Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on August 11, 2023, 02:50:26 PM
-
Someone posted in the "Resistance Bishops in Asia" thread on the anonymous forum on here that there is a video of Bishop Slupski not saying the form correctly during his episcopal consecrations, thereby potentially invaliding the rite. https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/resistance-bishops-in-asia/
The poster wrote
"Even if Pfeiffer was conditionally consecrated “correctly” by Webster, there are still doubts.
There exists a video of +Slupski (who consecrated Webster) consecrating a man where the essential form is messed up more than Webster’s error while consecrating Pfeiffer.
There are serious doubts to the validity of ordinations and consecrations performed by +Slupski. May he rest in peace. "
To the person or any other person that has that video, you could please post it, or at least let us know where it can be found.
Many Catholics receive sacraments from Slupski line Bishops and priests so this is very important.
-
Video probably doesn't exist. I've seen a number of anti-SV and anti-Thuc people here trolling and creating FUD by claiming the existence of, if not this video, then others of a similar nature, but none have been produced in the time they've played that game. Take this thread out of "Anonymous". Why is it here? All this does is to open it up to the same trolls. Could be some Kelly-ite SSPV troll or an R&R or someone else with an agenda who's out trolling. Plus, the credibility of the poster matters. I saw one clown who impugned a Thuc-line bishop for making "upside-down" crosses during the episcopal blessing, when it was just a tad bit of sloppiness, and I could show Leo XIII and Pius XII on video doing it in similar fashion. That's the type of nonsense you can find out there from mentally imbalanced individuals. And posting this in Anonymous is just feeding the trolls.
-
Bishop Slupski, one who ordains married men to the priesthood. One being Dr. Thomas Drowlesky.
-
Thank you for making this thread. I saw that post as well. The poster who made the claim needs to provide the proof.
-
The video indeed exists. It has been edited to remove those who were present, but it clearly shows +Slupski. The consecrating Preface is with the video.. The last sentence is considered essential for validity.
https://youtu.be/Wl-Fxv5W9J4
-
One error doesn't mean it wasn't corrected. One error also doesn't mean that this error was made in every consecration.
-
The video indeed exists. It has been edited to remove those who were present, but it clearly shows +Slupski. The consecrating Preface is with the video.. The last sentence is considered essential for validity.
https://youtu.be/Wl-Fxv5W9J4
Thank you very much!
-
The video indeed exists. It has been edited to remove those who were present, but it clearly shows +Slupski. The consecrating Preface is with the video.. The last sentence is considered essential for validity.
https://youtu.be/Wl-Fxv5W9J4
Could anyone here who knew +Slupski confirm that he looked like the bishop claimed to be him in said video?
-
I honestly can't believe how careless these bishops are. How hard can it be to learn one sentence correctly???
-
I honestly can't believe how careless these bishops are. How hard can it be to learn one sentence correctly???
In their defense, they might not have been aware of the designation of the essential form by Pius XII as clerics aren't online as much but one could argue in these times it would be gravely negligent of them to not know. I could understand how a bishop could mess the form up if the text were small or if the font was similar to that of the manuscripts of the middle ages. Nonetheless, I believe that the Roman Pontifical should have those words bolded or something to set them apart to make sure the form doesn't get messed up.
-
The video indeed exists. It has been edited to remove those who were present, but it clearly shows +Slupski. The consecrating Preface is with the video.. The last sentence is considered essential for validity.
Form in the video was wrong. It appears that he was having vision problems, since he did seem competent in Latin basic on the fluency with which he pronounced the word he could read, and you could see him bending closer to the book. Problem with this video is where it cuts off. At the very end you can see him taking something over to the altar, bending down and examining something. Is it possible that he realized that he messed it up and was taking it aside to read it again and then proceeded to make another attempt at it? We can't know based on where this video was cut off. Why was this video edited at all? There's no reason to "hide" the identity of "those present", since episcopal consecrations are public affairs of the Church. Is it possible that it was edited for other reasons, such as to hide a re-attempt at the form? Could either Bishop Slupski himself or one of the MCs pointed out the defect to him, resulting in the part at the end where he looks like he's studying something at the very end, when the video is cut off?
