CathInfo.com

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.