Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on August 06, 2012, 01:09:13 PM
-
(http://athanasiusofalexandria.blogspot.com/)
-
The link still doesn't work. Has Ramolla been made a bishop?
-
(http://athanasiusofalexandria.blogspot.com/)
-
He was promoted to the Episcopacy by the Most Reverend Francis Slupski and consecrated a bishop by one of his Auxiliary bishops the Most Reverend Robert Dymek. Beginning of June Bishop Ramolla returned to his homeland Germany, Europe.
-
http://athanasiusofalexandria.blogspot.de/
-
http://athanasiusofalexandria.blogspot.de/
-
This is so evil and disturbed it is a story straight out of Hell.
-
Markus Ramolla was not validly ordained as a priest.
Markus Ramolla was not validly consecrated as a Bishop.
-
Markus Ramolla is just a layman who has pretended to be a priest.
-
I was told that he is in Germany.
-
Wherever he is, Markus Ramolla is just a layman who falsely claims to be a priest.
-
Wherever he is, Markus Ramolla is just a layman who falsely claims to be a priest.
ha ha tell that to janet gαye and her stable of perverted clergy and followers
-
Toth, Ramolla, Bastaja, gαye, and the others, are causing great trouble among Catholics.
-
Hasn't he now set up shop in Columbus, OH? Or more specifically - Dublin, OH.
-
they would never have gotten so far without the help of the mendez line of clergy they would have been smacked down years ago, they ran it by the priests so they think its all good
-
Who if anyone is pastoring his former parish in Cincinnati?
-
I was told by a priest, that Fr. Thielen is a priest for columbus Ohio and Ramolla is in Germany.
-
CMRI is taking care of his former parish in Cincinnati.
-
CMRI is taking care of his former parish in Cincinnati.
Is Fr Thielen still involved with the chapel and working with CMRI?
-
Wherever he is, Markus Ramolla is just a layman who falsely claims to be a priest.
Why is he not a priest? Is there some reason to suspect the validity of Bishop Dolan's orders?
-
Was Ramolla in sanctifying Grace to receive? there is more than one way to make a sacrament not take.
-
Was Ramolla in sanctifying Grace to receive? there is more than one way to make a sacrament not take.
How would you know and why would you presume otherwise, or question it? You need to learn your basic catechism and you need to go Confession.
-
Indeed.
-
Question: Fr. Ramolla, made Bishop by whom? Petco? IS there not talk of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, or grooming at the seminary that was of St. Albert the Great? Was there not a mess there going on?
-
Question: Fr. Ramolla, made Bishop by whom? Petco? IS there not talk of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, or grooming at the seminary that was of St. Albert the Great? Was there not a mess there going on?
You have to read the thread before posting:
He was promoted to the Episcopacy by the Most Reverend Francis Slupski and consecrated a bishop by one of his Auxiliary bishops the Most Reverend Robert Dymek. Beginning of June Bishop Ramolla returned to his homeland Germany, Europe.
-
It would indeed be a very good idea to read the topic b4 posting.
-
There is a Bishop P. who refuses to be associated with Bishop Slupski who has been known to ordain sleezy men, like Ryan Scott for an example? And to ordain those with no seminary training? Yes, I read the the Post at the beginning. It is nice to be a guest.
-
There is a Bishop P. who refuses to be associated with Bishop Slupski who has been known to ordain sleezy men, like Ryan Scott for an example? And to ordain those with no seminary training? Yes, I read the the Post at the beginning. It is nice to be a guest.
Bishop McKenna had been ordaining sleazeballs and frauds for years and years (but he ordained many good Priests though), and yet neither Bishop P. nor any other bishop made any public statement against him for that.
Bishop M. was the one who conditionally ordained Scott in the first place without looking into his past close enough.
So, sedes can throw bricks in a glass-house, nor blazing coals in an igloo.
-
Bishop McKenna had been ordaining sleazeballs and frauds for years and years (but he ordained many good Priests though), and yet neither Bishop P. nor any other bishop made any public statement against him for that.
Bishop M. was the one who conditionally ordained Scott in the first place without looking into his past close enough.
So, sedes can throw bricks in a glass-house, nor blazing coals in an igloo.
Who cares about the truth, right? It's all about putting a nice face of Seminary Newsletters and re-writing history, and covering up skeletons at the Academy and Seminary, right?
Who cares if mindless sedes are slandering Bishop Slupski as an "old Catholic" who is "untrained," right? Or if the Bishop and Priests condone implicitly, if not outright support, such slander in their bi-annual Priests' Meetings or annual Conferences, right?
It's all a nice lie to postpone the inevitable despair that is concomitant with realizing that the Faith has been compromised so disastrously, and so much pastoral neglect is either concealed or explained away...
-
There is a Bishop P. who refuses to be associated with Bishop Slupski who has been known to ordain sleezy men, like Ryan Scott for an example? And to ordain those with no seminary training? Yes, I read the the Post at the beginning. It is nice to be a guest.
Bishop McKenna had been ordaining sleazeballs and frauds for years and years (but he ordained many good Priests though), and yet neither Bishop P. nor any other bishop made any public statement against him for that.
Bishop M. was the one who conditionally ordained Scott in the first place without looking into his past close enough.
So, sedes can throw bricks in a glass-house, nor blazing coals in an igloo.
Yes, and Bishop McKenna acknowledged his mistake and apologized very humbly for it.
-
The above post was by Sigismund.
-
There is a Bishop P. who refuses to be associated with Bishop Slupski who has been known to ordain sleezy men, like Ryan Scott for an example? And to ordain those with no seminary training? Yes, I read the the Post at the beginning. It is nice to be a guest.
Bishop McKenna had been ordaining sleazeballs and frauds for years and years (but he ordained many good Priests though), and yet neither Bishop P. nor any other bishop made any public statement against him for that.
Bishop M. was the one who conditionally ordained Scott in the first place without looking into his past close enough.
So, sedes can throw bricks in a glass-house, nor blazing coals in an igloo.
Yes, and Bishop McKenna acknowledged his mistake and apologized very humbly for it.
For which he was rightly praised.
However, that was years after he had been ordaining charlatans, particularly Scott. And yet no one attacked him publicly for that during those years. I believe he did so in good faith, and that he was deceived by these creeps, and so do most other people. This is probably why no one dared raise the issue publicly.
Why doesn't Bp. Slupski get the same treatment?
Is it because it's part of "Traddieland politics"?