Bishop Fellay said,

We also believe we must draw your attention to maneuvers aimed at destabilizing, which are done as much from the outside by Mgr. Williamson and the priests who are with him, as on the inside by those who, following the advice of Mgr. Williamson, wish to found a kind of “guerrilla resistance”, or priests engaged, under cover of anonymity, in a real work of undermining under the pretext of preserving fidelity to Mgr. Lefebvre and saving the Society from a so-called suicidal agreement with the conciliar Church. Behind this wall of smoke, it has been established that the goal being pursued is the resignation of the Superior General, and they think that any means is justified in pursuing this end. Never mind the declarations, the sermons and the conferences which affirm the contrary, we’re going to look with a magnifying glass anything which we can misunderstand, in order, in an incredible process of intention, to discredit authority and make it seem lying or sneaky. It’s a real enterprise of subversion, which sows mistrust among priests and laity, and destabilizes the government of our society with a view to weakening it or killing it.[/u]

This continued hyperbole of Bishop Fellay gets to be very tiring to read.  Fr. Laisney, an allowed “runner” and “hit man” for their liberal cause, has stated, and was approved on both Fr. Rostand’s and Fr. Couture’s District website, that Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration is:

“At most one may say that this text is weak and contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph) in an effort to find a doctrinal declaration acceptable to the present members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

And,
“You may say that he [Bishop Fellay] had some imprudent and weak words…”

Well Bishop Fellay, these are the words from one of your own, working on the inside to promote your liberal agenda.  So, who again is causing the “discord and destabilization”?  Being “sneaky and lying’?  Sowing an “enterprise of subversion?

As Graham (here on CI) had pointed out on another post:

“If it were true that we have no knowledge of his [Bishop Fellay’s] intentions, or that we must assume his intentions were good (that is, conformed to Catholic Truth and the spiritual legacy of Abp. Lefebvre), then the fact that he was capable of submitting a thoroughly ambiguous and erroneous doctrinal declaration to Rome as the basis of negotiation would be proof that his leadership is totally inept, providing grounds for his reproval and replacement.

However, it is not true that Bp. Fellay is inept, because on the matter of his intentions, what he wrote to BXVI shortly after June 13 2012 is conclusive:

Bp. Fellay said:

Quote

I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform, much as the Council of Florence had passed over in silence the question concerning divorce on account of adultery among the Greeks, so as to effect a union. With such a view in mind I committed myself, despite rather strong opposition within the ranks of the Society, and at the expense of significant troubles. And I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications.

He intended the ambiguities and additional concessions as a means to achieve a practical agreement with the Conciliar Church.”

So what remains Bishop Fallay, is that you really should resign, like Bishop Williamson has said!

Further, when you speak of: “In order to restore this unity, Charity and Prudence also come in…”, this word “prudence” you are using is already redefined and tainted by Fr. Rostand and Fr. Themann when they use it as a flagship word to be “prudent” to  purposely go under the authority of the conciliar bishops; sorry, that is not “prudent” at all; it is rather, STUPID!

Lastly, you say:
“In order to remain grounded in the facts, the present issue of Cor Unum publishes docuмents which came in the wake of the Roman proposal of September 2011 and the responses which they received. Concerning the text of the Doctrinal Declaration which caused so much turbulence of soul last year, I refer you to the introductory text which I drafted, so that you can put it in context.”

I also find this quite interesting.  You are “wordy” to us that you [now] do not like Vatican II, when before 95% of it was good when you conversed with the modernists in their camp; yet, you very much act like them by needing a “commentary” of what you really meant to say, as you did in another Cor Unum.  In other words, in your hanging out with the modernists, you forgot how to say “SiSi-NoNo”; you made your “Doctrinal Declaration” purposely ambiguous, and you do not wish to take responsibility for the turmoil and division you have caused?  

Shame on you…you need to resign for the common good and the restoration of unity within the SSPX.

