-
Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis - “What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!” (http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/14e8cf27a431ca52105cf70b45567b82-149.html)
14/10/13 09:26
Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis
“What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!”
by John Vennari
Catholic Family News (http://www.cfnews.org/)
Bishop Bernard Fellay warned on October 12, “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”
(http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/fell_0ct12-sm.jpg)
He said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City.
Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, gave an extensive lecture on Saturday afternoon that focused on the Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.
This report will highlight some of the more dramatic aspects of the Bishop’s Saturday conference and his Sunday sermon.
Bishop Fellay quoted in detail Sister Lucy, those who have read the Third Secret, and those who have knowledge of the Secret. He noted Sister Lucia said that if we want to know the contents of the Third Secret, read chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalpse.” (details of the Third Secret will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News (http://www.cfnews.org/page8/subscribe.html))
Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the coming of Antichrist.
Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth. He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.
The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.”
He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”
Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder, the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation. The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This is “the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church.”
The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation, “and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.”
He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two last remedies for us: The Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart.
Rome/SSPX
Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this docuмent I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole docuмent, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.
“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them.
Pope Francis
(http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/fellay-pulpit-sm.jpg)Bishop Fellay returned to Sister Lucia’s 1957 statement that the Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart are the two last remedies God has given to mankind.
He said there is “definitely a ‘material’ chastisement of the world in sight. There is something big in front of us. How? When? I have no idea. But if you put everything together, it is clear that God has had enough of the sins of man.”
He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an illusion to the unnatural ‘re-definition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians.
“What do we do? Don’t panic, because panic is of no use at all. What you need to do is your job – your daily duty. That is the best way to prepare.”
He continued that we are in “very scary times” but we are not helpless. He noted the “the situation of the Church is a real disaster. And the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”
“In the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I said, ‘the crisis in the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put on the brakes.’ It’s as if to say, the Church will continue to fall, but with a parachute. And with the beginning of this [Pope Francis] pontificate, I say, ‘he cuts the strings, and he put a [downward] rocket’.”
“If the present pope continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say [and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him as Pope, but don’t follow him. He’s provoking anger. Many people will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be tempted to “throw it all away.”
But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”
Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we would endanger our Faith.
Following the warning of Sister Lucia, Pope Leo XIII and Pius X, Bishop Fellay further warned that we may be entering into the time of Antichrist, but we cannot know when, or how far off in the future this may be.
Sunday Sermon
(http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/hmss_oct13_kc_bf-sm.jpg)Bishop Fellay returned to these themes at his Sunday sermon at the Pontifical High Mass offered at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas city.
He amplified a few points regarding Fatima, the Secret, the 2012 drama with Rome, and then spoke of some of the many grave problems with Pope Francis.
“From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.”
A small example of this is Francis’ insistence on wearing black shoes instead of the red papal shoes, but this is minor compared to greater issues. We must look, said the bishop, at what is his vision of the Church, his vision of the council, and what is his plan.
It was around the time of World Youth Day, late July of this year, that Francis began an avalanche of talks, interviews, phone calls, etc. “We may not have the entire picture at this point, we have enough to be scared to death.”
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:
He spoke of interview in early October that Pope Francis conducted with the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari in Rome’s La Repubblica wherein Francis appears to promote a dangerous relativism:
Scalfari: “Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?”
Pope Francis: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”
Scalfari: “Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.”
Pope Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."
With a good deal of emotion, Bishop Fellay said of the Pope’s response: “That’s really not Catholic! Because whatever I think has absolutely no value if it does not fit with reality. We have a conscience, but it will only lead us to Heaven if our conscience is a mirror of God.” The conscience must be formed according to God’s law. “So to pretend that anyone can full his own idea is just rubbish,” said Fellay, “It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. It is absolute relativism.”
About a week after this, however, Pope Francis spoke of the necessity of fighting the devil, the final battle with the devil, that nobody can fight the devil half way, and that we must fight relativism. Francis said the opposite what he said to La Repubblica. “There is the contraction with him”.
Francis: A Man of the Council
Next: what is the vision of Pope Francis on Vatican II? This is found in his much-publicized recent, lengthy interview with the Jesuits, published in various publications throughout the world, and in the Jesuit’s America magazine in the United States
Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis “takes it for granted that the Council was bright success. What was the main theme of the Council?” To re-read the Faith in light of modern culture. You could say, “to incarnate the Gospel in the modern world.” Francis “is very happy with this…” and believes “The Council brought forth many good fruits. The first example he gives is liturgy – the reformed liturgy. That is the beautiful fruit of the Council. That’s what he says. And he’s very happy with it.”
Francis tells us “this re-reading of the Gospel within the modern culture is irreversible, so we will not go back. We are in front of a major fight.”
Of the Old Mass, Francis speaks of “Vetus Ordo” (Old Order). Francis believes that Pope Benedict probably helped restore the Old Mass as a prudential act for those who still hold to it. “But don’t expect Francis to come back to the Old Mass. Maybe he will ‘indulge’ it [let us celebrate it unmolested]. God knows.”
But Francis “sees there is a problem with this Old Mass. Because there are people who ideologize this Mass. Guess to whom he is aiming? I don’t need to say much. So what is going to happen with us? What I see: there is quite an obsession in him about those people who look to the past. Listen to the Pope’s words:
Pope Francis: “What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation. … If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life.”
Bishop Fellay continues, “The impression we have in the present Pope is that he has a zeal for the ‘more or less’, for the ‘about’; and he wants at all cost to escape what is too clear and too certain. But the Faith is like that because God is like that. Well, that’s not what he thinks.”
Another troubling quote from Pope Francis:
“If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.”
Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith. That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”
"How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.”
He speaks of the Pope Making a mess, and reminds us that this is what the Pope urged at world Youth Day: he urged the young people to “make a mess”. Bishop Fellay responds, ”Incredible. We have never heard of this [a Pope speaking like this]. But that’s what he wants.
Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinal he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him.
We could go on and on.
The final example: Ecuмenism.
' Bishop Fellay says, that Pope Francis claims that “very little has been done in this direction.” This is astounding, the bishop notes, because ecuмenism has launched untold disaster to the Church, to Catholic nations. “Yet the present Pope says, “very little, almost nothing done in this direction.”
Bishop Fellay says as part of his summing up: “The mystery of the shadow on the Church has never been so great. We are in front of very hard times. Don’t have any illusions. And it is clear the only solution is to stick to what we have; to keep it, to not let it go by any means.
“Pope St. Pius X said that it was the essence of any Catholic to stick to the past. The present Pope says exactly the contrary: forget about the past; throw yourself into the uncertainty of the future
“Definitely we need the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What are experiencing is the Secret of Fatima. We know what we have to do: pray, pray, pray, and penance, penance, penance. To pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the means given to us precisely in these hard times; and to pray the Rosary.
“Be certain,” says Bishop Fellay, “The next [Rosary] Crusade is not far off. Go to the Rosary. Pray it every day. We live in very dangerous time for the Faith, and we need this Heavenly protection.”
- More on this topic will be will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News (http://www.cfnews.org/page8/subscribe.html)
-
There you have it. And that should be good enough for everyone. No one has the right to say that Bishop Fellay does not mean what he is saying. No one can read his mind, not Bishop Williamson or anyone else.
And maybe those who are so base as to call him "Bernie" can start to show the proper respect.
I say, Deo Gratias! He is back.
-
and there was me thinking the rosary crusade was for 're unifaction'
-
Bishop Fellay is correct. Pope Francis is a modernist.
-
Recalling again what Bp. Fellay wrote to B16 in June of 2012:
.....Indeed, Wednesday evening, 13th June, during a cordial meeting, Cardinal Levada presented me with a doctrinal declaration which I could not sign. Not heeding the request not to modify the proposition I had submitted, because of the consequences that would lead to, the new text resumes almost all the points that caused difficulty in the September 2011 Preamble and which I had endeavored to set aside.
Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted.
Two things:
1) Apparently Bp. Fellay was willing "to set aside" unresolved points in the Sept. 2011 Preamble. He would have apparently gone ahead with some form of regularization, despite the fact that these "points" of difference had not been resolved.
2) He did not say that he himself rejected the "new declaration" outright. He said merely that they would not have been "accpeted," presumably by his confreres.
One is forced to parse every word the SG says.
-
He could have said more, but I'm THRILLED he said SOMETHING. I read that yesterday and was truly elated.
-
I think we should encourage this sort of language from +Fellay. Its good he's speaking as such.
But since the 2012 Declaration is still a fact, (and it essentially leaves the door open still for a 'reconciliation' between the SSPX and this Modernist)we will keep our eyes wide open.
'Soft as doves, wise as serpents.'
-
and there was me thinking the rosary crusade was for 're unifaction'
With the greatest respect the bulk of the Irish laity were behind the rosary crusade.
-
Our focus must be on the resistance and not Bishop Fellay. The forum is advertised as
CathInfo is the de-facto discussion headquarters for the Resistance, which it officially supports.
-
The question regarding John Vennari has been answered.
-
So lets put his picture up at our chapels! duh
-
BF speaks from both sides of his mouth, nothing new there... :popcorn:
-
BF speaks from both sides of his mouth, nothing new there... :popcorn:
Of course there is nothing new. Would CFN republish articles from The Recusant?
-
I think this is the first time Fellay has criticized Francis publicly. I am glad he did.
-
I think this is the first time Fellay has criticized Francis publicly. I am glad he did.
It's far too late and it means nothing.It will have no bearing on how laity and priests perceive him.
-
I think this is the first time Fellay has criticized Francis publicly. I am glad he did.
It's far too late and it means nothing.It will have no bearing on how laity and priests perceive him.
I disagree. With how some people view Bishop Felly, and other leaders within the society, they'll bite at whatever he gives... and that where the problem lies. If +Fellay blows with the wind, so does his sheeple who follow blindly one without official authority. Its a dangerous situation.
-
Please don't jump to take His Excellency too seriously in his comments. If it wasn't for Modernist Rome, Bishop Fellay would now be part of the conciliar church.
Bishop Fellay still downplays his betrayal of April 15, 2012. He still blames Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests for the division within the SSPX. He still shows no signs of regret for his actions. He still refuses to step down. No. If he was sincere and realized his errors, he would humbly admit his mistakes and immediately step down. These are key pieces of evidence that Bishop Fellay cannot be trusted, regardless of any good intentions.
-
Modernism is a heresy, +Fellay just labeled Francis a modernist, so +Fellay just called Francis out as a heretic!
hmmmm... :popcorn:
-
With how some people view Bishop Felly, and other leaders within the society, they'll bite at whatever he gives... and that where the problem lies. If +Fellay blows with the wind, so does his sheeple who follow blindly one without official authority. Its a dangerous situation.
I agree and that is what I meant. I shall expand on my point in the reply to Ecclesia Militans
-
Please don't jump to take His Excellency too seriously in his comments.
And don't take John Vennari too seriously either. He has lost credibility as a writer because of his silence regarding the betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX superiors.
-
Please don't jump to take His Excellency too seriously in his comments. If it wasn't for Modernist Rome, Bishop Fellay would now be part of the conciliar church.
Bishop Fellay still downplays his betrayal of April 15, 2012. He still blames Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests for the division within the SSPX. He still shows no signs of regret for his actions. He still refuses to step down. No. If he was sincere and realized his errors, he would humbly admit his mistakes and immediately step down. These are key pieces of evidence that Bishop Fellay cannot be trusted, regardless of any good intentions.
:applause:
It is unfortunate but the majority of those that remain assisting at the SSPX have not the inclination to call for Bishop Fellay to resign. If he was sincere he would have resigned though who would replace him is another matter.
I am sorry to say the bulk of the priests and the laity haven't the inclination to 'get rid of Bishop Fellay'. If one hasn't the inclination or intent they can't act upon it.
Momentum was lost and Bishop Fellay should have been shafted long ago. It's too late now.
Bishop Fellay has betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre. That fact matters. At this stage one must declare themselves either with the Resistance or the Church of Bishop Fellay.
I don't believe Bishop Fellay to be evil or bad. He is a liberal.
-
yes, francis has worked out quite well for BF, he can do his 'about face' and appear to be on the side of the angels... a case of carry on regardless.
-
It seems that no matter what Bp. Fellay says will please the resisters, for they they are showing themselves to be of ill will as time goes on. They have dug themselves into a position that they refuse to see even basic logic from.
The author of the April 15 doctrinal betrayal has lost all moral authority, so his words are seen for mere words. He has some nerve calling anybody inconsistent.
-
It is possible to address Bishop Fellay's contentions respectfully, and explain why we have problems accepting some of the things he says in this article.
It is always better to ask for explanations, than to make accusations, if you are hoping to make an impact upon the subject.
Handled poorly, you can build a hostile disposition, just as that disposition has been imparted to many resisters.
I will give it a whirl when I get home tonight.
-
I am certainly glad to read this speech by Bishop Fellay. The relative silence from the SSPX on Francis has been disappointing up til now. However I would say that if this is truly a mea culpa on Bishop Fellay's part in regard to how the whole potential agreement of 2012 went down, then I would expect in the near future to hear about some personal apologies and discussions with Bishop Williamson and the priests that were expelled unjustly for pointing out this very fact (the potential agreement is a disaster!). It may indeed be too late for the SSPX to be a 'big, happy, family' again, after all independent/resistance chapels have already been set up etc. But I would hope to see at least through back channels some apologies and attempts to patch things up. Public apologies and Bishop Fellay resigning might be too much to ask for though. This is of course assuming good will on the part of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX 'top brass'. I will remain slightly hopeful, but continue watching vigilantly. I am sure many others who assist at SSPX Masses will do the same.
Luke
-
14/10/13 09:26
Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis
“What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!”
by John Vennari
Catholic Family News
Bishop Bernard Fellay warned on October 12, “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.” He said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City."
Yes, so Pope Francis is a genuine Modernist and the Church is lost. And Pope Benedict XVI is also a genuine Modernist, and the (conciliar) Church is wonderful to deceitfully put all of the SSPX and faithful (in obedience) under his Modernist leadership .
Hmm... does anyone see a contradiction in this?
More theatrics for public consumption...
-
Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis - “What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!” (http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/14e8cf27a431ca52105cf70b45567b82-149.html)
Like they say, "It takes one to know one!"
-
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner.
Perhaps this is why Bishop Fellay can do a 180 without so much as an apology or a "mea culpa".
-
It seems that no matter what Bp. Fellay says will please the resisters, for they they are showing themselves to be of ill will as time goes on. They have dug themselves into a position that they refuse to see even basic logic from. I think in the end such souls will either give up the faith or become a small sect that will fizzle out in the end, much like the Petite eglise.
No, I think in the end such souls will become the true Remnant, a small sect that saves the True Catholic Faith in its purest form.
-
It seems that no matter what Bp. Fellay says will please the resisters, for they they are showing themselves to be of ill will as time goes on. They have dug themselves into a position that they refuse to see even basic logic from. I think in the end such souls will either give up the faith or become a small sect that will fizzle out in the end, much like the Petite eglise.
Puh-leeze.... You act as if the Resistance's main point of contention with Bishop Fellay was that he wasn't speaking out against modernism or the pope enough. Really, that has only be a by-product of the main issues; those issues of doctrine. And the fact that many on this very thread have expressed contentment with his words at hand and your refusal to acknowledge that is actual example of your ill-will towards truthful facts. The logic is on our side, trust me you.
-
Let's see.
Bishop Fellay in front of Traditional Catholics said that "Pope Francis is a genuine Modernist!”
And, in front of the Modernist Catholics, he says that the New mass is Legitimately promulgated, the new code of canon law is good that gives communion in the hand, 95% of Vatican II is good, religious liberty is "limited", so on, and so on... in putting incense on the false god and idols of ecuмenism and religious liberty.
So, lets put this in the context of who is willing to spill their blood for God with these modernist words.
Catholic Modernists: in unselfish desire to put God and His Faith first = 0
Traditional Catholic Martyrs throughout history: in unselfish desire to put God and His Faith first = MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of Saints.
Therefore, I really would like ask this "traditional" Bishop Fellay on what side of history does he want to be on...?
Oh...we already have his consent and signatures (which have not been retracted), on his Modernist April 15, 2012 Docuмent, His Modernist reply in the letter to the 3-SSPX Bishops, and the SSPX General Council's 6-compromising conditions with all of the other superiors of the SSPX showing us, with belief and proof, that this "traditional" Bishop Fellay does desire and want the Catholic Modernist side; like so many other sorry souls that have gone before him in the 50-years of Vatican II, the French Revolution, and the Reformation?
Let your speech be SI SI...NO NO!
-
There you have it. And that should be good enough for everyone. No one has the right to say that Bishop Fellay does not mean what he is saying. No one can read his mind, not Bishop Williamson or anyone else.
And maybe those who are so base as to call him "Bernie" can start to show the proper respect.
I say, Deo Gratias! He is back.
Well, either he doesn't mean what he says now, or he didn't mean what he said then. I don't see a third option.
-
Stop focusing on what he says, and consider his actions and policies.
-
Stop focusing on what he says, and consider his actions and policies.
Father John O'Conner always said, "Don't just look at what they say; watch what they do."
-
I believe Francis is a godsend for Bp. Fellay. The pope is so overtly goofy and unhinged that Fellay can confidently create distance between himself and the pontiff, and not run the risk of having people think he has reneged upon his plan of full regularization with the Holy See. He escapes his earlier Romeward faux pas and comes out relatively unscathed in the minds of his confreres. He gives Fellay's defenders the ability once again to say to the SG's foes: "I told you so."
-
Rome/SSPX
Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
This is called "fish-hook humility".
Rather, thank God for the Blessed Mother in using those good SSPX priests and +W for speaking out so early, and timely, to disrupt your secret plans of your April 15 docuмent and again in your 6-compromising conditions with the rest of the SSPX superiors to subvert the entire SSPX and faithful under the conciliar modernist apostation!
Tisk- tisk Monseigneur...the blame is still at your feet.
-
Rome/SSPX
He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
That is simple.
Your very own signed April 15, 2012 Legal Docuмent sent to the Roman Authorities that was never retracted from you; in addition, you reprinted that same April 15, 2012 Docuмent in its entity within the Official SSPX Cor Unum just a few months ago (in 2013) as still valid for all of your priests to read as still being in your consent to do.
How about you, and the rest of Menzingen, still throwing out in the streets to this day the faithful sons of ABL who are still standing up to you in these very errors of modernism that you continue to adopt?
Shall I add more proof of your own doing...or are we just "pretending"?
Really?
-
In the final objective analysis, public relations, damage control, and shifting of responsibility once again. Nothing new. Nothing of import.
-
Rome/SSPX
As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this docuмent I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
The "direction for recognition" has not ended! Far from it!
Bishop Fellay, with the rest of the SSPX superiors, had also signed another legal Docuмent together, in Econe with the solemnity before the Blessed Sacrament, in July 2012 and is still binding as a General Chapter with the 6-compromising conditions!
In other words, those 6-compromising conditions have NOT been retracted by you, and the other superiors, within another convoked General Chapter! Therefore, as you know, conciliar Rome can still accept [your] binding conditions which would make a "deal" for you.
Please do not play with our intelligence, or the propriety of a contract, and basic Law...Monseigneur.
In addition, you had said Bishop Fellay, that Vatican II is 95% acceptable for you. Therefore, by your own standards, Vatican II is "95% in conformity with Tradition".
Why the double speech...a different audience?
-
Rome/SSPX
“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
My...My Bishop Fellay! Your nose is getting longer...
Have you forgotten your own April 15, 2012 Docuмent when you said that the new mass is legitimately promulgated?
DOCTRINAL PREAMBLE OF APRIL 15, 2012 that Bishop Fellay offered to Rome. 7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does, according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals, legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
Shame on you!
-
Wowzer. Great job Macabees.
-
Rome/SSPX
“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole docuмent, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.
“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
"The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; ... Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written."
You can also add, Bishop Fellay, that it was also ambiguous, misleading, treacherous, deceitful, and treasonous!
In addition, you were very clear in your own modernist thinking that you have formally penned on that April 15, 2012 paper making it another Legal Docuмent, that you have willfullied wanted to submitt all of the SSPX priests, Brothers, and Sisters under your compromises and conciliar recognition.
Sorry...your masquerading around this is NOT accepted.
-
More personality cult mentality publications.
An attempt to demonize Bp. Fellay as to justify the blind resistance movement since it has no justification for it's position other than a childish rebellion against the SSPX. Such liberalism will end up destroying the resistance itself, which in part we are already seeing with the same childish infighting and division amongst the clergy and laity. But such is the fruits of the poison taken to their logical conclusion.
-
More personality cult mentality publications.
An attempt to demonize Bp. Fellay as to justify the blind resistance movement since it has no justification for it's position other than a childish rebellion against the SSPX. Such liberalism will end up destroying the resistance itself, which in part we are already seeing with the same childish infighting and division amongst the clergy and laity. But such is the fruits of the poison taken to their logical conclusion.
Because things in the Society are so peachy on their own eh?
By the way, nice job avoiding the facts again.
Quick quick- before you see anything which may make sense to you:
(http://www.getbullish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
-
:incense:
Sounds great, by itself! I'll begin to take Bp. Fellay's words seriously when he begins to take my concerns and the concerns of the Resistance seriously. For me, that means he must formally retract his earlier ambiguous and heretical statements and humble himself by apologising to the souls he has injured. Better he humble himself here, than wait until he is forced at his particular judgement. Bp. Fellay is himself, in a precarious spiritual condition because of the souls scandalized these last two and a half years. While he did not personally scandalise everyone, as Superior General, he is ultimately responsible before God. He needs our prayers, even if we no longer attend or support sspx chapels. Charity demands it of us who call ourselves the resistance.
:pray:
What about an extra decade a day for Bp. Fellay? Start on Thursday, Oct. 17, end on All Soul's Eve. Those who care to join me may PM me through CI. I will do what I can to get a spiritual bouquet to H.E. If anyone has any ideas on how that might be accomplished, please let me know. The emails and letters I've sent have received not so much as an acknowledgement of receipt. Two Resistance priests have told me most correspondance, including theirs, never makes it to his desk or inbox. I can't travel to Menzingen in person, but maybe someone on here already lives nearby or knows of a willing messenger?
:dancing-banana:
-
Rome/SSPX
“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them.
Finally,
I wish Bishop Fellay, and the other SSPX superiors, had reflected seriously on [his] new words BEFORE they have signed those compromising / Modernist Docuмents of April 15, 2012 and the still binding July 2012 General Chapter's 6-conditions that continue to betray the True faith!
Until Bishop Fellay, and all of the sspx Superiors together, become serious to formally retract those treasonous statements against the True Faith from convoking another General Chapter, which it has the authority and necessity to do, all of this talk is "smoke and mirrors".
It is NOT what you say, says our Lord, it is what you do.
As it is quite clear with your present record, Bishop Fellay, and especially over the last year, that you and your administration are still actively persecuting any of those priests and faithful who are still holding onto ABL's positions and who are against your new direction and policies, you are relentless against them.
God have Mercy on you, and your administration...and let your speech be SI SI...NO NO!
-
For the record. Here again is Bishop Fellay's scandalous April 15, 2012 Docuмent he sent to Rome for their approval.
***************************************************************
Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble
Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012
I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. (1)
III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the College of Bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, the chapter (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
2. We recognize the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that “the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith.” (3)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos" (4) and the Church in Its doctrine, in Its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, (5) not as a contrary novelty (6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith. (7)
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens—in other words, deepens and subsequently makes explicit—certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, implicitly present within itself, or not yet conceptually formulated. (8)
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium, relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is, with difficulty, reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever, that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition, or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote, through legitimate discussion, the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church. (9)
7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does, according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals, legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.
Notes
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO, canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Denzinger 3070.
(4) Council of Trent, Denzinger 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”
(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denzinger 4209-4210.
(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Denzinger 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”
(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Denzinger. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis Denzinger 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Denzinger 4213.
(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.
(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
-
As it turned out, the results of this “conference” was a predicted propaganda podium to further the designs of Menzingen’s agenda in order to mask over and sway the last of the unconscious sspx or "puppet" faithful who are not read on the issues.
So it remains that we are now going to get “hit over the heads” with this new spin from the pulpits, and that Bishop Fellay never “changed”…
I like the analysis that rlee had written:
“It occurred to me that this [edition of CFN] could be the cutting edge of an effort to re-rebrand the SSPX, and that the content was fully approved of, if not actually initiated or promoted, by the SSPX.
It has to be obvious to the SSPX that they have failed to make a deal with Rome and that this failure is going to be the status quo for a long time. So what to do next?
Well, when New Coke didn't work, it not only quickly disappeared and wasn't spoken of, but Original Coke was doubly re-promoted as if it would have been unthinkable by anybody to ever try to improve upon it. No apologies, no mea culpas. Just back to good old Original Coke.
And the public quickly forgot about Coca Colas faux pas, even though many were in an absolute "never going to buy Coke again" rage about it (and this is just a soft drink!).
This is what the Resistance is up against and it is not going to make things easier.
People have short memories, short attention spans, and get comfortable in their seats again immediately after the really scary scene of the horror movie is over.
Unfortunately what those who are perceptive enough realize is that in the case of the SSPX, the New Coke ingredients are still being bottled even if the packaging has been switched back.”
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27647&min=55&num=5
-
Facts? Hmm. . . I am still waiting for some facts. . . All the resistance can do is make personal attacks.
'People have short memories, short attention spans, and get comfortable in their seats again immediately after the really scary scene of the horror movie is over.'
Yes, apt words for the resistance. The arguments and claims they make where made against the Archbishop by a number of priests who left in the past and he answered them long ago:
"Here is why I have always thought that I had to go to Rome, that I had to write, that I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them. They cannot say that I have not done everything in my power to try to stay in contact with them.
. ……And that is why I will now proceed to say a few words, as we must do, on the sad situation in which the Society found itself this year in the Northern District of the United States. <strong>Well! I have been accused of changing. Changing what? The Mass that I say, the Mass that was said a few moments ago by Fr. Schmidberger, is the Tridentine Mass! It's the traditional Mass! I have never changed anything! It's the same Mass attended by the poor priests who left us: Fr. Kelly, Fr. Sanborn, and the others, while they were at Ecône. And how long were they at Ecône? Fr. Kelly spent two years in Switzerland, Fr. Sanborn three, or maybe, four years, Fr. Dolan the same, Fr. Collins was also at Ecône, they always had the same Mass there—the one we say today. So, we have not changed a thing. How can they now say, "The Archbishop is changing"? What? What am I changing? They know perfectly well—they spent years at Ecône—that they had there the liturgy which we now have, that we have not changed one iota, not one thing. They are the ones who have wanted change, who have wanted to go back to an older liturgy or to older practices. They are the ones who wanted change. We wanted to change nothing, not one thing. <strong>We have made no compromise with Rome. That charge is not true. So it is very sad to think that these priests who were ordained by myself and who, after all is said and done, receiving everything from Ecône and the Society, should now be turning against the Society. Why? They say we are making compromises, they say we are going to accept the New Mass, they say things of this kind, which are absolutely false. You can see that for yourselves.
. . . So, I think that the good sense of the faithful will triumph and that, little by little, the faithful will understand that a certain number of our priests have taken up an attitude which is not normal. In fact, they are children rebelling against their parents. . . .
In any case, I thank all of you here for remaining faithful to us, and we will remain faithful to you. We will carry on with what you have always seen in the Society. . . So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.
Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests—may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. . . . . It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable. - Conference Of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983
-
There you have it. And that should be good enough for everyone. No one has the right to say that Bishop Fellay does not mean what he is saying. No one can read his mind, not Bishop Williamson or anyone else.
And maybe those who are so base as to call him "Bernie" can start to show the proper respect.
I say, Deo Gratias! He is back.
Are you being serious, or do your words need to be read through a thick lens of sarcasm?
The hypocrisy displayed by +Fellay is almost overwhelming. I feel sick.
-
Johnnier, I don't think many here would contest that the Archbishop in 1983 sounded somewhat like Bp Fellay today. The issue is that Archbishop Lefebvre moved past that point. Over time he came to have a better understanding of just how bad Rome had become and altered his approach accordingly.
Here are some more recent quotes from the Archbishop:
1987 [/b]he] I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger—
who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a
bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the
bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even
if you allow us to continue running our seminaries
in the manner we doing right now —we cannot work
together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we
are working in diametrically opposing directions. You
are working to de-Christianize society, the human
person and the Church, and we are working to
Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’
Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends! Rome is in
apostasy! I am not speaking empty words! That is the
truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have
any confidence in these people! They have left the
Church! They have left the Church! They have left the
Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! Certain!
1988 [/b]he]And why, Archbishop, have you
stopped these discussions which seemed to have
had a certain degree of success?” ... It is clear that
the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the
conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of
Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have
nothing to do with this for anything in the world!
1990 [/b]he]One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep
following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now,
stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert
them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that’s the right kind
of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all
one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking
to them? No way!...Unbelievable! Unimaginable!
More post-1983 quotes from the Archbishop can be found here:
http://www.truetrad.com/pdf/ABL%20Union%20with%20Rome%202.pdf
-
That is my first time to see the April 15th docuмent and it shocked me to the core.
I am SSPX TLM since I was 15 now 40 with kids. Over this time I realise I know nothing on theological matters. I know the basics, Sacraments, Sin, Mass, errors of Vatican II etc to my eternal shame. For the last few years my ignorance has been slowly becoming apparent to me and I believe its Our Lady and my Guardian Angel who are helping me. Baby steps..reading Good books, asking for help to strengthen my love for God and a deeper devotion to the Rosary. I am no where near where I should be but I keep asking for help.
When I heard the talk about the deal with Rome I was so fearful of a split within SSPX and still am BUT even me in my ignorance knew one thing for sure and that is ABL did not spend almost 30 years being persecuted for not accepting Vatican II, my family did not spend the last 40 years fighting for TLM and loosing friends and respect among their family members to turn around in 2012 and say that was for nothing 'sure Vatican II was alright to begin with'
The declaration to an uneducated soul like me is very obviously WRONG.
To read it in print as I had not done before was shocking to me. I cannot believe that it was sent to Rome for approval.
IMO we should be looking also at who surrounds Bishop Fellay ( I refuse to use slang as he is still our Bishop) and who has his ear. If he is weak then he should go but also those who advise him also should be washed out.
That being said his sermon posted earlier is welcome. Have we any Catholic stories of past Saints, Popes and Bishops who made serious error in judgement and changed. Maybe Bishop Fellay is trying to undo all that he has done after seing the error in his ways. ( How he could allow this declaration is beyond me though and his resignation would stabilise SSPX)
-
Modernism is a heresy, +Fellay just labeled Francis a modernist, so +Fellay just called Francis out as a heretic!
hmmmm... :popcorn:
But didn't he say we must still consider him pope, just not listen to him?
-
Post 1983 quotes . . . Hmm... so we are to believe either that the Archbishop was a schizophrenic or erred in principle... . which is it? Take your pick .
The Archbishop and the SSPX always maintained an open door policy toward Rome.
"But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction? "But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. .” - Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
De Facto this could be seen by the fact that, as such non of the so called resistance clergy made an issue with the doctrinal discussion with Rome, nor the various discussions that the SSPX maintained here and there with the Roman authorities prior to that.
Bp. Williamson himself praised openly the Moto Proprio of Benedict XVI and the lifting of the Excommunications, and went on to say:
‘Of course there is still a long way to go before the neo-modernists in Rome, conscious or unconscious, realize - if ever! - how they mistake the Faith, but as the old proverb says, "Rome was not built in a day", and it will not be repaired in a day. Nevertheless "Half a loaf is better than no bread" - ask a hungry man! - so meanwhile let us know how to thank God for this major shift of the rudder of the Conciliar Church. Let us then thank the Blessed Virgin Mary whose intervention will have been decisive, thanks to the nigh on one and three quarter million rosaries offered to her for this intention, by a number of yourselves amongst others. And let us thank and pray for Benedict XVI and all his collaborators who helped to push through this Decree, despite, for instance, a media uproar orchestrated and timed to prevent it.
However, by asking for and accepting such reconciliation with the Conciliar Church, is not the SSPX threatening to lead the way back into Conciliarism? In no way! No doubt some Conciliarists in Rome are hoping that the Decree will serve to draw the SSPX back into the fold of Vatican II, but the Decree itself, as it stands, commits the Society to nothing more than to entering into those discussions to which the Society committed itself in 2000 when it proposed the liberation of the Mass and the ending of the "excommunications" as preconditions in the first place.
Then are such discussions without danger? Certainly not! But St. Peter says we should always be "ready to satisfy every one that asks you for a reason of that hope which is in you" (I Pet. III, 15). How can the SSPX not rejoice in the opportunity to lay out in Rome, before the Roman authorities themselves, the profound doctrinal reasons which we believe to be at the root of the Church's present distress? Woe unto us Catholics of Tradition if we were not ready to give reason for that hope which is in us for the rescue of the Church!’ –
No, those words aren't the words of Bp. Fellay, but of Bp. Williamson. - The resistance want to make of the SSPX something it has never been, namely a sectarian anti-Roman movement, where each man is his own pope.
Food for thought at least, my friend.
-
More personality cult mentality publications.
An attempt to demonize Bp. Fellay as to justify the blind resistance movement since it has no justification for it's position other than a childish rebellion against the SSPX. Such liberalism will end up destroying the resistance itself, which in part we are already seeing with the same childish infighting and division amongst the clergy and laity. But such is the fruits of the poison taken to their logical conclusion.
Matthew, I think this poster should be given the heave ho! He can't be taken seriously.
-
More personality cult mentality publications.
An attempt to demonize Bp. Fellay as to justify the blind resistance movement since it has no justification for it's position other than a childish rebellion against the SSPX. Such liberalism will end up destroying the resistance itself, which in part we are already seeing with the same childish infighting and division amongst the clergy and laity. But such is the fruits of the poison taken to their logical conclusion.
Matthew, I think this poster should be given the heave ho! He can't be taken seriously.
I normally don't agree, but I will with in this case. I don't believe responding to him at this point is even fruitful. If it were a matter of simple disagreement, I would say we should. But there is no willingness to actually read what's being said here, on his part, nor is there an actual willingness to engage in real discussion, on his part. If you chose not to, we can handle his overtly weak position.
-
Facts? Hmm. . . I am still waiting for some facts. . . All the resistance can do is make personal attacks
FACT: The Doctrinal Declaration of 2012. The fact that it reflects its infidelity back upon its author is no one's fault but his.
-
Post 1983 quotes . . . Hmm... so we are to believe either that the Archbishop was a schizophrenic or erred in principle... . which is it? Take your pick .
The Archbishop and the SSPX always maintained an open door policy toward Rome.
"But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction? "But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. .” - Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
De Facto this could be seen by the fact that, as such non of the so called resistance clergy made an issue with the doctrinal discussion with Rome, nor the various discussions that the SSPX maintained here and there with the Roman authorities prior to that.
Red herring!
I personally might think the discussions with Rome are a waste of time, imprudent, etc. but they are a side issue. They are not why people have left SSPX chapels, stopped contributing to the collection, reduced their Mass attendance, gone through tons of trouble to organize new small chapels, etc.
It's about compromising the Faith, which +Fellay has done. He now believes that Vatican II was mostly good, that the New Mass is legitimate, etc. which is NOT the classic SSPX position. He has ceased to criticize the Pope, unless he's "back home" and trying to not lose his support base. But when in Rome, he tells the pope how he's committed to the new orientation, but many in the SSPX will have a problem with it, etc.
He has also hired an expensive corporate re-branding agency with the goal of chasing "numbers". Since when is Madison Avenue the Soul of the Apostolate? I always thought it was holiness, prayer, and fasting that brought souls to Christ.
I suppose Christ Himself should have hired such an agency? After all, many thought quite evil things about Him. Just like the SPLC has the SSPX on their "bad list". Persecution is the 5th mark of the Church.
+Fellay doesn't want to be persecuted, at least not anymore. That much is obvious. Every one of his actions leads to that inevitable conclusion. He wants himself, as well as the SSPX, to be (finally) accepted by the world at large.
It's not just one or two little things -- most of the "items" could be excused or explained away individually. It's about the big picture that inevitably forms. It's about all the dozens of things which +Fellay has done publicly (not open for debate) which are objectively wrong, comparing them to his past self, Abp. Lefebvre, and/or the Catholic Faith.
-
"But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction? "But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. .” - Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
This quote, as with much of the rest in this post, shows no willingness for the Archbishop to cave on matters of doctrine. Quite the opposite:
The Archbishop was asked if he would place his Society under the jurisdiction of other bishops. His response? 1. I don't ever see that happening. But since you bring it up,: 2. Lets see them make such an offer first- then: 3. We'll talk about matters of doctrine. 4. But I don't ever see them doing such a thing.
Bishop Fellay, on the other hand, did the opposite. Effectively saying, "Hey, since you've been so nice to us, we'll agree to your points on doctrine first, then let us know how you want to work out the issue of jurisdiction...".
De Facto this could be seen by the fact that, as such non of the so called resistance clergy made an issue with the doctrinal discussion with Rome, nor the various discussions that the SSPX maintained here and there with the Roman authorities prior to that.
Illogical conclusion, as pointed out above.
Bp. Williamson himself praised openly the Moto Proprio of Benedict XVI and the lifting of the Excommunications, and went on to say:
‘Of course there is still a long way to go before the neo-modernists in Rome, conscious or unconscious, realize - if ever! - how they mistake the Faith, but as the old proverb says, "Rome was not built in a day", and it will not be repaired in a day. Nevertheless "Half a loaf is better than no bread" - ask a hungry man! - so meanwhile let us know how to thank God for this major shift of the rudder of the Conciliar Church. Let us then thank the Blessed Virgin Mary whose intervention will have been decisive, thanks to the nigh on one and three quarter million rosaries offered to her for this intention, by a number of yourselves amongst others. And let us thank and pray for Benedict XVI and all his collaborators who helped to push through this Decree, despite, for instance, a media uproar orchestrated and timed to prevent it.
Was there anything wrong in praising BXVI's push nod tradition? No. Again, this is not a matter of doctrine. But within the same months Bp. Williamson warned of what such a recognition could bring from Rome, and the dangers of not remaining with the principles of ABL. That is, of placing jurisdiction over the Faith.
Also, let's continue with Bp. WIlliamson's own words, in the very same letter which I'm glad you quoted:
However, by asking for and accepting such reconciliation with the Conciliar Church, is not the SSPX threatening to lead the way back into Conciliarism? In no way! No doubt some Conciliarists in Rome are hoping that the Decree will serve to draw the SSPX back into the fold of Vatican II, but the Decree itself, as it stands, commits the Society to nothing more than to entering into those discussions to which the Society committed itself in 2000 when it proposed the liberation of the Mass and the ending of the "excommunications" as preconditions in the first place.
Entering into discussions is a far cry from submitting a declaration selling out your group and going against the, then standing, 2006 declaration that no agreement would be made before a doctrinal agreement would have been made. Bishop Fellay, apparently, didn't remember this when he sent over his treacherous Preamble, sent from him to Rome, in April 2012.
Then are such discussions without danger? Certainly not! But St. Peter says we should always be "ready to satisfy every one that asks you for a reason of that hope which is in you" (I Pet. III, 15). How can the SSPX not rejoice in the opportunity to lay out in Rome, before the Roman authorities themselves, the profound doctrinal reasons which we believe to be at the root of the Church's present distress? Woe unto us Catholics of Tradition if we were not ready to give reason for that hope which is in us for the rescue of the Church!’ –
What "danger" do you think he's speaking of here, if not one whereby the Society places itself under the jurisdiction of Rome, for the sake of jurisdiction/recognition, and compromises on its doctrine and values? Please, by God, answer this.
No, those words aren't the words of Bp. Fellay, but of Bp. Williamson. - The resistance want to make of the SSPX something it has never been, namely a sectarian anti-Roman movement, where each man is his own pope.
Food for thought at least, my friend.
Your quotes are food for thought. But you are seemingly failing to think.
Did you even read the quotes you chose to use here, Johnnier?? Are you reading what anyone is saying?
-
Johnnier,
I'm waiting for some FACTS against the Resistance. All I hear -- all I've ever heard -- against the Resistance is a bunch of ad-hominems. No one EVER opens the Pandora's Box of doctrine.
That's because the Fellay faction would have their proverbial hind ends handed to them, that's why.
All I ever hear against the Resistance is ad-hominems: "Divisive, rebellious, rebel, defunct spiritual life, lacking supernatural spirit, the devil is among you, sedevacantist..."
Sound familiar? It should.
-
All I ever hear against the Resistance is ad-hominems: "Divisive, rebellious, rebel, defunct spiritual life, lacking supernatural spirit, the devil is among you, sedevacantist..."
Sound familiar? It should.
That, and, "here's a quote from ABL and +W! See!" While actually condemning yourself, is evidences of their weakness.
I am not the most intelligent or learned man, by far. But this is so obvious.
May God grant that the resistance grow quickly, and provide us a chapel soon. :pray:
Long live Bishop Williamson!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rxeLkPkqRTs/UA7hyt6sWwI/AAAAAAAAFaI/_-Ghwjv22RE/s1600/Bishop+Williamson+(5).jpg)
-
I think in this address, Bishop Fellay is using "the good' (condemning the Pope) to carry "the bad." This is evident in the following statements:
Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
When he says "It is not that we don't want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics," he implies that we're not Catholics unless we make an agreement and are recognized by Rome (I realize that he changes his words half-way through the sentence).
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
But in an article entitled "Is recognizing the SSPX questioning Vatican II?" on SSPX.org, it says this:
"The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the Society accepts 95% of its teachings."
“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
(This phrase was already pointed out by Machabees earlier on).
An official docuмent should NOT be ambiguous and should NOT need an explanation of how it should be read.
But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points.
Follow them when they say the truth??? I won't "follow them" or even look in their direction until they convert back to Tradition. But this is the practice they've been using on the SSPX and DICI websites as of late - focussing on the good and not on the bad in the statements, docuмents and news that comes from Rome.
-
Great post, and some great catches there, Unbrandable.
Regularization contingent on a pope who is a little less of a heretic, then? Ratzinger=good, Bergoglio=bad.
-
.
HE'S BA-A-A-A-ACK!
[/size][/font][/color][/b]
There you have it. And that should be good enough for everyone. No one has the right to say that Bishop Fellay does not mean what he is saying. No one can read his mind, not Bishop Williamson or anyone else.
And maybe those who are so base as to call him "Bernie" can start to show the proper respect.
I say, Deo Gratias! He is back.
Post (from page 7) (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27744&min=30#p3)
Stop focusing on what he says, and consider his actions and policies.
Father John O'Conner always said, "Don't just look at what they say; watch what they do."
This guy is at least consistent. He custom-tailors his words for the
audience at hand. What he says is only good for proof of what he
wants you to think, it has nothing to do with the truth.
Let me say that again: WHAT HE SAYS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE TRUTH. IT'S ONLY WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO THINK.
When B. Fellay gives a 3-hour lecture/sales pitch, followed by
another 3 or 4-hour sales pitch/soliloquy, what he is doing is attempting
to hypnotize the crowd. Again.
I believe Francis is a godsend for Bp. Fellay. The pope is so overtly goofy and unhinged that Fellay can confidently create distance between himself and the pontiff, and not run the risk of having people think he has reneged upon his plan of full regularization with the Holy See. He escapes his earlier Romeward faux pas and comes out relatively unscathed in the minds of his confreres. He gives Fellay's defenders the ability once again to say to the SG's foes: "I told you so."
ABSOLUTELY!! Hollingsworth scores a 3-pointer from halfcourt!
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X [sic] warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:
The Great One is here ACTING AS IF he were talking about Pope
Francis, but in fact, what he is talking about is HIMSELF.
The Great One is a typical Modernist, as Pope St. Pius X warned
us about in Pascendi, the Modernist, that is SGBF, will sometimes
speak in a heretical fashion, such as in his abominable AFD from
2012 which he kept hidden for a year because he was aware of how
scandalous it is, and then the Modernist, that is SGBF, will speak in
an orthodox manner, such as at this ridiculous dog-and-pony show
in Kansas the other day.
He says what he knows you want to hear, and no, we are not inside
his head, nor would we want to be there (shudder!), but we are not
stupid, and we know what he is thinking because we can SEE WHAT
HE DOES. What he says is only comprehensible in light of his actions,
because then we can know what he means by way of his deeds.
His words are ALL DECEPTION. Once we realize that he lies through
his teeth constantly, then we can see what the words coming out
actually signify, because his ACTIONS define his words.
In this OP article there are numerous catch-phrases that he knows
his audience will EAT UP because they have longed to hear him say
them:
~ The present pope is making the disaster 10,000 times worse.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is making the crisis 10,000 times worse!)
~ The Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both
a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is part of the chastisement, and part of the 3rd Secret!)
~ Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse
is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the
coming of Antichrist.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is a mini-Antichrist, seductively leading the Faithful
away from the Faith of our Fathers and into the clutches of Newchurch!)
~ Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his
pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth.
(READ: Well, guess what? XSPXSGBF is already here, on the earth, too!)
~ He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII
mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.
(READ: Gee. I wonder why XSPXSGBF never reads the "original version
of the St. Michael prayer" from the pulpit, or as part of any kind of
ceremony in church? If he knows it's great stuff, why just drop a
clue at a boring 4-hour soliloquy/salespitch session? Maybe it's
because HEBF aims to establish his seat in Rome, too? Hmmmmm?)
~ The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all
the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret
we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church
begins at the top.”
(READ: And this is NEWS? We have all been aware of this for what,
now going on 20 years, due to Fr. Gruner's work and the indefatiguable
Fr. Paul Kramer, and Fr. James Wathen, and Canon Gregorius Hesse,
and Fr. Paul Trinchard, and Fr. Jarecki, and Fr. Wickens, and on and on.
How about this headline):
THE APOSTASY IN THE SSPX BEGINS AT THE TOP!
~ He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957
interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated
that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and
that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated
to God.”
(READ: Entire populations of Catholics will disappear, and SSPX
chapels will transform into diocesan Indultery Mass sites
indistinguishable from the ICK, FSSP or IGS, and the devil will do
all in his power to convince the SSPX pew-sitters that XSPXSGBF is
their GREAT LEADER who has their interests at heart!)
~ Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder,
the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation.
The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This
is “the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church.”
(READ: The Great One is struck with this confusion and disorder,
and the SSPX Faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own
salvation while their good pastors are arbitrarily transferred to
the South Pole to evangelize the penguins, lest they be EXPELLED
for "disobedience" just like so many under the mini-Antichrist Pope
Paul VI the Abominable. The help that should be provided by
Churchmen is not there BECAUSE XSPXSGBF has forbidden it. The
"greatest tragedy you can ever imagine in the SSPX" is the
deliberate, willful, intentional and custom-designed tragedy that
XSPXSGBF has formed with his own hands. Make no mistake about it!)
~ ETC.
-
Excellent post, Neil.
-
Excellent post, Neil.
Thanks, F.G.G. ------------- it just hit me: What we have here is
nothing short of the latest phase of the Re-Branding platform that
XSPXSGBF has purchased with the Widow's Mite contributions of
the Faithful. He hired a Dutch Re-Branding firm with a forgettable
Flemish name and they told him, at a very high price, that he has
to adjust his image. Now, with a new pope making a mockery of
the Church, it is no longer the same ball game as it was with B16,
and no longer is the Church looking like a dying old man on the
street with HEBF kicking him.
No, now the XSPXSGBF must stand up --- uh, that is, he must
APPEAR to stand up --- for the One True Faith of Catholics, and
the Church outside of which there is no salvation. Because he
must garner the support of the pew-sitters who are on the verge
of paying heed to the growing popularity of the Resistance.
Plus, not to be overlooked is the surging trend of sedevacantism,
for how could such a buffoon who has taken to CUTTING THE
PARACHUTE CORDS of B16's emergency "putting on the brakes"
schtick and IGNITING A ROCKET that points downward be any
other thing than an incentive for many to jump ship into the
waiting room of the sede camp?
Therefore, the path is clear: Speak all the key words that the
Faithful pew-sitters have been yearning to hear you speak, and
give them the impression that you are their fearless leader, after
all! "Yes, it is true!" Let them imagine their fantasy is coming to
fruition, and that 'Deo Gracias!' their prayers have been heard!
'Azul' will make a post on CI to confirm the plan! Won't you,
Azul? ("Yes, master, I, Azul, shall make the post on CI!")
This is your opportunity to bag the big fish! Here is the bait,
there is the hook, use it, and reel in the catch. You are the only
fisher of men, and the men are asking to be drawn in to your
holding tanks!
Go for it!
And so he did. He sent his German and Dutch e-mails to the
Netherlands and they replied, along with another Invoice, which
XSPXSGBF diligently pays because otherwise, if he doesn't pay it,
the next e-mail he sends will be replied with a pithy note: "You
have yet to pay your bill, SGBF. We are awaiting your timely
remuneration." So he pays the bill, and his elder brothers in the
faith of Madison Avenue come through like a vending machine.
Simple!
............meanwhile, back at the ranch...................
The steadfast John Vennari lap-dogs-it-up with his predictable 'coverage'
of the latest-and-greatest from The Great One, the XSPXSGBF. Everready
like the Energizer Bunny, with another lemming-inspired rambling retinue
of the same-old-same-old, Vennari comes through with flying colors.
He should be ASHAMED of himself. He's going to have to answer
to God for this. Make no mistake about it.
-
A pity. I had all-but finished writing the November editorial. Now its going to have to be changed. This latest nonsense deserves a response. A couple of you have already made a good start in this thread, for which I am grateful... I may borrow some ideas!
-
A pity. I had all-but finished writing the November editorial. Now its going to have to be changed. This latest nonsense deserves a response. A couple of you have already made a good start in this thread, for which I am grateful... I may borrow some ideas!
It's always a pleasure and a joy to see you post on CI, Ed., because
we need to hear your words. Whatever poor contribution we may
make for your latest efforts is all icing on the cake!
I was just telling some friends the other day that something is in the
works, and there is going to be a big eruption in October of some
kind. Well, this only goes to show that it's still brewing. We are now
close to critical mass, and it won't take much more.
How +Fellay could have gotten away with this for so long is well-
nigh inconceivable. But it is what it is. He is a professional con-man
and he knows no other life. It is what he is. For God to change him
into a holy man would take enormous re-construction. What we see
now, ever more clearly, is the face of a duplicitous opportunist who
will stop at nothing. He is FULLY AWARE of the concerns that we
have had all along, and he is FULLY COMMITTED to making an ill-
advised 'deal' with (M)odernist Rome, only he has to back off a bit
right now. This is the one-step-back-phase, so WATCH OUT for the
two-steps-forward! That might not happen even this year, at this
rate. He has let out a new Re-Rebranding M.O. as of October 2013,
and it's going to take a few weeks, at least, before it can settle in.
Once it does, he will not let sleeping dogs lie, but will then come
out with a VENGEANCE in an 'all new' push for normalization. Just
wait and see. A leopard doesn't change his spots.
-
“It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
Until.......................the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012!
Forgive me for being cynical but, why did Bishop Fellay send forth his apologist corps to explain and protest why this docuмent meant something other than what it said, which is the opposite of what he says above, was never their intention to say?
Is your head spinning from the spin yet? Is this a demonstration of a " geniuine " Modernist?
-
Matthew,
I could say the same – Most of what the resistance put’s forward against the SSPX is simply personal attacks. In fact almost anyone who wants to put forward something contrary to what some here want to hear are insulted, even if it is Bp. Williamson.
Matthew, as far as I am concern, the main lie of the resistance is to claim that their battle with the Superiors of the SSPX is to be equated with Archbishop Lefebvre’s battle with the modernists in Rome. This is absurd to say the least.
If you or anyone feels that going to an SSPX chapel is a threat to their faith, then what are they doing going there?
As one priest recently explained to me, the Archbishop himself never jumped the gun. He never said, I should do this because Rome may institute a new Mass, Rome may have a Vatican II. He reacted post factum to a real issue at hand. Anything else is insane. Should you say to your children, - feel free to leave home now, because your parents may possibly one day betray you? You wouldn’t allow that liberalism into your home on a natural level, why would you allow it into your home on the level of the faith.
In fact in the resistance people where more logical they would reject even the resistance clergy on this premise (as some have) as they also may betray you.
The Archbishop made a great number of talks/visits with the Roman authorities and always gave his superiors the benefit of the doubt before he made any decision. The resistance has take it upon themselves to judge/condemn their superior before the time.
What is more, is there is no proven heresy on part of the Superior General for them to justify their rebellion. The resistance has no grounds to justify their actions.
As to the issue of them being ‘Sedevacantist’ – I for one have never stated that. In fact the Sedevacantist are more honest and logical, in saying that Pope Francis isn’t Pope and to thus disregard all his actions, but the resistance want to claim that he is Pope, but that he has no binding authority at all. As far as I am concern, the concept of authority, of the Church and magisterium as being set forth by the resistance is one that is heretical or erroneous to say the least.
-
What is more, is there is no proven heresy on part of the Superior General for them to justify their rebellion. The resistance has no grounds to justify their actions.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09/04/more-on-the-first-essential-condition-of-the-sspx-2012-general-chapter/
-
Matthew,
Matthew, as far as I am concern, the main lie of the resistance is to claim that their battle with the Superiors of the SSPX is to be equated with Archbishop Lefebvre’s battle with the modernists in Rome. This is absurd to say the least.
If you or anyone feels that going to an SSPX chapel is a threat to their faith, then what are they doing going there?
As one priest recently explained to me, the Archbishop himself never jumped the gun. He never said, I should do this because Rome may institute a new Mass, Rome may have a Vatican II. He reacted post factum to a real issue at hand. Anything else is insane. Should you say to your children, - feel free to leave home now, because your parents may possibly one day betray you? You wouldn’t allow that liberalism into your home on a natural level, why would you allow it into your home on the level of the faith.
Your error is this:
The SSPX is not the Church. The proportion is different.
I would not evacuate a cruise ship because of a 1 gallon per hour leak. But I'd sure as heck abandon a LIFEBOAT which was taking on the same amount of water.
The SSPX is only a lifeboat. It is supposed to be standing up for Tradition, and fighting Modernism and Vatican II (but I repeat myself).
It doesn't require a Novus Ordo Mass, or any of the elements of the Novus Ordo to be introduced (versus populum, vernacular, altar girls, communion in the hand, etc.) to justify the same response of REJECTION.
If the SSPX were the Church, then you'd be correct. But it's not the Church; just a part of it. You also presume that +Fellay is the pope -- if not explicitly, then implicitly. You think that premature "breaking" with the SSPX and/or "His Holiness" Bishop Fellay is tantamount to schism. Not true.
I can break with the SSPX because I don't like the brand of vestments used. They are a pious union with no claim on my loyalty or support. They have no jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction or justification they have for their activities (chapels, seminaries, etc.) comes from SUPPLIED jurisdiction. Now they USED to merit both my loyalty AND my support when I perceived them as the champions of Tradition.
But when I perceive the spirit of compromise, looking for acceptance from the World, trying to accept as much of Vatican II as possible, looking for a practical agreement, etc. from this same SSPX, I (and countless others) have a very real, legitimate problem with that.
-
Johnnier-
Why are you not responding to the substantive facts being presented to you. You present an argument; someone responds. In stead of presenting what you think is wrong, you present an entirely new argument for addressing. I'm sorry, but it makes you look very weak in your position. Obviously, you are taking the time to read this thread and post. Why not respond to the serious accusations being made?
-
Neil O:
He says what he knows you want to hear, and no, we are not inside
his head, nor would we want to be there (shudder!), but we are not
stupid, and we know what he is thinking because we can SEE WHAT
HE DOES. What he says is only comprehensible in light of his actions,
because then we can know what he means by way of his deeds.
His words are ALL DECEPTION. Once we realize that he lies through
his teeth constantly, then we can see what the words coming out
actually signify, because his ACTIONS define his words.
Agreed. Fellay's deeds betray his words. The man can rhetorically turn on a dime. He assumes whatever color is required in order to blend in with the current surroundings. What in the hell was he over here doing to begin with? Why a conference in Kansas City at this time of the year? What an extraordinary chameleon he is!
-
Matthew,
As one priest recently explained to me, the Archbishop himself never jumped the gun. He never said, I should do this because Rome may institute a new Mass, Rome may have a Vatican II. He reacted post factum to a real issue at hand. Anything else is insane. Should you say to your children, - feel free to leave home now, because your parents may possibly one day betray you? You wouldn’t allow that liberalism into your home on a natural level, why would you allow it into your home on the level of the faith.
The Archbishop made a great number of talks/visits with the Roman authorities and always gave his superiors the benefit of the doubt before he made any decision. The resistance has take it upon themselves to judge/condemn their superior before the time.
.
Hitler didn't learn from Napoleons mistake when he invaded Russia coming into the winter and he paid the price.
We have seen what has happened to the Church with Vatican II, we have seen what Rome can do to destroy the Faith so maybe we need to learn from history and not react post factum but with prudence act pre factum. April declaration should make us sit up and act just like Hitler should have done on the first frosty night when he invaded Russia
-
Neil O:
His words are ALL DECEPTION. Once we realize that he lies through
his teeth constantly, then we can see what the words coming out
actually signify, because his ACTIONS define his words.
Agreed. Fellay's deeds betray his words.
True. What's more, even his words betray his words!
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/33990970-wonderful-news-bishop-fellay-is-fully-traditional-again-everything-is-back-to-normal-
-
"As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this docuмent I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
I cannot stand when someone is so blatantly dishonest, especially when it is a person of influence and is to guide the weak.
Bishop Fellay's un-behaved comment needs to be flushed out some more when he said: "Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012". If that is true, lets follow some of the dates after June 13, 2012 to see if in fact it is really true at all...or public consumption.
Bishop Fellay had also told us during the summer of 2012, within his interviews and chapel conferences (after the explosions within the sspx had happen and he was on damage control), that he was "confused" by that June 13 Docuмent; because, he was receiving "mixed signals" from Rome. On one hand, he said, that the Romans "verbally" told him that everything is alright. The Pope wants it. We agree with you... and so on. It is only "rhetoric". Just ignore it. We will make it right. Just sign the papers that we will send to you. It is alright. Then Bishop Fellay told us, that on the other hand, when he received a Docuмent from another Commission, his excuse was that it was "different" from what he was verbally said (...).
Further, Bishop Fellay told us that because he was "confused", he sent a letter AFTER June 13, 2012 directly to the Pope to get his response (as Bishop Fellay still WANTED a deal). With high expectation from Bishop Fellay, that response from the Pope came on June 30, 2012. With the Pope saying that you need to follow what is in that Docuмent (...).
Do you remember that event...?
Also, 2-weeks later, on July 14, 2012, Bishop Fellay, with the rest of the sspx superiors, still WANTED a deal with Rome for a recognition; drafted a new Docuмent with the 6-(scandalous) conditions, all of them had signed it, and sent it to Rome for them to sign it so ANOTHER deal can be had.
(Note: It would seem that if Bishop Fellay had verbal agreements with some Romans, that these 6-(scandalous) conditions would indicate what agreements and arrangements they really had, in giving Bishop Fellay confidence to send this other General Chapter Docuмent for them to sign.)
And there is more deal making AFTER June 13, 2012...
Confirming Bishop Fellay's "new" deal, that in the fall of 2012, the Official Vatican newspaper stated, and acknowledge, that the deal was still "open" with the SSPX General Chapter's Docuмent that was submitted to Rome.
Also, in the turn of the new year 2013, when Bishop Fellay is hitting us over the head in wanting us to believe that there is no deal, that in the month of January and February of 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI was "stepping down" from being Pope, Bishop Fellay, and DICI, had stated with high hopes that Pope Benedict would "recognize them into the conciliar fold" in a deal as his last "act" of being the Pope. It was obvious with great disappointment from them, that it did not happen.
This is a far cry of being so imprudent, rash, and dishonest with the Faith entrusted to him, that he is now trying to have a "fish-hook-humility" and say, from some outside force, that God and the Blessed Mother "prevented" them from an agreement of the big bad Modernists [sic].
Results...? Was Bishop Fellay truthful when he said: "Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012."?
Answer - NO!
With the NeoSSPX re-branding, it is the same agenda for a modernist outreach, in a different package.
-
Ahhhhhhhh....the Camelion shifts his colors once more. Dale Carnegie says when you make a mistake announce it boldly. emphatically, and beg for forgiveness. Until +Fellay does this, and the only real way to do this would be to call a General. Chapter to retract the ambiguous 6 conditions, retract the Doctrinal Declaration, and genuinely apologize to those priests who tried to warn him. Until he does this his words are like meat on a dead mans grave.
-
EM,
Perhaps I missed it, but what exactly is the heresy? Or is it just a case of selective reading?
-
Bp Fellay says Pope Francis is a "genuine modernist.." In other news Bp Fellay says the world is round, ducks quack, water is wet and the sun sets in the west...
-
That is my first time to see the April 15th docuмent and it shocked me to the core.
I am SSPX TLM since I was 15 now 40 with kids. Over this time I realise I know nothing on theological matters. I know the basics, Sacraments, