I picked up a few anti Resistance arguments.

1. The men that +Fellay chose on his commission dealing with Rome were all very strong anti modernists. If +Fellay is favoring modernism, that would not make sense.

2. Even though +ABL had some very strong words to the effect that we cannot work together with the liberals in Rome, he still continued to 'talk' and try and 'negotiate' with them. So his principle of 'not working together' is not absolute and not applicable always and everywhere.

Can anyone give some reasonable comments ?

Quote from: Nobody

I picked up a few anti Resistance arguments.

1. The men that +Fellay chose on his commission dealing with Rome were all very strong anti modernists. If +Fellay is favoring modernism, that would not make sense.

Does this make sense?: The men that +Fellay chose on his commission dealing with Rome were (obviously) NOT strong anti modernists.

Your answer does not address the argument. You just turn the reasoning around. You don't like the outcome, so the men on the commission were not good anti modernists. With this reasoning you will not win anyone over to the truth.

I am sure there is a better way of answering this argument.

For point 2, B. Fellay did more than "talk" he put up weak 6 conditions for "agreement" and there was a DOCTRINAL declaration. If he (B. Fellay) were just talking it would not have been as big of a deal as it was.

.

Congratulations, hugeman, on an excellent response.  

This is, in a word, definitive.

Quote from: Nobody

I picked up a few anti Resistance arguments.

1. The men that +Fellay chose on his commission dealing with Rome were all very strong anti modernists. If +Fellay is favoring modernism, that would not make sense.


Can anyone give some reasonable comments ?

Where would anybody pick up these  'anti-resistance arguments'?  They are not arguments.

Absolutely correct.  They are not 'arguments'.  They might be self-contradictions and therefore work against themselves, but that's not what "arguments" do.

And most tellingly, in TWO WEEKS, your question has not been answered:  

Where would Nobody have picked up these 'anti-resistance arguments'?

Wherever they came from, they are incorrect.  Bishop Fellay has had dealing with Rome since the mid 1990's.

Father Lorans:  Fr. Lorans is hardly a 'very strong anti-modernist'. The whole, entire purpose of GREC was to bring the SSPX, with all the other Ecclesia Dei groups, to a position that they could be comfortably, and quietly, merged into the conciliar church.  

And ALL of Fellay's boys secretly working this project:  Schmidberger, Pfluger, Krah, Nely, Rostand, LeRoux, Anglais - all of them are modernists;  all of them have been working surreptitiously behind the scenes to water down the theology of SSPX followers, to soften Archbishop Lefebvre's positions, and to bring about a "the holy father really wants this -- yes he does" belief.  

The only way to get promoted in the XSPX is to be a Modernist.
That much is clear.  This has been going on since +F assumed the position of Superior General in 1994.  He has been consistent in one thing:  deliberate obfuscation of his Modernist agenda, while he specifically promotes and "stacks the deck" with his Modernist cronies.  

The only way to get promoted in the XSPX is to be a Modernist.
This is precisely the CONTRADICTION of the OP's two silly statements, "The men that +Fellay chose on his commission dealing with Rome were all very strong anti modernists.  If +Fellay is favoring modernism, that would not make sense."

The only way to get promoted in the XSPX is to be a Modernist.
Any good SSPX priest has one of two choices:
A)  Shut-up, and do not speak your mind about how deviant the Menzingen-denizens are, or,
B)  Speak up and take the consequences.  Generally that means getting expelled.  Sometimes it means being pressured into leaving voluntarily.  However, there is one glaring, incongruent exception:  Fr. David Hewko, who has not been expelled, most curiously.  Nor has he voluntarily left the Society, but remains a member in good standing.  He says he doesn't know why this is the case.  He has spoken out most clearly and I must admit, charitably.  Everything he says is measured and resolute.  He does not mince his words.  And when he has been unjustly treated such as when he was not allowed to attend the ceremony for his own nephew's tonsure, he did not press the issue, but sacrificed his trial by quietly standing outside while the ceremony went on in the distance.  

Schmidberger has sent Ratzinger flowers and a card every year for over fifteen years to grease the skids of re-entry.  

