Author Topic: Bishop Fellay speaks on the SSPX General Chapter (Read 8228 times)

Thursday · « **Reply #30 on:** July 18, 2012, 08:20:59 AM »

Domitilla said

"Very interesting that +Fellay is suspected of being an enemy agent by a few people. Last evening, I had a conversation with a former SSPX priest, during which I suggested that it seemed that the SG must be acting for the enemy. My remark was met with a long pause, and then he stated that I had just verbalized his worst fear."

And that's why he had to get rid of Bishop Williamson at all costs even if it meant sabotaging his legal defense by trying to force him to use a Jєωιѕн lawyer in a h0Ɩ0cαųst denial charge!

My old boxing coach told me that when he fought in Montreal he always had to knock the other guy out because he would never get a decision because of his English name. He said the only time he ever won a decision is when he fought a German in a ѕуηαgσgυє.

JPaul · « **Reply #31 on:** July 18, 2012, 08:25:03 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Thursday
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

If Bishop Fellay does not step down from the SSPX leadership or if he cannot be removed, the other bishops should directly begin ordaining other bishops and priests for all traditional Catholic communities so that never again will the light of Catholic tradition fall into the incompetent hands of Bishop Fellay.

...
Is he incompetent or an enemy agen? His handling of Bishop Williamson, and I'm referring to Krahgate, suggests the latter.

Yes, and his handling of a pact with New-Rome (for all one is worth -- even by risking the "loss" of his three anti-modernistic SSPX bishops, see his letter to them from 14 April 2012) suggests it even more.

Now of course some will cry "calumny" etc when in reality we're just speculating by means of the obvious facts. But an increasing number of earned anti-modernistic SSPX priests also suspect what you said, Thursday.

Still I would like to ask: Who could remove Bp Fellay or make him to step down? Because I don't see anybody in a position to do so. I think we can only watch and pray.

There is no one save, maybe the Pope. Although he may indeed make hime the head of the prelature which would mean that Bishop Fellay will be ruler for life.
No more elections.

Thursday · « **Reply #32 on:** July 18, 2012, 08:36:25 AM »

There's no one individual who can do it but as was seen recently the more people who know what's going on the less damage he'll be able to do and the fewer souls he'll be able to carry of to the NO when and if he goes.

Ethelred · « **Reply #33 on:** July 18, 2012, 08:50:06 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ethelred
Still I would like to ask: Who could remove Bp Fellay or make him to step down? Because I don't see anybody in a position to do so. I think we can only watch and pray.

There is no one save, maybe the Pope. Although he may indeed make hime the head of the prelature which would mean that Bishop Fellay will be ruler for life.
No more elections.

Now you really made me to laugh myself to tears.
Thanks for your humorous and highly precise posts, dear J.Paul. We must never lose our humour.

The following cartoon applied to our situation:
- The anti-modernistic SSPX clerics and laypeople would be the native Indians.
- The sellout fans with their Captain Fellay would be the smiling guys on the ships.
- And the subtitle would then read:

Did you detect something a little ominous in the way they said, 'No deal' ?

Columba · « **Reply #34 on:** July 18, 2012, 10:31:39 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

And that's why he had to get rid of Bishop Williamson at all costs even if it meant sabotaging his legal defense by trying to force him to use a Jєωιѕн lawyer in a h0Ɩ0cαųst denial charge!

Krah choose a hostile surrogate attorney, made hostile statements in the press and in court, and arranged for additional hostile press interviews apparently against the will of Bishop Williamson. In the US, unethical behavior against one's client can result in disbarment of the offending attorney. It would seem that Krah's only possible defense would be proving that his actions against +Williamson had been ordered by his employers in Menzingen. If Bishop Fellay was shown to have ordered the sabotage of +Williamson's legal case, that might serve as grounds for his removal as Superior General.

Does anybody know if disbarment proceedings can be initiated in Germany against an attorney for the sabotage of a client's legal case?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** July 18, 2012, 01:16:19 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Does anybody know if disbarment proceedings can be initiated in Germany against an attorney for the sabotage of a client's legal case?

It seems to me that you'd find it rather impossible to get any sympathy from a
legal system (in Germany right now) where the facts of history are not important,
but where only adherence matters, to the high doctrine that it's a crime to incite
racial controversy, in regards to questioning the so-called "h0Ɩ0cαųst" fantasy.

Any lawyer who complies with this high doctrine will not be punished in such a
system of injustice.

Columba · « **Reply #36 on:** July 18, 2012, 02:36:56 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Columba
Does anybody know if disbarment proceedings can be initiated in Germany against an attorney for the sabotage of a client's legal case?

It seems to me that you'd find it rather impossible to get any sympathy from a
legal system (in Germany right now) where the facts of history are not important,
but where only adherence matters, to the high doctrine that it's a crime to incite
racial controversy, in regards to questioning the so-called "h0Ɩ0cαųst" fantasy.

Any lawyer who complies with this high doctrine will not be punished in such a
system of injustice.

