Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: JMacQ on October 14, 2012, 08:48:21 PM
-
My priest told me today that the good bishop was declared expelled last week and that he had ten days to appeal, but that he was already expelled.
I believe that an appeal will achieve nothing, since the entire procedure seems to be a mockery of the law.
May the Lord have mercy on Bishop Fellay and the office help. They have perpetrated a terrible injustice.
-
Wake up! Bishop Tissier, Bishop Alphonso!
Wach auf!
-
And anyway, who thinks that Bishop Fellay is ready or willing to change his mind?
Dark times ahead for the SSPX.
-
Bishop Fellay has reached a new low. What a dictator.
This is sad news. I doubt +Williamson will appeal, he probably wanted to be expelled. The question is, what will he do from here? Start his own Traditional group, I hope.
-
Quo vadis Domine?
Where shall thee goest now thy Excellency? :sad:
:sad: :sad:
I feel like Charleton Heston at the end of The Planet of the Apes. Just make the necessary substitution. The sentiment is the same. :really-mad2:
-
Bishop Fellay has reached a new low. What a dictator.
This is sad news. I doubt +Williamson will appeal, he probably wanted to be expelled. The question is, what will he do from here? Start his own Traditional group, I hope.
Bishop Williamson has known there is no room for him in Rome after the "reintegration". After the betrayal is completed, there will be plenty for him to do.
My question is: What is Bishop Fellay going to do in Rome? He who "will have no opposition" (Henry VIII in MFAS)? I think humble pie is in the menu.
-
Ah...the smell of "profound unity"!
God bless Bishop Williamson and may Our Lady guide him in these times!
-
It is time for us to send cards and letters to Bishop Williamson in order to let him
know we sympathize with his predicament.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre have had to say about this?
I'm sure there are some among us who could venture a guess. But you might have
to be fluent in French! HAHAHA
But seriously, the one bishop who was ABL's first choice, who has only continued to
pass on the same doctrine and traditions that he received from the Founder, is
being exiled and cast adrift. Scandalous! Pure, unabashed scandal is what it is.
+Fellay should be arrested for scandalism. To think that he had the vile nerve to
stand on ABL's grave and proclaim "unity" - with +Williamson's forced absence from
the GC, and now this. There's a better word: perversion.
How many more items are on the hit list that +Fellay has to comply with before he
can meet B16's demands? No wonder we have been refused to see it.
-
Bishop Williamson was preserved by Divine Providence from the devilish activities at the General Council. For that reason we have a little hope for the future. However, look for the Devil's rage to re double as B. Fellay hands him the SSPX and the world completes it's journey to communism.
"Arise, oh Lord, and let Thy enemies be scattered and let them that hate Thee flee from before Thy Face."
-
It is time for us to send cards and letters to Bishop Williamson in order to let him
know we sympathize with his predicament.
A batch of handmade drawings and cards shall be in the mail tomorrow for the good Bishop. The SSPX just kicked out it's main bastion of Truth. I'm disgusted.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming he's been expelled, I must say this is a sad day for the SSPX.
It marks another red-letter day in its ever-progressing downfall.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming he's been expelled, I must say this is a sad day for the SSPX.
It marks another red-letter day in its ever-progressing downfall.
I know he has a particular devotion to Saint Teresa of Avila so if he was expelled on her feast day it will only serve to strengthen his resolve.
-
To what address could cards be sent to the Bishop?
-
It is time for us to send cards and letters to Bishop Williamson in order to let him
know we sympathize with his predicament.
A batch of handmade drawings and cards shall be in the mail tomorrow for the good Bishop. The SSPX just kicked out it's main bastion of Truth. I'm disgusted.
Seraphia, you are true to your name!
Blessed be God in His angels and in His saints!
I have an original drawing that you could use with your kids to make a card for
H.E., and I think he would really appreciate it. I'll upload it pretty soon, once I
can figure out how to do it!! :scratchchin:
-
Whatever happens, Divine Providence will take care of the bishop.
I am waiting to hear it officially. I thought a "Rome" - SSPX deal was certain, but it didn't happen.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming he's been expelled, I must say this is a sad day for the SSPX.
It marks another red-letter day in its ever-progressing downfall.
I think it is fairly concrete: The letter he was sent said (among other things) he had 10 days to shutdown his website. As of right now, it's still up, and today marks the tenth day.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming he's been expelled, I must say this is a sad day for the SSPX.
It marks another red-letter day in its ever-progressing downfall.
I think it is fairly concrete: The letter he was sent said (among other things) he had 10 days to shutdown his website. As of right now, it's still up, and today marks the tenth day.
It's a lie. If he were to comply, then there would be something else he has to do,
or else. No more EC's for one! This isn't Catholic, it's Stalinist. It's Fidel Castro,
it's Hugo Chavez, it's Idi Amin. It's Communism.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming he's been expelled, I must say this is a sad day for the SSPX.
It marks another red-letter day in its ever-progressing downfall.
I think it is fairly concrete: The letter he was sent said (among other things) he had 10 days to shutdown his website. As of right now, it's still up, and today marks the tenth day.
It's a lie. If he were to comply, then there would be something else he has to do,
or else. No more EC's for one! This isn't Catholic, it's Stalinist. It's Fidel Castro,
it's Hugo Chavez, it's Idi Amin. It's Communism.
I'm just saying, based on the terms laid down in the letter, as evidenced by one objective measure (his website), he is most certainly out.
-
There's no point in either Bp Williamson or anyone else staying with the SSPX if it has strayed from the path of defending the remnant Church.
Further, this decision of Bp Fellay may have been made more urgent in view of the forthcoming re-trial of BpW in Germany.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming...
Is there an official docuмent yet? Because a good source says that the 10 days do not run out today but on (the next) Friday.
However, Bp Fellay wants Bishop Williamson out of the Society at any price. It looks like he may seem to succeed.
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
-
What I was told by my priest is that His Excellency is already expelled. The ten days are given so that he can appeal if he wants to.
What a mockery of justice.
I hope the docuмent of expulsion is made public.
If a bishop can be treated this way, nobody is safe.
-
To what address could cards be sent to the Bishop?
info@dinoscopus.org
-
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
Indeed. Poor Bishop Fellay. I agree with you that he is a liberal living in his own world of dreams. May Heaven indeed help him.
Sadly, he has lost the plot. Bishop Fellay has become such a tragic figure.
Over The Rainbow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRa4X07jdE
-
Pardon my ignorance, but has it been definitively settled that the ten days for appeal are over ?
-
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
I would be interested in more information regarding this so that we can understand what signs to look out for in the near future. I have read or heard several references to Bishop Fellay having liberal political beliefs -- "He is not one of us." He acts like this is very much the case. Indeed, look at his friends and his background -- it isn't too much of a stretch to suspect him of being a sort of mid-XXth century Christian Democrat, a reconciler who feels uncomfortable around integral Catholics and counter-revolutionaries. I remember being surprised to read Bishop Fellay say something about the problem with hard-right extremism and cօռspιʀαcιҽs and those kinds of mentalities, etc., in SSPX parishes a few years ago, how it needed to be rooted out and had no future or something. I found the statement incredibly strange, given what we know of the Archbishop and his priests, not to mention the several centuries-old tradition of resistance to the Revolution out of which the SSPX naturally sprung in the first place. Does anybody have some more concrete information about Bishop Fellay's alleged (and apparent) liberalism ? I suppose he would be careful to make few public statements about this, but I only seek facts here rather than mere speculation or third-hand information.
-
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
I would be interested in more information regarding this so that we can understand what signs to look out for in the near future. I have read or heard several references to Bishop Fellay having liberal political beliefs -- "He is not one of us." He acts like this is very much the case. Indeed, look at his friends and his background -- it isn't too much of a stretch to suspect him of being a sort of mid-XXth century Christian Democrat, a reconciler who feels uncomfortable around integral Catholics and counter-revolutionaries. I remember being surprised to read Bishop Fellay say something about the problem with hard-right extremism and cօռspιʀαcιҽs and those kinds of mentalities, etc., in SSPX parishes a few years ago, how it needed to be rooted out and had no future or something. I found the statement incredibly strange, given what we know of the Archbishop and his priests, not to mention the several centuries-old tradition of resistance to the Revolution out of which the SSPX naturally sprung in the first place. Does anybody have some more concrete information about Bishop Fellay's alleged (and apparent) liberalism ? I suppose he would be careful to make few public statements about this, but I only seek facts here rather than mere speculation or third-hand information.
With respect to you PereJoseph, this is remarkable. I remember a SSPX priest not being able to answer the question "Would Bishop Fellay pray for the conversion of the Jews?" Very revealing in itself.
I found the statement incredibly strange
Why strange? After all, we are dealing with Bishop Fellay. Do you expect something differently from him?
Does anybody have some more concrete information about Bishop Fellay's alleged (and apparent) liberalism ?
There is nothing alleged about his liberalism. There is plenty of concrete information available. It's just some people tend to ignore facts.
Are some people not past the "Did Bishop Fellay really say this" stage? It beggars belief.
but I only seek facts here rather than mere speculation
Facts have presented time and time again.
-
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
a reconciler who feels uncomfortable around integral Catholics and counter-revolutionaries. I remember being surprised to read Bishop Fellay say something about the problem with hard-right extremism and cօռspιʀαcιҽs and those kinds of mentalities, etc., in SSPX parishes a few years ago, how it needed to be rooted out and had no future or something. I found the statement incredibly strange, given what we know of the Archbishop and his priests, not to mention the several centuries-old tradition of resistance to the Revolution out of which the SSPX naturally sprung in the first place.
"We have an appeal for extremists, who we don't even want," says Fellay (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/embarrassment-for-the-catholic-church-bishop-williamson-unrepentent-in-h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial-a-675163-2.html)
Ours an ancient struggle (http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm)
Well, these texts are astounding, quite astounding! I shall quote you a few texts shortly. It is incredible. In the last few weeks (since I am now unemployed!) I have been spending a little time re-reading the book by Emmanuel Barbier on Liberal Catholicism. And it is striking to see how our fight now is exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the 19th century, in the wake of the French Revolution, and by the Popes, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and so on, Pius X, down to Pius XII. Their fight is summed up in the encyclical Quanta Cura with the Syllabus of Pius IX, and Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. There are the two great docuмents, sensational and shocking in their day, laying out the Church's teaching in face of the modern errors, the errors appearing in the course of the Revolution, especially in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This is the fight we are in the middle of today. Exactly the same fight.
There are those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi, and there are those who are against. It is simple. It is clear. Those who are against are adopting the principles of the French Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi remain within the true Faith, within Catholic doctrine. Now you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus". Therewith the Cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. If then he is against the Syllabus, he is adopting the principles of the Revolution. Besides, he goes on to say quite clearly, "Indeed we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers but which come from modern society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man.
We stand exactly where Cardinal Pie, Bishop Freppel, Louis Vueillot stood, and Deputy Keller in Alsace, Cardinal Mermillod in Switzerland, who fought the good fight together with the great majority of the then bishops. At that time they had the good fortune to have the large majority of the bishops on their side. Bishop Dupanloup and the few bishops in France who followed Bishop Dupanloup were the odd ones out. The few bishops in Germany, the few in Italy, who were openly opposed to the Syllabus, and in effect opposed to Pius IX, they were the exception rather than the rule. But obviously there were the forces of the Revolution, the heirs of the Revolution, and there was the hand reached out by Dupanloup, Montalembert, Lamennais and others, who offered their hand to the Revolution and who never wanted to invoke the rights of God against the rights of man - "We ask only for the rights of every man, the rights shared by everyone, shared by all men, shared by all religions, not the rights of God," said these Liberals.
-
It's important to point out the Peter Wensierski connection to the Menzingen Lawyer. Wensierski and Steffen Winter wrote the article that PAT317 has just posted.This is really old news.In the photograph, you see Peter Wensierski with Krah.
-
With respect to you PereJoseph, this is remarkable. I remember a SSPX priest not being able to answer the question "Would Bishop Fellay pray for the conversion of the Jews?" Very revealing in itself.
I am morally confident that he is a liberal because of his past statements and, especially, his actions. I am just looking for something a little more concrete, like a specific ideological school or party affiliation.
I found the statement incredibly strange
Why strange? After all, we are dealing with Bishop Fellay. Do you expect something differently from him?
Several years ago, when I read the comment, I did expect something different. At that time, I was still living under the naïve impression that the SSPX was a monolithic bloc of anti-liberal anti-Americanist anti-democratic counter-revolutionary Catholics in the tradition of the French Legitimists, the Zouaves, the Carlists, and the various XXth-century Catholic régimes. That is to say, when I first started going to SSPX chapels, I was full of books by the Archbishop and was taken in by the Society's self-advertisement. It came as quite a shock to me when this picture was fractured and contradicted after the Swedish interview affair.
There is nothing alleged about his liberalism. There is plenty of concrete information available. It's just some people tend to ignore facts.
Hmm, I must have given the wrong impression in my post. Don't worry, it seems to be a matter of fact to me that Bishop Fellay is a liberal who is no friend of Catholic Tradition and is going to formally defect from the true Faith to join up with Fr Josef Ratzinger, who himself is an antichrist.
Are some people not past the "Did Bishop Fellay really say this" stage? It beggars belief.
I am simply looking for some information regarding his actual political beliefs.
Facts have presented time and time again.
Not the facts that pertain to my question. I suppose Maximilian Krah's party affiliation is a hint, but Bishop Fellay is Swiss. How does he see himself ? What is the precise ideological program that guides his actions and makes him ashamed of those who seek the integral Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ ?
I am looking for facts of that nature; I figure it goes without saying that Bishop Fellay is himself a liberal, but I am interested in what kind and why. It could be illuminating for the struggles we find ourselves in at our chapels or with straying friends. I am sorry if the apparently tepid tone of my above post was discouraging; I should have been more thoughtful. I did not get as much sleep as would have been ideal last night.
-
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
a reconciler who feels uncomfortable around integral Catholics and counter-revolutionaries. I remember being surprised to read Bishop Fellay say something about the problem with hard-right extremism and cօռspιʀαcιҽs and those kinds of mentalities, etc., in SSPX parishes a few years ago, how it needed to be rooted out and had no future or something. I found the statement incredibly strange, given what we know of the Archbishop and his priests, not to mention the several centuries-old tradition of resistance to the Revolution out of which the SSPX naturally sprung in the first place.
"We have an appeal for extremists, who we don't even want," says Fellay (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/embarrassment-for-the-catholic-church-bishop-williamson-unrepentent-in-h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial-a-675163-2.html)
Thank you. I vaguely remember this article, but I guess I needed my memory refreshed. So, are the Fellay/Pfluger clique Maritainistes, fans of Otto von Habsburg's pan-Europeanism, do they consider themselves humanists of some fashion or another, perhaps neo-liberal devotées of the School of Salamanca ? It would be helpful to find texts we could consult to better understand their frame of mind. For instance, what is their position in regard to women in University and the workplace. What, precisely, would the world look like if everything that Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger hoped would happen in the next fifty to one hundred years actually did happen ? We need to find their playbook so that they cannot present their bad faith as benign and exploit the naïve credulity inspired by false charity that they expect from everybody.
-
I am morally confident that he is a liberal because of his past statements and, especially, his actions. I am just looking for something a little more concrete, like a specific ideological school or party affiliation.
I am simply looking for some information regarding his actual political beliefs.
Not the facts that pertain to my question. I suppose Maximilian Krah's party affiliation is a hint, but Bishop Fellay is Swiss. How does he see himself ? What is the precise ideological program that guides his actions and makes him ashamed of those who seek the integral Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ ?
I am looking for facts of that nature; I figure it goes without saying that Bishop Fellay is himself a liberal, but I am interested in what kind and why. It could be illuminating for the struggles we find ourselves in at our chapels or with straying friends.
It's hard to pin down, because his yes isn't yes, and his no isn't no, and he speaks so ambiguously, and tailors his talk to his audience.
It seems that he sees himself as a truly Traditional Catholic and a true son of Archbishop Lefebvre. If he really does, then obviously a big part of the problem is he never really understood +AL. +BW said it seemed that for +BF, as for many people at the time, the Archbishop was simply the best continuation of the Church of the 1950s.
Here is what +BF had to say about the Ideal State:
03:06 The ideal state
Just in itself the best situation is when you have the whole society which is going the same way. It also helps to unity, to peace, to everything. And of course religion is a major part in the human heart and if you are one in the religion, it helps to have this peace and I may say, well, that’s the commandment of our Lord to his Church: We have to go to all nations and teach them what our Lord said. Now, when you are in a situation which is a mixed situation, which is, let say, the reality, I would say, well, that's not the ideal but that's the situation which you are. And that's, let's say, where you have to do your job, your duty as a Christian. So you have to give this witness to the others, you must try to help them. We want everybody to have that wonderful happiness of heaven and trying to bring them to this knowledge.
Can anybody find the word "Catholic" in there? :confused1:
ETA:
Note that the Archbishop says that the " true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith" are the ones who "feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time."
Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome have to testify a little bit of loyalty. You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).
-
I am morally confident that he is a liberal because of his past statements and, especially, his actions. I am just looking for something a little more concrete, like a specific ideological school or party affiliation.
I am simply looking for some information regarding his actual political beliefs.
Not the facts that pertain to my question. I suppose Maximilian Krah's party affiliation is a hint, but Bishop Fellay is Swiss. How does he see himself ? What is the precise ideological program that guides his actions and makes him ashamed of those who seek the integral Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ ?
