Author Topic: Bp de Mallerais: Bp Fellay Still Very Committed To Deal (Read 4757 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #30 on:** August 30, 2012, 01:27:21 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

when we first attended sspx Mass, friends and family threw their hands up in horror..... your not with the pope....... we were going to hell.... now , in novus ordo, no one talks of hell, so we are not such odditys.....they are so all embracing.... and i fear, the sspx have moved on too.....

true, have explained it a lot, same people, dont get it.....to them
trad Mass+not at NO diocesan=SV.....

Ferdinand · « **Reply #31 on:** August 30, 2012, 01:46:20 PM »

+Fallacy has betrayed Truth, ABL, the SSPX and the faithful. He is condemned by his own interviews, propaganda and actions.

With no signs of contrition or firm purpose of amendment on his part, one can better appreciate why he and the office help are no longer given the "benefit of the doubt".

Sienna629 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 30, 2012, 01:54:06 PM »

Quote from: Calasanctius

Quote from: John McFarland
Well, in order to believe this, one must trust the accuracy of Fr. Pfeiffer's account of Fr. Chazal's remarks, and the accuracy of Fr. Chazal's account of Bp. Tissier's remarks.

Or merely be well enough aquainted with +Tissier to know what he would/would not be likely to think and say about a certain topic. Like I said, the idea of actually asking +Tissier himself what he thinks might sound improbable to you Americans, but in France and elsewhere it isn't. +Tissier is popular and his words are very, very respected. People want to know what he thinks. Do you really imagine that until now nobody has thought of speaking to him about this topic during all the last six months?

Agreed.

Anyone who has personally met Bishop Tissier will agree that he is a very gracious, well-bred, highly intelligent, straight-forward, and well-respected priest who does not flip-flop on his views.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #33 on:** August 30, 2012, 02:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Sienna629

Quote from: Calasanctius
Quote from: John McFarland
Well, in order to believe this, one must trust the accuracy of Fr. Pfeiffer's account of Fr. Chazal's remarks, and the accuracy of Fr. Chazal's account of Bp. Tissier's remarks.

Or merely be well enough aquainted with +Tissier to know what he would/would not be likely to think and say about a certain topic. Like I said, the idea of actually asking +Tissier himself what he thinks might sound improbable to you Americans, but in France and elsewhere it isn't. +Tissier is popular and his words are very, very respected. People want to know what he thinks. Do you really imagine that until now nobody has thought of speaking to him about this topic during all the last six months?

Agreed.

Anyone who has personally met Bishop Tissier will agree that he is a very gracious, well-bred, highly intelligent, straight-forward, and well-respected priest who does not flip-flop on his views.

Before the General Chapter and the simoniacal withholding of Holy Orders, I spoke with +Tissier.

At that time, he questioned only the prudential judgement of the vociferous clerics. He in no way challenged their arguments.

With all that has passed since then and with the sell-out imminent, I seriously doubt he would question the vociferous at all. I would have to bet that his question now would be... "How is it possible that this leprosy of modernism has spread so quickly and extensively through the once healthy body of the SSPX? Why are there so few vociferous?"

Our Lady of La Salette, Ora Pro Nobis

Ferdinand · « **Reply #34 on:** August 30, 2012, 02:37:32 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Kelly wrote:

Bishop Fellay stated after the General Chapter had concluded that we must make a deal now; now is the critical time, before Pope Benedict dies.

So, this means Bp. Fellay is admitting the Doctrinal Talks were "theater" and he's really acting upon some private information or secret belief he's afraid to share with the SSPX faithful.

Why is a deal with Benedict, a person +ABL completely distrusted, necessary ?
Why does Msgr. Fellay trust the "Artful Dodger" and not the next pope?

:detective:

The question to +Fallacy is... Why is a deal with apostate rome and a career heretic necessary?

JuanDiego · « **Reply #35 on:** August 30, 2012, 03:05:30 PM »

I know many of you (as I too) don't agree with Traditio's ways of reporting the news, but in finding this on their site I have to agree (bold is mine):

The report from Econe also indicated that NSSPX bishops Fellay and Tissier have made a sort of truce until that time. A truce is exactly the wrong thing to do. Now is the time for action: to cut the floor out from Fellay before he can do even more damage to the NSSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre's principles than he has already.

