Fr. Voigt says:


"Yet we know that Our Lady has told us time and time again that Rome would go under the red flag and that apostasy would reach the very pinnacle of power everywhere. Humbly bowing to the wisdom and words of our dear Mother we respectfully refrain from any connection with the poison of Rome..."

Time and time again?  Where?  Medjugorje?

And what about this talk of conscientious objection?  Since when can one conscientiously object to the orders of one's superior?  

What is the disobedience of the SSPX leadership to which the SSPX members of the August 10 signers are being disobedient?  On the face of it, those SSPX members didn't like what was happening, and so starting doing what their consciences told them.  

For not the first time, I'm reminded not of Archbishop Lefebvre, but of Martin Luther.  Here I stand, I can do no other, and so on....

Thank you for your reply. I hope things will be clarified soon and I pray for Reverend Father Voigt.

FR. VOIGT:  . . . as long as Rome was disobedient to tradition (which ended with the death of the apostle St. John for everyone's edification) . . .

CANTATE: When I read this I understood it to signify the closing of the Apostolic Age and the term of the deposit of Divine Revelation. The death of the Last Apostle signifies the end or conclusion of the Public Revelation. It is not the end of Tradition, but of Public Revelation, meaning that nothing will ever be added to Sacred Writ.  

Furthermore, it is true to say the rome's disobedience is disobedience, not only to God, but to the Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul, and all of the others.          

I cannot see how this can have been a mere mistake, since it would make no sense to write "as long as Rome was disobedient to revelation".

Rather, I would give the benefit of the doubt.

Dear JMacQ,

"So you liked that, eh? How do you like this, then?" (St. Padre Pio)

Quote from: John McFarland

Fr. Voigt says:


"Yet we know that Our Lady has told us time and time again that Rome would go under the red flag and that apostasy would reach the very pinnacle of power everywhere. Humbly bowing to the wisdom and words of our dear Mother we respectfully refrain from any connection with the poison of Rome..."

Time and time again?  Where?  Medjugorje?

And what about this talk of conscientious objection?  Since when can one conscientiously object to the orders of one's superior?  

What is the disobedience of the SSPX leadership to which the SSPX members of the August 10 signers are being disobedient?  On the face of it, those SSPX members didn't like what was happening, and so starting doing what their consciences told them.  

For not the first time, I'm reminded not of Archbishop Lefebvre, but of Martin Luther.  Here I stand, I can do no other, and so on....

Aye Johnny Mcfarland,

  You never replied to me previous responses to you about Dr. Max Krah
and of late, about Msgr. Fellay's glossing-over of VII doctrinal issues.

1. John,

In reference to my comment about Msgr. Fellay's coy statement,
I take it you watched the CNS video, but you still disagree with me.

Excerpt From Bp. Fellay's interview:

“Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding.  And we have authorities in Rome who say it.  We may say in the discussions (SSPX/Rome discussions) we see many things which we would have condemned, as being from the Council, are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”

In straight English... please tell us what this means?

2. Forgot this one:


Bp. Fellay's CNS interview:

“We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”

What sayest thou John ?


What be the problem with ye man?  
You're appearin to be highly selective when it comes to discussin the truth?

Give me regards, to your mentor, Fr. Rostand,

Hey, Incredulous, I'll answer ye question!

Something comes to light in this quote. (See bold, above)

It seems to me that B16 and NewRome, during the "negotiations," may have
put the bee on +Fellay to backpedal on this theme: that traditional Catholics
have developed a common thread of blaming certain "things" on Vatican II by
way of claiming that these "things" were due to the "motives" (read: intentions
that were hidden and perhaps even untruthfully denied) behind the docuмents
of Vat.II. And that it would be +Fellay's assignment (part of his secret
negotiations with NewRome that possibly nobody else is privy to) to go forth
and extinguish this bothersome nuance in the hearts and minds of traditional
Catholics, and that if he succeeds, he would be rewarded with regularization,
but if he fails, he will be denied regularization.



This is merely speculation, mind you,
but the strong possibility seems to emerge with those words:




Bp. Fellay's CNS interview:

“We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”



In other words, he would have been instructed that it was not the "real
motives" of the Council to "promulgate" condemnable "things" (what things?),
and he would have apparently accepted the challenge of making traditional
Catholics change their minds about this, to view the Council through rose-
colored glasses, so to speak. And upon his success resides the consequence
of whether B16 would grant regularization, "no strings" or whatever. Because
the presence or absence of "strings" would be a moot point.

If so, it would explain a lot of the punitive measures that +Fellay has
perpetrated on good and holy priests in the Society, priests who have only
been doing what +ABL did long ago, while he "kept the faith" and "handed
down that which he had received."

If so, it would explain all the secrecy, in not making the negotiations public,
and not sharing the Doctrinal Preamble with the faithful (even if, perhaps,
another reason could be to be able to later on say that the Preamble had
a different content, one that he could edit based on the success of his efforts
at fulfilling his "assignment" from NewRome).

If so, it would explain why he allowed I Accuse the Council! to run out
of stock, and to not reprint it, while hoarding the copyright so nobody else can
reprint it either.

If so, NewRome's goal is to render "popular traditional Catholic lore" to the
dustbin of "conspiracy theories" and "rumors of truther fanatics," and thereby
win over the hold-outs, the "hard-liners" and (if it were possible) even the elect.
(Cf. Matt. xxiv. 24)

If so, this would very simply explain why B16 reneged on approving the
proposed terms offered by +Fellay this spring, not because of anything that we
would find in the terms themselves (and we would therefore be chasing a
chimera, a fαℓѕє fℓαg, a decoy, by hunting through the terms), but simply
because +Fellay failed to accomplish his "in pectore" assignment, which see.

If so, it would explain why he let these words slip by in this now-infamous CNS
interview, which seems to have been his nadir of circuмspection, the moment
when the veil that separates his subjective reality from objective truth was
the thinnest (kind of like Halloween for "certain people").

If so, it would explain why J. McF. has not answered your question, Incred.
He doesn't want to draw attention to the thing they're trying to cover up. The
thing they want everyone to "jus-fuuggetabout-it."

If so, what this means to me is, that B16 and NewRome are terrified of the
term, the unclean spirit of Vatican II, and they are groping literally at
straws to suppress it from becoming popular vocabulary.



Why? Because when this bothersome phrase, unclean spirit of Vatican II,
becomes part of the awareness of traditional Catholics, this goal of having
everyone forget about the possibility of any ulterior motives behind Vat.II
will be a lost cause. (And don't worry if they're concerned whether we think
the devil had anything to do with it, because they don't really believe in the
devil, anyway!)



And then, when +Fellay or any other spokesman in defense of NewChurch
could not utter these words without a tsunami of derision and ridicule:

“We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”