Cassini's Conversation with Bishop Fellay
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12326
Cassini posted:
"It is with great reluctance that I enter where angels fear to tread. I cannot think of any subject matter more likely to lose friends than this one. Already in my tiny chapel life-long friends are divided and a feather could tilt the balance. If ever the devil had found a way to divide and conquer this is the most unbelievable example. The reason being that one should not offer opinions based on second, third and fifty-hand information. Now while these opinions may be correct based on the information given, what if the information given was inaccurate or taken out of context by the sheer disbelief at the thought of the SSPX 'modernising.'
Uh... Cassini, that should say "fiftieth-hand" not fifty-hand, for nobody has
fifty hands. But it's stupid. It ruins your credibility, because third hand is
about as extreme as reasonable. The Internet doesn't have to rely on
multiple sources or a chain like the "grapevine" of old. One person hears,
posts it online or maybe tells someone else who posts it online, in which
case it's first or second hand. It's a FAR STRETCH for Internet information
to be third or more hands removed from eyewitness. So "fiftieth" is stupid,
but "fifty" is stupid AND ungrammatical.
Now, I have to ask: what in the world makes Cassini think that "angels
fear to tread" here? This is simply nonsense.
Now the ambiguity begins at the opening gate: the information given - given
by whom? -- was inaccurate or taken out of context - who would have taken it
out of context? -- the sheer disbelief at the thought of the SSPX 'modernising'
-- who is it that harbors this fabled "sheer disbelief?"
Today however, I can speak on the matter and I will. The reason why I can is because yesterday I was with a small group of SSPXers in a room for three hours with Bishop Fellay. I am not breaking any confidence because one man was openly recording the talk but ran out of space with an hour to go. The group was asked if they had any questions which were recorded and given to the bishop to answer after his talk. Needless to say the talk was about the crisis that has befallen the SSPX based on the possible reconciliation with Rome, as the papers put it.
How did Cassini catch wind of this conference? Was he invited?
I could guess who would NOT have been invited -- we all know. But the
point is, was the conference announced or did it just suddenly happen
spontaneously? (E.g., the latter is impossible. And the former is unlikely.)
So someone has a recording of the first two hours but no one has a recording
of the final hour. Let me guess where all the interesting content was... Naah.
So, needless to say, when "the papers put it" that the crisis befallen the
SSPX is due to the PUSH for regularization, normalization, accommodation,
subjugation, tyrannical overlordship, whatever you may wish to call it, with
modernist Rome, it is some kind of fantasy. It's something that SHALL NOT
STAND! And now is +Fellay's opportunity to make it fall based on a tight-
knit bunch of groupies in a small room, unannounced to the Faithful at large.
What you are about to read is a summary of an account that contained names, positions, dates etc that I could not be expected to remember.
BTW now we know why NWansbutter made no report, or why he was not
present, or why he was not invited, or why he was refused entry, or why
he was not notifed: Because NWansbutter would have remembered, even
without a recording device! He has a mind like a steel trap. Bishop
Fellay FEARS men like him, for that reason.
The 'problem' arose from the fact that Rome sent Bishop Fellay, as elected head of the SSPX, an offer of reconciliation. As was his duty, Bishop Fellay's SSPX had to reply asking what Rome had in mind. Now note the SSPX were not the ones knocking on Rome's doors looking to get back in an a compromise, but Rome instigating a reconciliation.
Now, tell me please, how could Rome sending an offer of reconciliation
be the fact from which arose the 'problem'? Did anyone ask that? I suspect
not. And that would be the point where +Fellay would have known who it
is in the room who would be thenceforth suspect. That would have been a
question that he would not want to answer because any answer to that
would open up other questions that he does not want to answer. And there
are a LOT of questions he does not want to answer!
