Author Topic: Bishop Fellay did sign a Doctrinal deal with Rome. (Read 3365 times)

Machabees · « **on:** June 14, 2013, 10:29:40 PM »

It just came out that Bishop Fellay already had signed a Doctrinal Deal BEFORE his desired practical deal.

That is quite a statement.

Fr. Chazal and Bishop Williamson stated on June 5, 2013, within a conference they had in Singapore, that in plain sight, Bishop Fellay’s 2012 Doctrinal Declaration that was leaked in 2013 was in fact THE Doctrinal deal with conciliar Rome.

As we have been saying much about the contents of Bishop Fellay’s treasonous 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, that to look at it -IN PLAIN SIGHT- that this was the “unspoken” deal at the end of the SSPX–Rome talks of 2009-2011, it is was THE MAIN kahuna is another big story.

(@46:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t61fZ9QBCyE&feature=youtu.be )

Fr. Chazal: “We have been fighting teeth and nail against a practical deal, and to our great surprise, we wake up in 2013 with the evidence that the Doctrinal deal happened before the practical deal.”

Bishop Williamson: “Bishop Fellay has already given away on Doctrine. I think that is true. It is clear in the Doctrinal Declaration. He gives away on the Council; on the Mass; on Canon Law; profession of Faith; Lumen Gentium 25; Sacraments. It is just not good. It is just not good.”

The “jackaling” of Bishop Fellay of bouncing back and forth to serve “two masters” over the last year: one of conciliar Rome and the other to appease Tradition, becomes another deep diving event of waking up to the realities that we have been deceived again.

Time bombs planted in Vatican II; time bombs planted in Bishop Fellay’s Docuмents.

In Bishop Fellay’s secrecy, as Fr. Chazal has said, “The course of the ship has been set on a different angle and that set up has not been modified [since then]. The Doctrinal set up [of the SSPX] has been changed.”

Whether Bishop Fellay’s April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was signed by Rome or not, is not the point. Bishop Fellay, and his other leaders, had consented to conciliar Rome’s Doctrinal talks of 2009-2011 with a following Doctrinal Declaration on April 15, 2012, ACKNOWLEDGING, from the exchange of those talks, that Vatican II’s docuмents can be interpreted “in the light of Tradition”, the concession to the “Legitimacy” of Paul VI Novus Ordo mass, acceptance of Canon Law, acceptance of Vatican II’s profession of faith, etc. all of this is in the hoped for conclusion of Bishop Fellay; who had stated on many occasions in 2012, including in Feb. 2013 when Benedict XVI was “resigning” from being a Pope, Bishop Fellay hoped for him to sign a deal before he left the Chair.

Bishop Fellay’s (Menzingen’s), April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was the concluded Declaration of the SSPX of those 2009-2011 exchanges to be signed by both parties for an official DOCTRINAL deal; then immediately to follow, to jump on the hoped for practical deal in order to be “regularized” in the “conciliar” church.

We have been slighted and duped again.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2013, 02:52:45 AM »

.

This is a really good extemporaneous conference talk. I wish they could
have covered up the picture of that squatting woman behind his head.
That's going to be there as a permanent fixture of this video. I'm a bit
surprised that would be on the door in a room where they have an altar
set up. And what's with the stupid phone ringing? Are these people idiots?

When the bishop comes to speak YOU UNPLUG THE DAMNED PHONE.

They're saying that +Fellay already had made doctrinal concessions before
he signed his AFD last year. The AFD itself contains the summary of those
concessions, which Fr. Chazal and +W surmise had been previously worked
out, at least verbally (they don't rule out written, though) with modernist
Rome.

They make the outspoken accusation, that +F is a politician, one who is
a "pathological liar" (22:22), and yet he's the head of a Catholic Society of
truth -- how can this be?

You can't believe anything he says, because he only says things that he
knows that his present audience wants to hear. If you ask him to give a
talk, he wants to know who is going to hear it so he can parse his words
for their ears, and not say to them what he would say to someone else.

Lots of great stuff in this extemporaneous conference, and it's not very long.
One hour. Time well spent.

Regarding this principle of knowing his audience, or being too concerned
with what someone else might think of what you're doing, I know a trad
priest who met +Fellay at a public gathering and had the chance to speak
with him for a moment. He says the whole time, +F was looking around
the room, as if he were much more interested in who was watching him
speak to this priest, than he was in the content of the conversation itself.
The priest had the most telling impression that he could only have a small
portion of +F's attention, because most of his attention was elsewhere, on
more 'important' things.

In my mind, this is an earmark of a Liberal, who thinks of a conversation
as useful for what he can do with it, and to the extent that he cannot
control every aspect of it, is much less interested. +F gives the impression
that he's giving his full attention when he's speaking at the podium, but
that is just an act, because then he has the control of the conversation,
and he's the only one talking. As soon as you have questions coming
from the crowd, he gets worried, and gropes for control again. If you
put him in a round-table discussion, he is like a fish out of water unless
he has control of the whole group. There is no give and take with him.
It is all control -- either he has it, or he is not happy.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2013, 08:11:54 AM »

Quote

that we have been deceived again.

Let us all take heed lest it happen again.

PatrickG · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2013, 11:48:17 AM »

It's grim news, yes, but on the battlements we have to get ourselves accustomed to it. I'm hardly surprised only strengthened and realise much more what a coward I was until very recently about the Society- Bp. Fellay says one thing and means another, he's (with all his gang) a sort of clerical Janus, as his underhand dealings with GREC and Rome show.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2013, 11:54:30 AM »

If you'll excuse my optimism, I'm forced to conclude that "it could have been worse" without God's intervention/protection. Especially considering the magnitude of the willingness to betray and change the SSPX.

What if Pope Benedict XVI had signed the deal before he resigned?

I don't know what people WANTED to have happen instead of what happened today -- but keep in mind FREE WILL. The individual SSPX Catholics (who want a deal) can't have their Free Will violated, nor can Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Krah -- the list goes on.

Remember, Vatican II was the same way. It wasn't just a corruption at the top -- it was a corruption ALL OVER, including and especially the laymen at the bottom. Vatican II is what people wanted all along. They wanted more and more to be accepted by the modern world.

Sounds like the SSPX circa 2011. You can't have more and more worldliness, compromise, and dissonance in the lives of countless SSPX Catholics and still have the SSPX cruise along for decades on end with no problems.