CathInfo.com

If the other 3 Bishops don't recognise 'Masonic Rome' then why did they sign a letter to 'Masonic Rome' asking for there excommunications to be lifted by 'Masonic Rome'?

I didn't say they didn't recognize the Pope.  You can certainly ask someone you disapprove of to remove an injustice.  As for claiming they asked for the "excommunications to be lifted" - that's not technically true, because they didn't believe they were legitimately excommunicated.  They asked the supposed excommunications be declared null.

The Vatican is still the same masonic lodge it was when Archbishop said it was.  And now we see priests like Father Celier having their books introduced with the author Maxence who writes for a Grand Orient Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ journal.

For Bishop Fellay to be approved by modernist Rome he's giving them a great deal.  More than he ever has to publicly admit to giving.  And it's obvious what he's giving from the change in tenor of society preaching and writings.  That some people are willfully blind to this reality doesn't change the reality.

Is that being selective or what? Archbishop Lefebvre himself never acknowledge these 'communications' as being just or binding in the first place. Did they betray Archbishop Lefebvre and 'Sell out' the SSPX by that act?

And neither did the three bishops.  Didn't you just read Bishop Fellay quoted as saying Vatican II can be seen as part of the tradition of the Church, the problem is in application?  That he approves of 95% of it?  

The sad thing is, we should have understood what his equivocation, his double-talk, from the moment he first said the Jews were our "Elder Brothers."  That was the first and most critical sign of submission.  The recognition he's now giving to Vatican II is more of a technicality.

Why did they not protest against the doctrinal discussions with 'Masonic Rome'?

Didn't Bishop Tissier say the object was to convert Rome?

Now we've heard from some that the intention was never to reach agreement?!

As for putting "masonic rome" in quotes, that is the phrase Archbishop Lefebvre used.  And even Bishop Fellay has spoken of Freemasons in the Vatican.  I think he mentioned four lodges?

Archbishop Lefebvre always acknowledge the See of Rome and the authority it had over him and his work. He only refused to acknowledge any unjust wish asked of him, namely to accept Vat II and New Mass as being part of the Catholic faith.

He said that the "excommunications" were the same being excommunicated from a masonic Lodge.  

Keep in mind that the Archbishop was at VII and worked for it.

I think today's Trad's try to appeal to the Archbishop as though was opposed to having his work recognized when the contrary is evident both from his words and actions.

I think that modernists and their apologists are the ones who try to rewrite history.

Masonic Rome

Yes, the Sede issue is part of it. Either he is the pope and you have to obey a legitimate command or he is not the pope and you make yourself pope. The Issue is serious. Don't try to avoid the issue at hand !

I'm not.  

Watch what you say - I don't need to put up with your bs.

Don't. I could not care less. I prefer not to waste my time with people who foolishly rally behind Bishop Fellay throuhout all of this.

I have never made an statement of disrespect to him. I afford him the due respect of bishop even if I may not agree with everything he says.

I never said you did. But my point was Bishop Fellay gets too much credit, and when he threw +Williamson under the bus many people took up for Fellay either because they were neo cons or because they were afraid to speak the truth. I'm not saying YOU are guilty of that, but I think you give Fellay too much credit.

The same must be granted for Bishop Fellay. The nutcases on this list think that it is Ok to start pushing all this venomous irrational nonsense against him as though he were the anti-Christ. What sinful nonsense.

He has behaved like a liberal lately, and thus is going to be treated like a liberal until he straightens up and backs out of a deal, and apologises to Bishop Williamson whom he has wronged.

It is not about what Bishop Fellay thinks. It is about what the SSPX is being asked to hold. As far as that is concerned (prove me wrong if you can - And I am glad to be shown to be wrong here) the SSPX is being asked to accept the NO or VII.

Bishop Williamson thanked openly Bishop Fellay for allowing him to have a lawyer that was able to help him win the case. - Keep in mind that Bishop Fellay has to do his best for the SSPX as a whole. It is not easy for anyone in authority regardless. You should know that.

Nutcases are those who put out venomous statements without just cause and without any proof.  

As to the Conciliar Modernists - I call them what they are - Modernists. But like Christ said of the murderous leaders of his day 'Do as they say (so long as it conforms to the law of God), but don't do as they do.-

The same applies today. We can't make the mistake of rejecting the authority established by God. This will have disastrous long term effects on all the faithful.

Trying to set ourselves up as self appointed popes like the Sede's has disastrous consequences as even the Sede's themselves have lived to witness.

Let's call a spade a spade without detracting from the authority of the Holy See just as the Holy Archbishop did.

Friends don't add to the confusion that is at present, just wait and see. That is what Bishop Williamson himself is doing. - He isn't out there spitting nonsense invectives against Bishop Fellay even if he may not agree with bishop Fellay.

Patience and Charity. - Is that to much to ask?