Bishop Fellay is completely right about the growing division, mutual suspicion, and resistance within the ranks of the SSPX. This is all the more reason why he should do the right thing, for a change, and resign immediately!

Another "Star" appearance at the '13 Angelus Press conference in KC simply ain't gonna cut it. The man is knee-deep in SERIOUS denial over his duplicitous handling of our relations with modernist/masonic Rome.

How different might have been our response had he owned up to it and did the right thing! But instead, what does he do?

He's right back to the more-of-the-same, "poor me, blame the resistance" binge and predictably points the finger at Bishop Williamson again, his convenient "punching bag." Wasn't it enough to exclude Bishop Williamson from the 2012 General Chapter and then later expel him from the Society?

So much for "great unity" within the Society. Why the panic and the paranoia, then?
 

Another banner post by the 'infamous subversionist', Skunkwurxsspx!  

Good job!

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Bishop Fellay is completely right about the growing division, mutual suspicion, and resistance within the ranks of the SSPX. This is all the more reason why he should do the right thing, for a change, and resign immediately!

Another "Star" appearance at the '13 Angelus Press conference in KC simply ain't gonna cut it.

The man is  knee-deep    [up to his ears!!] in SERIOUS denial over his duplicitous handling of our relations with modernist/masonic Rome.

How different might have been our response had he owned up to it and did the right thing! But instead, what does he do?*

He's right back to the more-of-the-same, "poor me, blame the resistance" binge and predictably points the finger at Bishop Williamson again, his convenient "punching bag."

Wasn't it enough to exclude Bishop Williamson from the 2012 General Chapter and then later expel him from the Society?*

So much for "great unity" within the Society. Why the panic and the paranoia, then?*

 

*Something tells me that only three questions is barely scratching the surface!

Why, you're not so bad yourself, Neil Obstat! Great job on the feedback!  :cheers:

FTCOOR*

Here's a duplicate of the OP with a little exercise at the end that probably
nobody will enjoy because it's too much like work......  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA



*For The Convenience Of Our Readers





    Latest News
    About Us / Sign in
    Contact Us
    Recent Articles
    Reference Materials
    London Conference





Dear Members of the of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X,

An important event for the Church has just taken place, a surprising event, and a rare one, but one from which we can guess that there will be heavy consequences: the resignation of a Sovereign Pontiff. Without dwelling on the motives for Benedict XVI’s renunciation, and considering that the reasons of health which were given (loss of energy needed to ensure the good exercising of his office) are more than enough to explain what has happened, we would like briefly to reflect on the possible consequences of this act for our Society. Because with a resignation there is a corresponding election of a successor, which is what subsequently took place with Pope Francis.

This election really seems even more surprising than the resignation which preceded it. What will the new successor of Peter have in store for us? He is manifestly well outside of the norm, he wants to be so original that we must conserve the utmost prudence before passing judgement, and that as long as we haven’t yet seen his works.  Nevertheless, a number of elements push us towards a certain pessimism, the joy of the progressives and modernists serving amply to nourish our disquiet. It seems that the concerns of Benedict XVI in favour of a certain restoration, at least a liturgical one, are going to be put to one side, and that there will be another emphasis put in place in the Church. The word already heard several times in the mouth of moderns is that “the little aside is over”.
Will Pope Francis restore the Church, fighting effectively against moral corruption or make it go even further in pursuing the application of the reforms of Vatican II? These two theories are certainly not exclusive of one another. In any case, the future will soon tell us. For that we only have to wait to know the names of the people who will be appointed to posts in the Curia. If the progressives appear already to have chanted the Requiem for the Old Liturgy, how will it be with the integral preaching of the Faith, with the development of ecuмenism? Will there be an effective reform of the Curia? Videbimus.