I am looking for facts of that nature; I figure it goes without saying that Bishop Fellay is himself a liberal, but I am interested in what kind and why. It could be illuminating for the struggles we find ourselves in at our chapels or with straying friends.
It's hard to pin down, because his yes isn't yes, and his no isn't no, and he speaks so ambiguously, and tailors his talk to his audience.
And even when he says things, (docuмented, in print or video), he says he didn't say them.
War Aims (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/War-Aims-by-Fr-Chazal) by Fr. Chazal
The SSPX crisis stays on as long as its head, Bishop Fellay, teaches errors and allows errors to spread, thus dividing the flock. Otherwise the 20 resistance priests (as of September 2012) are guilty of dividing the flock.
So let us make a SSPX headscan. Fortunately I was able to see Bishop Fellay on September 04th , talked to him for one and a half hour, just 72 hours before his big Econe backpedalling (priests conference, 09.07.2012).
For about 20 minutes or more His Lordship rebuked me for my scandalous, destructive and revolutionary behavior and this terrible refusal to stop my activities, etc. then he asked me the reason for such pertinacity.
I replied: “Because I believe that you have a new theory on Vatican II, by which its errors, keep that Council erroneous, but are surmountable.”
I was warned by Fr. Koller: Bishop Fellay is an intelligent man; one cannot accuse him of being simply in favor of Vatican II; it is much more complicated than that. Bishop Fellay knows his public.
His Lordship then answered: “Archbishop Lefebvre thought like that at some stage, and he signed the texts of the Council” Then I think he realized he had failed to deny the accusation and started to pound the notion that he is indeed against Vatican II, that I am just persevering making him say that he likes Vatican II when the opposite is true, that he is the one who knows best what his thoughts are.
I then showed him my small collection of eight quotes of his, called “I excuse the Council (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/I-Excuse-the-Council-Padre-Chazal)” and he replied “This is not what I said… from start to finish we disagree with Rome on Vatican II and that is why the talks have failed. You base your entire thing on a false assumption of what we think (about VII).”
When he got finished I then asked candidly: “If you are indeed truly against Vatican II, why were you, my Lordship, so silent about Assisi III?” Referring to one phrase pronounced in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, he said that he made his all the condemnations of the Archbishop about Assisi. That sounded awkward and Fr. Nely rushed to the rescue, explaining how bad Assisi III really was. Not getting it, I reminded his Lordship of his resolute NO, when I was with him in Cebu, to my request for a strong and public stance against Assisi III. (He said the same to the Pfeiffer brothers at the time).
Fr. Chazal showed +F a collection of +F quotes, and +F says "This is not what I said." He told some Australian layman that the CNS interview "took him out of context."
Of course, we're way off thread topic; this might be a good topic for another thread. FWIW, Here (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9427) is an Ignis thread about "Bishop Fellay's mind."
-
I think it is true to say Bp. Williamson represents the old SSPX which Menzingen is discarding bit by bit. And it is no accident that the liberal drift towards conciliar Rome comes with new positions in the political arena. Bp. Fellay and Fr. Phluger like to be interviewed by Der Spiegel because all like to ridicule Bp. Williamson and his 'extremist' following. What is forgotten is that this 'extremist' following were principle supporters of ABL's initiative and one would hear their indictment against the modern world in sermon after sermon. Incredibly, Bp. Fellay himself would echo such things not so long ago. The new image of the SSPX must now show the Society is more accommodating and accepting of the modern world. That is why Bp. Williamson and reminders of the old SSPX have to go.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but has it been definitively settled that the ten days for appeal are over ?
No, the 10 days do run out on Friday.
-
Stop Believing All Those Internet Rumors!
And stop making fun of my receding hairline.
-
Stop Believing All Those Internet Rumors!
And stop making fun of my receding hairline.
This is going too far. There is no doubt Bishop Fellay is a liberal in his own dream world but I do disagree with that photograph but I see the humour in the part about the internet rumours.
Faber posted this
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11120&st=125
QUOTE ("Bishop Williamson; June 2012; Bristol; Conference XI")
I was on the phone last night. Fr Joe Pfeiffer from the United States rang me up, the one who gave a blockbusting sermon that’s all over the internet, like Fr Chazal’s, and he said that Fr Laisney, who is a Bishop Fellay man, was really trying to put the pressure on Fr Chazal, and one of the things that Fr Laisney blurted out in the middle of his pressure-putting was that after the General Chapter there will be a purge. I think he was quoting Fr Pfluger. Fr Pfluger is a real - how can I say? A strong man. I wanted to use the word “thug” but I can’t use the word “thug”. It’s not quite correct. Fr Pfluger is not nearly as smart as Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay is smart, but Fr Pfluger is not smart but he is absolutely fanaticised. These people are now fanaticised, and they are driving for their goal, and their goal is to take over the Society and to get rid of the opposition. Fr Chazal quoted Fr Pfluger, who said, “Wait until the General Chapter and then there will be a big purge.” So they’re going to get to the General Chapter, and they’re going to sail through the General Chapter with a majority, as they hope. They undoubtedly count on having a majority in their pocket, and then if they win the vote then there will be a great purge. Heads will roll afterwards. Anybody who’s in opposition will be eliminated, crushed, smashed, driven out.
God, in any case, surely wants the purification of the resistance to the apostasy of the Church, which was set up by Archbishop Lefebvre 40 years ago [...]
Few would doubt that Bishop Fellay and his gang are bad news for certain.Fr Pfluger is certainly a bad apple. They are after bringing further trouble on themselves if indeed the Bishop has been expelled.
-
Ok, now. So, Mgr W is being expelled. Hm.... So who is going to oust him out physically? By what means will BF implement his threat? I believe that our priests here in the UK are sympathetic to our Mgr W so can they not protect His Lordship? We know that he has a huge following, not just here in the UK, but around the world. My question is: is it really possible for one bishop to oust another? OK, so BF was voted in as GS, but can he really expel Mgr W? Really??? After all, as has been mentioned before, Mgr W was the first chosen of the four bishops by our founder, Mgr Lefebvre and that MUST count for something.
The next question is... will we all be 'excommunicated' by BF???? But, is that not ridiculous? A person must have done something really serious to be excommunicated, such as being a freemason, or some such thing. In any case, in today's modern church, you can be anything and still belong to 'it'. Furthermore, I am certain that BF has no authority to excommunicate anyone. He and his 'followers' (the modernist superiors) can stop any of the faithful they want from actually entering one of the SSPX churches, and even denying them the sacraments, but that is going far beyond what would happen in former days, I mean prior to VII. Oh, sad days, what has happened to our SSPX? The devil never sleeps.
-
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
Indeed. Poor Bishop Fellay. I agree with you that he is a liberal living in his own world of dreams. May Heaven indeed help him.
Sadly, he has lost the plot. Bishop Fellay has become such a tragic figure.
Over The Rainbow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRa4X07jdE
Bp. Fellay is a tragic figure similar to Captain Ahab from the novel Moby Deck.
He is obssessed with with newRome unity over truth.
He's willing to sink the SSPX and lose it all to carry-out his flawed vision.
-
Ok, now. So, Mgr W is being expelled. Hm.... So who is going to oust him out physically? By what means will BF implement his threat?
Now that's a fascinating point. Could our Bishop be expelled from the organisation and yet remain in Wimbledon? After all, some non-SSPX and even some former SSPX clergy live in SSPX houses.
-
Could all three bishops get together and expel Bishop Fellay?
Are these SSPX bishops assigned to specific regions?
Who's the bishop for the U.S.? Specifically the St. Louis chapel?
-
Ok, now. So, Mgr W is being expelled. Hm.... So who is going to oust him out physically? By what means will BF implement his threat?
Now that's a fascinating point. Could our Bishop be expelled from the organisation and yet remain in Wimbledon? After all, some non-SSPX and even some former SSPX clergy live in SSPX houses.
The SSPX has no problem using lawyers or the cops to evict someone.
Fr. Emily had an SSPX seminarian physically removed from a Toronto chapel
on the charge of "tresspassing" in 1998. It was based on Father Emily's naive involvemment in a Cancun beach raffle prize that turned-out to be a scandal.
Even though Bp. Fellay has a political "tin-ear" for politics, it would in his own
PR interest, to use diplomacy in getting Bp. Williamson to leave. I would bet Bp. Williamson already has his bags packed.
-
Bp. Fellay is a tragic figure similar to Captain Ahab from the novel Moby Deck.
He is obssessed with with newRome unity over truth.
He's willing to sink the SSPX and lose it all to carry-out his flawed vision.
A very good comparison.
We need a new cartoon! :-)
... showing Bp Fellay as Captain Ahab, the Newrome-agreement (or Ratzi?) as the white whale, the Neo-SSPX as Captain Ahab's ship which sinks in the tragic end... or that like.