The part about "note that the SSPX were [how many are there, two, three
or fifty of SSPXs?] not the ones knocking on Rome's doors..." -so this is how
+Fellay plans to put the BLAME on SOMEONE ELSE, because if he is
absolutely consistent in ANYTHING, it's in how he NEVER, NEVER, NEVER
accepts specific blame for anything, and he might even answer the question
honestly that he can't wait for the day when he can omit "mea culpa" thrice
repeated from his Confiteor, as they have in the NovusOrdo for 40 years
as the Church wandered in the desert of no doctrine.
There began an exchange of docuмents and statements that amounted to the following conditions held by the SSPX. The SSPX cannot, would not agree to anything that Archbishop Lefevbre had founded the Society of priests on. The following in particular: no recognition of Vatican II as an infallible council. The SSPX would acknowledge those parts that were traditional in the council, would accept wording that had a traditional interpretation, and finally, would never accept the parts like ecuмenism and religious liberty as presented in the Docuмents.
Someone has been reading too much Dr. Seuss. "They cannot, would not..."
But seriously, "the SSPX cannot, would not agree to anything that Archbishop
Lefevbre had founded the Society of priests on?" Really?
The SSPX cannot, would not agree to anything that Archbishop Lefevbre had founded the Society of priests on.Yep. That's what it says. Any examples in particular?? Oh, look!
"The following in particular: no recognition of Vatican II as an infallible council. The SSPX would acknowledge those parts that were traditional in the council, would accept wording that had a traditional interpretation, and finally, would never accept the parts like ecuмenism and religious liberty as presented in the Docuмents."Let's take these one at a time:
1)
..no recognition of Vatican II as an infallible council.. -- so, the SSPX
cannot, would not agree to this thing on which ABL had founded the Society
of priests. At least +Fellay is honest enough to admit it. Things are looking up!
2)
..The SSPX would acknowledge those parts that were traditional in the
council, would accept wording that had a traditional interpretation.. -- okay,
so where ABL said you don't dare go into error even a tiny bit, here the
Society that he founded is willing to go into error whole-hog, presuming it
will be able to avoid the poisonous barbs of perdition. I see.
3)
And finally, would never accept the parts like ecuмenism and religious
liberty as presented in the Docuмents. But according to +Fellay that we
all know and love, the religious liberty as presented in the "Docuмents" is
"very, very limited - very limited!" Does that sound like he would "never
accept it as presented in the 'Docuмents'?" Does he sound here like he
thinks that the problem is not from the Docuмents of Vat.II but from the
common interpretation of the docuмents, like he did a year ago on the CNS
interview?
Do you see why he didn't want NWansbutter to attend? Or John Grace?
There was a
steel trap ban at this thing.
On the Mass, Bishop Fellay said that the Society would continue to accept its validity, but that it was EVIL.
Uuuhh... missing question here!!
IF IT WAS 'EVIL' YOUR LORDSHIP, WHY DID YOU NOT SAY THAT IN YOUR
AFD???Why are you not telling Rome that it is "EVIL?" Why did you specifically
and deliberately say NOTHING against the abomination of Assisi III?
Why do you persist in HIDING from these questions?????????
Okay, make that
four missing questions. Now criterion become
criteria. When questioned on this by different Cardinals, Bishop Fellay said it was based on the following criterion:
It was valid in the same way as a BLACK Mass is Valid, that is, the sacrifice is made and the host consecrated. It was EVIL in a strict sense. Evil means lacking good, completely or in part. The 'not good' parts are the loss or rubrics and prayers from the Tridentine Mass. [Rubrics] for example, were not developed for nothing, every move and garment had a purpose for good. For example, the priest after touching the host clasped both [thumb] and first index finger to prevent any crumb of the sacred host from falling to the ground. Another was the genuflections, gestures of adoration, etc etc. These 'goods' were removed from the Mass thus making the [No.Ord.] EVIL.
Please inform me: Why is it that the only time we hear of these kinds
of things uttered by +Fellay is when he's in a small room with few people
in it? Why do we NEVER, NEVER, NEVER hear him from the housetops as
the Scripture has it? Was their technology better in those days of vellum
and feather quills? Or WHAT???
Why is it we hear of how courageous he was announcing Novordien error
to the Cardinals after the fact, and when there are no witnesses present?
Why is B. Fellay always the hero when he's blowing his own horn, and
we never get the same impression of his performance from those who
were actually there at the events he describes his heroism occurred?
As one could imagine, the two sides were at odds. But then things got very complicated and confusing. Bishop Fellay, the SSPX, began to get messages claiming to speak for Pope Benedict. It reached a stage where Bishop Fellay was offered the following agreement by WORD OF MOUTH. Ok, we will allow you to retain your stand on Vatican II, you can retain your view on the NO mass, you will be granted more freedom for your churches and freedom to expand.
Maybe they were complicated and confused for someone like +Fellay who
is bent on misrepresenting how bad his performance was. That much is
believable. So he was willing to take stock of WORD OF MOUTH offerings?
And then we're supposed to be sympathetic when he says that these
untrustworthy snakes and scorpions TRICKED HIM? It certainly looks like
he was ASKING TO BE TRICKED, right here, by not insisting on any offers
to be IN WRITING.
In the meanwhile the German Bishops, who HATE the Society, began their trouble-making. Bishop Fellay, who has personal contacts in Rome was told that the curia were ignoring the wishes of the Pope in this matter. He gave one example of an order by the pope allowing a monk set up a chapel with Latin Mass. Six months later the monk asked for a reply to his request. The pope said he granted it six months ago. It seems the Cardinal simply put the concession in a drawer and left it there.
We are hearing the litany of the same-old, same-old, the excuses-that-
have-always-worked-in-the-past. Nothing new. Someone should show him
a list of previous performances. Maybe he doesn't know how often he
repeats himself,
ad nauseam. Throughout, Bishop Fellay said it required the upmost [utmost?] [confidentiality] in these negotiations mainly because he did not know who was in charge of Rome.
Oh, I can answer that: The Yids are in charge.
His hopes were [kept] alive by the Pope's verbal wishes and promises, and then squashed by the curia. It went from one to the other.
IOW, he's willing to admit he fell for the
good-cop/bad-cop routine. Maybe he still doesn't know what that is????
Meanwhile the rumours went flying about. True, to some people it looked like Bishop Fellay was negotiating concessions month after month, but the fact was that he did not want to end negotiations while the Pope was on the verge of granting what the Society wanted, everything Archbishop Lefevbre stood for. But there was nothing Bishop Fellay could do about it. He was caught in a dilemma. Arguments resulted and each side acted as they thought was in the interest of tradition and the SSPX.
So everyone is innocent. There was no bad intentions. The Pope was on
the verge -- does he have that in writing? Of course not! Can he offer any
witness? Of course not! Message = "I have the grace of state! I have
prudence! Trust me! Be obedient! Pray, pay and obey."
Within weeks however, IN WRITING Rome, that is the congregation dealing with the SSPX gave an absolute NO to the SSPX's demands.
Finally, something in writing! Was it docuмentation of the Pope being on
the verge of giving the SSPX everything it wants? NO. Was it a verification
of the "Ok, we will allow you to retain your stand on Vatican II, you can
retain your view on the [Nov.Ord.] mass, you will be granted more
freedom for your churches and freedom to expand?" NO!
And why not? Because those things were just lies, and they didn't mean it,
and they can't be verified, so maybe they never happened -- hey, here we
are, hearing +Fellay treat us the same way he was treated -- he was lied to
and cheated, so he's lying to us and cheating us.
Are we surprised? We shouldn't be!
Just like in a restaurant where the service is lousy, and in a store where
the clerks treat customers like DIRT, it is ALWAYS because the management
treats their employees like DIRT and that's where they learn it. It's the
real world.
Bishop Fellay did not know who to believe. One thought Rome was led by the pope as boss, but it seems there was a two-powered Rome throughout the invitation to the SSPX. They demanded the SSPX accept the deal THEY offered, No criticism of infallible Vatican II, no criticism of NO etc., or face EXCOMMUNICATION again. Bishop Fellay told them go ahead excommunicate them again, for as far as the world was informed by the Catholic press and Cardinals they were ALREADY seen as excommunicated.
And we're supposed to believe this? Can you imagine +Fellay telling Rome
"Go ahead and excommunicate us again?" What kind of FOOLS does he
take us for, anyway? He can't even tell Rome that Assisi III was a bad idea.
And that is a third party topic! How could he have been so outspoken about
his own Society being excommunicated "again" -- oh, and that's a lie, too,
because there never was any excommunication. It was a hoax. It was not
according to Canon law, and it had no basis, so it was INVALID. Why didn't
he bring that up?
Because he is NOT THE HERO that he says he is. HE is a COWARD, that's why.
Then the Pope resigned. Bishop Fellay sent back the demands of Curia Rome saying NO WAY. But said Bishop Fellay, every time I sent back a NO WAY to Rome, they replied by asking again for the SSPX to comply. After Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the NO WAY written answer from the SSPX was responded to in this way, 'let us wait and see what the new pope might say about the situation. That way ROME is keeping the confrontation alive.
But the 'deal' is off the table, eh? That's what he has been telling us. The
'deal' is off the table. Quote/unquote. Now he says that Rome is keeping
the confrontation alive. So, the 'deal' is not off the table.
Remember what I said about management's attitude toward the employees?
The attitude starts at the top. The Vatican treats +Fellay like no way, maybe,
no way, maybe, no way, maybe -- so that's how he treats the Faithful. First
it's no 'deal' then it's 'deal' back on the table, then it's 'deal' off the table,
now it's 'the confrontation is being kept alive' -- BY ROME, of course!
It's always someone else's fault!!
On the new Pope, Bishop Fellay said that he can only watch as things develop. He too is puzzled at the lack of respect for the office by the gestures of 'Bishop of Rome,' living in the hotel, etc. He also said in Argentina there was mixed signs. The new pope was hard on 'conservatives.' But when asked by the SSPX to co-operate in a political way to accommodate the SSPX visit Argentina to say mass etc, he did so willingly.
Sorry, something is lost in the translation.
This is unintelligible.
A questioner asked about Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay said that was a personal matter. He said it was heartbreaking to see the family broken up. It was obvious the break has saddened Bishop Fellay and it probably has with Bishop [W]illiamson. Finally Bishop Fellay said he is being quoted as saying many things he never said. There, he said, is the danger of the internet, now the world are told things that are not true.
So his poor heart was broken by committing the personal vendetta of
his wildest dreams and excluding +W illegally from the Chapter and then
following that up with an unjust, deliberate, egregious and spiteful
expulsion from the Society and it was done with deliberation, calculation,
informed consent and lying in wait, but now hes "sad?"
Give me a break.
So there you have it friends. I shall leave it at that and hope the Holy Ghost assists each one of you to find peace and hope in this candid talk. Be rest assured there will be NO DEAL with Modernism, no compromise, that you have the Bishop's word on, 'so help me God' as he said to us.
Revision:
Be rest-assured the 'deal' is off the table, but "ROME is keeping the
confrontation alive," IOW, the 'deal' is back on the table. Now, following
this pattern, "there will be NO DEAL with Modernism, no compromise, that
you have the Bishop's word on, 'so help me God' as he said to us," but the
next thing you know, the 'deal' with modernist Rome will be a DONE deal,
and then what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to listen to +Fellay cry about how "sad" it made him to
do that, like expelling +W made him "sad" when he planned it all along,
and he's planning the 'deal' with modernist Rome just in the same way.
Mark my words.
Topic: Bishop Fellay in Ireland (Read 5517 times)