***

For us, a new Pontificate ought to be an opportunity on the one hand to redouble our prayers, and on the other hand also, to close up our ranks. For long months now, since June 2012 to be precise, our relations with Rome have been frozen again. In effect, we can only refuse to advance on the basis of a text which promotes the hermeneutic of continuity and wanting to lead us back into Vatican II: the Doctrinal Preamble of September 2011, which we had repulsed firmly, but which reappeared in June 2012. And, obviously, it is even more out of the question to go adventuring towards canonical normalisation for as long as the doctrinal question has not been settled in the sense of the conditions laid down by the last General Chapter. There are some, on the other hand, who wish to spread the opposite message to this, claiming that Menzingen wishes an agreement with Modernist Rome at any price, as they put it. We would like to reassure anyone who has allowed doubt to enter their heart: it is absolutely out of the question.

We also believe we must draw your attention to manoeuvres aimed at destabilising, which are done as much from the outside by Mgr. Williamson and the priests who are with him, as on the inside by those who, following the advice of Mgr. Williamson, wish to found a kind of “guerrilla resistance”, or priests engaged, under cover of anonymity, in a real work of undermining under the pretext of preserving fidelity to Mgr. Lefebvre and saving the Society from a so-called suicidal agreement with the conciliar Church. Behind this wall of smoke, it has been established that the goal being pursued is the resignation of the Superior General, and they think that any means is justified in pursuing this end. Never mind the declarations, the sermons and the conferences which affirm the contrary, we’re going to look with a magnifying glass anything which we can misunderstand, in order, in an incredible process of intention, to discredit authority and make it seem lying or sneaky. It’s a real enterprise of subversion, which sows mistrust among priests and laity, and destabilises the government of our society with a view to weakening it or killing it.

Unity is obviously made primarily around the Catholic Faith, which we wish to defend and conserve. But this combat of our times must not make us forget that the link of unity is not limited to Faith alone. Justice and charity complete it. Justice demands that we respect the truth on any subject, that we reject prejudices, condemnations all made without knowing the facts, that we don’t arrogate to ourselves the powers of a judge which we don’t have. It demands respect for the established order which cannot be got rid of barring a serious necessity such as that which is strikingly evident in the Church today.

In order to restore this unity, Charity and Prudence also come in: everyone should have sufficient common sense and balance so as to not suddenly see in his brother an enemy or a traitor. And yet that is what discord produces. Let us not leave any pace in our hearts for these sirens which seek to falsely panic our little world of Tradition through a wicked dialectic. Let us not leave any place in our heart for mutual mistrust which will act like a gangrene and uselessly divide.

No Society can survive for very long without a minimum union of hearts and minds. That’s why organising a situation of constant opposition to superiors is undesirable, for it poisons the atmosphere for everyone and finally destroys the necessary and normal relations between members and their hierarchy. Moreover, that is not new. Since the start of the Society, Mgr. Lefebvre had to intervene because of apparent dialectics which brought division and sterility.

In order to remain grounded in the facts, the present issue of Cor Unum publishes docuмents which came in the wake of the Roman proposal of September 2011 and the responses which they received. Concerning the text of the Doctrinal Declaration which caused so much turbulence of soul last year, I refer you to the introductory text which I drafted, so that you can put it in context.

***

For the present, let’s look to the future, our souls serene ounce again. Providence is good, Providence which has permitted us to consecrate our Society to St. Joseph precisely at the moment when the new Pope inaugurated his Pontificate. Even if a yet more troubled period for the Church is beginning, we have a very great confidence in St. Joseph which the last General Chapter wished to associate Our Lady, with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that we can benefit from an even greater protection! Let us live this consecration well, let us love to intensify our affection, our love for those whom Our Lord has associated most intimately with His work of Redemption and thus also our salvation. May they deign to guide us, protect us, and bless us in the pursuit of our goal, so sublime, of saving souls, through a priesthood which is ever-renewed and sanctified on the altar of the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

May the mysteries which we live in this Holy Week, and in these times in the history of the Church, help us and purify us ever more, and that at this moment when we commemorate the departure into eternity of our venerable founder. Deign Mgr. Lefebvre to watch over us all. By the time you read these lines, Pascal time will have spread its joy, a joy which is not of this world, and that nothing can take away from us. In the face of fear or despair which lives in so many souls, which paralyses them or embitters them, let us be magnanimous towards these souls, simple or great, conquerors of this world through a conquering faith and an authentic missionary charity.

