safe to say that no prelate in their right mind will touch this man (Ryan) with a 10-foot pole, so the doubt will remain and people will hopefully avoid him and not support his "new monastery" in any manner.
Antonio
There needs to be a positive doubt. That exists with Scott, so the presumption is that he isn't valid. If he "consectrated" anybody there would be positive doubt there as well.
-
With all due respect, Joe, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but must disagree. Even canon law - at least the 1917 code - made it clear that when there was doubt about a sacrament, validity is always to be presumed and the doubt removed. It is for this reason only that I give +Buckley the benefit of the doubt, and thus refer to him as "bishop." Considering the first-hand experience and knowledge I have of Ryan and his little cult following, my conscience won't let me do the same for Ryan, viz. give him the benefit of the doubt. It's very likely that Ryan's reputation, or lack of in this case, may be what has caused Bp. Buckley to "disappear," and why AMDGJMJ cannot find him.
In addition to being aware of Ryan's alleged Lutheran past from Bp. McKenna's renouncement/denouncement, I know there also used to be an anti-Ryan site that posted a Catholic (i.e. modern V-2) "profession of faith" docuмent (really an altered baptimsal cert.). This kind of docuмent could be a game-changer. At any rate, I think it is safe to say that no prelate in their right mind will touch this man (Ryan) with a 10-foot pole, so the doubt will remain and people will hopefully avoid him and not support his "new monastery" in any manner.
Antonio
There needs to be a positive doubt. That exists with Scott, so the presumption is that he isn't valid. If he "consectrated" anybody there would be positive doubt there as well.
Thank you for your input, SJB. As with Joe, I understand what you're saying, but disagree.
The fact is that this is an issue that is best studied and investigated by a qualified ecclesiastical tribunal, not a judgement composed of a collection of opinions and/or denouncements from whatever bishops, priests, etc.
Being a nobody-layman, I have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to make a definitive declaration one way or the other, and I certainly don't want that burden on my shoulders. I'm taking a wild guess that you're "in the same boat" as I am.
Antonio
-
Being a nobody-layman, I have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to make a definitive declaration one way or the other, and I certainly don't want that burden on my shoulders. I'm taking a wild guess that you're "in the same boat" as I am.
Even a "nobody-layman" can have moral certainty about this and therefore base his actions on that certainty. This is not a "definitive declaration" in which I assume you mean it is somehow binding on others.
There is evidence Ryan Scott isn't even a Catholic. That is positive doubt. Because of this, anybody he has "consecrated" has that positive doubt as well.
What you're saying is that anybody who claims to be a Bishop, must be assumed to be valid simply because we laymen cannot make "definitive" judgments.
-
Being a nobody-layman, I have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to make a definitive declaration one way or the other, and I certainly don't want that burden on my shoulders. I'm taking a wild guess that you're "in the same boat" as I am.
Even a "nobody-layman" can have moral certainty about this and therefore base his actions on that certainty. This is not a "definitive declaration" in which I assume you mean it is somehow binding on others.
There is evidence Ryan Scott isn't even a Catholic. That is positive doubt. Because of this, anybody he has "consecrated" has that positive doubt as well.
What you're saying is that anybody who claims to be a Bishop, must be assumed to be valid simply because we laymen cannot make "definitive" judgments.
For the possible benefit of +Buckley, I submit the hard evidence of a Profession of Faith made by Ryan Scott [R.S.], dated in 1979:
http://holyrosaryabbey.org/FoundDocs/Cert-of-Bapt.GIF
You continue to assert that "there is evidence Ryan Scott isn't even Catholic." Where is this evidence...are sources available? Are you referring to the words of others who say he isn't Catholic and write letters of denouncement, yet cannot back up their mere words with docuмented proof??
Does the above docuмent not demand the acknowledgement that Ryan Scott (aka Randall Dean Stocks) is Catholic? With this evidence of being Catholic since 1979, the fact that +Robert F. McKenna conditionally ordained him and +Francis Slupski consecrated him means that what you claim as "positive doubt" no longer exists. Based on this Prof. of Faith and evidence of ordination/consecration, it seems (to me, anyway) that the benefit of the doubt - at least - must be given to +Buckley, as being a validly consecrated bishop.
There are no modern-day traditional bishops whose lineages or validity isn't questioned or tainted in one way or another: accusations of mental incompetence, free-Masonic plots, ad nauseam. If these are extended the courtesy and recognition as bishops, then why not +Buckley?
-
With all due respect, Joe, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but must disagree. Even canon law - at least the 1917 code - made it clear that when there was doubt about a sacrament, validity is always to be presumed and the doubt removed. It is for this reason only that I give +Buckley the benefit of the doubt, and thus refer to him as "bishop." Considering the first-hand experience and knowledge I have of Ryan and his little cult following, my conscience won't let me do the same for Ryan, viz. give him the benefit of the doubt. It's very likely that Ryan's reputation, or lack of in this case, may be what has caused Bp. Buckley to "disappear," and why AMDGJMJ cannot find him.
In addition to being aware of Ryan's alleged Lutheran past from Bp. McKenna's renouncement/denouncement, I know there also used to be an anti-Ryan site that posted a Catholic (i.e. modern V-2) "profession of faith" docuмent (really an altered baptimsal cert.). This kind of docuмent could be a game-changer. At any rate, I think it is safe to say that no prelate in their right mind will touch this man (Ryan) with a 10-foot pole, so the doubt will remain and people will hopefully avoid him and not support his "new monastery" in any manner.
