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.

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

Quote from: NatusPrimus

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

Quote from: 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.

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?

Quote from: NatusPrimus

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.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: 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.

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

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