Whom was he consecrating a bishop at this time?
-
If you look at the video from 4:00 - 4:24, he goes silent right after the essential form, looking puzzled, and he takes the book over to the altar and bends over, possibly for a better view under better lighting, examining the book for a long time, appearing a bit confused. Looks like a booklet was on top of the main Ritual, or he was using an alternative edition, possibly a larger-print version, due to the obvious struggle with vision / eyesight. I suspect that he was re-examining it because he knew he messed it up and then could very well have attempted it again. But the video was "edited" to "protect identities". And, if that wasn't the case, do we know that someone else didn't catch the error in the video and that he didn't "fix" the problem later? Unlike Bishop Pfeiffer, Bishop Slupski appears to be a humble man and wouldn't refuse due to his ego.
Produce a link to the entire video.
-
The video is troubling, but it isn't quite analogous to the Webster video for the reasons Ladislaus pointed out. Especially with older clerics, honest mistakes can be made due to age--these are not problems of incompetence nor of insufficient training/knowledge. The objection to Webster is that he literally didn't know what he was doing (incompetence). The video of Slupski appears to show a serious mistake which he may actually have caught. That doesn't speak to carelessness, but the opposite.
I once assisted at the Mass of a very old priest who forgot to do the consecration. A layman approached and made father aware of this. Apparently, the Church actually provides liturgical rules for instances like this (the priest is supposed to return to the offertory if he finds himself ahead of the consecration without having actually performed the consecration). The existence of such instructions suggests that the Church understands that even amongst her clerics, whose training she insists be rigorous and whose competence she insists be pristine, may nevertheless through reasons other than incompetence make invalidating errors. These errors are not tolerated nor condoned, but they are acknowledged as possible. Two cents anyways.
-
The video is troubling, but it isn't quite analogous to the Webster video for the reasons Ladislaus pointed out. Especially with older clerics, honest mistakes can be made due to age--these are not problems of incompetence nor of insufficient training/knowledge. The objection to Webster is that he literally didn't know what he was doing (incompetence). The video of Slupski appears to show a serious mistake which he may actually have caught. That doesn't speak to carelessness, but the opposite.
I once assisted at the Mass of a very old priest who forgot to do the consecration. A layman approached and made father aware of this. Apparently, the Church actually provides liturgical rules for instances like this (the priest is supposed to return to the offertory if he finds himself ahead of the consecration without having actually performed the consecration). The existence of such instructions suggests that the Church understands that even amongst her clerics, whose training she insists be rigorous and whose competence she insists be pristine, may nevertheless through reasons other than incompetence make invalidating errors. These errors are not tolerated nor condoned, but they are acknowledged as possible. Two cents anyways.
Agreed. If this wasn't corrected, then I would agree that it was not valid. But we don't know whether it was corrected or not. That last 25 seconds of the video suggest that Bishop Slupski realized something was wrong. He took the book, placed it on the altar, presumably under better lighting, to have a look ... and may have been a prelude to his turning back around and trying it again. We just can't tell due to where the video abruptly ended. I could tell by the way he was pronouncing the Latin that it was fluent ... except where it appeared he may have been struggling to see the text. You see him leaning close to the book. All that suggests an issue with his eyesight rather than a lack of fluency in Latin.
-
Agreed. If this wasn't corrected, then I would agree that it was not valid. But we don't know whether it was corrected or not. That last 25 seconds of the video suggest that Bishop Slupski realized something was wrong. He took the book, placed it on the altar, presumably under better lighting, to have a look ... and may have been a prelude to his turning back around and trying it again. We just can't tell due to where the video abruptly ended. I could tell by the way he was pronouncing the Latin that it was fluent ... except where it appeared he may have been struggling to see the text. You see him leaning close to the book. All that suggests an issue with his eyesight rather than a lack of fluency in Latin.
I can't agree on the fluency... There are several mistakes, whether due to eyesight or whatever, that make the Latin unintelligible. If he were fluent, he would have caught these errors as he was making them by realizing, "What I am saying makes no sense."
