Author Topic: Bishop Slipski (Read 4133 times)

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2012, 11:00:43 AM »

Quote from: Nome de Plume

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Thanks s2srea.

I just looked back and I see what happened to cause NdP to be confused.

First NdP accidently misspelt the bishop's name.

Then I accidently left the word "mean" out of my sentence and also put a question mark at the end of it. Thus it could have looked like I was implying in a broken- English fashion, that NdP was the bishop, making posts here on this forum.

It just goes to show how even purely innnocent mistakes can lead to misunderstandings sometimes!

You eliminated the need for my response just now but I was gonna offer to ordain you for a price.

He has slIpped (as opposesed to slUpped) a bit though.

:smile:

That reminds me of the way some New Zealanders pronounce their "i's" - when they say "fish and chips", it sounds like "fush and chups"!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2012, 11:43:57 AM »

It was a Freudian slupski.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2012, 11:48:55 AM »

You've gone over the line Elizabeth. I can't take it anymore :roll-laugh2:

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2012, 11:50:30 AM »

Quote from: Nome de Plume

Quote from: Simple Catholic
Quote from: RonCal26
He's a true Thuc line bishop... he receive episcopal ordination from Bishop Bendinfield in South Africa.

He's a valid Thuc line... no doubt... the popular Thuc lines in America are more known than the ones outside of the New World.

Are you sure it wasn't Bp. McKenna who consecrated Bp. Slupski?

My first exposure to then-Father Slupski was in 1989. The outcome was not very positive, and a traditional chapel was closed within 4 months of his arrival.

BTW, he is a Redemptorist. I've never heard anything about his morals, which, despite the disagreement with him, I'd have to say are good, Some of those he's ordained and/or consecrated, however, I could not say the same thing. It has no bearing on him, other than he hasn't been prudent in ordaining and consecrating.

Thank you simple catholic. Then your knowledge does not contradict what I had heard. This is really all I wanted to hear.

Some people are condemned forever over distant mistakes, and that of imprudence rather than malice.

Yes, it was Bishop Mc Kenna consecrated Bishop Slupski.

Fairly recently Bishop Mc Kenna felt compelled to announce this:

“I most sincerely regret having... consecrated Bishop Frank Slupski in spite of the fear that he might in turn, consecrate
Ryan Scott.” (Open Letter to Traditionalist Catholics; Oct. 3, 2010 Bishop Robert McKenna, OP.)

http://www.rosarychapel.net/files/Open-letter-100310.pdf

There is this collateral information too:

http://www.rosarychapel.net/files/RyanScott-081510.pdf

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2012, 11:54:28 AM »

Yes, it was Bishop Mc Kenna consecrated Bishop Slupski.

Fairly recently Bishop Mc Kenna felt compelled to announce this:

“I most sincerely regret having... consecrated Bishop Frank Slupski in spite of the fear that he might in turn, consecrate
Ryan Scott.” (Open Letter to Traditionalist Catholics; Oct. 3, 2010 Bishop Robert McKenna, OP.)

http://www.rosarychapel.net/files/Open-letter-100310.pdf

There is this collateral information too:

http://www.rosarychapel.net/files/RyanScott-081510.pdf
--------------------

Bishop McKenna is a sincere and humble Bishop. So sincere and humble that he trusts and gives to much credence to what advice certain people give him. Becasue of the mistakes he has made in the past he is afraid of his own shadow.

He is ready to meet his maker and does not want to add something negative to the list for his Judgment IMO.