And the only survivor is...? The truth, or those loving the truth in the SSPX. So Bishop Williamson right at the front.
-
Bp. Fellay is a tragic figure similar to Captain Ahab from the novel Moby Deck.
He is obssessed with with newRome unity over truth.
He's willing to sink the SSPX and lose it all to carry-out his flawed vision.
A very good comparison.
We need a new cartoon! :-)
... showing Bp Fellay as Captain Ahab, the Newrome-agreement (or Ratzi?) as the white whale, the Neo-SSPX as Captain Ahab's ship which sinks in the tragic end... or that like.
And the only survivor is...? The truth, or those loving the truth in the SSPX. So Bishop Williamson right at the front.
There could be a sequel to this video..
MOO!
Sadly, Bishop Fellay is in fantasy world
Fellay leads SSPX over the Rainbow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcuGrTEw-d4
-
While it is possible that Bp Fellay is merely deluded, an egomaniac, etc., is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters? No, I cannot prove anything, but it is unwise to ignore the possibility that he is merely controlling the opposition and always has been. For my money, it is an absolute given that those who wrought the havoc that led us into the desert also followed us there and sought to gain control of the resistance from the very beginning. If Bp Fellay is not a conscious agent, it seems to be morally certain that some of those who influence him are.
We shall see...
-
is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters?
It is possible.
We shall see...
Yes, soon.
-
While it is possible that Bp Fellay is merely deluded, an egomaniac, etc., is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters? No, I cannot prove anything, but it is unwise to ignore the possibility that he is merely controlling the opposition and always has been. For my money, it is an absolute given that those who wrought the havoc that led us into the desert also followed us there and sought to gain control of the resistance from the very beginning. If Bp Fellay is not a conscious agent, it seems to be morally certain that some of those who influence him are.
We shall see...
Agreed... the story may be a little darker than merely a liberal in fantasy land.
-
Ok, now. So, Mgr W is being expelled. Hm.... So who is going to oust him out physically? By what means will BF implement his threat? I believe that our priests here in the UK are sympathetic to our Mgr W so can they not protect His Lordship? We know that he has a huge following, not just here in the UK, but around the world. My question is: is it really possible for one bishop to oust another? OK, so BF was voted in as GS, but can he really expel Mgr W? Really??? After all, as has been mentioned before, Mgr W was the first chosen of the four bishops by our founder, Mgr Lefebvre and that MUST count for something.
Good questions. I think poor Fr. Morgan may be in for some sleepness nights.
-
To what address could cards be sent to the Bishop?
Good question. If he has in fact been expelled, as seems all too likely, the St. George's House address won't be good any longer. Perhaps the post office will forward his mail?
-
Take heart good people. I spoke with His Excellency this morning.
His Excellency, despite everything, is doing well. No mention was made as to the hows, and whens and ifs of His Grace's expulsion. His Grace is thankful for all the support and prayers offered up for him.
I cannot add anything to the correspondence question, apart from the email at dinoscopus.
Best thing to do is to keep praying for His Grace and for one another.
-
Gladius said:
"... is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters? "
(http://www.catholicnews.com/photos/10hp0013.jpg)
Is this who you're referring to?
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming he's been expelled, I must say this is a sad day for the SSPX.
It marks another red-letter day in its ever-progressing downfall.
His exclusion from the GC and his expulsion - if it is real - are signs from God.
God is walking in the very very late afternoon air of the dying Earth.
Remember back in the early 2000's when the Church sex scandal hit the news? It was a mercy from God because there could no longer be any doubt. The mask was torn off.
Same here. This is a mercy from God. There can no longer be any doubt. The mask is torn off.
What is left for us now is to make the right choices.
-
While it is possible that Bp Fellay is merely deluded, an egomaniac, etc., is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters? No, I cannot prove anything, but it is unwise to ignore the possibility that he is merely controlling the opposition and always has been. For my money, it is an absolute given that those who wrought the havoc that led us into the desert also followed us there and sought to gain control of the resistance from the very beginning. If Bp Fellay is not a conscious agent, it seems to be morally certain that some of those who influence him are.
We shall see...
I think it's a given that he's an infiltrator, and not some confused liberal.
How can you become the de factor leader of a group whose defining characteristics include antagonism to modernism, Jews, and Vatican II and possess none of those characteristics yourself?
-
While it is possible that Bp Fellay is merely deluded, an egomaniac, etc., is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters? No, I cannot prove anything, but it is unwise to ignore the possibility that he is merely controlling the opposition and always has been. For my money, it is an absolute given that those who wrought the havoc that led us into the desert also followed us there and sought to gain control of the resistance from the very beginning. If Bp Fellay is not a conscious agent, it seems to be morally certain that some of those who influence him are.
We shall see...
I think it's a given that he's an infiltrator, and not some confused liberal.
Fr. Chazal, who joined the SSPX seminary at the age of 17, spent 24 years in the Society,who
was expelled by him on his patron saint's day, was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
-
While it is possible that Bp Fellay is merely deluded, an egomaniac, etc., is it not also possible that he is simply doing the job that was assigned to him by his true masters? No, I cannot prove anything, but it is unwise to ignore the possibility that he is merely controlling the opposition and always has been. For my money, it is an absolute given that those who wrought the havoc that led us into the desert also followed us there and sought to gain control of the resistance from the very beginning. If Bp Fellay is not a conscious agent, it seems to be morally certain that some of those who influence him are.
We shall see...
I think it's a given that he's an infiltrator, and not some confused liberal.
Fr. Chazal, who joined the SSPX seminary at the age of 17, spent 24 years in the Society,who
was expelled by him on his patron saint's day, was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
He switched sides Elizabeth. That's why he's shaking hands with modernists and hiring characters like the East German Zionist, and saying things like "what was condemned in the Council was not of the Council"
-
Elizabeth said:
Fr. Chazal, who joined the SSPX seminary at the age of 17, spent 24 years in the Society,who
was expelled by him on his patron saint's day, was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I think Father Chazal was being charitable and refused to speculate.
However, we're dealing with reality and there has to be an explanation?
Could it be "mental illness" ... that's the Pope's excuse.
According to Bp. Williamson, its a side effect of modernism.
I believe it was Father Meramo who accused Bp. Fellay of coming under the spell of the false mystic, Madamme Germaine Rossiniere. She's docuмented.
How about the ever common, ʝʊdɛօ-masonic blackmail ?
-
Bishop Fellay has reached a new low. What a dictator.
This is sad news. I doubt +Williamson will appeal, he probably wanted to be expelled. The question is, what will he do from here? Start his own Traditional group, I hope.
I don't think it is sad at all. It may mean a whole new life for Bishop Williamson.
-
Ok, now. So, Mgr W is being expelled. Hm.... So who is going to oust him out physically? By what means will BF implement his threat? I believe that our priests here in the UK are sympathetic to our Mgr W so can they not protect His Lordship? We know that he has a huge following, not just here in the UK, but around the world. My question is: is it really possible for one bishop to oust another? OK, so BF was voted in as GS, but can he really expel Mgr W? Really??? After all, as has been mentioned before, Mgr W was the first chosen of the four bishops by our founder, Mgr Lefebvre and that MUST count for something.
The next question is... will we all be 'excommunicated' by BF???? But, is that not ridiculous? A person must have done something really serious to be excommunicated, such as being a freemason, or some such thing. In any case, in today's modern church, you can be anything and still belong to 'it'. Furthermore, I am certain that BF has no authority to excommunicate anyone. He and his 'followers' (the modernist superiors) can stop any of the faithful they want from actually entering one of the SSPX churches, and even denying them the sacraments, but that is going far beyond what would happen in former days, I mean prior to VII. Oh, sad days, what has happened to our SSPX? The devil never sleeps.
And the bishop doing the excommunicating has to have jurisdiction.
-
Bishop Fellay has reached a new low. What a dictator.
This is sad news. I doubt +Williamson will appeal, he probably wanted to be expelled. The question is, what will he do from here? Start his own Traditional group, I hope.
I don't think it is sad at all. It may mean a whole new life for Bishop Williamson.
It is sad in a way, because it means that the downfall of the SSPX is continuing, and the Society will never be the same again.
-
This is sad news. I doubt +Williamson will appeal, he probably wanted to be expelled. The question is, what will he do from here? Start his own Traditional group, I hope.
I don't think it is sad at all. It may mean a whole new life for Bishop Williamson.
It is sad in a way, because it means that the downfall of the SSPX is continuing, and the Society will never be the same again.
I agree. Even when I've read about Archbishop Lefebvre retiring from the Holy Ghost Fathers, to me it was sad, and frustrating. It was terrible, the downfall of so many great orders in the aftermath of Vatican II, and good priests & bishops being unable to stop it. Plus, +BW has given so much of his life and talents to the SSPX. There are many aspects to it that are tragic.
