Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: CatholicChris on March 25, 2024, 10:26:53 AM
-
Servants of the Holy Family announced that Father Anthony Ward was consecrated bishop by an unnamed bishop. Judging by their announcement, a novus ordo bishop.
-
Wasn't he an SSPX priest?
-
Wasn't he an SSPX priest?
Yes, I believe he was the first North American district superior but I could be wrong.
-
Yes, I believe he was the first North American district superior but I could be wrong.
The Address To Catholics Series - Servants of the Holy Family (servi.org)
(https://servi.org/address-to-catholics-series/)Part 1. He says he was appointed the 1st US Superior around 1976. It sounds like he had a similar background as +Kelly(+RIP+). He left before the 9 did.
-
This whole business of being consecrated by unknown bishops is disturbing. Evidently they find sympathetic bishops who, for some reason, can't be named.
-
This whole business of being consecrated by unknown bishops is disturbing. Evidently they find sympathetic bishops who, for some reason, can't be named.
Some reason? The 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes an ipso facto excommunication for episcopal consecration that affects the consecrating and co-consecrating bishops as well as those receiving the episcopal consecration.
That is serious if one holds that the Conciliarist hierarchy is valid and that no emergency currently exists or is insufficient in severity to warrent an otherwise illicit episcopal consecration.
-
Some reason? The 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes an ipso facto excommunication for episcopal consecration that affects the consecrating and co-consecrating bishops as well as those receiving the episcopal consecration.
That is serious if one holds that the Conciliarist hierarchy is valid and that no emergency currently exists or is insufficient in severity to warrent an otherwise illicit episcopal consecration.
So, who is this Fr Ward? And why did he get consecrated?
-
Some reason? The 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes an ipso facto excommunication for episcopal consecration that affects the consecrating and co-consecrating bishops as well as those receiving the episcopal consecration.
That is serious if one holds that the Conciliarist hierarchy is valid and that no emergency currently exists or is insufficient in severity to warrent an otherwise illicit episcopal consecration.
Any such consecrations would fall under one or both of the conditions that you describe, as a "judgment call" on the part of all parties involved.
-
Some reason? The 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes an ipso facto excommunication for episcopal consecration that affects the consecrating and co-consecrating bishops as well as those receiving the episcopal consecration.
That is serious if one holds that the Conciliarist hierarchy is valid and that no emergency currently exists or is insufficient in severity to warrent an otherwise illicit episcopal consecration.
Does the code only apply if the act becomes "notorious"? Otherwise, they'd be "excommunicated" regardless. Perhaps the "consecrating prelate" just doesn't want the public imposition of any penalties.
-
Father Anthony Ward was consecrated bishop by an unnamed bishop.
I was, too...or was I??? I'll post some pics and docs when my episcopal duties abate, but they may or may not be legit... :laugh1:
Yet another example of the absurdities that are the norm throughout Traddieland.
1983 vs. 1917 vs. whatever code aside, his stupidity expels him from all sane and decent society. Anyone who sees him and knows of his recklessness should smack him so hard that both his cheek and the hand of the deliverer of justice are shattered into pieces.
OWN the act in its entirety, find the nearest cliff, or at least spare us your gutless delusions of grandeur.
-
Perhaps the "consecrating prelate" just doesn't want the public imposition of any penalties.
Perhaps he doesn't exist? Perhaps s/he's an hermaphrodite, or Bergoglio himself?
In a decades-long era of uncertainty, anonymity in such matters is unacceptable. Even if I were 100% certain of his priesthood, I would completely avoid him and treat him as yet another, gutless NON-bishop until he proves otherwise.
-
Yes, I believe he was the first North American district superior but I could be wrong.
Yes, you're right. He was the first SSPX priest in the US and was well liked by all, although there was only a relatively few in those days, but he was still well liked until he up and left one day.
What is it that drives these trad priests to get themselves consecrated as bishops? In this case, the need was apparently so bad, that we have Fr. Ward who *apparently* had himself consecrated by a NO bishop - but a NO bishop's not good enough to ordain trad priests? Makes my head spin if I think about it more than a few seconds.
-
Yes, you're right. He was the first SSPX priest in the US and was well liked by all, although there was only a relatively few in those days, but he was still well liked until he up and left one day.
What is it that drives these trad priests to get themselves consecrated as bishops? In this case, the need was apparently so bad, that we have Fr. Ward who *apparently* had himself consecrated by a NO bishop - but a NO bishop's not good enough to ordain trad priests? Makes my head spin if I think about it more than a few seconds.
The only thing I could think is he was consecrated by an Eastern rite bishop which I believe they have admitted to working with before.
-
The only thing I could think is he was consecrated by an Eastern rite bishop which I believe they have admitted to working with before.
All I can say is, I hope they had video rolling, and affidavits signed by witnesses, preferably neutral ones (such as an attorney), to attest that the event actually happened, when it happened, and who was involved. These could be archived until such time as the whole truth can be revealed.
-
Soon we will have one priest for every five bishops.