-
Form in the video was wrong. It appears that he was having vision problems, since he did seem competent in Latin basic on the fluency with which he pronounced the word he could read, and you could see him bending closer to the book. Problem with this video is where it cuts off. At the very end you can see him taking something over to the altar, bending down and examining something. Is it possible that he realized that he messed it up and was taking it aside to read it again and then proceeded to make another attempt at it? We can't know based on where this video was cut off. Why was this video edited at all? There's no reason to "hide" the identity of "those present", since episcopal consecrations are public affairs of the Church. Is it possible that it was edited for other reasons, such as to hide a re-attempt at the form? Could either Bishop Slupski himself or one of the MCs pointed out the defect to him, resulting in the part at the end where he looks like he's studying something at the very end, when the video is cut off?
Whom was he consecrating a bishop at this time?
I agree it seemed like he was going to do it again. The video cutting off seems malicious.
-
I agree it seemed like he was going to do it again. The video cutting off seems malicious.
There exists at least two different recordings of this attempted consecration. It seems the posted clip comes from a recording that is chopped into multiple clips. Perhaps someone with a copy of the other full length recording can post it?
There was no re-do. The man in this attempted consecration was later conditionally consecrated by a different bishop.
-
He botched that worse than Bp. Webster considering Bp. Slupski skips words entirely (such as "instructum") whereas Bp. Webster, for all his faults, at least said every word.
With regards to him turning around and reading the book closely after finishing the preface (which includes the sacramental form at its conclusion), those actions would be expected for him to do so (without an MC) because at that point of the mass the rubrics state for him to turn around and go back to the altar, so he's almost certainly reading the rubrics which is why he's spending so much effort doing so in order that he knows what to do next.
-
There was no re-do. The man in this attempted consecration was later conditionally consecrated by a different bishop.
Names the names, including yours, and produce the video. I get sick and tired of Anonymous Cowards hiding their identity. No one's going to take the word of anonymous trolls that "there was no re-do" without evidence. Granted, without contrary evidence, this consecration was invalid, but what I mean is evidence to this Anonymous Coward's assertion that there was no "re-try" of the essential form. As for conditional consecrations, there could be myriad reasons, such as someone suddenly deciding he has doubts about the +Thuc line, or there are some clowns that conditionally consecrated a half dozen times.
-
I agree it seemed like he was going to do it again. The video cutting off seems malicious.
We only have this Anonymous troll's assertion to the contrary. His allegation that the rubrics call for him to return to the altar is absurd, since everyone else stayed in position there, and the rubrics do not call for the bishop to put the book down on the corner of the altar and stare at it for an extended period of time.
-
He botched that worse than Bp. Webster considering Bp. Slupski skips words entirely (such as "instructum") whereas Bp. Webster, for all his faults, at least said every word.
+Webster only said "every word" if you don't count the fact he substituted the wrong words. +Slupski did the same thing with mysterium for ministerium.
-
Bishop Slupski, one who ordains married men to the priesthood. One being Dr. Thomas Drowlesky.
Can you provide any docuмentation for Dr. Drowleski [sic] being ordained to the priesthood? I haven't seen anything at Dr. Droleskey's site concerning this.
-
Can you provide any docuмentation for Dr. Drowleski [sic] being ordained to the priesthood? I haven't seen anything at Dr. Droleskey's site concerning this.
Seems to be some unconfirmed and highly dubious rumor.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-dr-droleskey-a-priest/
-
Seems to be some unconfirmed and highly dubious rumor.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-dr-droleskey-a-priest/
Bishop Frank Slupski Died: May 14, 2018 « Catholic Endtime Truths (https://catholicendtimetruths.com/2018/05/bishop-frank-slupski-died-may-14-2018/)
-
Bishop Frank Slupski Died: May 14, 2018 « Catholic Endtime Truths (https://catholicendtimetruths.com/2018/05/bishop-frank-slupski-died-may-14-2018/)
Yes, I know ... but that thread was from 2013, when the rumors were already circulating.