Why isn't Bishop Tissier taking some action to stop Bishop Fellay? I know no one can really answer that, but it would seem he should go to great lengths to do something.

Belloc · « **Reply #36 on:** August 30, 2012, 03:09:04 PM »

Perhaps, doing more :reporter: :read-paper: :reading: and research, minimize damages, etc.....the Church moves very slow.... and cautious....

Sienna629 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 30, 2012, 03:39:50 PM »

Quote from: JuanDiego

I know many of you (as I too) don't agree with Traditio's ways of reporting the news, but in finding this on their site I have to agree (bold is mine):

The report from Econe also indicated that NSSPX bishops Fellay and Tissier have made a sort of truce until that time. A truce is exactly the wrong thing to do. Now is the time for action: to cut the floor out from Fellay before he can do even more damage to the NSSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre's principles than he has already.

Why isn't Bishop Tissier taking some action to stop Bishop Fellay? I know no one can really answer that, but it would seem he should go to great lengths to do something.

Perhaps because Bishop Fellay isn't the only problem. We don't know for sure how many more are a real problem, but we know there are more.

As Father Malachi Martin once replied to a question about the Church, "If it were only that!"

Columba · « **Reply #38 on:** August 30, 2012, 03:40:30 PM »

Quote from: Rachel W

Let me see if I got this story correct:

Allegedly, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais tells Fr. Chazal (who cannot be called unbiased) who tells Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer (who cannot be called unbiased) who tells anonymous supporters (who cannot be called unbiased), one of whom (Kelley - who spreads rumors anonymously - how convenient!) shares this rumor with his/her Cathinfo buddies (none of whom can be called unbiased).

Who honestly thinks that a story can pass through 4 biased filters without being twisted completely? Any judge would toss that kind of "evidence" out instantly as hearsay after just ONE biased filter.

A judge must only allow evidence useful for proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That standard is much more rigorous than the requirements for evidence to make judgments in ordinary life. All the "rumors" or reports I remember that have passed from Fr. Pfeiffer have proven accurate while denials of said rumors by Bp. Fellay, Fr. Rostand, et all have proven false. Which side enjoys the greater credibility?

These events take place at a time when Modernist heresy has proven irresistible to almost every Catholic bishop and superior general, except for a rapidly diminishing few. I gave partial benefit of the doubt to Bp. Fellay through years of questionable negotiations, shady associations, and even backstabbing against Bp. Williamson. However, by now +Fellay should have lost all credibility to anyone who objectively examines his record. He deserves no more benefit of the doubt and his defenders who go on about "rumors" are like the boy who cried wolf. For my opinion to change, +Fellay would have to provide unimpeachable evidence of his innocence or repentance.

stgobnait · « **Reply #39 on:** August 30, 2012, 04:05:53 PM »

partial benifet of doubt....... the people who held the faith, and the Mass, were not partial..... they are mostly gone now, sadly, but they were never partial,if they were, there would not have been an sspx, they called out to ABL, and he heard them, many have cried to bf...... and we have his answer.... dont listen to rumours.... smiley face...

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #40 on:** August 30, 2012, 04:06:28 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Rachel W
Let me see if I got this story correct:

Allegedly, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais tells Fr. Chazal (who cannot be called unbiased) who tells Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer (who cannot be called unbiased) who tells anonymous supporters (who cannot be called unbiased), one of whom (Kelley - who spreads rumors anonymously - how convenient!) shares this rumor with his/her Cathinfo buddies (none of whom can be called unbiased).

Who honestly thinks that a story can pass through 4 biased filters without being twisted completely? Any judge would toss that kind of "evidence" out instantly as hearsay after just ONE biased filter.

A judge must only allow evidence useful for proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That standard is much more rigorous than the requirements for evidence to make judgments in ordinary life. All the "rumors" or reports I remember that have passed from Fr. Pfeiffer have proven accurate while denials of said rumors by Bp. Fellay, Fr. Rostand, et all have proven false. Which side enjoys the greater credibility?

These events take place at a time when Modernist heresy has proven irresistible to almost every Catholic bishop and superior general, except for a rapidly diminishing few. I gave partial benefit of the doubt to Bp. Fellay through years of questionable negotiations, shady associations, and even backstabbing against Bp. Williamson. However, by now +Fellay should have lost all credibility to anyone who objectively examines his record. He deserves no more benefit of the doubt and his defenders who go on about "rumors" are like the boy who cried wolf. For my opinion to change, +Fellay would have to provide unimpeachable evidence of his innocence or repentance.

