Question for Matthew:
Asked this on another thread, but maybe you missed it.
You said you grew up with Bp. Slupski.
If you consider him to be a legitimate bishop, wouldn't you then also consider Bp. Trinh to be legitimate?
1. I didn't "grow up with him" -- that makes it sound like we were schoolyard pals. He was considerably older than me :)
He was ordained about 15 years before I was even born.
2. He isn't a legitimate bishop anymore, since he is deceased. RIP+
3. I have no reason to consider him NOT legitimate, no more or less than any other Thuc-line bishop.
4. I didn't witness his consecration, so I can't really speak to its validity with any authority. I don't talk about anything and everything regardless of ignorance or knowledge. When I open my mouth, it means I know what I'm talking about and I'm certain about something. That keeps it simple for readers.
5. The validity of his consecration doesn't affect me at all, since I don't attend Mass in that part of the country (the Midwest, specifically Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio), nor in the Sedevacantist milieu that Bp. Petko, Fr. Ramolla, etc. exist in. Almost everything Bp. Slupski ever did only affected the Midwest. I no longer live in that part of the country.
6. As far as I know, Bp. Trinh is legitimate -- again, I just don't know. He is currently on another secret sabbatical (his last un-announced sabbatical lasted 2 years), so even those who live by one of his chapels (specifically, the one near Austin, TX) don't attend his Masses at the moment.
Topic: Interview with Matthew, the Moderator (Read 77637 times)