theres nothing wrong with absolute power when someone is Catholic.

I don't believe he's "the devil's righthand man". I suspect he believes he's doing a good thing. If this is a case of infiltration, I think it more likely that Bp Fellay has been influenced heavily by infiltrators rather than him being the infiltrator.

I could not agree more.  

If what you say is true, the entire SSPX Society of priests and bishops has apparently collapsed under the weight and temptation of sin. More to the point though, naively, I believe that Our Blessed Lord raises up men to be Bishop's and other leaders (District Superiors) because He sees they CAN withstand the temptations of sin and so when "infiltrators" come near, the Bishop and other supposed Church leaders recognize the apotate deeds of such infiltrators, rebuke them, and set/keep the foundation of the Church on solid ground.  

One thing to keep in mind though: We *know* that the Church is infallible, and has Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, that Peter will have successors in perpetuity, etc.

And yet we had Vatican II and its aftermath.

If this mysterious Crisis could happen to Christ's Church, who the heck does the SSPX think it is -- better than the Church itself? How can the branch be superior to the tree?

Matthew,

If this mysterious Crisis could happen to Christ's Church, who the heck does the SSPX think it is -- better than the Church itself? How can the branch be superior to the tree?

It cannot give life to the tree but can only receive thereof, and even on the healthiest of branches, the good fruit can become infected and turn sour.
A clean mind and a clear eye can see this.

Quote from: SerpKerp

Quote from: VinnyF

Why would anyone care to defend him on a Resistance website?

There are Sedes and Indults here so I figured its possible he had defenders here as well.

I know that some people like to "rise above it all", come up with new terminology, try to create ground-breaking threads, and in general feel like they're ultra-special.

Unfortunately for this thread, it's nothing new. Rather than being a ground-breaking genius, you come across more as a retard that's been hiding under a rock for the past 2 years.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the forum for a few days -- look at past posts in the SSPX Resistance subforum. We have thousands of posts there going back to 2012 when the whole thing started.

Sorry, you can't just conveniently ignore all the reams of evidence that have been posted here in the past 2 years. As a matter of fact, those who passionately (against all evidence) choose to ignore such history are PRECISELY those who aren't welcome here. I'm not going to host those kind of fanboys and blind idiots on CathInfo.

We've had dozens of "+Fellay defenders" since 2012 and none of them did a good job at all.

Worthy opponents might keep me on my toes, but I won't ban them for that. In fact, if you want to be special you're welcome to try to debunk the Resistance. No one has succeeded yet. :)

I can understand criticizing Fr. Pfeiffer (who is admittedly quite controversial, even among Resistance supporters), Fr. Pfeiffer's lay helper(s), the outlook for success for the Resistance, etc. but you MUST acknowledge the very real facts which have been put out there in the past 2 years. Very real and concrete changes have happened in the SSPX in the past 2 years.

Anyone who thinks the Resistance is nothing more than several thousand SSPX-supporters ("oh, they weren't real supporters, but leeches at the various chapels, and sedevacantists") who spontaneously decided to give up on the spiritual life all at once in May 2012 -- even though they were scattered all around the world and don't have contact with each other -- I don't know what to say. Anyone that foolish is beyond words. That's why they're not welcome on CathInfo.

Anyone who keeps harping on neo-SSPX propaganda talking points, anyone who uses the classic Communist "repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth" tactic, and anyone who ignores evidence injected into a discussion as if it wasn't there is in reality an agent, a troll and quite ban-worthy. Such a person is not here to discuss, nor is such a person interested in discussion. Such a one is only here to blindly promote an agenda.

What +Fellay (and his followers -- this part is very important) is doing to the SSPX and those loyal to its mission is indefensible.

For the sake of posterity, it would be nice to have a rogue's gallery of members banned from CI for this reason with a short summary of why they were banned, such as because they had repeatedly ignored contrary evidence so as to blindly promote their own agenda.  Someone coming in cold now would have no idea of this history, especially since not infrequently the posts of such banned members that were most conspicuous may have been deleted.  

Another forum where this banning and deleting practice runs rampant is Catholic Answers Forum, and we all know that CI is nothing like that.

Quote from: SerpKerp

I have absolutely no intention of defending Fellay, and I am sorry.I was more interested in if anyone could give me any positive qualities (ie pastoral stuff), and if he was rotten egg from the beginning or if he changed later on. I  should have clarified that better, and I am sorry for not doing so.

You should put the + before +Fellay's name, out of respect for his rank and office. He is a valid bishop of the Catholic Church. That is how we abbreviated back at the seminary. The professors as well as seminarians did this constantly.

Bishop Fellay's soul is none of my business. I am not his judge.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was a long period of power that slowly corrupted him. Men change; that much is obvious. +Fellay has ruled the SSPX for quite some time. Not all men are equally able to rule. To rule without having it corrupt you (or "go to one's head") requires an enigmatic trait called "nobility". Bishop Williamson has the nobility for such a task.

All we on CathInfo "judge" is the objective evil of making a premature/practical accord with Modernist Rome. That is our business. That affects our Faith, our souls, and our access to the life-giving Sacraments.