These people were not traditionalists.  They were caught up in the personal magnetism of a man they admired -- but they never learned the real, underlying problem.  They are administrators -- and they will fit in good [well] in Rome.


So, the people who laid the real groundwork for the so-called 'doctrinal discussions' were accordistas at heart.  They were traitors to tradition -- exactly what Fellay called the traitors of Campos when those folks sold out from under Fellay's nose before he could get a deal.

You've hit the nail on the head, hugeman!  The only beef +F had with the Campos people was that they beat him to the punch.  He was hoping to get the 'glory' of making the 'deal' but they beat him to it, so he was ticked off.  Brilliant observation!

With respect to the doctrinal discussions:

Rome said they were of no consequence -- they only went through the motions as a show -- they never intended to seriously consider any SSPX position; and Bp. de Galarreta, the SSPX point man, proclaimed AFTER the discussions concluded:  "There can be no agreement with them (Rome) - - - they do not have the Catholic faith!"

So it makes no difference who represented the SSPX -- the fix was in before the first discussion began!

.

Neil Obstat,

You are such a waffler !

First, what I found very interesting is that in two weeks I've had no more posts on this topic, but all of a sudden there is Neil Obstat, the day after I told him off for his poor behaviour, to which he had no other reply than to 'hit and run'.

Second, your waffling again is full of holes and confusion. Do I really need to take the time to point them out to you ? Is there such a thing as 'invincible confusion' ?

Third, the only time you say something constructive and sensible is when you do a 'cut and paste' of someone else's writing. Luckily, that covers about 90% of your posts. Maybe that is why you got away for so long with your poor behaviour.

And lastly, these arguments were given by a decent SSPX priest, and yes, not all SSPX priests are fools/blind/cowards/.. unlike what one could conclude from your posts. This particular priest is very close to seeing the light. Yet, if we all were to speak and act like 'humble and charitable Neil Obstat', there would be no more laity and priests that would even want to consider joining the Resistance. You can't catch flies with vinegar. If these people come up with arguments, then the least we can do is give some objective answers. Your answers only say 'how stupid, how contradictory, how confusing, ..' but they give NO objective arguments.

You remind me of Fr Gleize. Why ? Where the Archbishop needed only two sentences in his 1974 Declaration to express clearly the Truth about Rome, Fr Gleize needed several pages in his first attempt, and them another couple of pages to 'explain' his first attempt. And even then there were holes and black spots in it. If Fr Gleize can be called a confused wafller, what does it make you ?

Are you one of those infiltrators that actually wants to make the Resistance look ridiculous, endless arguers and nit pickers ?

And you are the one that called me 'woman' and considered yourself a big boy ? Big boys say what they have to say, short and sweet and to the point. Generally speaking sins of the tongue are a womans weakness. You certainly take the cake !

Neil Obstat,

You are such a waffler !

First, what I found very interesting is that in two weeks I've had no more posts on this topic,

Newsflash:  this is an Internet forum.  Any member can pick out posts in the past, even several years ago, and make comments on them.  I happened to see that one post of hugeman deserved a reply.  He has been posting some very interesting things lately.  But you wouldn't know about that, even when I'm telling you now.  

So, you were hoping that your inane and fallacious opening post would be forgotten once it was exposed for the nonsense that it was, were you?  And since I posted a reply your worst nightmares were awakened, were they?  You still haven't answered the question, who your source was.  "A decent SSPX priest" could be any one of hundreds.  Such a priest could be very decent and still be ignorant, but you don't have that excuse, because you have the facts in front of your face.  Invite the priest to come here and you send me his ID by PM and I absolutely promise that I will not expose him.  I have never broken this promise and I'm not going to start now.  Several good priests have trusted me with their identity so it's nothing new.  

They are at risk when they are under the thumb of the Menzingen-denizens.

but all of a sudden there is Neil Obstat, the day after I told him off for his poor behaviour, to which he had no other reply than to 'hit and run'.

Are you a troll, Nobody?  You sure are acting like one.  You're incapable of "telling me off,"  because that's impossible for you or for any other troll like you.

Second, your waffling again is full of holes and confusion. Do I really need to take the time to point them out to you ? Is there such a thing as 'invincible confusion' ?

That would be a first.

Third, the only time you say something constructive and sensible is when you do a 'cut and paste' of someone else's writing. Luckily, that covers about 90% of your posts. Maybe that is why you got away for so long with your poor behaviour.

More Passion Week fantasy from Nobody?  Why am I not surprised?  You're lying.  The VAST majority of what I post is my OWN composition, but then you wouldn't be capable of imagining that could be true.  But I can prove it.  Find, for example where I have copied this post right here, Nobody the troll. Liar.

And lastly, these arguments were given by a decent SSPX priest, and yes, not all SSPX priests are fools/blind/cowards/.. unlike what one could conclude from your posts. This particular priest is very close to seeing the light.

Maybe you should ask this priest to read my posts and the Recusant and a few other threads on CI and he would see the light a lot better.  Or, are you talking about some other light?  More ambiguity from the lying troll, Nobody?

Yet, if we all were to speak and act like 'humble and charitable Neil Obstat', there would be no more laity and priests that would even want to consider joining the Resistance. You can't catch flies with vinegar.

Was Our Lord catching flies with vinegar when he drove the money changers out of the Temple?  Hmmmm??

If these people come up with arguments, then the least we can do is give some objective answers.

You wouldn't know an objective answer if it bit you on the ankle.  The reply by hugeman put you squarely in your place, along with the ignorance at best and objective deception at worst, of your source, whom you are so wimpy so as not to mention.  

Coward.

Your answers only say 'how stupid, how contradictory, how confusing, ..' but they give NO objective arguments.

Really?  My answers only say what a woman always says, always or never.  Typical woman.   I hope you remember your objective calumny and obvious lies when you go to confession, that is, if you ever go.

You remind me of Fr Gleize. Why ? Where the Archbishop needed only two sentences in his 1974 Declaration to express clearly the Truth about Rome, Fr Gleize needed several pages in his first attempt, and them another couple of pages to 'explain' his first attempt. And even then there were holes and black spots in it. If Fr Gleize can be called a confused wafller, what does it make you ?

More nonsense from the peanut gallery.  Go back to the kitchen where you belong.

Are you one of those infiltrators that actually wants to make the Resistance look ridiculous, endless arguers and nit pickers ?

And you are the one that called me 'woman' and considered yourself a big boy ?

Don't you know how to read posts yet?  Can't you see what I've posted?  Oh, right, you're not capable.  Sorry, I forgot.  My mistake.

Big boys say what they have to say, short and sweet and to the point. Generally speaking sins of the tongue are a womans weakness. You certainly take the cake !

You've taken  the cake and eaten it too.  So there's none left for you to share.  


.

Quote from: Nobody

Neil Obstat,

You are such a waffler !

First, what I found very interesting is that in two weeks I've had no more posts on this topic,

Newsflash:  this is an Internet forum.  Any member can pick out posts in the past, even several years ago, and make comments on them.  I happened to see that one post of hugeman deserved a reply.  He has been posting some very interesting things lately.  But you wouldn't know about that, even when I'm telling you now.  

So, you were hoping that your inane and fallacious opening post would be forgotten once it was exposed for the nonsense that it was, were you?  And since I posted a reply your worst nightmares were awakened, were they?  You still haven't answered the question, who your source was.  "A decent SSPX priest" could be any one of hundreds.  Such a priest could be very decent and still be ignorant, but you don't have that excuse, because you have the facts in front of your face.  Invite the priest to come here and you send me his ID by PM and I absolutely promise that I will not expose him.  I have never broken this promise and I'm not going to start now.  Several good priests have trusted me with their identity so it's nothing new.  

They are at risk when they are under the thumb of the Menzingen-denizens.

Quote

but all of a sudden there is Neil Obstat, the day after I told him off for his poor behaviour, to which he had no other reply than to 'hit and run'.

Are you a troll, Nobody?  You sure are acting like one.  You're incapable of "telling me off,"  because that's impossible for you or for any other troll like you.

Quote

Second, your waffling again is full of holes and confusion. Do I really need to take the time to point them out to you ? Is there such a thing as 'invincible confusion' ?

That would be a first.

Quote

Third, the only time you say something constructive and sensible is when you do a 'cut and paste' of someone else's writing. Luckily, that covers about 90% of your posts. Maybe that is why you got away for so long with your poor behaviour.

