Bishop Frank Slupski

Over the years, and particularly during the past several months, there has been much discussion and confusion concerning Bishop Slupski and his position on the subject of “sedevacantism,” among other things.

Bishop Slupski has stated his position as follows:

Bishop Slupski adheres totally to the Catholic Faith and Church as it existed before Vatican II and continues to exist today in the true Church.  He totally rejects Vatican II and the new church it produced, along with its hierarchy including Ratzinger-“Benedict XVI”, who is “pope” only of the false new church and not of the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, Bishop Slupski rejects being labeled as a “sedevacantist” and even states publicly that he is not “sedevacantist” because he considers that term alien to Catholic tradition and suggestive of denying the papacy as such.

I know of other priests who also refuse to be labeled "sedevacantist" even though they totally reject Vatican II and the post-conciliar “popes.”  Unfortunately, the mere fact of rejecting the term "sedevacantist" (which I also personally do not like) leads to misunderstanding of the priest’s actual position.

I am hoping to provide soon a brief summary of the many years Bishop Slupski has served the Catholic faithful as a genuine pastor of souls.

In addition, there has been a dark cloud over Bishop Slupski because of the “apology letter” of Bishop McKenna.  However, there will soon be a clarification of the true facts concerning the consecration of Ryan Scott.

More information will follow as it becomes available.

A lot of people don't like using the word "sedevacantism" for the simple reason that many more people use the term as a pejorative.  The fact is that Bishop Slupski is simply a Catholic.  He's not a "kind" of Catholic, other than a Latin or Roman Rite Catholic.  I've known other Catholics who do not accept the claims to the papacy of Benedict 16 while refusing the sedevacantist label as well.

The term does not bother me personally.  I don't particularly claim it, but I will allow that the term is a fairly accurate label.

The information in the original post was provided by three people who together personally met with Bishop Slupski for several hours this week.  During the meeting, they stressed that he should clarify his position to dispel the confusion among the laity as to whether he recognizes Ratzinger as pope.  Bishop Slupski affirmed twice that the statement highlighted in bold in the original posting above is exactly his position.

And yes, he did specifically say that Benedict XVI is the "pope" only of the false new church and not of the Catholic Church.

CatholicRestoration's statement about Bishop Slupski having said that "the pope holds his office legally but not morally", along with the rest of his comments, basically reflect the "Cassiciacuм" or "materialiter/formaliter" thesis of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers.  I believe this thesis is also held by Bishop Robert McKenna, who consecrated Bishop Slupski, which may account for some of Bishop Slupski's statements in this regard.

CR says:  "There was never any hint or suggestion in his many explanations over the last few years about his position in this matter that the sedevacantist position implies rejection of the Papacy itself."

Please note that the original post says: "... he considers that term [not that "position"] alien to Catholic tradition and suggestive of denying the papacy as such."

It seems, TKGS, that his position may have changed over the past few weeks. If that is indeed the case, the bishop should probably include some sort of timeframe in his official remark.

It's funny how +Slupski has presided over a number of congregations for decades and only over the past few years has felt it necessary to clearly define his position. I first heard mention of him making his postion clear via sermons within the last couple of years (not sure exactly when this was) and what he said at that time (2nd hand info to me) was more in line with what CR has related.

I wonder what would motivate this after such a long period of not doing so.

My opinion is or question:   Why  so much energy spent on the word "sedevacantist"?  I don't think in the eyes of God, He would care what you call it.  

Sedevacantist is not a religion, it is a term used.

One can be Sedevacantist and be outside the Church, i.e. Diamond Brothers, but they  STILL believe in the papacy, unlike other so called Christians who reject the papacy.  Sedevacantist does not mean you reject the papacy.  

Most sedevacantist I know are Roman Catholic.  Catholics who are loyal to the papacy and pray for unity among Catholics who are keeping the Faith, sedevacantist  position or not, YET.  

What is essential is Bishop Slupski's actual position, which is stated in the highlighted text of the first posting on this thread.

Unless you can actually provide a signed statement from the bishop, this thread is nothing more than he said, she said.

I spoke once again to a long-time parishioner of the bishop's who said there has been no change in his preaching against sedevacantism. Whether or not he likes the term, I'd find it hard to believe that he doesn't know what the majority would think he's referring to when using it.

This, understandably, might be confusing given his being consecrated by and consecrating others who associate with sedevacantism. But, these at least are public facts which can be interpreted however you'd like.

A statement posted by an anonymous forum member, on the other hand, is just rumor. As the only thing going round and round about this on this board could lead to is building another cloud over the bishop's reputation, I'm locking this thread. If anyone would like to provide an actual written statement from the bishop, send me a PM and I'll consider posting it.