It's almost too bad this can't be taken to a judge. If only these organizations would get trademark patents.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #41 on:** August 31, 2012, 12:42:29 AM »

Quote from: Kelley

Source: TrueTrad.com

8-29-12: Bishop Tissier says Bishop Fellay still very committed to a deal

Do not be fooled by all the propaganda and sweet-talk coming from the SSPX designed to lure us to sleep.
Bishop Fellay still wants a deal with Rome and is quietly but very surely moving in that direction.
The latest evidence given us from a reader who heard it directly from Fr. Pfeiffer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Monday, August 27th, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer told about 15 of us in Saint Marys, KS that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais spoke with Fr. Chazal (either that same day or in the previous few days), in Econe, Switzerland. (Apparently Fr. Chazal is still allowed there; his explusion is not yet finished). The Bishop told Fr. Chazal the following (which is paraphrased but accurate):

I am very heartbroken; all of our efforts to stop Bishop Fellay have been in vain. He has ignored us three bishops, ignored those who were opposed to his plans at the General Chapter. He has ignored the death of the other organizations that have made deals with Rome, ignored the priests who have spoken out, ignored the many faithful who have confronted him. Bishop Fellay still is completely committed to a deal with Rome, and is not at all altering his course. Bishop Fellay stated after the General Chapter had concluded that we must make a deal now; now is the critical time, before Pope Benedict dies. The SSPX/Rome talks are scheduled to resume in October.

Fr. Pfeiffer also added that Bishops Fellay and Tissier have made a sort of truce until that time.

God help us all! Holy Ghost, please englighten Bishop Fellay as to his folly before it is too late.

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: trento
Quote from: Incredulous

Judas, the "First Bursar" suffered a similar lower intestinal tract problem after hanging himself in despair over his betrayal
of Our Lord.

It is precisely these kind of double-meaning name-calling from the resistance group that is giving a bad name to the rest in the resistance.

No double meaning or name calling intended.
I submit that its truly charitable to remind Msgr. Fellay and his group of the stakes we are all playing for in this world.

Judas was the first bursar and Msgr. Fellay is coincidentally, (providentially?)
also a bursar. If he betrays the remnant of Catholic Tradition as he appears
determined to do, I expect he will meet a similar fate.

THE DOLOROUS PASSION OF
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
FROM THE MEDITATIONS OF ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH

CHAPTER XIV

The Despair of Judas Excerpt, page 176

"Overcome by despair Judas tore off his girdle, and hung himself on a tree which grew in a crevice of the rock, and after death his body burst asunder, and his bowels were scattered around".

I see this kind of disagreement over things that seem important to the members.
And normally, they are important. But these are not normal times.

It would seem to an objective observer that B16 would have us try to "understand"
the interior motives of Judas Iscariot. There are 12 other Apostles to think about,
but we are rather asked to consider the sentiments and intentions of the one
who was the traitor. Here are his words from this past Sunday at Castel Gandalfo:

Quote

Finally, Jesus knew that even among the twelve apostles there was one that did not believe: Judas. Judas could have left, as many of the disciples did; indeed, he would have left if he were honest. Instead he remained with Jesus. He did not remain because of faith, or because of love, but with the secret intention of taking vengeance on the Master. Why? Because Judas felt betrayed by Jesus, and decided that he in turn would betray Him. Judas was a Zealot, and wanted a triumphant Messiah, who would lead a revolt against the Romans. Jesus had disappointed those expectations. The problem is that Judas did not go away, and his most serious fault was falsehood, which is the mark of the devil. This is why Jesus said to the Twelve: “One of you is a devil” (John 6.70).

So, we can follow his example and think of Judas as someone who felt disappointed
and betrayed. Maybe he wasn't so bad after all? Maybe being called "a devil" by
Our Lord wasn't such a terrible judgment? After all, he had his secret intention,
which in itself is not inexcusable, considering how he felt disappointed and
betrayed.

In case you think I'm making it up, there have been such sentiments going around
in closed circuits for many years amongst liberal clerics in the underground,
subversive "dark church." If I had not been aware of them, I would not have been
able to notice this aspect of logical vulnerability in B16's words this past Sunday.

Please note, he does not provide any clear condemnation of Judas' actions in
his betrayal of Jesus. This is because ever since 1962 on the Feast of the Maternity
of Mary, John XXIII foreswore the condemnation of error.

It was "a problem" that Judas did not go away. Okay, a problem can be rectified.
Next? Judas could have left, and would have if he were honest. Okay, telling a lie
can be forgiven. He was not blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, was he? Let us
cut Judas a little slack, then, and not be so uncharitable! Judas did not believe.
Okay, but faith is a free gift of God, and all it takes is our cooperation and the gift
is ours. Certainly one last moment of secret desire could have been all Judas
needed to receive and use this great gift for his salvation! Didn't Jesus pray to the
Father that He had not lost a single one? Wasn't Judas one of His? Anything else?
He remained with the secret intention of taking vengeance on the Master. But he
could have repented at the last moment, the moment before his bowels burst
asunder, for example. These things can be dealt with. It really isn't that bad...........

They say these things, quietly, with the approval of their spiritual director.

The lessons that Scripture and Tradition teach us can only have their good effect
with the proper intention of the recipient. If one approaches these things with the
attitude of Modernism, everything is up for grabs. The one who was a devil, in
the words of Our Lord, Whose words shall not pass away, becomes one in whom
we may consider positively his motives and interior intentions, due to his
circuмstances. Perhaps he was excusable because he was the bursar? Well, then
+Fellay may be as well! See how easy that is?

Ethelred · « **Reply #42 on:** August 31, 2012, 02:58:23 AM »

Quote from: Calasanctius

I'm not saying there's no pride or ambition there, or other things besides. I only meant that I don't think ambition is Fellay's only motive. If he were told by the Romans "sorry, no red hat for you, the college of Cardinals is full up" he'd still want a deal.

That's possible. Because Bp Fellay is, like so many moderns, wrapped up in his own illusory world, a problem compounded when the illusion can dress itself up as being "holy".

And so the poor man, so to speak, thinks he can do what Archbishop Lefebvre didn't "manage" to do (because it's impossible to do with an unconverted Newrome). Didn't one district superior like Fr Rostand say a while ago that Bp Fellay would have already achieved more than Archbishop Lefebvre?

Quote

I too have been thinking for a while that Fr. Pfluger was a sort of "power behind the throne".

Yes, and you can also hear that from clerics who know Menzingen inside out.

Quote

Is it true that the reason his hair all fell out is that he is dying of cancer?

I don't know. But we know that it was Fr Pfluger who in February 2010 publicly started the following malicious rumour about Bishop Williamson's health, during Fr Pfluger's interview with his and Krah's pal Wensierski from the high finance's German magazine Der Spiegel :

Quote from: Der Spiegel

Unpredictable Behavior

Pfluger is also concerned about the health of the 69-year-old bishop, who has apparently had Parkinson's disease for several years. Could this explain his moody, unpredictable behavior? Pfluger and his fellow Pius Brothers have often been irritated by the emails they receive on a regular basis from London.
[..]

Well, the Almighty always has the last word.
See also Eleison Comments CXXXVIII (6 March 2010): Parkinson's Disease

God bless Bishop Williamson and his clerical brothers in arms.
("... with bishops ... three").

Ethelred · « **Reply #43 on:** August 31, 2012, 03:14:33 AM »

Quote from: Kelley

On Monday, August 27th, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer told about 15 of us in Saint Marys, KS that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais spoke with Fr. Chazal (either that same day or in the previous few days), in Econe, Switzerland. (Apparently Fr. Chazal is still allowed there; his explusion is not yet finished).

Ecône with the tomb of Archbishop Lefebvre is (still) a stronghold of its founder. And so most professors in Ecône oppose a sellout to Newrome. That's why Fr Chazal can be there, I think.
When Bp Tissier de Mallerais was still there, he had the castle's keys, so to speak. (It's said that when the night closed in, he personally locked the doors or at least some of them.)

Francisco · « **Reply #44 on:** August 31, 2012, 04:18:37 AM »

Bishop Tissier should be made aware ( warned ) that BpF was charming people in Australia recently with his " old-style Traditionalism!