Author Topic: Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX (Read 18636 times)

PereJoseph · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:22:49 PM »

This infamous affair that has been developing for the past several years shows, at the very least, that Bishop Fellay is a brilliant administrator, since he has subjugated and ostracised those priests who are faithful to the Archbishop's cause by demoting them and framing the language he uses publicly and privately to get them to leave the Society on their own or else compromise themselves. Meanwhile, he has posted French priests docile to his programme all over, especially in the US, which, ironically, is of all places the land of rigorism (I use that word very lightly here, since I am perhaps am one of the most appropriate targets for that meaningless epithet). Otherwise, in France, for instance, there has been a generational drift towards liberalism that has been solidified by the belief that one must act in a way that is politically attractive or else become irrelevant.

On the other hand, Bishop Fellay is entirely inept as a diplomat, bumblingly allowing himself to become utterly checkmated by Rome. Or is he ? Given what we know of his subtlety as an administrator, as well as his execrable public declarations ("antisemitism," "Jews our elder brothers," "extremist," etc.), it seems that we cannot suppose this to be the case. On the contrary, it seems far more likely, given who he associates with (the Zionist bourgeois-liberal calumniator Krah and the other calumniator, Fr Pfluger), that this deal or something like it is what he wants. I am reminded of what a friar told me about a letter from Pope St Leo the Great to one Priscillus, who wanted to Christianise astrology and spent his time, therefore, speaking to pagan astrologers in order to better understand their teachings. Pope Leo cut to the chase, he said (and I paraphrase), "You keep talking with these people; it must be because you believe as they do."

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #6 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:25:53 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

But if a false agreement were reached, +W would be forced in conscience to act, and not go along with it. That's when the masks would come off and he'd be kicked out, encouraged to quit, etc.

This is precisely why it behooves us to pray for Bishop Williamson, that he may receive through the patronage and tutelage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, together with the intercession of all Angels and Saints, the graces necessary for him to bear meritously the great crosses and tribulations that he is facing and shall face for the greater edification of the faithful. Bishop Williamson will suffer a "bloodless martyrdom" no matter what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

LordPhan · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:27:27 PM »

I would remind everyone you only have the word of an anonymous poster to go on with this, I am not accusing him of lying, but I caution everyone to bear that in mind.

For what it's worth, these things are not being talked about right now, word is Bishop Fellay will reject any deal, the only way I see anything happening is if what one of the posts in the other thread stated along the lines of

"The Society become regularised but can say and do as it pleases"

To which I would reply, how would that be any different then SSPX pre-1988?
We were in the Church then and disobeying what was wrong and attacking the Pope for Assisi.

I would also like to point out that the attack on Assisi which I posted earlier today came with the permission of Bishop Fellay from Bishop Fellay's appointed District Superior of France.

I would also like to point out that people are making it out like there are 2 camps in the SSPX Fellay's and Williamson's... but France will follow Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and theologically he is as hard-lined as Bishop Williamson from what I've heard.

I have absolutely no knowledge of Bishop de Gallereta but he was appointed to head the doctrinal commision of the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebre himself. It was HE who handled the doctrinal discussions.

Some(See how you qualify statements everyone) Sedevacantists are trying to split us for their own gain, bewary of that.

Bishop Williamson is not a Sedevacantist nor does he support that thesis. I know. I know more then I let on, but I have heard nothing of what PereJoseph stated.

The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities tommorow, Rome will have conditions and it will be rejected, rome will not have conditions and you could flip a coin which way it will go, there are Priests in the SSPX that want a deal and there are Priests that do not want a deal. If any were in the first camp they would not tell me, I only heard they exist from others being taken aside during a BBQ party. I cannot mention names but they would be credible to anyone here.

Let us all sit back and see what happens, worrying about it will do us no good.

LordPhan · « **Reply #8 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:30:41 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

This infamous affair that has been developing for the past several years shows, at the very least, that Bishop Fellay is a brilliant administrator, since he has subjugated and ostracised those priests who are faithful to the Archbishop's cause by demoting them and framing the language he uses publicly and privately to get them to leave the Society on their own or else compromise themselves. Meanwhile, he has posted French priests docile to his programme all over, especially in the US, which, ironically, is of all places the land of rigorism (I use that word very lightly here, since I am perhaps am one of the most appropriate targets for that meaningless epithet). Otherwise, in France, for instance, there has been a generational drift towards liberalism that has been solidified by the belief that one must act in a way that is politically attractive or else become irrelevant.

On the other hand, Bishop Fellay is entirely inept as a diplomat, bumblingly allowing himself to become utterly checkmated by Rome. Or is he ? Given what we know of his subtlety as an administrator, as well as his execrable public declarations ("antisemitism," "Jews our elder brothers," "extremist," etc.), it seems that we cannot suppose this to be the case. On the contrary, it seems far more likely, given who he associates with (the Zionist bourgeois-liberal calumniator Krah and the other calumniator, Fr Pfluger), that this deal or something like it is what he wants. I am reminded of what a friar told me about a letter from Pope St Leo the Great to one Priscillus, who wanted to Christianise astrology and spent his time, therefore, speaking to pagan astrologers in order to better understand their teachings. Pope Leo cut to the chase, he said (and I paraphrase), "You keep talking with these people; it must be because you believe as they do."

Where do you attend Mass? Is it SSPX, Sedevacantist, independant what? Where do you get your information? The Press? Firsthand? Laymen? Priests?

PereJoseph · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:40:53 PM »

Well, it is possible that Rome could be so stupid as to give Bishop Fellay a docuмent that he cannot accept as per their knowledge of his inclinations and the results of the doctrinal discussions. But he has really tee-ed everything up for them so nicely, it would be inconsistent with their own goals and their past record of diplomatic aptitude for them to waste their golden opportunity. They announced the meeting on relatively short notice; perhaps it is because they are confident in its outcome because they were able to draft a fool-proof docuмent (whatever that desired outcome might be -- who knows, maybe they now despise the SSPX and want to cut them off for good, even though this is not in keeping with Ratzinger's character). Rule of thumb in high politics : never leave to chance what can be achieved by calculation.