But I can see what others mean when they say it's good news. Since the downfall of the SSPX seems to be a runaway train - no stopping it - then it is good news for the Resistance that there will be a bishop with them. "It may mean a whole new life for Bishop Williamson." Kinda like the new life +AL started when he founded the SSPX in the first place. God writes straight with crooked lines.
-
Even when I've read about Archbishop Lefebvre retiring from the Holy Ghost Fathers, to me it was sad, and frustrating. It was terrible, the downfall of so many great orders in the aftermath of Vatican II, and good priests & bishops being unable to stop it.
Yes, I was frustrated when I first read that as well. A good group that the liberals took over.
But as you said, it turned out to be for the best, because we all know what happened next. :) Let's hope something similar happens with Bishop Williamson.
-
Even when I've read about Archbishop Lefebvre retiring from the Holy Ghost Fathers, to me it was sad, and frustrating. It was terrible, the downfall of so many great orders in the aftermath of Vatican II, and good priests & bishops being unable to stop it.
Yes, I was frustrated when I first read that as well. A good group that the liberals took over.
But as you said, it turned out to be for the best, because we all know what happened next. :) Let's hope something similar happens with Bishop Williamson.
At least now Bishop Williamson will be able to speak more freely, and that will help all of us. That's why I look forward to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr Chazal's sermons - they speak freely, and keep us informed, not like the sermons of my chapel SSPX priest. I am sad too, however, because the SSPX will never be the same again. Someone mentioned to me that he wouldn't be surprised if Bishop Fellay ends up expelling the other two Bishops too, since he knows they aren't in agreement with him. Time will tell.
-
Fr. Chazal...was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I know nothing of the man, other than his name (which I have only recently read on this very site). I have no idea what he was asked, how specific the actual question was, etc., but it is the height of naivete, in my opinion, to think that those who caused this mess largely by making effective use of infiltration would then, once we are scattered and leaderless, suddenly refrain from using such an effective method. In other words, Fr. Chazal's opinions on a specific case aside, what is, in fact, utter nonsense, is that a group as visible as the SSPX is and has been since its inception would be left to go about its business without being infiltrated. If people prefer to leave the question of specific people alone, I can respect that, but it is colossal naivete to think that no infiltration has taken place, even if it has been kept to a very respectable minimum. IMO, this is the only rational conclusion and it is based upon fallen human nature and the well-known methods of the enemies. Surely there is no need to see a bogeyman hiding in every confessional, etc., but to pretend all is well and the SSPX is a more or less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men is extremely unwise. Trust in God, not in men. May God bless and our Lady keep each of you.
-
Any organization, whatever good it has done or is doing, that ordains a man like Urrutigoity -- whose perversion had already led to the compiling of a massive dossier -- is easily infiltrated by those who had already infiltrated much more organized and secure institutions. Frankly, the handling of the Urrutigoity case still amazes me, not least because of how similar it was to countless cases in what eventually became the Novus Ordo. We would all like to believe our priests are well-trained, hyper-vigilant saints (in the making, at least). Maybe some are. Most, however, are only (above average?) men given a training of oft-quetionable quality who are then sent onto an insanely-disorienting battlefield whereupon they are worked so hard they hardly have time to think, much less remain ever-vigilant against very well-trained, determined enemies. Yes, anything is possible with God's grace, but He only gives His grace to the humble and, even then, sometimes His wisdom allows the malice of fallen human nature to achieve its nefarious ends, if only so His own glorious ends may thereby be exalted all the more. The God-man suffered an indescribably horrific death -- after that, anything goes and we should never be surprised at (nor question) what God will allow. His ways are not our ways.
-
Elizabeth said:
Fr. Chazal, who joined the SSPX seminary at the age of 17, spent 24 years in the Society,who
was expelled by him on his patron saint's day, was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I think Father Chazal was being charitable and refused to speculate.
However, we're dealing with reality and there has to be an explanation?
Could it be "mental illness" ... that's the Pope's excuse.
According to Bp. Williamson, its a side effect of modernism.
I believe it was Father Meramo who accused Bp. Fellay of coming under the spell of the false mystic, Madamme Germaine Rossiniere. She's docuмented.
How about the ever common, ʝʊdɛօ-masonic blackmail ?
Hey Incredulous, ever consider that the mere mentioned of Fellay and the false mysic, have not even once been delibrated in this forum? It stopped here never to be mentioned again. I believed it was mentioned in the earlier posts a number of times. Like it's some kind of 'taboo' if one wants to know more about Fellay and this false mystic.!??? :furtive:
-
Fr. Chazal...was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I know nothing of the man, other than his name (which I have only recently read on this very site). I have no idea what he was asked, how specific the actual question was, etc., but it is the height of naivete, in my opinion, to think that those who caused this mess largely by making effective use of infiltration would then, once we are scattered and leaderless, suddenly refrain from using such an effective method. In other words, Fr. Chazal's opinions on a specific case aside, what is, in fact, utter nonsense, is that a group as visible as the SSPX is and has been since its inception would be left to go about its business without being infiltrated. If people prefer to leave the question of specific people alone, I can respect that, but it is colossal naivete to think that no infiltration has taken place, even if it has been kept to a very respectable minimum. IMO, this is the only rational conclusion and it is based upon fallen human nature and the well-known methods of the enemies. Surely there is no need to see a bogeyman hiding in every confessional, etc., but to pretend all is well and the SSPX is a more or less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men is extremely unwise. Trust in God, not in men. May God bless and our Lady keep each of you.
A good post. It would not harm the "resistance" to know the credentials of it's warriors. Assuming, on the basis of appearance and sermon, that someone is great, holy and a saint, is, in my opinion, not enough. In trying to promote Tradition where I live, I myself got my fingers burned in trying to rope in people I had not bothered to find out more about.
-
I believe it was Father Meramo who accused Bp. Fellay of coming under the spell of the false mystic, Madamme Germaine Rossiniere. She's docuмented.
How about the ever common, ʝʊdɛօ-masonic blackmail ?
Hey Incredulous, ever consider that the mere mentioned of Fellay and the false mysic, have not even once been delibrated in this forum? It stopped here never to be mentioned again. I believed it was mentioned in the earlier posts a number of times. Like it's some kind of 'taboo' if one wants to know more about Fellay and this false mystic.!??? :furtive:
What the hell are you trying to imply here?
That CathInfo is some kind of controlled opposition, under the control of Bishop Fellay? Doing his dirty work censoring all mention of this mystic?
What planet have you been on? What rock have you been under? Welcome to planet Earth!
You're not too bright, are you. Have you considered that maybe there's not much to discuss? Does +Fellay have a blog with an e-mail address, wherein he personally corresponds with Catholics all around the world? Is he Bishop Williamson?
The world really doesn't know much more than has already been said about this mystic. There are some articles in French (if I recall correctly) but really, which of us could possibly have anything to add?
Does Ethelred correspond with +Fellay personally as well? I doubt it.
Your allegation is rash, unfounded, and rude. You really deserve to be banned from this one post.
I really get sick of this level of paranoia.
-
Dear Matthew, I would hope, given this posters contributions to the forum, that you would not ban him.
-
Dear Matthew, I would hope, given this posters contributions to the forum, that you would not ban him.
I was letting him know I wasn't pleased (to say the least). Allow me to elaborate...
Chrstnoel:
Consider this your ONE warning.
I don't want to hear people openly spouting paranoia like this, at least when the object of the paranoia is ME or CATHINFO.
If you or anyone else wants to be bat#### crazy, that's fine. But you'll do it someplace else, not on my forum. You won't badmouth my forum ON my forum.
I think that's pretty reasonable. I'm still waiting for anyone to answer my challenge from 4 years ago -- can anyone show me a forum where it's permitted to openly badmouth the owner and/or the forum, and remain a member in good standing?
Go join Catholic Answers and call the management a bunch of non-Catholic protestants. Go join Fisheaters and call the owner a few names. How about Ignis Ardens? Go sign up for an account, and call Patricius a few names.
Your account wouldn't last a day.
Would you go into a Mosque and start talking crap about Mohammed? Why not? Maybe you only act that rude and bold because you're safe behind your monitor?
-
Dear Matthew, I would hope, given this posters contributions to the forum, that you would not ban him.
I was letting him know I wasn't pleased (to say the least). Allow me to elaborate...
Chrstnoel:
Consider this your ONE warning.
I don't want to hear people openly spouting paranoia like this, at least when the object of the paranoia is ME or CATHINFO.
If you or anyone else wants to be bat#### crazy, that's fine. But you'll do it someplace else, not on my forum. You won't badmouth my forum ON my forum.
I think that's pretty reasonable. I'm still waiting for anyone to answer my challenge from 4 years ago -- can anyone show me a forum where it's permitted to openly badmouth the owner and/or the forum, and remain a member in good standing?