Dear members of the Society, I bless each of you through the intercession of Our Lady of the Annunciation and of St. Joseph her chaste spouse, and I pray to the good Lord that He bless all your works and to reward all the penances you do to make His Holy Name triumph.


Menzingen, 25th March, 2013
+Bernard Fellay

Support Our Apostolate!

Help us to expose the subversion within the SSPX! Please consider making a small paypal donation to The Recusant.


"Viva Cristo Rey!"






Now for the hard part...............






Vocabulary Fellay

Below, find words and phrases taken from the above Cor Unum Letter.
These are the noteworthy phrases I have selected out based on their
particular appeal.  The purpose of this exercise is to see for yourself
whether the objective words here taken in their literal connotation
would be precisely what you might judge them to be by their ostensible
connotation in the docuмent above from whence they came.  Some
are, but some are not..

..some phrases have ambiguous meaning, or are used in such a way as
to imply something other than what they literally would seem to mean,
even so far as to imply an opposite meaning, or describe a reality that
is different to or even the opposite of the objective reality at hand..

..in the latter application, words may more aptly describe the
Menzingen-denizens and what they do, than they describe to whom the
author would have you apply them, IOW, he might be inadvertently
describing himself with these accusations against others, including the
Resistance..

..notice fragments without object, odd combinations of words going
nowhere, meaning ostensibly evoked that could be any one of a
number of very different things..

..and last but certainly not least, the insinuation that this very exercise
is the abominable act of "going to look with a magnifying glass [at]
anything which we can misunderstand, in order, in an incredible process
of intention, to discredit authority and make it seem lying or sneaky.
It’s a real enterprise of subversion, which sows mistrust among priests
and laity, and destabilises the government of our society with a view to
weakening it or killing it."  -- therefore, an academic exercise turns one
apparently, into a murderer, you know, like an abortionist.  

You know, an abortionist, like Kermit Gosnell.

Has +Fellay ever said that abortion is murder?  Forgive me, for I don't
want to put words into his mouth, like, “The word already heard several
times in the mouth of moderns is that 'the little aside is over'.”


I made another list for Issue 7 of The Recusant, From The Desk article,
and looking at these two lists, I must say, the majority of these phrases
can most easily be seen to belong to one source or the other, and I don't
think it takes a starving linguist major to know the difference.



heavy consequences
even more surprising
manifestly well outside of the norm
conserve the utmost prudence before passing judgement
we haven’t yet seen his works
a number of elements push us towards a certain pessimism
joy of the progressives and modernists
amply to nourish our disquiet
a certain restoration
put to one side
another emphasis put in place
mouth of moderns
“the little aside is over”
fighting effectively against moral corruption
reforms of Vatican II
two theories are certainly not exclusive of one another [<-- hermeneutic of c.?]
chanted the Requiem for the Old Liturgy
integral preaching of the Faith
development of ecuмenism
an effective reform of the Curia
close up our ranks
relations with Rome have been frozen
only refuse to advance
text which promotes the hermeneutic of continuity
we had repulsed firmly
even more out of the question
adventuring towards canonical normalisation
settled in the sense of the conditions laid down by the last General Chapter
has allowed doubt to enter their heart
absolutely out of the question
draw your attention to manoeuvres aimed at destabilising
found a kind of “guerrilla resistance”
real work of undermining
pretext of preserving fidelity to Mgr. Lefebvre
so-called suicidal agreement with the conciliar Church
wall of smoke
any means is justified in pursuing this end  [<<-- i.e., the end justifies the means]
declarations, sermons, conferences which affirm the contrary
look with a magnifying glass anything which we can misunderstand
incredible process of intention
discredit authority and make it seem lying or sneaky
real enterprise of subversion
sows mistrust among priests and laity
destabilises the government of our society
a view to weakening it or killing it
we wish to defend and conserve
this combat of our times
limited to Faith alone
Justice and charity complete
truth on any subject
reject prejudices
condemnations all made without knowing the facts
arrogate to ourselves the powers of a judge
demands respect for the established order
barring a serious necessity
strikingly evident in the Church today
to restore this unity
Charity and Prudence also come in  [<<<--- why?  because he says they do.]
sufficient common sense and balance
suddenly see in his brother an enemy or a traitor
what discord produces
leave any pace [sic] in our hearts for these sirens  [<<--- should say "place" --