More Passion Week fantasy from Nobody?  Why am I not surprised?  You're lying.  The VAST majority of what I post is my OWN composition, but then you wouldn't be capable of imagining that could be true.  But I can prove it.  Find, for example where I have copied this post right here, Nobody the troll. Liar.

Quote

And lastly, these arguments were given by a decent SSPX priest, and yes, not all SSPX priests are fools/blind/cowards/.. unlike what one could conclude from your posts. This particular priest is very close to seeing the light.

Maybe you should ask this priest to read my posts and the Recusant and a few other threads on CI and he would see the light a lot better.  Or, are you talking about some other light?  More ambiguity from the lying troll, Nobody?

Quote

Yet, if we all were to speak and act like 'humble and charitable Neil Obstat', there would be no more laity and priests that would even want to consider joining the Resistance. You can't catch flies with vinegar.

Was Our Lord catching flies with vinegar when he drove the money changers out of the Temple?  Hmmmm??

Quote

If these people come up with arguments, then the least we can do is give some objective answers.

You wouldn't know an objective answer if it bit you on the ankle.  The reply by hugeman put you squarely in your place, along with the ignorance at best and objective deception at worst, of your source, whom you are so wimpy so as not to mention.  

Coward.

Quote

Your answers only say 'how stupid, how contradictory, how confusing, ..' but they give NO objective arguments.

Really?  My answers only say what a woman always says, always or never.  Typical woman.   I hope you remember your objective calumny and obvious lies when you go to confession, that is, if you ever go.

Quote

You remind me of Fr Gleize. Why ? Where the Archbishop needed only two sentences in his 1974 Declaration to express clearly the Truth about Rome, Fr Gleize needed several pages in his first attempt, and them another couple of pages to 'explain' his first attempt. And even then there were holes and black spots in it. If Fr Gleize can be called a confused wafller, what does it make you ?

More nonsense from the peanut gallery.  Go back to the kitchen where you belong.

Quote

Are you one of those infiltrators that actually wants to make the Resistance look ridiculous, endless arguers and nit pickers ?

And you are the one that called me 'woman' and considered yourself a big boy ?

Don't you know how to read posts yet?  Can't you see what I've posted?  Oh, right, you're not capable.  Sorry, I forgot.  My mistake.

Quote

Big boys say what they have to say, short and sweet and to the point. Generally speaking sins of the tongue are a womans weakness. You certainly take the cake !

You've taken  the cake and eaten it too.  So there's none left for you to share.  


.

Neil Obstat,

You are such a proud person !

What worries me more than your scandalous behavior though, is that I seem to be the only one here that either notices it or that dares to speak out.

Is there anyone on this forum that has the courage to say something ? Or have the good ones left long ago ? Are we heading towards a repeat of Ignis Ardens ?

In one thing I do agree with you Neil Obstat, I'm better off leaving this forum. At least we both agree on that one, don't we (albeit for different reasons).

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Quote from: Nobody

I picked up a few anti Resistance arguments.

1. The men that +Fellay chose on his commission dealing with Rome were all very strong anti modernists. If +Fellay is favoring modernism, that would not make sense.

2. Even though +ABL had some very strong words to the effect that we cannot work together with the liberals in Rome, he still continued to 'talk' and try and 'negotiate' with them. So his principle of 'not working together' is not absolute and not applicable always and everywhere.

Can anyone give some reasonable comments ?

I think Fr. Pfeiffer addresses some of these in this conference:



at around 3 min

Thank you B from A!

Interestingly, when a friend of mine went to Fr. SSPX and discussed the AFD with him, he feigned ignorance.  
Mind you she was not aware much of any other declarations, protocols, etc.
She just said to him:
"I cannot agree with the direction Bp. Fellay is taking the SSPX and as a Third Order I am deeply disturbed."
To which this very learned priest says "Which declaration?"
And left it at that.
He did not inquire further to quell her concerns and ascertain that she is no longer troubled.
He left her with having to figure out which docuмent she is talking about.

He left her even more confused and bewildered than where she started.
Does that sound like someone who is concerned about ones spiritual well being.

Key phrase here:  OBFUSCATING FACTS