He certainly is aping their modus operandi ...

One should never ask such questions which could unjustly harm another man's reputation without some reasonable proof to begin such an inquiry.

Felly is an opportunist that did not get very far.  

There have been at least four or five occasions when the Society of St. Pius X should have disappeared. Well, here we are, still, thanks be to God! And goodness gracious, we carry on. We should especially have disappeared at the time of the Consecrations in 1988. So we were told beforehand. All the prophets of doom, and even amongst those close to us said: "No, no, your Grace, do not do that, that is the end of the Society, you can be sure, we assure you, that is the end, it will all be over, you can close down." Yet we survived!

It would have been "operation ѕυιcιdє."

Bishop Fellay's proposed agreement involved the abandoning of the SSPX position.

Quote from: Guest

What about the accusation by Neil Obstat that he is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?

Is that acceptable?

Did Neil make that accusation?
Please provide a link to the accusation.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Xavier-Beauvais-transferred

Now, I'm not making any specific accusations, but perchance,
there is something else going on in Menzingen, something
other than what we have been led to believe -- perhaps there
is an ulterior qualification at work, such that the priests who
have been promoted to positions of voting dignity among the
capitulants without apparent merit have rather been found
'suitable' based on an undisclosed criterion?




Ah-hem...........................  :wink:  :wink:




.........that would certainly explain ALL of the deep secrecy.............

Read the whole post, not just the quote. You'll see what I mean. The implication is quite clear.

I think that Fellay is not a freemason, but is tainted with liberalism. If he was a freemason, I think he would have come to a deal with Rome (and soon after have the society destroyed) years ago. I am sure he has had many opportunities to do so.

I think that Fellay is not a freemason, but is tainted with liberalism. If he was a freemason, I think he would have come to a deal with Rome (and soon after have the society destroyed) years ago. I am sure he has had many opportunities to do so.

You know, Matto, it's the same logic that many Sedevacantists hold about the Pope.

"He's doing the Freemasons' work, therefore he's probably a Freemason."

On the contrary, I would suggest:

"He's doing the Freemason's work, therefore he's probably NOT a Freemason."

It's much better for the Freemasons if they have willing dupes carrying out their program WITHOUT them being card-carrying members.

Whether it's the head of the Church, or the head of the SSPX. Their goal is usually to form everyone with their own principles.

To rely on members exclusively is much more LIMITING than a broad re-formation of society, its philosophy, thinking, culture, etc. so it's in line with Freemasonic principles and ideals.

Think of it like a twisted version of "Love, and then do what thou wilt." If the love of God directs your actions, you pretty much can do whatever you "want" because it will all be for the love of God. A person who loves God would never "want" to offend him by sin. So whether he "wants" to feed a poor man, or pray some extra prayers, or admonish a sinner, or visit a sick person -- it doesn't matter. They can do whatever.

Likewise, "Think like a Freemason, and then do what thou wilt." works for the Freemasons. They are content to not "own" everyone, as long as everyone thinks like they do.