Author Topic: Bishop Fellay speaks: the contacts continue (Read 4276 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #15 on:** June 09, 2011, 02:59:11 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: John Grace
Quote
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal

Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?

Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?

What campaign?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #16 on:** June 09, 2011, 05:46:28 PM »

FWIW, "mixed" does, in normal usage, indicate a mixture of good and bad. Bp F's remarks about The Deuce's beatification were in no way positive, although he was not nearly as clear and firm as he should have been. We don't need to see any more writings from JP2 to know the man was the textbook definition of a modernist. He wrote the three most devastating docuмents of V2. WHAT MORE could we need to see? Letters written in Hebrew to his Judaic mother and тαℓмυdic friends?

As for the first comment quoted, the first part (especially) sounds like he is talking in circles. I am not saying he is wrong or being coy/evil/whatever; he just seems to be talking to talk, saying nothing of substance. Poor translation?

s2srea · « **Reply #17 on:** June 09, 2011, 06:44:12 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal

Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?

Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?

What campaign?

JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.

PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #18 on:** June 09, 2011, 09:19:55 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal

Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?

Instead of beating around the bush, how about addressing the posts from Caminus and I? I remember when you were a somewhat frequent poster back in December or January and also remember you taking alot of shots at the SSPX. Caminus and I both admit that Fellay did not properly handle the situation with Bishop Williamson. Nor do we believe that Fellay, Williamson, or anyone else in the SSPX is above criticism. But you seem to think your stance is above criticism. You will never win any arguments that way.

JPaul · « **Reply #19 on:** June 09, 2011, 09:45:45 PM »

First question, answered by numerous other questions. One assumes this means that he has no real idea what is going on.

Second question, What does he mean to say "mixed feelings"?
H.E. knows outright that there are indisputable reasons why the beatification should not have happened and, that it gave great scandal when it did happen.
This was a timid and evasive answer.

It would be so much better if Bishop Fellay would refrain from commenting on things unless he actually has something to say. The whimsical waxing and waning utterances are beginning to sound empty and insincere.

Caminus · « **Reply #20 on:** June 09, 2011, 10:28:16 PM »

First of all, the translation is terrible, second of all, you make much of the words "mixed feelings" when the context clearly demonstrates what constitutes those "mixed feelings" which contain not a mixture of good and bad, but various bad impressions. It's evident that you've got a bone to pick and you'll spare no effort to insult and deride Bishop Fellay whether it be by means of innuendo or simply outright malice. You, sir, have a bad attitude and you are not helping the SSPX or the Church at all. In fact, your little campaigns are causing more harm to an already bad situation. This fact has apparently eluded you while you busy yourself with self-righteous condemnations.

John Grace · « **Reply #21 on:** June 10, 2011, 10:56:22 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal

Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?

Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?

What campaign?

JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.

PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.

You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #22 on:** June 10, 2011, 04:01:53 PM »

You should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #23 on:** June 10, 2011, 10:46:59 PM »

The fact is that the sedes and crypto-sedes will hit the road if the Society is given a juridical status by Rome. Let them. They don't understand ABL or the Society's mission and history which is not that of some sede anti-church. They betray this lack of knowledge by their ridiculous frantic interpretation of everything BF says as some veiled message of surrender and compromise. If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.

Wessex · « **Reply #24 on:** June 13, 2011, 05:34:22 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

The fact is that the sedes and crypto-sedes will hit the road if the Society is given a juridical status by Rome. Let them. They don't understand ABL or the Society's mission and history which is not that of some sede anti-church. They betray this lack of knowledge by their ridiculous frantic interpretation of everything BF says as some veiled message of surrender and compromise. If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.

I for one would be glad if Bp. Fellay did a deal with Rome. His whole record as head of ABL's construct has greatly confused the faithful with his off/on inconsistencies, bad management and growing loss of credibility. Within conciliar Rome his faction could fill another niche in the gallery reserved for Ecclesia Dei poseurs. I guess he will take all the property, something the leadership was always preoccupied with, leaving those serious about their conciliar opposition voting with their feet.

s2srea · « **Reply #25 on:** June 13, 2011, 05:59:20 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: John Grace

What campaign?

JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.

PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.

You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward.

JG- I am sorry that I insulted you, however I will clarify that my comment was objective in nature. If it was a time zone and lack of time issue, than my response would be different. However no clarification had been done, and actually none has been done. So, for the fact that no clarification has been made, and that you still have not responded to Caminus' question, makes it difficult to think that you are not avoiding something.

He was very clear. You seem to be looking clinging to the negative side of semantics when posting anything and everything to do with +Felay in order to point out the evil he must be bringing upon people. Why? If this is not true, then you should clarify your position with a clear, verifiable, non calumnious response sir. Just because we do not agree 100% with a given Bishop's position, doesn't mean they are evil because they do not think like us.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #26 on:** June 13, 2011, 09:29:13 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

I for one would be glad if Bp. Fellay did a deal with Rome. His whole record as head of ABL's construct has greatly confused the faithful with his off/on inconsistencies, bad management and growing loss of credibility. Within conciliar Rome his faction could fill another niche in the gallery reserved for Ecclesia Dei poseurs. I guess he will take all the property, something the leadership was always preoccupied with, leaving those serious about their conciliar opposition voting with their feet.

You want the SSPX to do a deal with Rome just to see them fall apart and have one more victory for the Novus Ordo Church?

This is the problem I see with dogmatic sedevacantism. The viewpoint that a priestly group cannot be good if they aren't sede (even if they celebrate the TLM exclusively!) is a bizzare and absurd position to hold. I'll be the first to admit that there are problems with Bishop Fellay's recent leadership decisions. But to go as far as to say that you hope they make a deal with Rome is just plain silly.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #27 on:** June 13, 2011, 09:31:40 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.

Wrong. Do you honestly believe Archbishop LeFebvre would say "Jesus is Jew, Mary is Jew, the Apostles were Jews, so we shouldn't be anti-Jew"? Fellay's position doesn't hold a candle to the position Archbishop LeFebvre had.

LordPhan · « **Reply #28 on:** June 13, 2011, 10:06:29 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: stevusmagnus
The fact is that the sedes and crypto-sedes will hit the road if the Society is given a juridical status by Rome. Let them. They don't understand ABL or the Society's mission and history which is not that of some sede anti-church. They betray this lack of knowledge by their ridiculous frantic interpretation of everything BF says as some veiled message of surrender and compromise. If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.

I for one would be glad if Bp. Fellay did a deal with Rome. His whole record as head of ABL's construct has greatly confused the faithful with his off/on inconsistencies, bad management and growing loss of credibility. Within conciliar Rome his faction could fill another niche in the gallery reserved for Ecclesia Dei poseurs. I guess he will take all the property, something the leadership was always preoccupied with, leaving those serious about their conciliar opposition voting with their feet.

If you believe that the concillar church is not licit, if you believe they are heretics then wishing non heretics to join a heretic church would constitute a greivous mortal sin on your part. You profess the faith but do not seem to live it. You are talking like the Novus Ordo, politics over salvation.

Dogmatic Sede's should not be allowed on this forum, if they deny communion with those who are true catholics then they are by definition schismatic.

John Grace · « **Reply #29 on:** June 14, 2011, 09:54:51 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

You should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.

I haven't taken shots at the SSPX and I support the Society. You seem to have misunderstood matters. :cheers: