Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: CatholicInAmerica on October 09, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
-
Has anyone ever been in direct communication with +Fellay and talked to him about his mistakes and wrongdoings he is putting the sspx through? Am curious to see if anyone has actually confronted him and wold love to hear his response to it.
Side note: anyone who has the ability to contact Fellay (in my opinion) should because he is leading souls (potentially) into hell because of the modernist agenda he is accepting: the NRO/NREC, saying Vatican II isn’t heresy etc etc.
-
A friend of mine who is quite outspoken did contact and confront Fellay.
It did not end well. That person can no longer attend any SSPX mass anywhere, and has been forced to attend sedevacantist Traditional Latin Masses.
-
A friend of mine who is quite outspoken did contact and confront Fellay.
It did not end well. That person can no longer attend any SSPX mass anywhere, and has been forced to attend sedevacantist Traditional Latin Masses.
Wow. That’s ridiculous. If you remember, what did he talk to him about?
-
A friend of mine who is quite outspoken did contact and confront Fellay.
It did not end well. That person can no longer attend any SSPX mass anywhere, and has been forced to attend sedevacantist Traditional Latin Masses.
Good for him on both counts.
-
Has anyone ever been in direct communication with +Fellay and talked to him about his mistakes and wrongdoings he is putting the sspx through? Am curious to see if anyone has actually confronted him and wold love to hear his response to it.
Side note: anyone who has the ability to contact Fellay (in my opinion) should because he is leading souls (potentially) into hell because of the modernist agenda he is accepting: the NRO/NREC, saying Vatican II isn’t heresy etc etc.
I tried several years ago.
I got as far as Fr. Pfluger, and had two email exchanges with him (which I still have).
He assured me that everything was all internet rumors, and there was nothing to worry about!
-
I tried several years ago.
I got as far as Fr. Pfluger, and had two email exchanges with him (which I still have).
He assured me that everything was all internet rumors, and there was nothing to worry about!
That aged terribly
-
A friend of mine who is quite outspoken did contact and confront Fellay.
It did not end well. That person can no longer attend any SSPX mass anywhere, and has been forced to attend sedevacantist Traditional Latin Masses.
Who could have foreseen that outcome?
:laugh2:
-
Who could have foreseen that outcome?
:laugh2:
Honestly the way that post was written, it seems likely that the guy's friend was very combative and not merely "asked a question."
Though obviously I wasn't there.
-
It was approximately ten years ago when I confronted Bp. Fellay face to face one on one. I expected to have only a relatively brief encounter with him so I decided to focus on one issue and one issue only. I was attending the SSPX chapel Our Lady Immaculate in Oak Park, Illlilnois at the time. His Excellency gave a long lecture starting at about 7 p.m. at the Art Center of Oak Park (http://www.artscenteroakpark.com/index.htm (http://www.artscenteroakpark.com/index.htm)). The talk was mostly about the state of the SSPX and its ongoing relations with Rome.
The lecture had been much hyped up at our chapel and I was hoping to get there from the start. Unfortunately (or rather in retrospect fortunately), I missed most of it. I got in towards the end and afterwards followed the bishoop outside waiting for a chance to catch him when he was not chatting with other people. Finally, I approached him and asked him why the SSPX appeared to be backing away from discussions in the Angelus and elsewhere of things of a Jєωιѕн nature. I used the Angelus as a point of reference to make my question more concrete by example. I was polite, but firm. I wanted a straight answer and tried to press until I got one. I made it quite clear that I was not happy about this shying away from the Jєωιѕн Question. After a few minutes or so I realized I was not going to get anywhere so rather than continue the exercise in futility I said my adios and left.
I know that little account is not that interesting, but because of the topic, I thought I should state it for the record. Since my one encounter with the bishop I have tried to avoid seeing him any more.
-
Honestly the way that post was written, it seems likely that the guy's friend was very combative and not merely "asked a question."
Though obviously I wasn't there.
Still not enough to be banned from churches and effectively refused sacraments. The punishment does not fit the crime and follows a pattern of using the sacraments as political leverage.
-
It was approximately ten years ago when I confronted Bp. Fellay face to face one on one. I expected to have only a relatively brief encounter with him so I decided to focus on one issue and one issue only. I was attending the SSPX chapel Our Lady Immaculate in Oak Park, Illlilnois at the time. His Excellency gave a long lecture starting at about 7 p.m. at the Art Center of Oak Park (http://www.artscenteroakpark.com/index.htm (http://www.artscenteroakpark.com/index.htm)). The talk was mostly about the state of the SSPX and its ongoing relations with Rome.
The lecture had been much hyped up at our chapel and I was hoping to get there from the start. Unfortunately (or rather in retrospect fortunately), I missed most of it. I got in towards the end and afterwards followed the bishoop outside waiting for a chance to catch him when he was not chatting with other people. Finally, I approached him and asked him why the SSPX appeared to be backing away from discussions in the Angelus and elsewhere of things of a Jєωιѕн nature. I used the Angelus as a point of reference to make my question more concrete by example. I was polite, but firm. I wanted a straight answer and tried to press until I got one. I made it quite clear that I was not happy about this shying away from the Jєωιѕн Question. After a few minutes or so I realized I was not going to get anywhere so rather than continue the exercise in futility I said my adios and left.
I know that little account is not that interesting, but because of the topic, I thought I should state it for the record. Since my one encounter with the bishop I have tried to avoid seeing him any more.
I was not able to confront +Fellay, but was able to corner Fr. Rostand about the JQ. I complained that the SSPX had abandoned +Williamson for speaking truth about the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. Fr. Rostand did not deny the truths spoken, but waved off my concerns with a one-liner, "It wasn't prudent." I responded, "We are called to preach truth 'in and out of season.' What could be more prudent than exposing the most useful lie of God's most organized earthly opposition?" He paused a moment as if to speak, but instead turned and drifted away. I did not bother to chase him.
-
Still not enough to be banned from churches and effectively refused sacraments. The punishment does not fit the crime and follows a pattern of using the sacraments as political leverage.
Yeah I agree that seems over the top.
-
Yeah I agree that seems over the top.
…but, but, but… isn't the SSPX infallible? all knowing? all just?
-
Has anyone ever been in direct communication with +Fellay and talked to him about his mistakes and wrongdoings he is putting the sspx through? Am curious to see if anyone has actually confronted him and wold love to hear his response to it.
Side note: anyone who has the ability to contact Fellay (in my opinion) should because he is leading souls (potentially) into hell because of the modernist agenda he is accepting: the NRO/NREC, saying Vatican II isn’t heresy etc etc.
I wrote to him about the immodestly problem at our chapel. He usually responds if you write to him or has one of the Priests write on his behalf. I have noticed that the District Superior and higher responds to letters but those below the District Superior level do not write back.
-
I once wrote a very strong yet very well balanced email of protest to Bp. Fellay as well as to many other SSPX priests including as many SSPX superiors around the world as I could scour up email addresses for concerning the general abandonment by the SSPX of Bp. Williamson after his "h0Ɩ0cαųst" interview. I invited their response. Not a single one of them ever responded. I believe I blind copied the email to some members on this forum.
-
I once wrote a very strong yet very well balanced email of protest to Bp. Fellay as well as to many other SSPX priests including as many SSPX superiors around the world as I could scour up email addresses for concerning the general abandonment by the SSPX of Bp. Williamson after his "h0Ɩ0cαųst" interview. I invited their response. Not a single one of them ever responded. I believe I blind copied the email to some members on this forum.
That is a reflection of the SSPX's infallibility, impeccability, and universal jurisdiction.
-
…but, but, but… isn't the SSPX infallible? all knowing? all just?
HAHA! New dogma: SSPX infalliblity :P
-
That person can no longer attend any SSPX mass anywhere … . [emphasis added]
From the standpoint of practical enforcement alone, this claim beggars belief. To take just one example, consider the three SSPX sites in the New York City metro area with which I am familiar: none of them has a trace of video surveillance or even a guard posted at the entrance with a photo array or a list of Banned Baddies to be on the alert for. What is more, absent such close scrutiny or something similar, the masses at all of these sites (and a great many others) are simply too well attended to allow the person in question or indeed anyone else whose face isn't as recognizable as that of Tom Cruise or Hillary Clinton to be spotted and ejected. I'm assuming, of course, that we're talking about someone who has enough wits and discretion to wear something other than his Down with Fellay polo shirt to Mass.
In short, the disgruntled claimant sounds like someone who sought for and found an excuse to become a home-aloner.
As for the related matter of the unedifying rush to embrace this patent fiction, many commenters hereabouts seem to think that even the most rudimentary Catholic precepts of integrity and rationality are dispensable when they are invited to join a Two-Minute Hate aimed at the present-day SSPX. Denial of the sacraments for improper or insufficient cause is a very grave matter, and an accusation that such a thing has occurred should not be afforded virtually reflexive credence solely on the basis of an unsupported secondhand claim coming from a single member of this forum.
-
From the standpoint of practical enforcement alone, this claim beggars belief. To take just one example, consider the three SSPX sites in the New York City metro area with which I am familiar: none of them has a trace of video surveillance or even a guard posted at the entrance with a photo array or a list of Banned Baddies to be on the alert for. What is more, absent such close scrutiny or something similar, the masses at all of these sites (and a great many others) are simply too well attended to allow the person in question or indeed anyone else whose face isn't as recognizable as that of Tom Cruise or Hillary Clinton to be spotted and ejected. I'm assuming, of course, that we're talking about someone who has enough wits and discretion to wear something other than his Down with Fellay polo shirt to Mass.
In short, the disgruntled claimant sounds like someone who sought for and found an excuse to become a home-aloner.
As for the related matter of the unedifying rush to embrace this patent fiction, many commenters hereabouts seem to think that even the most rudimentary Catholic precepts of integrity and rationality are dispensable when they are invited to join a Two-Minute Hate aimed at the present-day SSPX. Denial of the sacraments for improper or insufficient cause is a very grave matter, and an accusation that such a thing has occurred should not be afforded virtually reflexive credence solely on the basis of an unsupported secondhand claim coming from a single member of this forum.
If he's going to Sedevacantist Latin Masses, he's not a Home Aloner. Which at least was the original claim.
Its possible that he was simply informed that he wasn't welcome, and that it isn't actually enforced.
I'm not commenting on whether the accusation *is* true, to be clear.
-
To take just one example, consider the three SSPX sites in the New York City metro area with which I am familiar: none of them has a trace of video surveillance or even a guard posted at the entrance with a photo array or a list of Banned Baddies to be on the alert for.
On the other hand, New York, I think, would be the exception rather than the rule. Am I right in thinking that faithful Catholics have, overall, no other choice than SSPX, if they live outside large cities. For instance, if you attend an SSPX chapel in any rural area in almost any part of the world, you have a small (cliquey?) group where a newcomer, or any particular dissenter, stands out like a sore thumb.
-
If he's going to Sedevacantist Latin Masses, he's not a Home Aloner. ...
A regular parishioner at a Sedevacantist chapel is definitely not a Home Aloner.
Its possible that he was simply informed that he wasn't welcome, and that it isn't actually enforced. ..
"Not welcome here" applies to those who are of the opinion that Francis is a heretic, and hence, not a valid pope.
Priests do "gossip" or "contact other clergy" about such matters, especially regarding the upcoming union with the Vatican, so the "not welcome here" spread far and wide among the clergy. I'm not saying that any "seal of confession" was broken.
See my comments above in blue font.
-
On the other hand, New York, I think, would be the exception rather than the rule. Am I right in thinking that faithful Catholics have, overall, no other choice than SSPX, if they live outside large cities. For instance, if you attend an SSPX chapel in any rural area in almost any part of the world, you have a small (cliquey?) group where a newcomer, or any particular dissenter, stands out like a sore thumb.
I think that the choices of faithful Catholics are to some extent dependent upon their circuмstances, especially but not exclusively circuмstances of age, health, geography, and domestic arrangements. But everything else being equal, Nadir, I would say that your suspicion is probably correct in the main. Nor would I be at all surprised at the presence of a cliquey spirit in certain places. Fortunate is the person who has never bitten his tongue to avoid saying, "Lord, I thank Thee that I am not like other men"!
The primary point of my comment, however, was to induce others to join me in raising an eyebrow at the claim that the person Maria Regina cited could "no longer attend any SSPX mass anywhere." That last word, which I reset in boldface to draw readers' attention to it, covers a lot of ground, after all.
Finally, at the risk of generating a good deal of ire, I shall say that I consider a decline into sedevacantism, whatever the circuмstances, to be a catastrophe. Inasmuch as the sedevacantist outlook incorporates a claim to a virtually godlike degree of authoritative judgment about matters that no properly catechized layperson would ever publicly voice an opinion on, it may be said to be an almost exact equivalent on the theological plane of a gateway drug that, as like as not, will lead ere long to the heroin of home-aloneism.
-
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm)
Read Chapter 3.
Does anyone here reject the Vatican Council ("Vatican 1")?
How then can you "recognize and resist" the guy you claim is a true Pope?
-
Ha, ha! All the above discussion of banning reminds me of that absolutely insanely ridiculous banning imposed by the infamous Cardinal Mahoney. If you've never seen this here is a "blast" from the past. The article quotes the Cardinal's bann verbatim including these statements: "In the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Williamson is hereby banned from entering any Catholic church, school or other facility, until he and his group comply fully and unequivocally with the Vatican's directives regarding the h0Ɩ0cαųst.......h0Ɩ0cαųst deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not --- and may never become --- a member." See: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal_mahony_bans_bishop_williamson_from_l.a._archdiocese (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal_mahony_bans_bishop_williamson_from_l.a._archdiocese)
P.S. Sounds like the bann would even prevent an "unrepentant" Bp. Williamson from being buried in any of the L.A. Archdiocese's cemeteries!
P.P.S. What comes around goes around. Cardinal Mahoney's successor banned Mahoney from any public ministry in the archdiocese! See: https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/cardinal-mahony-barred-public-ministry-los-angeles (https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/cardinal-mahony-barred-public-ministry-los-angeles)
-
Wherever you stand on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, it is an issue of history, not theology. To oust someone from the Church on the sole basis of any opinion about it is ludicrous
-
Wherever you stand on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, it is an issue of history, not theology. To oust someone from the Church on the sole basis of any opinion about it is ludicrous
You have to remember, these bishops won’t even say that Jєωs can’t go to heaven. They are cowards who fall to their knees at the Jєω command.
-
You have to remember, these bishops won’t even say that Jєωs can’t go to heaven. They are cowards who fall to their knees at the Jєω command.
Most trads, lefebvre included, believed that some individual Jєωs might go to heaven despite their false religion. I realize that’s an unpopular opinion on this forum.
But most bishops won’t even say it’s dangerous
-
Wherever you stand on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, it is an issue of history, not theology. To oust someone from the Church on the sole basis of any opinion about it is ludicrous.
True enough, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, however, an appeal to factuality carries little weight for those that espouse the conciliar mind-set. Put otherwise, it is not merely the Jєωs who have theologized their h0Ɩ0h0αx; the conciliar church has done likewise. In this regard, Judaism and the Vatican by Léon de Poncins is the primary text. For those who find reading books an unbearable chore, there is ample valuable material on Mark 79's website.
-
True enough, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, however, an appeal to factuality carries little weight for those that espouse the conciliar mind-set. Put otherwise, it is not merely the Jєωs who have theologized their h0Ɩ0h0αx; the conciliar church has done likewise. In this regard, Judaism and the Vatican by Léon de Poncins is the primary text. For those who find reading books an unbearable chore, there is ample valuable material on Mark 79's website.
What website is that, where can I find it?
-
What website is that, where can I find it?
http://judaism.is (http://judaism.is/)
-
has been forced
Forced? He doesn't have freewill?
-
Still not enough to be banned from churches and effectively refused sacraments. The punishment does not fit the crime and follows a pattern of using the sacraments as political leverage.
Novus ordo tactics.
-
Who started the rumor that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevantist?
-
Still not enough to be banned from churches and effectively refused sacraments. The punishment does not fit the crime and follows a pattern of using the sacraments as political leverage.
Exactly, this is what my friend is now telling me. Fellay wants to keep the people silent and blindly obedient, so he uses intimidation, which is a similar tactic of Opus Dei.