Go join Catholic Answers and call the management a bunch of non-Catholic protestants. Go join Fisheaters and call the owner a few names. How about Ignis Ardens? Go sign up for an account, and call Patricius a few names.
Your account wouldn't last a day.
Would you go into a Mosque and start talking crap about Mohammed? Why not? Maybe you only act that rude and bold because you're safe behind your monitor?
Matthew, pardon me, my most sincere apologies to all. :sign-surrender:
-
Does Ethelred correspond with +Fellay personally as well? I doubt it.
Matthew, the context of your rhetorical question I don't understand. Is it because I up-voted Chrstnoel's post about Bp Fellay's false mystic Madame Germaine Rossiniere from the 1990ies in Switzerland?
Well, in that case I'm sorry for having caused confusion to you. When in the morning I enter Cathinfo for the first time with very, very many posts in a foreign language waiting to be seen, I sometimes just scan them and skip the details... So when the keyword "Bp Fellay & False mystic" caught my eye in Chrstnoel's post, I up-voted it because I would just love to see more details about this "false mystic" topic, which we talked about here some time ago. So far I unfortunately couldn't get any more information about this from Swiss persons, because the entire Swiss SSPX district seems to be pro Bp Fellay...
So, unfortunately I didn't get the undertone in Chrstnoel's post (also he isn't a native English speaker?) which you, Matthew, clarified later.
I know that you and your forum are truly traditional Catholic, and I hope nobody thinks that I would question that obvious fact. Thanks for all your trouble to run one of the last Internet refuges for English-speaking traditional Catholics. It's important. So, please keep up the good work, Matthew, as well as all the other constructive contributors.
-
FROM NOVUS ORDO WATCH ( www.novusordowatch.org)
Waiting for Official Confirmation
EXPELLED
Bp. Richard Williamson, SSPX
Pending a possible final appeal, Bp. Richard Williamson has been expelled from the Society of St. Pius X, several SSPX clergy have reportedly confirmed informally. Bp. Fellay had sent Bp. Williamson a long letter, dated October 4, in which he gave him a 10-day ultimatum.
Oct. 15 Update (23:28 GMT): "The expulsion has not yet been formalized but seems imminent, according to His Excellency [Williamson]." (Source)
-
So, unfortunately I didn't get the undertone in Chrstnoel's post (also he isn't a native English speaker?) which you, Matthew, clarified later.
He's not a native English speaker? :laugh1:
-
Does Ethelred correspond with +Fellay personally as well? I doubt it.
Matthew, the context of your rhetorical question I don't understand. Is it because I up-voted Chrstnoel's post about Bp Fellay's false mystic Madame Germaine Rossiniere from the 1990ies in Switzerland?
Well, in that case I'm sorry for having caused confusion to you. When in the morning I enter Cathinfo for the first time with very, very many posts in a foreign language waiting to be seen, I sometimes just scan them and skip the details... So when the keyword "Bp Fellay & False mystic" caught my eye in Chrstnoel's post, I up-voted it because I would just love to see more details about this "false mystic" topic, which we talked about here some time ago. So far I unfortunately couldn't get any more information about this from Swiss persons, because the entire Swiss SSPX district seems to be pro Bp Fellay...
So, unfortunately I didn't get the undertone in Chrstnoel's post (also he isn't a native English speaker?) which you, Matthew, clarified later.
I know that you and your forum are truly traditional Catholic, and I hope nobody thinks that I would question that obvious fact. Thanks for all your trouble to run one of the last Internet refuges for English-speaking traditional Catholics. It's important. So, please keep up the good work, Matthew, as well as all the other constructive contributors.
I brought up your name, because you were the first one I could think of who corresponds with +Williamson by e-mail.
But lots of others do, too.
My point was: how many people can lay claim to a similar level of communication with +Fellay? I bet the number is far fewer, possibly zero. I don't believe +Fellay condescends to rub elbows with "the common man" like Bishop Williamson.
Bishop Williamson is much more like Abp. Lefebvre, who conferred with religious Sisters, etc. during any discussions with Rome. He certainly didn't do everything under a veil of secrecy, or with zero respect for the laymen who fight their own battles for Tradition every day.
I think it was with much wisdom that +Lefebvre selected +Williamson first for a successor.
-
Fr. Chazal...was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I know nothing of the man, other than his name (which I have only recently read on this very site). I have no idea what he was asked, how specific the actual question was, etc., but it is the height of naivete, in my opinion, to think that those who caused this mess largely by making effective use of infiltration would then, once we are scattered and leaderless, suddenly refrain from using such an effective method. In other words, Fr. Chazal's opinions on a specific case aside, what is, in fact, utter nonsense, is that a group as visible as the SSPX is and has been since its inception would be left to go about its business without being infiltrated. If people prefer to leave the question of specific people alone, I can respect that, but it is colossal naivete to think that no infiltration has taken place, even if it has been kept to a very respectable minimum. IMO, this is the only rational conclusion and it is based upon fallen human nature and the well-known methods of the enemies. Surely there is no need to see a bogeyman hiding in every confessional, etc., but to pretend all is well and the SSPX is a more or less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men is extremely unwise. Trust in God, not in men. May God bless and our Lady keep each of you.
I know several who think this very thing, who believe it's reasonable ...
... to pretend all is well, and the SSPX is a more-or-less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men ...
... and they do not appreciate hearing or seeing anything to the contrary. It's like
those 3 monkeys: Hear No Evil - See No Evil - Speak No Evil.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSt14i5PDXvGFIfqNZ1R5ffNcWxmTu4cZMRHmWilv3Albu6bxDuyw)
It seems to me that +Fellay entirely relies on this Pollyanna mindset among
the faithful, and this is the basis of his tyrannical power in the Society.
My 2 cents.
-
Fr. Chazal...was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I know nothing of the man, other than his name (which I have only recently read on this very site). I have no idea what he was asked, how specific the actual question was, etc., but it is the height of naivete, in my opinion, to think that those who caused this mess largely by making effective use of infiltration would then, once we are scattered and leaderless, suddenly refrain from using such an effective method. In other words, Fr. Chazal's opinions on a specific case aside, what is, in fact, utter nonsense, is that a group as visible as the SSPX is and has been since its inception would be left to go about its business without being infiltrated. If people prefer to leave the question of specific people alone, I can respect that, but it is colossal naivete to think that no infiltration has taken place, even if it has been kept to a very respectable minimum. IMO, this is the only rational conclusion and it is based upon fallen human nature and the well-known methods of the enemies. Surely there is no need to see a bogeyman hiding in every confessional, etc., but to pretend all is well and the SSPX is a more or less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men is extremely unwise. Trust in God, not in men. May God bless and our Lady keep each of you.
I know several who think this very thing, who believe it's reasonable ...
... to pretend all is well, and the SSPX is a more-or-less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men ...
... and they do not appreciate hearing or seeing anything to the contrary. It's like
those 3 monkeys: Hear No Evil - See No Evil - Speak No Evil.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSt14i5PDXvGFIfqNZ1R5ffNcWxmTu4cZMRHmWilv3Albu6bxDuyw)
It seems to me that +Fellay entirely relies on this Pollyanna mindset among
the faithful, and this is the basis of his tyrannical power in the Society.
My 2 cents.
I agree, and that being the case let's name who the infiltrators are, and discuss the why's and why nots? The SSPXers here who see these priests all the time should be able to figure out who they are. Let's name names.
-
Any organization, whatever good it has done or is doing, that ordains a man like Urrutigoity -- whose perversion had already led to the compiling of a massive dossier -- is easily infiltrated by those who had already infiltrated much more organized and secure institutions. Frankly, the handling of the Urrutigoity case still amazes me, not least because of how similar it was to countless cases in what eventually became the Novus Ordo. We would all like to believe our priests are well-trained, hyper-vigilant saints (in the making, at least). Maybe some are. Most, however, are only (above average?) men given a training of oft-quetionable quality who are then sent onto an insanely-disorienting battlefield whereupon they are worked so hard they hardly have time to think, much less remain ever-vigilant against very well-trained, determined enemies. Yes, anything is possible with God's grace, but He only gives His grace to the humble and, even then, sometimes His wisdom allows the malice of fallen human nature to achieve its nefarious ends, if only so His own glorious ends may thereby be exalted all the more. The God-man suffered an indescribably horrific death -- after that, anything goes and we should never be surprised at (nor question) what God will allow. His ways are not our ways.
The Urrutigoity case always through me for a loop. The man was a flamer, and no one saw it for 8 years he was a seminarian, and then all the other years? How blind can one be?
I remember the day I was introduced to a now deceased sede "bishop", the first instant that I saw him, shook his hand, looking into his eyes, I said to myself, this guy is a flamer of the worst order. Yet, the people I was with, and the parishioners of his chapel, thought nothing of his manerism and live in handiman. I guess people think that the people who aspire to the priesthood, are very cultured, and show it by being soft?
