Author Topic: Bishop Fellay on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Vatican (Read 3592 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** January 16, 2013, 05:12:40 PM »

It's interesting that accordistas tend to complain about Bishop Williamson talking about the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr in his talks and sermons, saying he should "stick to talking about the Faith". Yet, in this 1999 interview, Bishop Fellay shows that he believes in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr:

Quote from: Bishop Fellay

"It is not possible to demonstrate it directly, but I believe anyway that these actions, these behaviors, belong to a general plan, a plan which has been set up pretty soon, at least since the beginning of the twentieth century, perhaps even a little sooner, ziming to establish a world government with a world religion. And all that belongs to the preparation for this super-religion. In fact, it is utterly incompatible with the Catholic Religion and its Tradition.... On this point, one is obliged to discern the finger of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and its own work inside the Church. It is particularly significant to notice that in 1992 a Freemason of high rank could state that inside the very Vatican, four Lodges are presently working, practicing the Scottish Rite, and that these four Lodges are specially devoted to the Vatican's clerics of high ranks. Thus the secret Brethren are working... and destroying, not uniquely from outside, but also from inside the Church itself, from its very bosom."

Bishop Fellay made similar remarks in 2011.

So, he knows that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is in the Vatican, and he knows that the conciliar church is a pawn of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Yet he has expelled priests who are opposed to a "reconciliation" with it. The fact that Bishop Fellay knows this yet is trying to reach an agreement with them anyway is disgraceful.

Incredulous · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2013, 06:21:13 PM »

There was an SSPX Priest's Conference in Winona, in early Spring of 2009.

This is where Bp Fellay gave everyone their "talking points", to establish their public position on the "+Williamson αnтι-ѕємιтє campaign".

Oh, how horrible it was!
Msgr. Williamson was on the front page of every European newspaper after the tribe organized to smear him. Poor Msgr. Fellay... he was so persecuted.

This is when Msgr. Fellay came up with the SSPX PR schtik:
" The SSPX talks about nothing other than the Faith and morals"

There was more "holy" PR schtik: "The SSPX will convert Rome with the Faith",
His Excellency's analogy was that the SSPX was akin to David slinging the stone of the Faith at Goliath.

Of course, this was before anyone knew that Msgr. Fellay had already hired zionist Dr. Maxie, or accepted the Gutman/Rothchilds trust fund.

Of course Dr. Maxie and the 80million Euros puts the SSPX "Morals" in question ... don't they?

Bottom line, we were given the grace to see right through the fraud.

It proves either Msgr. Fellay and Dr. Maxie are PR amateurs and/or the Blessed Mother is looking after the SSPX-Resistance.

Catechist99 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2013, 08:00:08 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Of course, this was before anyone knew that Msgr. Fellay had already hired zionist Dr. Maxie, or accepted the Gutman/Rothchilds trust fund.

Francisco · « **Reply #3 on:** January 16, 2013, 09:46:25 PM »

Did Bishop Fellay say anything noteworthy about Assisi III? Has he said anything yet about the pending canonization of Paul VI? Archbishop Lefebvre was very critical of Paul VI. Fellay's friends and admirers keep telling us that the Resisters have jumped the gun when everything points to the opposite.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #4 on:** January 16, 2013, 09:49:52 PM »

Quote from: Francisco

Did Bishop Fellay say anything noteworthy about Assisi III? Has he said anything yet about the pending canonization of Paul VI? Archbishop Lefebvre was very critical of Paul VI. Fellay's friends and admirers keep telling us that the Resisters have jumped the gun when everything points to the opposite.

Bishop Fellay has not said anything about Paul VI's "beatification" that I know of, although the Society's website mentioned it in December, via the "Pastor's Corner":

http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_january_2013.htm#paul_vi

Nevertheless, the SSPX doesn't seem to be criticizing it near as much as they should. As for Assisi III, Bishop Fellay and the Society were pretty quiet about it.

It's said that Fr. Laisney can write an absurd "rebuttal" against Bishop Williamson but they can't criticize anything the Vatican does. It's actually quite pathetic.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2013, 10:05:36 PM »

Quote from: I

It's said that Fr. Laisney can write an absurd "rebuttal" against Bishop Williamson

LOL, sorry. This should say "It's sad....

Francisco · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2013, 04:15:44 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Francisco
Did Bishop Fellay say anything noteworthy about Assisi III? Has he said anything yet about the pending canonization of Paul VI? Archbishop Lefebvre was very critical of Paul VI. Fellay's friends and admirers keep telling us that the Resisters have jumped the gun when everything points to the opposite.

Bishop Fellay has not said anything about Paul VI's "beatification" that I know of, although the Society's website mentioned it in December, via the "Pastor's Corner":

http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_january_2013.htm#paul_vi

Nevertheless, the SSPX doesn't seem to be criticizing it near as much as they should. As for Assisi III, Bishop Fellay and the Society were pretty quiet about it.

