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?

If you don't offer your back to be stabbed, you're a nutcase.

If you dont't get down on your knees to be kicked in the teeth, you're a crank.

A cult that pretends to be traditional, the neo-SSPX, under the tyrant Bishop Fellay, who kicks priests to the curb when the speak of real Tradition.

Totally irrational responses from people, now, normally a man would expect that from a 'nutcase'.

According to what you are saying then, all the SSPX priests have already sold out and the other bishops also since at the moment they are still with Bishop Fellay and have been for the Last decade!

Planet earth please?

Totally irrational responses from people, now, normally a man would expect that from a 'nutcase'.

I would expect a post like that from someone with a liberal mindset in terms of a deal.

According to what you are saying then, all the SSPX priests have already sold out and the other bishops also since at the moment they are still with Bishop Fellay and have been for the Last decade!

This is absurd and, of course, I never said that.

How is it that Archbishop Lefebvre who could call a spade a spade, and even use some harsh words to refer to the Conciliar Church leaders long before 1987, could also turn around (as I already showed you all in my posting on the issue) and ask the Holy See for recognition without becoming a traitorous apostate by your reasoning?

You need to stop erecting straw-men.

We haven't used the "reasoning" your putting forward to call Bishop Fellay a "traitorous apostate."  

It's very very common for SSPX apologists to practice deceptive debating techniques, as you are doing here.

Archbishop Lefebvre didn't say the sort of things Bishop Fellay has been saying.  Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't playing the double game that Bishop Fellay has been playing.

Ultimately the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre considered an agreement is a moot point.

Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the agreement.

Bishop Fellay can't go back on what he's done now.  Not as leader of the SSPX.

Given also he had already written great expositions on the conciliar errors and the new Mass and yet he would ask for recognition of his work by the Holy See. Please explain to me how you can then claim that you are representing this saintly giant of man?  

You certainly can't honestly claim Bishop Fellay is representing him.  Archbishop Lefebvre was a trusting man.  Look at how the nine took advantage of him.  He was not disingenuous as Bishop Fellay has been, Bishop Fellay who is acting as a tyrant, going against the advice of the other three bishops.  Bishop Fellay's words today are nothing like Archbishop Lefebvre's words.

How is it that the 3 other bishops are not seen by your reasoning as traitorous apostates for asking the Holy See (in writing with their own hand written signatures) to remove the excommunications with the Archbishop himself never considered as just or binding in the first place?

You just keep repeating straw men.  If there's one thing that's typical of cultish SSPX apologists, it's a complete lack of intellectual honesty in debate.

How is it that the other 3 bishops could go along with Bishop Fellay till now without making an open contentions regarding the negotiations and the doctrinal discussions, without being seen as traitorous apostates?

They apparently have been acting in good faith and are under the thumb of Bishop Fellay, who has become a tyrant.

My point is that you are selective in try to make it all a "Bishop Fellay" issue, when the entire SSPX is in on this position.

They obviously don't agree with Bishop Fellay's position.  The fact you claim somehow my assertions lead to the assertion that they agree with Bishop Fellay should be a clue that your reasoning is faulty, but I don't think you really care about the truth.  If you did, you wouldn't be defending Bishop Fellay's statements and policies.

Reality is just hard for some people to handle for some. Hence planet Earth, well . . .  for some Mars seems to be the preference?

Modernists and their apologists are the ones who rewrite history, scripture, etc.  Saying we must follow modernists because of what Christ said about the Pharisees.  It is truly a diabolical statement.

The crack pots

The modernist apologists have only one tactic to deal with being called on their shifting positions, on their double-tongued tactics, on their deceit.  They call people who tell the truth about them "crackpots" - that's how the cult mentality in the SSPX operates.  Point out the absurdity of their position, and you're the crack-pot.

 

on the list try to shift the issue by attacking Fellay and saying well, you are 'Liberal, Modernist, etc if you don't follow us self appointed pontiffs who great at putting out venomous invectives against anyone without scruple that we shall answer to God for it, since, well, we are Trad Cats !
 

People who support apostate leadership in the church are surely in peril of their souls.  Anyone who calls the Jews "Elder brothers" - silences his brother bishops with threats, etc, shifts his position on Vatican II, etc, well, it's very clear where his loyalties are.

My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out. That is madness. Did the Archbishop sell out the SSPX during the time it was approved by Rome ? NO. And the same applies today.

Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.

And yes, if you want to speak about respect for Fr. Cekada, granted, then the same applies for Bishop Fellay who is both a bishop and superior of the SSPX !

Hey look: Another pro-deal newbie who joined on May 10!

Does he realize he is also implicitly accusing the 3 bishops with his line of reasoning?

Notice how opposition to a deal now equals sedevacantism?

Remember when Bishop fellay himself refuted that idea when camps used it against the Sspx?

And most importantly: Notice the weak attempt to cite Archbishop Lefebvre's implicit approval on the grounds that the modernist once allowed him a regularization (as though you were not supposed to reflect upon all the reasons over the last 40 year why that approval was yanked!).

Mending does not want you to remember these words: No practical agreement until the doctrinal issues are resolved.

To pretend any other path is consistent with the often published position of archbishop lefebvre is calculated dishonesty.