This is my translation of a post by Gentiloup from Un évêque s’est levé.


The Sky Darkens
     
What did the CDF announce following Bishop Fellay’s response on May 16, 2012 ?

As announced by the press office today, May 16, 2012, the ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met and discussed the question of the Society of St. Pius X.

In particular, they examined the text of the response by Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on April 17, 2012, and formulated several observations which will be taken into account during subsequent discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X. Considering the positions taken by the three other bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situation will be treated separately and personally.
Rome, May 16, 2012.

From where did the CDF get “the positions taken by the three other bishops of the Society of St. Pius X?”
From the joint letter of the three bishops to Bishop Fellay [dated April 7, 2012]. What was said in this letter?

For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX has seriously been considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX – who do not form part of the General Council – wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.

One can state that the plan announced by the CDF to treat the case of the three other SSPX bishops “separately and personally” is advancing post haste.

On October 13, Bishop de Galaretta gave a conference at Villepreux, France during the Days of Tradition. This conference by Bishop de Galaretta has been featured prominently on DICI, and on La Porte Latine, [the US district and Asia district web sites, trans.] the official sites of the SSPX; in other words, the propaganda sites of Menzingen.

In this conference, Bishop de Galaretta admitted that a canonical accord is conceivable with “today’s Rome,” without a prior doctrinal accord. Bishop de Galaretta thus revised his judgment against that in the letter he signed on April 7, 2012.

Coincidentally, just as this conference was published, the ultimatum that Bishop Falley had given to Bishop Williamson was released and, without waiting, Menzingen initiated the expulsion procedure against Bishop Williamson.

Bishops di Noia and Mueller have stated several times that it would be impossible to reintegrate Bishop Williamson due to his positions concerning World War II. It would appear that the Bishop Mueller, President of the CDF, and Bishop di Noia, Head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, should congratulate themselves that first, Bishop de Galaretta revised his position vis-à-vis an accord with Rome and second, that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX immediately thereafter.

How will Bishop Fellay, a most zealous agent of the CDF, proceed to make capitulate Bishop Tissier, the biggest prize he could deliver to his Vatican Masters ?

Pray hard   for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais who must be under phenomenal pressure right now!  
Satan  :devil2: is on the move and must not win!

So that means the Spanish bishop knew & approved the expulsion of Bp. Williamson. Coward!!!

In a recent sermon by Fr. Francois Chazal, he explains that when he went to
meet with Bishop de Mallerais, he endured some half hour of firey darts and
verbal pummeling, and then, the bishop told him in no uncertain terms that
he (Fr. C.) is a soldier, and he (Bp. deM.) is a captain,  and it is the soldier's
place to be small and to obey orders.  And it is the captain's duty to command.
This sounds like the kind of dialogue two Frenchmen would have.  It was most
probably in French! (But Fr. did not say.)  

The bishop then assured Fr. that he has ten times the number of errors he has
found +Fellay adhering to and practicing, but he is not going to pull those out
and use them right now.  This is not the time, he says.

Maybe the time is soon approaching when he will do so -- and guess what the
reaction will be from +F?  Is he going to sit still and take it like Fr. C. did at
this meeting?  Uhhh... guess again.

The bishop then assured Fr. that +F will no doubt bring out this 'deal' thingy
again and 'put it on the table,' at which time, the bishop says, he will at that
time oppose him, for then is when the 'time is right.'

Maybe the time is soon approaching when he will do so -- and guess what the
reaction will be from +F? Is he going to sit still and take it like Fr. C. did at
this meeting?  Uhhh... guess again.

And now that +de Galarreta has 'revised his position,' do you suppose that
+deM is going to remain silent on that point, as the field narrows and he is
left all the more alone in his resolve?  Can he continue to remain silent? Or will
he make known what his duty demands of him?

Maybe the time is soon approaching when he will do so -- and guess what the
reaction will be from +F? Is he going to sit still and take it like Fr. C. did at
this meeting?  Uhhh... guess again.

Is +Williamson going to remain silent on that point, now that he is expelled?  If
he gives even one sermon to a catechism class or a day care center for the
elderly with Alzheimers, will he make no mention of this grave injustice
against everything holy?  "I certainly hope so!" (To quote Bishop Fellay himself!)

Maybe the time is soon approaching when he will do so -- and guess what the
reaction will be from +F? Is he going to sit still and take it like Fr. C. did at
this meeting?  Uhhh... guess again.




How many opportunities will there be?  Of one thing you can be sure:  if +F
gives +deM ANY chance to stand up and raise a point in opposition to what +F
is pronouncing at the moment, it will be a TRAP.  +F and the Menzingen-denizens
will be watching him like a HAWK. There will be not a single move he can make
that won't be under the intense scrutiny of the denizens.

How will Bishop Fellay, a most zealous agent of the CDF, proceed to make [Bishop Tissier capitulate, becoming thereby] the biggest prize [+F] could deliver to his Vatican Masters?

Any more questions?

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler

No mention of Bishop Williamson or all the priests who have ben exiled.

In the future, Bishop Galaretta, and Tissier de Mallerais will likely be removed too. Like the communists totalitarians, Bishop Fellay will continue purging anyone with a mind of their own. That is the way it works.

If Bishop Galaretta, and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais do not stand up for Bishop Williamson and the SSPX priests that have been expelled, then they will sooner or later learn the old lesson:

When the communists came for the rich and factory landowners,
I remained silent;
I was not a admirer of the "rich".

When they locked up the small business owners,
I remained silent;
I was just a low level employee.

When they came for my bosses,
I did not speak out;
I was not enamored of them.

When they came for my neighbors,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a big mouth like them.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

---------------------------------------------------
I was shocked to find the four SSPX bishops celebrating the lifting of their excommunications, when the excommunications of Abp. Lefevbre and Bishop Castro de Mayer had not been lifted. A noble person would have rejected the lifting of the excommunicatios, if it did not include those two patriarchs.

Now we see that Bishop Williamson will be next, expulsed from the SSPX, and likely now being also threatenend with re-excommunicated from Rome.

That is the way it works. He should not have accepted the lifting of his excommunication, since the two patriarchs were left out. The same will happen to all of them, and the last one will be Bishop Fellay, he will also have his head cut off by the progressivist.

Good Brother bowler,

Methinks you have caught on to how the Occupied Vatican operates.  While courage is endlessly denounced as "dangerous," even cowardice must also have its penalties.  Those who sup with the Devil always end up with their heads on a platter.

In the end courage is the wiser, and safer, road to follow.

Here is something all Priests (Popes Bishops included) should consider ( especially at 2:50 onward):



Canon Law of Holy Mother Church:

Suprema Lex Soli Solimarum: The Supreme Law is the Salvation of Souls.

It is not a game, like Chess.

It is a command.

The three Bishops better get moving.

Souls are going to Hell.

They are the leaders that should step up that we may gather around them and fight, like all good soldiers should.

If Bishop Tessier is a General, where are his troops?

*

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11182&st=50

QUOTE (Shamus @ Oct 26 2012, 09:44 PM)
The official transcription omits "autonomy from the [local] bishops (exemption des évêques)".
It is noteworthy that +Fellay has already admitted that such autonomy would not be granted.

Here is where +Fellay admitted that autonomy from the local bishops would not be granted:

QUOTE (DICI)
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements.  Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory.  Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?

Bishop Fellay: [...] It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary.  We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it.  Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?  Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us.

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with...tions-with-rome

Will +de Galarreta insist, publicly if necessary, that Menzingen correct this glaring omission? The apparently intentional fraud of attempting to hide the bishop's critical caveat is circuмstantial evidence for a sellout.