-
I remember the day I was introduced to a now deceased sede "bishop"
You have positive doubt about the validity of the unnamed bishop's orders ? If not, why do you use quotation marks suggesting that he is not a real bishop ?
-
Having it on good authority (namely His Excellency himself) an official press release will soon be issued with respect to the expulsion of His Excellency +W from the SSPX. No doubt it will be posted in Cathinfo, or a link shall be placed therein.
These are very very sad days. :facepalm:
-
I remember the day I was introduced to a now deceased sede "bishop"
You have positive doubt about the validity of the unnamed bishop's orders ? If not, why do you use quotation marks suggesting that he is not a real bishop ?
Yes, I had very positive doubts. He's dead now.
-
Having it on good authority (namely His Excellency himself) an official press release will soon be issued with respect to the expulsion of His Excellency +W from the SSPX. No doubt it will be posted in Cathinfo, or a link shall be placed therein.
These are very very sad days. :facepalm:
Here is some news on Bp. Williamson's expulsion, as of 10/16:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm#.UH3bkIU1FWk)
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-latest-from-london.html (http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-latest-from-london.html)
In my opinion, there's no way Bp. Williamson will ever comply with all of these conditions!
-
To what address could cards be sent to the Bishop?
info@dinoscopus.org
What is his snail mail physical address?
-
They should have replaced Bishop Fellay at the last Chapter meeting...
What is the difference between expell, defrock and excommunication.
Ask Bishop Fellay why he is quick to punish and persecute good and holy priests while his peers in Rome take very little or any action against rapist, child molestors, thieves, liars, hypocrites, money lovers, abortion lovers, liberals, greedy power hungry etc.
-
We will keep everyone in SSPX and other traditional Catholics in our prayers to God. And our Rosaries too.
-
While it is certainly a sad turn of events, what would you have people say? Or better yet, what would you have them do? The society that everyone took to be, and most still take to be the Catholic Church stole the churches of the entire world. That does not make all other thievery unimportant, but it does put things into perspective. I tend to think we have had these things taken because we have secretly cherished an inordinate affection for them which is detrimental to our spiritual well-being. God's permitting them to be taken, by whatever means, may prove to be an immense blessing. Only time will tell.
I agree, but that is not what a court would call it. Still, it is the principle involved that matters and I agree with you that it is wrong.
IMO, we were stripped of the material trappings of the Holy Faith because we had completely lost touch with the spirit that animates them and which is the sole raison d'etre of all the external actions. I have been around for a while and been blessed to visit many chapels all over the world. Despite a good deal of sincerity, fidelity, and apparent piety, Traddieland as a whole does not strike me as all that different from the pre-V2 Church. That is neither a condemnation nor a compliment. What I mean is this: it seems as if we are far too concerned about the externals and the material elements of piety rather than true, solid piety itself. Further (IMO), the reason Traddieland keeps going through these material purgations is we have yet to learn the original lesson: it is supernatural faith, hope, and charity that matter and all the trappings are merely means to that sublime, spiritual end. "Seek ye first..." When these things keep being taken, should we not at least pause to ask: are we truly seeking first things first, or is that just what we want to believe? It is my belief that we will not see any kind of true, healthy, rightly-ordered restoration until we learn and fully accept that when the letter holds the primary place, it kills; it can only play its subordinate and indirectly life-giving role when it is ordered to and animated by the spirit, which alone gives life.
I admit that, despite my wordiness, I have not made my point as clearly as I would have hoped. Even if I have, I don't know how good or useful it might be to others. Basically, I think that, despite the decades of heartache, disappointment and betrayal, we still have our priorities backward, at least to some extent. It is entirely possible that building brick houses during our sojourn in the desert was, in fact, the wrong approach all along. Then again, maybe it was right? I cannot say. How many people even question our response to the Mass and churches being taken away? I don't know what the right response should have been or is, but God allowed what He did for a reason. In the days of the OT, He caused worship to cease precisely because He was tired of receiving mere lip-service from men whose hearts were far from Him. When their hearts had changed, He restored the worship. Have our hearts changed? Was our adherence to (the material elements of) true worship in the face of its having been removed His will, or was it our own? I am not pretending to answer such questions; I only ask them, knowing that the answers are far beyond my limited ability and role. I don't even know if the answers to such questions would serve any good purpose at this point. God alone knows; trust in Him, not in men.
-
Fr. Chazal...was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I know nothing of the man, other than his name (which I have only recently read on this very site). I have no idea what he was asked, how specific the actual question was, etc., but it is the height of naivete, in my opinion, to think that those who caused this mess largely by making effective use of infiltration would then, once we are scattered and leaderless, suddenly refrain from using such an effective method. In other words, Fr. Chazal's opinions on a specific case aside, what is, in fact, utter nonsense, is that a group as visible as the SSPX is and has been since its inception would be left to go about its business without being infiltrated. If people prefer to leave the question of specific people alone, I can respect that, but it is colossal naivete to think that no infiltration has taken place, even if it has been kept to a very respectable minimum. IMO, this is the only rational conclusion and it is based upon fallen human nature and the well-known methods of the enemies. Surely there is no need to see a bogeyman hiding in every confessional, etc., but to pretend all is well and the SSPX is a more or less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men is extremely unwise. Trust in God, not in men. May God bless and our Lady keep each of you.
Sensible advice.
-
Elizabeth said:
Fr. Chazal, who joined the SSPX seminary at the age of 17, spent 24 years in the Society,who
was expelled by him on his patron saint's day, was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I think Father Chazal was being charitable and refused to speculate.
However, we're dealing with reality and there has to be an explanation?
You were there? I didn't hear him being so charitable, he was fiery and earthy. He said all sorts of things about his former bishop.
-
Fr. Chazal...was asked if this was the case and he said "No" to
the infiltration, mason agent etc. nonsense.
Fr. Chazal's word is good enough for me.
I know nothing of the man, other than his name (which I have only recently read on this very site). I have no idea what he was asked, how specific the actual question was, etc., but it is the height of naivete, in my opinion, to think that those who caused this mess largely by making effective use of infiltration
.....
., but to pretend all is well and the SSPX is a more or less flawless body composed entirely of unquestionably-loyal men is extremely unwise. Trust in God, not in men. May God bless and our Lady keep each of you.
The question was, "Is Bp. Fellay a Freemason?" and Fr. Chazal said, "No'. The question was not about infiltration in general.
Not that there is no possibility of infiltration. It is obvious, given Fr. Chazal's situation, that all is not well and that he is not the slightest bit naive about the problems in SSPX.
It is unlikely that Bp. Fellay, who was raised traditional Catholic joined Archbishop Lefebvre deep undercover as a controlled resistance mole.
I imagine Matthew would have figured this out long ago if it were the case, BTW.
-
... Bp. Fellay, who was raised traditional Catholic...
Was he? I heard he went to a Novus Ordo school. Didn't he say in some interview on Gloria TV that he had the choice and finally he chose Tradition? (I seem to recall hearing something along these lines, but maybe someone else knows for sure?) Maybe he was raised totally traditional - but could someone confirm this?
(not saying it might mean he was an infiltrator, but just confirming or wondering if he was really "raised Traditional Catholic")
-
The question was, "Is Bp. Fellay a Freemason?" and Fr. Chazal said, "No'. The question was not about infiltration in general.
Thank you for the extra info/context/etc. FWIW, I imagine many have given a similar answer to that question when, in fact, the person in question was a Mason, etc. It is hardly the kind of thing one can easily know for certain and it is wiser to answer in the negative unless one has very good reason to do otherwise.
Not that there is no possibility of infiltration. It is obvious, given Fr. Chazal's situation, that all is not well and that he is not the slightest bit naive about the problems in SSPX.
I have no reason to believe otherwise for, as I said, I know nothing of the man and happily presume the best.
It is unlikely that Bp. Fellay, who was raised traditional Catholic joined Archbishop Lefebvre deep undercover as a controlled resistance mole.
You may be correct, yet here we are. Somehow or another the resistance is, in fact, being controlled and in a way that one might expect is consistent with the desires of those whose goal is to render any resistance ineffective. Where does that leave us? I don't know, but I also don't think I need to know in any kind of definitive manner.
I imagine Matthew would have figured this out long ago if it were the case, BTW.
Nothing against Matthew, and you may be correct, but any one of us can be surprisingly blind about certain things, especially if there is any real possibility that we have formed an inordinate affection for a person, group, etc. I know I have been in the past, and probably am now, in one way or another that I have yet to realize.
God bless and keep you and yours, Elizabeth.
-
You could easily be right, PAT317..I could have mixed that up...Fr. elaborated on the particular area in which +Fellay was raised, I'm certain of that. He may have used the word sheltered?