They are coming faster than one can keep count.
-
Does the code only apply if the act becomes "notorious"? Otherwise, they'd be "excommunicated" regardless. Perhaps the "consecrating prelate" just doesn't want the public imposition of any penalties.
Bingo! The penalty is ipso facto, but would be occult unless the action were publicly known. Those involved would then become notorious.
But all this is moot for those of us who do hold that the emergency state in the Church is cause for transgressing the law (including the similar penalty in the 17 Code as amended in the 1950s) and, further, that the Conciliar hierarchy is no hierarchy at all other than in a material sense (or simply not at all).
-
Hmmm. Maybe Fr Pfieffer has recently been to Colorado?:jester:
-
Perhaps he doesn't exist? Perhaps s/he's an hermaphrodite, or Bergoglio himself?
In a decades-long era of uncertainty, anonymity in such matters is unacceptable. Even if I were 100% certain of his priesthood, I would completely avoid him and treat him as yet another, gutless NON-bishop until he proves otherwise.
Exactly.
-
“….Fr. Ward who *apparently* had himself consecrated by a NO bishop - but a NO bishop's not good enough to ordain trad priests? Makes my head spin if I think about it more than a few seconds.”
Why is everyone assuming it’s a NO bishop?? Could have been + Williamson for all we know. He’s been known to secretly consecrate bishops…and has known Fr.Ward longer than anyone…+Williamson has also been understanding of the Sedevecantist position…
-
Why is everyone assuming it’s a NO bishop?? Could have been + Williamson for all we know. He’s been known to secretly consecrate bishops…and has known Fr.Ward longer than anyone…+Williamson has also been understanding of the Sedevecantist position…
... because he clearly stated that the Bishop is in the Annuario Pontificio.
-
According to https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html there are 22 bishops still living who were consecrated in 1969, five consecrated in 1970, twelve consecrated in 1971, etc. I guess it is possible that Fr. Ward went to one of these bishops to get consecrated, but the question is, why the silence? I mean, for the sake of the argument let us say that Bp. Jayme Chemello (91 yr. old) in Brazil consecrated him; would this bishop really be opposed to Bp. Ward revealing this? I assume that all retired bishops are in the Annuario Pontifico. I do see that one of these bishops, provided they were consecrated using the old form, might think to themselves, "Fr Ward, I am consecrating you, but don't let this get out because I do not want to deal with Francis."
-
According to https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html there are 22 bishops still living who were consecrated in 1969, five consecrated in 1970, twelve consecrated in 1971, etc. I guess it is possible that Fr. Ward went to one of these bishops to get consecrated, but the question is, why the silence?
I would doubt it. I think the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration went into effect in early 1969, and all the bishops I saw who were consecrated before that time are approaching 100 ... with the notable exception of Cardinal Arinze, who's only 91.
-
Why is everyone assuming it’s a NO bishop?? Could have been + Williamson for all we know. He’s been known to secretly consecrate bishops…and has known Fr.Ward longer than anyone…+Williamson has also been understanding of the Sedevecantist position…
Our Bishops (https://servi.org/our-bishops/) from their website. All I see are NO Bishops they've used exclusively since 1977. I had no idea and it is a bit of a shock to me after having known him as a young priest fresh out of Econe. I woulda never guessed it.
(https://servi.org/our-bishops/)
-
Our Bishops (https://servi.org/our-bishops/) from their website. All I see are NO Bishops they've used exclusively since 1977. I had no idea and it is a bit of a shock to me after having known him as a young priest fresh out of Econe. I woulda never guessed it.
(https://servi.org/our-bishops/)
Interesting that one cannot copy text from that page (at least I couldn't). It states that all bishops used the Old Rites, but if these bishops are not Old Rite themselves...?
-
Interesting that one cannot copy text from that page (at least I couldn't). It states that all bishops used the Old Rites, but if these bishops are not Old Rite themselves...?
I was not able to copy it either so I just posted the link. I did print a pdf of the page that you can copy and paste from - attached. I did a google on some of the names mentioned and they're old enough to have been ordained the old way pre-V2, not sure about their consecrations as bishops tho, so I don't know. I like to think that +Ward was definitely sure that they were indeed validly consecrated.
Which makes me wonder and I wish I knew why, at his late age, did Fr. Ward have himself consecrated a bishop when he can simply have his few(?) seminarians ordained by the same Annuario Pontificio bishops?
What a mess.
-
I was not able to copy it either so I just posted the link. I did print a pdf of the page that you can copy and paste from - attached. I did a google on some of the names mentioned and they're old enough to have been ordained the old way pre-V2, not sure about their consecrations as bishops tho, so I don't know. I like to think that +Ward was definitely sure that they were indeed validly consecrated.
Which makes me wonder and I wish I knew why, at his late age, did Fr. Ward have himself consecrated a bishop when he can simply have his few(?) seminarians ordained by the same Annuario Pontificio bishops?
What a mess.
Maybe it's logistically easier for him to do the ordaining. But, I agree. What a mess.