Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.  (Read 8134 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Seraphina

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Reputation: +2886/-272
  • Gender: Female
Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
« on: February 28, 2025, 07:28:20 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • “He’s [Fr. Mawdsley] is a good man.”  ~ +Bp. W. to me in a letter of October, 2024.

    https://youtu.be/nHAA1U1KSak?si=qaN1R3QuPKfn7B-d
    Logged

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5452
    • Reputation: +4109/-284
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #1 on: February 28, 2025, 10:14:00 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • There really is no other priest or prelate stating the truth about the ѕуηαgσgυє as Bishop Williamson did, other than Fr Mawdsley. 
    He seems to have taken the baton from +Williamson in the race against the enemy of Christ and mankind, the SOS.

     
    I only pray that Bishop Williamson did conditionally ordain him. 
    Logged

    Offline Steve

    • Supporter
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +54/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #2 on: February 28, 2025, 08:46:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Me too.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1513
    • Reputation: +1241/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #3 on: February 28, 2025, 09:48:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I wonder if he attended the funeral?
    Logged

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 5576
    • Reputation: +4316/-100
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #4 on: February 28, 2025, 09:54:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on February 28, 2025, 07:28:20 AM
    “He’s [Fr. Mawdsley] is a good man.”  ~ +Bp. W. to me in a letter of October, 2024.
    Maybe +Bp.W gave the answer right there.
    I think it's more likely that James Mawdsley is still a married layman than a traditional-ordained priest.
    Logged

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5452
    • Reputation: +4109/-284
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #5 on: March 01, 2025, 08:24:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MaterDominici on February 28, 2025, 09:54:23 PM
    Maybe +Bp.W gave the answer right there.
    I think it's more likely that James Mawdsley is still a married layman than a traditional-ordained priest.
    Oh yeah- I forgot he was married ...
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +135/-181
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #6 on: March 03, 2025, 03:53:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: josefamenendez on March 01, 2025, 08:24:42 PM
    Oh yeah- I forgot he was married ...
    he was ordained by "bishops" (layman) who were consecrated in the invalid new rite
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46453
    • Reputation: +27352/-5048
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #7 on: March 03, 2025, 04:40:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Predestination2 on March 03, 2025, 03:53:18 PM
    he was ordained by "bishops" (layman) who were consecrated in the invalid new rite

    Yes, but he himself admitted having had misgivings about the validity of the Orders, and I do suspect that he's therefore since sought conditional ordination.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46453
    • Reputation: +27352/-5048
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #8 on: March 03, 2025, 04:42:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MaterDominici on February 28, 2025, 09:54:23 PM
    Maybe +Bp.W gave the answer right there.
    I think it's more likely that James Mawdsley is still a married layman than a traditional-ordained priest.

    He had his marriage declared null ... so we can't merely assume that there weren't legitimate grounds for nullity (as there are some clear-cut cases).  Nor does marriage preclude valid ordination.  Even if the annulment had NOT been legit, but he received conditional ordination, he would in fact be a valid priest regardless.

    People needn't jump to conclusions without actual evidence, eh?
    Logged

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5452
    • Reputation: +4109/-284
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #9 on: March 03, 2025, 05:31:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 03, 2025, 04:42:45 PM
    He had his marriage declared null ... so we can't merely assume that there weren't legitimate grounds for nullity (as there are some clear-cut cases).  Nor does marriage preclude valid ordination.  Even if the annulment had NOT been legit, but he received conditional ordination, he would in fact be a valid priest regardless.

    People needn't jump to conclusions without actual evidence, eh?
    Thanks for the response Lad. I feel much better in this regard.
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +135/-181
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #10 on: March 03, 2025, 05:34:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 03, 2025, 04:42:45 PM
    He had his marriage declared null ... so we can't merely assume that there weren't legitimate grounds for nullity (as there are some clear-cut cases).  Nor does marriage preclude valid ordination.  Even if the annulment had NOT been legit, but he received conditional ordination, he would in fact be a valid priest regardless.

    People needn't jump to conclusions without actual evidence, eh?
    annulled by a novus bogus layman?
    Logged

    Offline alaric

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3301
    • Reputation: +2444/-424
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #11 on: March 03, 2025, 05:36:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MaterDominici on February 28, 2025, 09:54:23 PM
    Maybe +Bp.W gave the answer right there.
    I think it's more likely that James Mawdsley is still a married layman than a traditional-ordained priest.
    Apparently his marriage has been anulled.
    Logged

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5452
    • Reputation: +4109/-284
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #12 on: March 03, 2025, 06:01:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Predestination2 on March 03, 2025, 05:34:16 PM
    annulled by a novus bogus layman?
    Who else can annul it? No one else has tribunals. 
    Whether it is legit or not is if he met the pre-Vll criteria for annulment, which I would say is difficult to do .
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46453
    • Reputation: +27352/-5048
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #13 on: March 03, 2025, 06:16:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Predestination2 on March 03, 2025, 05:34:16 PM
    annulled by a novus bogus layman?

    So?  No one actually "annuls" anything but simply makes a declaration of nullity, and some grounds for nullity are quite clear and be accepted by even the most radical SV clergy.  Regardless, even if he were still technically married, that would not invalidate his Holy Orders.

    Perhaps it was discovered she had been married before, or there was some other obvious impediment.  It's also possible that this woman has since passed away (since that was 20 years ago).  Too much we don't know for doofuses to be shooting from the hip.
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +135/-181
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Mawdsley, continued.
    « Reply #14 on: March 03, 2025, 06:20:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 03, 2025, 06:16:52 PM
    So?  No one actually "annuls" anything but simply makes a declaration of nullity, and some grounds for nullity are quite clear and be accepted by even the most radical SV clergy.  Regardless, even if he were still technically married, that would not invalidate his Holy Orders.

    Perhaps it was discovered she had been married before, or there was some other obvious impediment.  It's also possible that this woman has since passed away (since that was 20 years ago).  Too much we don't know for doofuses to be shooting from the hip.
    thats fair. do we know whether there is docuмentary proof that the marriage was definitely invalid
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3
    « previous next »