no?]
seek to falsely panic our little world of Tradition
through a wicked dialectic  [<<----- in Boston MA, that's a COMPLIMENT]
place in our heart for mutual mistrust
act like a gangrene and uselessly divide
a minimum union of hearts and minds
organising a situation
constant opposition to superiors [<<--- E.g., opposition to ABL & quod et

acceperunt?]
poisons the atmosphere for everyone
finally destroys
necessary and normal
relations between members and their hierarchy
that is not new
apparent dialectics
brought division and sterility
remain grounded in the facts
in the wake of the Roman proposal of September 2011
responses which they received  [<<-- responses from whom, regarding what?]
Doctrinal Declaration which caused so much turbulence of soul last year
introductory text which I drafted
you can put it in context.
For the present, let’s look to the future
souls serene ounce again
yet more troubled period for the Church
St. Joseph which the last General Chapter wished to associate Our Lady
love to intensify our affection


In the face of fear or despair which lives in so many souls, which paralyses them

or embitters them, let us be magnanimous towards these souls, simple or great,

conquerors of this world through a conquering faith and an authentic missionary

charity. [<<--- and how do we show our magnanimity? -- by expelling them! --
by cutting off their extern!  -- by calumny and backbiting! -- by monitoring
e-mail and postal correspondence and telephone! -- by ridicule and mockery,
you know, like Galileo Galilei -- who was not a Galilean BTW! ]









You know, with all his mega millions of Euros, you'd think he could bother
to hire an English consultant --- you know, a starving English major at a
small town university, to proof his Cor Unum before he dumps it in the
e-mail-box?  

Answer:  He is too proud to accept any criticism because he really believes
he has the 'authority' to re-define the English language to conform to his
own subjective reality.  He has not got a clue what the English language is
to a native speaker, and he has absolutely no interest in finding out.  For
him, his garbled melange of gibberish is 'charming' and it's what makes his
audience (mostly liberals) sit up and pay attention.  It's a kind of ecuмenical
cultural thing, whereby they swoon over the wild singularity of this new
way of speaking, this Swiss-German-French tangle that gets words out of
place and leaves dangling parts of speech littered around like confetti  
on the floor the morning of the Feast of the Circuмcision.

Answer: He knows that by having to answer the questions that any
competent linguist would ask with the objective of making his words
more clear, understandable and coherent, and less ambiguous, vague
and nebulous, would make him angry at the linguist!!  And then someone
might discover the truth about what's going on in his subjective reality.
He prefers to have no challenge to his little dream world of his own making.






“Providence is good, Providence which

has permitted us to consecrate our

Society to St. Joseph precisely at the

moment when the new Pope inaugurated

his Pontificate.”

TheRecusant,

Do you have the introductory text that Bishop Fellay mentions that supposedly places his Doctrinal Declaration within its proper context?

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

TheRecusant,

Do you have the introductory text that Bishop Fellay mentions that supposedly places his Doctrinal Declaration within its proper context?

Yes. Apologies for the delay: we're all rather busy at present preparing for a conference. It will be on our website soon. Whether it's worth reading is another question...

OK, here it is:
http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-note-cor-unum-mar2013

Bp. Fellay reminds me of those people in the Conciliar Church who, instead of doing the honorable thing and leaving their organization, push their agenda against the wishes of the vast majority of said organization. It would be better for them, as for Bp. Fellay, to simply leave and start his own organization. (Sorry for the wordiness. I hope what I typed conveys what I'm trying to say.)