The main thing is the paranoia about Bp. Felley being a mason being shot down by Fr. Chazal. And Fr, Pfieffer, can't imagine him holding back if that were the case. :laugh1:
You don't necessarily have to be mole to be doing the wrong things with a traditional Catholic Society, to make poor judgements or have antipathy toward a fellow bishop and so on.
-
... Bp. Fellay, who was raised traditional Catholic...
Was he? I heard he went to a Novus Ordo school. Didn't he say in some interview on Gloria TV that he had the choice and finally he chose Tradition? (I seem to recall hearing something along these lines, but maybe someone else knows for sure?) Maybe he was raised totally traditional - but could someone confirm this?
(not saying it might mean he was an infiltrator, but just confirming or wondering if he was really "raised Traditional Catholic")
I went to public school and born and raised into novus ordo...
-
... Bp. Fellay, who was raised traditional Catholic...
Was he? I heard he went to a Novus Ordo school. Didn't he say in some interview on Gloria TV that he had the choice and finally he chose Tradition? (I seem to recall hearing something along these lines, but maybe someone else knows for sure?) Maybe he was raised totally traditional - but could someone confirm this?
(not saying it might mean he was an infiltrator, but just confirming or wondering if he was really "raised Traditional Catholic")
You remember correctly, dear Path317. Indeed Bernhard Fellay was not raised traditional Catholic. Whilst this doesn't mean much, because back then the "tradition" was still very young, interestingly the young Bernhard Fellay even entered the pro-seminary of the Novus Ordo Augustinian Canons near his home in Switzerland.
Until now I don't know when and why he came to the SSPX, and why he didn't stay with these Augustians. I think he would have been in good hands there, and we too without him in the SSPX.
But this I know: Dr Ferdinand Steinhart (Vienna, Austria) and his family were long-term friends with Archbishop Lefebvre and regularly hosted him when he was in Austria. Together with Dr Inge Köck (Regensburg, Germany) the elder Dr Steinhart translated most of the Archbishop's texts to German in an excellent way. (Available as collection here on Cathinfo, for example (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvres-sermons-in-German-translation)).
Dr Steinhart was a very old-school man and expert in human nature. When the young Bernard Fellay came to the SSPX, Dr. Steinhart met him and was shocked. When in 1994 Bishop Fellay was elected superior general, Dr Steinhart nearly passed out...
What an irony: The man who was lastly called a bishop by Swiss capital (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19481&min=5#p2), has now destroyed the SSPX.
Let's not be illusory: Unfortunately the SSPX is dead!
-
What is sad is that Fellay and Krah will have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property and other assets given to them by the SSPX faithful over the decades. It is the heist of the century. Funny that no one seems to be talking about this fact.
While it is certainly a sad turn of events, what would you have people say? Or better yet, what would you have them do? The society that everyone took to be, and most still take to be the Catholic Church stole the churches of the entire world. That does not make all other thievery unimportant, but it does put things into perspective. I tend to think we have had these things taken because we have secretly cherished an inordinate affection for them which is detrimental to our spiritual well-being. God's permitting them to be taken, by whatever means, may prove to be an immense blessing. Only time will tell.
We have been robbed.
I agree, but that is not what a court would call it. Still, it is the principle involved that matters and I agree with you that it is wrong.
IMO, we were stripped of the material trappings of the Holy Faith because we had completely lost touch with the spirit that animates them and which is the sole raison d'etre of all the external actions. I have been around for a while and been blessed to visit many chapels all over the world. Despite a good deal of sincerity, fidelity, and apparent piety, Traddieland as a whole does not strike me as all that different from the pre-V2 Church. That is neither a condemnation nor a compliment. What I mean is this: it seems as if we are far too concerned about the externals and the material elements of piety rather than true, solid piety itself. Further (IMO), the reason Traddieland keeps going through these material purgations is we have yet to learn the original lesson: it is supernatural faith, hope, and charity that matter and all the trappings are merely means to that sublime, spiritual end. "Seek ye first..." When these things keep being taken, should we not at least pause to ask: are we truly seeking first things first, or is that just what we want to believe? It is my belief that we will not see any kind of true, healthy, rightly-ordered restoration until we learn and fully accept that when the letter holds the primary place, it kills; it can only play its subordinate and indirectly life-giving role when it is ordered to and animated by the spirit, which alone gives life.
I admit that, despite my wordiness, I have not made my point as clearly as I would have hoped. Even if I have, I don't know how good or useful it might be to others. Basically, I think that, despite the decades of heartache, disappointment and betrayal, we still have our priorities backward, at least to some extent. It is entirely possible that building brick houses during our sojourn in the desert was, in fact, the wrong approach all along. Then again, maybe it was right? I cannot say. How many people even question our response to the Mass and churches being taken away? I don't know what the right response should have been or is, but God allowed what He did for a reason. In the days of the OT, He caused worship to cease precisely because He was tired of receiving mere lip-service from men whose hearts were far from Him. When their hearts had changed, He restored the worship. Have our hearts changed? Was our adherence to (the material elements of) true worship in the face of its having been removed His will, or was it our own? I am not pretending to answer such questions; I only ask them, knowing that the answers are far beyond my limited ability and role. I don't even know if the answers to such questions would serve any good purpose at this point. God alone knows; trust in Him, not in men.
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful comment. There is much to be said for this perspective and I also share it to a degree. However, there is also a time to fight. I know many who did not fight when Vat II came around and they lived to regret it as their church was taken away from them. So I think both perspectives are important. God gives us a brain and he gives us intelligence so I also guess He intends us to use it to foil His enemies on earth to the extent we can do so.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming...
Is there an official docuмent yet? Because a good source says that the 10 days do not run out today but on (the next) Friday.
However, Bp Fellay wants Bishop Williamson out of the Society at any price. It looks like he may seem to succeed.
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
The announcement of Bp. Williamson's expulsion will surely be handled
by Menzingen with the utmost political consideration.
They will want to avoid any hint of making him a martyr.
BTW, If he's leaving Wimbledon, I think we should provide him with armed body-guards.
-
I wish there was something more concrete from +W himself, but assuming...
Is there an official docuмent yet? Because a good source says that the 10 days do not run out today but on (the next) Friday.
However, Bp Fellay wants Bishop Williamson out of the Society at any price. It looks like he may seem to succeed.
The poor Bp Fellay is living in a world of dreams. He is a liberal. Heaven help him -- and us. God bless Bishop Williamson!
The announcement of Bp. Williamson's expulsion will surely be handled
by Menzingen with the utmost political consideration.
They will want to avoid any hint of making him a martyr.
BTW, If he's leaving Wimbledon, I think we should provide him with armed body-guards.
It is most noteworthy that +Williamson isn't putting out any announcements. I guess
his reason would be, what good would it do? What can the faithful do about it? If
they're unwilling to believe the news they can read on the Internet, then why would
they believe what he announces? Menzingen probably was waiting for him to say
something so they could accuse him of saying something.
H.E. is no doubt going to be able to do a lot more productive things not being
encuмbered with +Fellay's whims and attitude. Just watch and see what good can
come of this.
And yes, it would seem that some earmarked donations sent to Our Lady of
Mt. Carmel Church for the physical security of H.E. leaving Wimbledon would be
a very good idea. That helps Frs. there to decide what to do, when they hear
the voice of Our Lord speaking through the words of their contributors.
Godspeed, Bishop Williamson!
-
H.E. is no doubt going to be able to do a lot more productive things not being
encuмbered with +Fellay's whims and attitude. Just watch and see what good can
come of this.
:applause:
Once again Neal hits the nail right on the head.
This is the beginning of something great.
May the Holy Angels accompany our Bishop.
-
:thinking:
-
Long live
-
I meant
-
Can't resist, sorry.
-
Dr Steinhart was a very old-school man and expert in human nature. When the young Bernard Fellay came to the SSPX, Dr. Steinhart met him and was shocked. When in 1994 Bishop Fellay was elected superior general, Dr Steinhart nearly passed out...
What an irony: The man who was lastly called a bishop by Swiss capital (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19481&min=5#p2), has now destroyed the SSPX.
Let's not be illusory: Unfortunately the SSPX is dead!
It's as my mom keeps quoting to me, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". (Can't remember who she is quoting, though. :smirk:)
+Fellay became a bishop (power), and then Superior General (more power). He now has it in his head he will "save the Catholic Church" (even more power trips). :king:
-
It's as my mom keeps quoting to me, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". (Can't remember who she is quoting, though. :smirk:)
In fact, it was the historian John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, AKA Lord Acton, who wrote:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
More info on him here (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html).
As this saga has unfolded over the last few months, exactly the same thought has kept coming to my mind also.
-
It is most noteworthy that +Williamson isn't putting out any announcements.
...yet.
But he's sure thinking about it!