The Resistance is not about Bishop Fellay (abbreviated +Fellay by priests and seminarians back in my seminary days) or any other personalities -- it's about policies, it's about betrayal, it's about the struggle against Modernism (or the sellout thereof).

I had nothing against Bishop Fellay, personally or professionally, before it came to light what he was up to. That is, before the "Letter to the 3 bishops" that came to light in May 2012. That letter was dripping with pride and condescension towards the other 3 bishops, etc. and that exposed him for what he was.

His subsequent actions to change the SSPX, including kicking out +Williamson, have all harmonized with that (quite unfortunate) picture.

Thank you for putting your finger on that infamous "Letter to the 3 bishops."

For any readers who are unfamiliar with it, you should know that It's readily found in various archives, such as TheRecusant.com and Sacrificium.org (Fr. Girouard's website).  It's even here on CathInfo, somewhere (Library forum?).  

When reading it, keep in mind the FACT that it was sent to the 3 non-Fellay bishops from +Fellay, THE DAY BEFORE the equally infamous AFD (April Fifteenth Declaration) was SECRETLY signed by +F and sent to Rome.  

However, and this is key, even while the contents of the "Letter to the 3" is VASTLY different than the contents of the AFD, the latter was kept secret from the Faithful for an entire YEAR, while we only had become aware of the former by way of secondhand sources.  All these matters were things that Menzingen attempted to HIDE from the faithful.  And yet, even so, many of those who were subjected to this obfuscation of the facts later were eager to forgive and forget the fact that they had been hoodwinked.  An excellent historical reference for the AFD is TheRecusant #6 of April 2013, where the first feature, "From the Desk of the Editor," provides an objectively accurate historical perspective for the AFD, an entire YEAR after its compostion, which was a year during which it had been duly HIDDEN, from the non-Capitulant priests of the SSPX and faithful alike, by its authors in Menzingen.

In retrospect, it would seem that all eyes that had been allowed to see it had been sworn to secrecy, and if so, it had only been at the point that one person who had seen it believed that the greater good would be served by his leaking of this AFD for all the world to see -- and +F was FURIOUS over its revelation, even while he did not deny that it was accurate.  This is how we know it was in fact accurate.  It has never been denied.  Nor has it been abjured.  The little rumor went around that it has been 'withdrawn' -- whatever that means.  As +W and Fr. Pfeiffer have so well said, you cannot simply "withdraw" a matter of doctrine.  It would have to be ABJURED as ERRONEOUS, or offensive to the Faith of Catholics.  +F is not about to do that, because he has NEVER ONCE ever admitted to having done something wrong, or to have made a mistake.  Never Once.  He's not about to start now.

As a testimony to its clandestine mystique, the AFD is also known by 3 other names, the "Doctrinal Declaration" and the "Doctrinal Protocol" of 2012.  The "Letter to the 3 Bishops" never had any official name, but quickly was recognized by all as this:  "Letter to the 3 bishops."

We are given to know much about a subversion not only by what the subversives are willing to say in the open, but by what they are UNwilling to say in the open.

Quote from: Nickolas

If what you say is true, the entire SSPX Society of priests and bishops has apparently collapsed under the weight and temptation of sin. More to the point though, naively, I believe that Our Blessed Lord raises up men to be Bishops and other leaders (District Superiors) because He sees they CAN withstand the temptations of sin and so when "infiltrators" come near, the Bishop and other supposed Church leaders recognize the apostate deeds of such infiltrators, rebuke them, and set/keep the foundation of the Church on solid ground.  

One thing to keep in mind though:  We *know* that the Church is infallible, and has Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, that Peter will have successors in perpetuity, etc.

And yet -- we had Vatican II and its aftermath!

If this mysterious Crisis could happen to Christ's Church, who the heck does the SSPX think it is -- better than the Church itself?  How can the branch be superior to the tree?

Ironically, the same malady that befell the Church at large with Vat.II has now befallen the Society that was instituted to resist the modernizing trend of Freemasonic principles that was one and the same as the unclean spirit of Vat.II.  

Our Lord referred to it as "the leaven of the Pharisees."  

.

Quote from: SerpKerp

I don't understand the intentions of Bp. Fellay why would he want to get approved by modern Rome. I mean what does he have to gain wouldn't he just get removed from his post like Fr. Bisig, and replaced. I mean what did Bp. Rangel gain?

Bp. Fellay believed Benedict XVI was the pope. You can't forget that even though you may hold an opposite view.

The man who is pope cannot be simply ignored. From Fellay's point of view, he's the pope. This is simply a fact.

I support Bp. Fellay, I think H.E's statements on doctrine have been mostly misunderstood by his critics.

All I can say to you, Nishant, is you are speaking from ignorance.  Your statement is objectively false.  While it might be an accurate statement of your personal opinion, it is not descriptive of objective and verifiable reality.  If you had any questions, we could proceed from there, but you seem rather committed to this notion that +F's "statements on doctrine have been mostly misunderstood by his critics."  He would have to be the most misunderstood man in the history of the Church for that to be the case -- and would that be his own fault???  Heaven forbid!!!  It MUST be SOMEONE else's fault!!!