Antonio
Okay, that makes no sense. If Ryan St Anne wasn't a bishop, then clearly anyone he attempted to consecrate isn't either.
-
With all due respect, Joe, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but must disagree. Even canon law - at least the 1917 code - made it clear that when there was doubt about a sacrament, validity is always to be presumed and the doubt removed. It is for this reason only that I give +Buckley the benefit of the doubt, and thus refer to him as "bishop." Considering the first-hand experience and knowledge I have of Ryan and his little cult following, my conscience won't let me do the same for Ryan, viz. give him the benefit of the doubt. It's very likely that Ryan's reputation, or lack of in this case, may be what has caused Bp. Buckley to "disappear," and why AMDGJMJ cannot find him.
In addition to being aware of Ryan's alleged Lutheran past from Bp. McKenna's renouncement/denouncement, I know there also used to be an anti-Ryan site that posted a Catholic (i.e. modern V-2) "profession of faith" docuмent (really an altered baptimsal cert.). This kind of docuмent could be a game-changer. At any rate, I think it is safe to say that no prelate in their right mind will touch this man (Ryan) with a 10-foot pole, so the doubt will remain and people will hopefully avoid him and not support his "new monastery" in any manner.
Antonio
Okay, that makes no sense. If Ryan St Anne wasn't a bishop, then clearly anyone he attempted to consecrate isn't either.
You obviously didn't read the entire thread, or my last post.
-
Can someone help me I no fr James Buckley has been moved from one place to the next and with all the strange things he is doing at my mom's were thinking that may be why if someone can help me find out more on him it would be very helpful .his been living in my moms house for 4 years now and its turned into a bad situation all schooling has stopped for the younger children in the house and so much more
-
Being a nobody-layman, I have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to make a definitive declaration one way or the other, and I certainly don't want that burden on my shoulders. I'm taking a wild guess that you're "in the same boat" as I am.
Even a "nobody-layman" can have moral certainty about this and therefore base his actions on that certainty. This is not a "definitive declaration" in which I assume you mean it is somehow binding on others.
There is evidence Ryan Scott isn't even a Catholic. That is positive doubt. Because of this, anybody he has "consecrated" has that positive doubt as well.
What you're saying is that anybody who claims to be a Bishop, must be assumed to be valid simply because we laymen cannot make "definitive" judgments.
For the possible benefit of +Buckley, I submit the hard evidence of a Profession of Faith made by Ryan Scott [R.S.], dated in 1979:
http://holyrosaryabbey.org/FoundDocs/Cert-of-Bapt.GIF
You continue to assert that "there is evidence Ryan Scott isn't even Catholic." Where is this evidence...are sources available? Are you referring to the words of others who say he isn't Catholic and write letters of denouncement, yet cannot back up their mere words with docuмented proof??
Does the above docuмent not demand the acknowledgement that Ryan Scott (aka Randall Dean Stocks) is Catholic? With this evidence of being Catholic since 1979, the fact that +Robert F. McKenna conditionally ordained him and +Francis Slupski consecrated him means that what you claim as "positive doubt" no longer exists. Based on this Prof. of Faith and evidence of ordination/consecration, it seems (to me, anyway) that the benefit of the doubt - at least - must be given to +Buckley, as being a validly consecrated bishop.
There are no modern-day traditional bishops whose lineages or validity isn't questioned or tainted in one way or another: accusations of mental incompetence, free-Masonic plots, ad nauseam. If these are extended the courtesy and recognition as bishops, then why not +Buckley?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Ryan-Scotts-Buchanan-Abbey-has-been-shut-down
Look here.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Abbot-Ryan-St-Anne-Scott-aka-Randell-Dean-Stocks-Ryan-Patrick-Scott
-
Can someone help me I no fr James Buckley has been moved from one place to the next and with all the strange things he is doing at my mom's were thinking that may be why if someone can help me find out more on him it would be very helpful .his been living in my moms house for 4 years now and its turned into a bad situation all schooling has stopped for the younger children in the house and so much more
Hire a private detective? In this case I wouldn't suggest asking a traditional priest because it is not 100% certain they would do anything except maybe listen.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
Ok thank you for your advice .we have talked to a few priest about it and they said its a bad situation .and we are now getting someone to look into his background
-
On June 29, 2006 I was in attendance and personally witnessed the episcopal consecration of Bp. Buckley. Sadly, it was done by the hand of Ryan St. Anne Scott at the now defunct Holy Rosary Abbey - Galesburg, IL.
This is the only info I have/remember.
I know this is an old post but since I attended the "chapel" where Mr. Buckley mimicked a traditional mass I can attest that Mr. Buckley was removed from the premises of the owner where the chapel was located. This was done after Mr. Buckley went to the fake monk, Ryan St. Anne , to "receive" orders as a bishop. Ryan St. Anne Gevelinger (born 1953), formerly known as Ryan St. Anne Scott and born Randell Dean Stocks.
Ryan St. Anne was jailed in 2015. He was charged with three counts of "financial exploitation of an elderly or disabled person", according to news reports. He faces 10 to 30 years in prison if convicted on one count, a Class A felony.
I chased the mass for a few years and thought that the fraud, Buckley, was a true priest, and that his was one of the few places to attend a traditional mass.
Anyone who believes the fraud Randell Stocks or James Buckley is a bishop much less a priest is deluding themselves.