It's said that Fr. Laisney can write an absurd "rebuttal" against Bishop Williamson but they can't criticize anything the Vatican does. It's actually quite pathetic.

The sspx.org is pretty mild. It concludes thus:

At least, in the old days, when the Church was not drunk with the aggiornamento ferment, the process of canonization rested mainly on the doctrinal orthodoxy of the candidate. Needless to say, someone who promoted the revolutionary changes of the conciliar Church would have had no chance of advancing under any of the pre-conciliar popes.

They seem to have lost it. And after the "Jєωs" remark of Fellay they will lie extremely low until at least the next round of talks.

trento · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2013, 04:17:45 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

As for Assisi III, Bishop Fellay and the Society were pretty quiet about it.

It's said that Fr. Laisney can write an absurd "rebuttal" against Bishop Williamson but they can't criticize anything the Vatican does. It's actually quite pathetic.

Sorry, but I think that is an exaggeration. I believe it has been discussed before and the proof shows otherwise:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/Philippines/OLVC_2012/Articles/Renewing_the_Assisi_Scandal.pdf

http://www.sspx.org/district_news/renewing_the_assisi_scandal_fr_cacqueray-9-13-2011.htm

Francisco · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2013, 04:18:45 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: I
It's said that Fr. Laisney can write an absurd "rebuttal" against Bishop Williamson

LOL, sorry. This should say "It's sad....

Yes it is sad. But aren't you surprised that this expert theologian is based in Singapore rather than in Menzingen?

Francisco · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2013, 05:42:45 AM »

Quote from: trento

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
As for Assisi III, Bishop Fellay and the Society were pretty quiet about it.

It's said that Fr. Laisney can write an absurd "rebuttal" against Bishop Williamson but they can't criticize anything the Vatican does. It's actually quite pathetic.

Sorry, but I think that is an exaggeration. I believe it has been discussed before and the proof shows otherwise:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/Philippines/OLVC_2012/Articles/Renewing_the_Assisi_Scandal.pdf

http://www.sspx.org/district_news/renewing_the_assisi_scandal_fr_cacqueray-9-13-2011.htm

You are right, Trento, that the SSPX in Asia and the USA (and perhaps elsewhere) published that strong article against Assisi III by the French District Superior. It was mentioned in both cases that Bp Fellay gave his permission to publish it, but in both cases, thanks were offered only to the French District. The preamble to the article is identical on both the websites.

In one of Fr Chazal's talks mentioned on this Forum, he claimed to have asked Bp Fellay, when in the Philippines, if he would issue a strong condemnation of Assisi III.
He said that Bp Fellay rebuffed him saying that such action would affect the talks with Rome.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2013, 09:12:27 AM »

Quote from: trento

. . .[/url]

http://www.sspx.org/district_news/renewing_the_assisi_scandal_fr_cacqueray-9-13-2011.htm

It's impossible to take Bishop Fellay seriously - you cannot be seeking an agreement and using conciliatory language towards Vatican II if one really regards Assisi as a terrible scandal that undermines the Church.

The problem with the SSPX is that laity regard it as a social network and the teachings of the Archbishop, that is to say, the teachings of Catholic Tradition in opposition to the world and the conciliar church that serves the world, are falling by the wayside.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2013, 10:14:42 AM »

Two links against Assisi III aren't enough, not for a disaster like that. Even Fr. Ringrose noted in his letter to Fr. Rostand that the Society didn't criticize it enough.

PAT317 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2013, 10:47:51 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Two links against Assisi III aren't enough, not for a disaster like that.

Don't be so generous; it was "two links" but to the same article! One article, from Fr. de Cacqueray. The article that Bp. Fellay slapped his wrist for being too strong.

Does anyone have the transcript for the part of the sermon where Fr. Chazal mentioned this episode?

AveMarisStella · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2013, 11:33:42 AM »

Quote from: PAT317

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Two links against Assisi III aren't enough, not for a disaster like that.

Don't be so generous; it was "two links" but to the same article! One article, from Fr. de Cacqueray. The article that Bp. Fellay slapped his wrist for being too strong.

Does anyone have the transcript for the part of the sermon where Fr. Chazal mentioned this episode?

Fr. Chazal has mentioned MANY times this episode, told to him personally by Fr. de Cacqueray.

Also, Fr. Chazal says he requested, IN PERSON, FACE TO FACE, Bishop Fellay to make statements AGAINST Assisi III, or to let others do so and Bishop Fellay said "NO!".

trento · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2013, 12:09:39 PM »

Well, the reason I said it was exaggerated was because someone earlier said both Bishop Fellay AND the Society were pretty quiet about it. Fr. de Cacqueray's article was excellent in itself in my opinion, thus it is to Fr. de Cacqueray's credit that even other large Districts of the Society prefer to use that article than pen their own articles. I also recalled that it was printed out and distributed at the chapel I visited. Even if nobody here trusts Bishop Fellay, there are still many other priests and superiors of the Society fighting the good fight, and I will give credit where credit is due instead of tarring every priest in the Society with the same brush.