You could use some historical sampling for starters, but I find it difficult to expect that you haven't already seen them.  Therefore, you must have seen them and disregarded them offhand.  There is a name for that:  "intellectual dishonesty."

+Fellay put forward the Society's finest theologians for the doctrinal discussions with the Roman authorities, and not one of them has criticized or in any way expressed disagreement with anything that was said, Bp. Fellay only related what the Roman authorities believe in one of his statements that was most criticized.

This is flatly untrue.  They came out of those meetings saying that discussion with the Romans is utterly impossible, for they speak a different language.  And no, it wasn't a matter of linguistics.  They all spoke Italian, French, Spanish, and German.  Take your pick.  In the old days, they could have been speaking Latin (since it's the Latin Church).  

I know, it's hard for someone in India to imagine that some language other than English can unite linguistically diverse groups of people.  Try to think of it in terms of an analogy.  Italian, French, Spanish and German to the modern Church are what English is to India.  

And to the above, it's not +Fellay's point of view alone, but even that of the Resistance. If anything, I'd bet Bp. Fellay wouldn't say what Fr. Pfeiffer recently said, that if you don't believe the Pope is the Pope, you can't go to heaven.

Perhaps you don't know when an ex-cathedra definition is being quoted: "It is absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  That's de fide.  That's infallible.  If you don't accept it, Nishant, then it is YOU who are not Catholic, and then you would exclude yourself from "going to heaven," as you say.  Of course, +F wouldn't say that.  He never quotes defined dogma.  It would be problematic for his aggiornamento agenda with Newrome.  

Get it?

And yet Bp. Fellay is of the devil or worse because, when the Pope calls him, Bp. Fellay goes, when the Pope proposes something, Bp. Fellay listens carefully before deciding if it is necessary to disobey?

Are you spending your free time reading Freemason literature, Nishant?

Bp. Fellay is of course extremely unpopular here, but His Excellency explained the simple reason why he is not closed in principle to a canonical normalization, "If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire?"

Maybe you ought to re-read how the founder, ABL, spoke about this topic.  That is, if you really want to understand.

Bp. Fellay's thinking and action is theologically defensible, if a Pope commands something unjust, he can and should be disobeyed. Yet when something that is not manifestly evil is commanded, I am am not aware of any source or text that would agree that the Pope's desire can be dismissed or ignored without consideration.

Do you NORMALLY pay heed to con-men, Nishant, or is this an exception?

The point is mostly moot now, since any regularization is unlikely in this pontificate, probably for the next decade or so, as Bp. Fellay has said more recently. http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/sermonsecrits/fellay_fabregues_conference_140511/fellay_fabregues_conference_140511.php

Why would that make it "moot?"  You haven't been paying attention again, Nishant.  An agreement doesn't have to be signed for the principal effects to take place.  What is necessary is the complicity of the minions, you know, like YOU.  

Maybe Ed. from TheRecusant can explain it better for you, that is, if you won't ignore what he has to say because you "consider the source!"

We have been trying for a while now to wake up people like Nishant to the very real falling-away from Tradition on the part of the SSPX, and the danger to souls which this constitutes.  Bishop Fellay's AFD (Doctrinal Declaration) signed up all the SSPX to all of Vatican II, and its contents have never been withdrawn or corrected in the smallest way.  

Note:  If you have been listening to His Excellency and His Minions, Nishant, you would have the OPPOSITE opinion:  that means you would have believed a lie, because they promote this lie in SPADES, that the AFD (Doctrinal Declaration of 2012) has been 'switched off' or 'sidelined' or "no longer able to work."  But nowhere will you see the truth, because the CONTENT of the AFD has not been ABJURED, it has not been ABANDONED and it has not been DECLARED ERRONEOUS.  And the reason for this is, +F has never before, nor is he ever in the future likely to admit that he has made a mistake.  It's not in him.  

Where Bishop Fellay has even addressed the content of the Doctrinal Declaration, it's been only to defend it by claiming that the AFD was misunderstood, "too subtle," etc.  

Usually he does not even address the contents of the Doctrinal Declaration, contenting himself instead with merely attacking the motives of his critics.  

IOW, +F is satisfied with implicit ad hominems and generalities and sweeping statements with no examples, no specifics and no proof.  It's all feelings, Nishant.

It is high time that the wicked nature of this treason and treachery fully sank in.  That is, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear -- do you have the willingness to pay attention, Nishant?  

Bishop Fellay, and through him the SSPX, has accepted Vatican II.  Have you too accepted Vat.II, Nishant?

Maybe you don't know what the errors of Vatican II are.

Maybe that's your problem, Nishant.  

Can you summarize the errors of Vat.II, Nishant?  

.

Moderator: I edited the subtitle; it was inappropriate, regardless of what you think of +Fellay.

Is there anyone who would want to defend Bishop Fellay? He can't be that bad can he?

This audio may help with the answer:


Sermon His Excellency Bishop Williamson Confirmations June 1 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUZ5yj49cQY&feature=youtu.be