Political correctness brings tyranny to every Western nation, but institutions of justice established under Christendom still remain to some degree. Bishop Williamson eventually defeated his political persecutors and won compensation for his legal expenses.

If the attorney Krah really did try to railroad His Excellency, it should be possible to lodge a formal ethics complaint with the German equivalent of an American state Bar Association. Just filing such a complaint would help to rehabilitate +Williamson in the eyes of the deceived and expose problems at Menzingen. Krah would then at least be required to explain his actions.

Thursday · « **Reply #37 on:** July 18, 2012, 03:25:55 PM »

I've just been reading up on Krahgate http://krahgatefile.blogspot.kr/

It seems Krah is Catholic and attends an SSPX chapel although his other affiliations cast doubt on where his true loyalty lies. But isn't the real question why did Bp. Fellay order Williamson to dump his new lawyer Nawrath under threat of expulsion from the society?

Columba · « **Reply #38 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:02:11 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

I've just been reading up on Krahgate http://krahgatefile.blogspot.kr/

It seems Krah is Catholic and attends an SSPX chapel although his other affiliations cast doubt on where his true loyalty lies. But isn't the real question why did Bp. Fellay order Williamson to dump his new lawyer Nawrath under threat of expulsion from the society?

Bishop Fellay might use media accusations that lawyer Nawrath had right wing connections as a semi-plausible excuse. Could Bishop Williamson initiate cannon law proceedings against +Fellay for mishandling his legal case? Menzingen's in-house attorney Krah was more directly and visibly responsible.

In the US, attorneys must join state Bar Associations to practice law in those respective states. Bar Associations have the power to suspend (or end) the legal practice of members for the violation of professional ethics. Complaints to the Bar are officially investigated and adjudicated in court-like proceedings.

If Germany has the equivalent of American Bar Associations, Krah could be forced by an ethics complaint to defend his actions or forfeit his right to practice law. If Krah was made to admit that he sabotaged +Williamson's legal defense on orders from Menzingen, that might provide evidence needed to canonically proceed against +Fellay.

1917 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:05:14 PM »

Quote

Hence we distance ourselves resolutely from all those who have tried to take advantage of the situation in order to drive a wedge turning Society members against each other. Such a spirit does not come from God.

Translation from a person who knows french, the translation should read:

At the same time we wish to strongly separate ourselves from all those who took advantage of the situation to sew discord by setting member against member in the Society.

And then the rest is just platitudes... He is now mouthing Frs Pfeiffer, Chazal, Girouard, B Williamson, etc. All the right things but in between there are digs at those 'sewing discord, member against member' within the Society. :sad: :sad:

Thursday · « **Reply #40 on:** July 18, 2012, 06:58:31 PM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Thursday
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

If Bishop Fellay does not step down from the SSPX leadership or if he cannot be removed, the other bishops should directly begin ordaining other bishops and priests for all traditional Catholic communities so that never again will the light of Catholic tradition fall into the incompetent hands of Bishop Fellay.

...
Is he incompetent or an enemy agen? His handling of Bishop Williamson, and I'm referring to Krahgate, suggests the latter.

Yes, and his handling of a pact with New-Rome (for all one is worth -- even by risking the "loss" of his three anti-modernistic SSPX bishops, see his letter to them from 14 April 2012) suggests it even more.

Now of course some will cry "calumny" etc when in reality we're just speculating by means of the obvious facts. But an increasing number of earned anti-modernistic SSPX priests also suspect what you said, Thursday.

Still I would like to ask: Who could remove Bp Fellay or make him to step down? Because I don't see anybody in a position to do so. I think we can only watch and pray.

I have no knowledge of the legality of Bp. Fellay's position however if there were open calls for him to step down it may limit what he can do. He's already behaving like a lunatic, imagine denying those seminarians ordination at the last minute.

So far he's encountered very little resistance, and only in the most serious of his treachery.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #41 on:** July 23, 2012, 12:58:57 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

Quote from: Ethelred
Quote from: Thursday
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

If Bishop Fellay does not step down from the SSPX leadership or if he cannot be removed, the other bishops should directly begin ordaining other bishops and priests for all traditional Catholic communities so that never again will the light of Catholic tradition fall into the incompetent hands of Bishop Fellay.

...
Is he incompetent or an enemy agen? His handling of Bishop Williamson, and I'm referring to Krahgate, suggests the latter.

Yes, and his handling of a pact with New-Rome (for all one is worth -- even by risking the "loss" of his three anti-modernistic SSPX bishops, see his letter to them from 14 April 2012) suggests it even more.

Now of course some will cry "calumny" etc when in reality we're just speculating by means of the obvious facts. But an increasing number of earned anti-modernistic SSPX priests also suspect what you said, Thursday.

Still I would like to ask: Who could remove Bp Fellay or make him to step down? Because I don't see anybody in a position to do so. I think we can only watch and pray.

I have no knowledge of the legality of Bp. Fellay's position however if there were open calls for him to step down it may limit what he can do. He's already behaving like a lunatic, imagine denying those seminarians ordination at the last minute.

So far he's encountered very little resistance, and only in the most serious of his treachery.

It seems now impossible to remove + Fellay because the General Chapter membership is under his control. But it's not too late to influence the members of the GC. We have the names. This is my (silly?) idea.

One of the conditions of the GC sent to Rome is the "Exclusive use of the liturgy of 1962". I have to wonder if all those priests are aware of Rome changing such an agreement with IBP recently. Even if Rome agrees to grant it to + Fellay, once they sign the "1989 Profession of Faith" that can be also changed for them at any time.

By now, I'm convinced +Fellay intends to lead the SSPX into the "reform of the reform", he has to know what he's doing but do the other members of the GC? I think someone should send the link on the 1962 Missal on CathInfo to all of them and the link to the article posted on that same thread on the making of Summorum Pontificuм by Shawn Tribe in 2006: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/10/possible-future-of-tridentine-liturgy.html just nine months before SP was released. A docuмent concocted by the very enemies of Tradition proven by this article.

If they don't want to end up leading the "reform of the reform" and knowing that + Fellay has to take the deal again to the General Chapter for voting (and with the help of prayers) they may not be so willing to give him the votes. What do we have to lose? Would someone do it? The members of the GC should get some truth for a change.

Orla Walsh · « **Reply #42 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:14:12 PM »

Sounds good, I pray that the talks with Rome move forward and are successful.

CJH,

You got to be kidding me, talks with Rome can't be anything but bad, "by their fruits, you shall know them". Here is the Pope who "celebrated" Assisi instead of denouncing it.

Orla

Chrissie · « **Reply #43 on:** July 25, 2012, 06:29:08 PM »

I completely agree Orla! Nothing has really changed in Rome, we would be absolutely fooling ourselves to think otherwise. Of course there are priests and bishops of good will out there, some of a more conservative frame of mind, a few more people in Rome are a little bit more favourable to Tradition and that's good. It's tiny baby steps in the right direction but that's all so far. We haven't even won the battle yet, never mind the war!!! If you think about it, the decay in the Church didn't just begin with Vatican II, Vatican II is just a final visible manifestation of the modernism and errors which had been allowed to creep into the church many years before- Pope Pius X was trying to fight modernism as far back as the early 1900's! Our Lady appeared in Fatima in 1917 to try and warn us! The terrible crisis in the church has been a century in the making, looking at it from a purely human point of view, it's going to take many, many years to sort it out. Of course God can sort out any problem as quickly as he likes, but we have to pray and trust Him and in the meantime try to be as prudent as we can. It's completely and utterly premature for the SSPX to make a pracical agreement with Rome because the doctrinal issues have simply not been dealt with. Nothing has changed. And the Society wouldn't be able to change things overnight. Even Bishop Fellay himself has admitted that there are still many, many bishops who are against tradition - and with all due respect to his Lordship, I can't believe he was considering making a practical agreement where the local bishops would have control over the apostolate of the Society! That they would be able to decide whether or not the Society would be able to open new churches or not, etc :shocked: Madness!!! Nothing has changed since 1988, we are still in a state of emergency, and while we respect and pray for the Pope, and recognise his authority, we simply must speak out when he promotes the errors of Vatican II!!

Chrissie · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2012, 07:08:02 PM »

SSPX bishops, priests and faithful who are against an agreement with Rome aren't doing it just for the sake of it, or because we want to set up a parallel churhc or because we've developed a sedevecantist mentality. It's because Rome hasn't rejected Vatican II yet. And there is still such a strong resistance to Tradition and the rejection of Vatican II errors in the official Church. Even some of those who are favourably disposed towards Tradition just can't seem to realise that Vatican II is the root of the problem. So therefore making a purely practible agreement with Rome would be putting the work of Tradition under the power of Bishops who see nothing wrong with Vatican II. Madness!! :shocked: Archbishop Levebvre didn't leave the Church, he passed on the Faith he recieved and changed nothing. He consecrated bishops without Papal permission because there was such opposition from Rome against the Tradition, he had to do it to pass on the Catholic Faith. Even if he had misjudged the situation, he acted in good faith and therefore the excommunications would still have been invalid. While Rome lifted the excommunications, and that is a good thing and a step in the right direction, it is not enough. They should have been declared invalid in the first place. The Tridentine Mass has been "freed", but many bishops on the ground are placing major restrictions on its availability to the faithful, if not banning it outright. Rome does not understand the problems with Vatican II. Of course the SSPX must try and talk with the authorities in Rome in order to see if there is a possibility that Vatican II will be reversed and that errors will be condemned. But after years of negotiations, it's time to step back. Either Rome caves and rejects Vatican II, or the SSPX caves and starts compromising. It is Rome that has left the Faith, that is promoting heresy. The Society has just passed on what is has recieved. We need only look at the state of the conciliar Church in countries around the world to realise that. I find it very disturbing that some members of the SSPX are less vocal, less clear in their condemnations of Vatican II. Our Lady of Fatima and St Pius X pray for us!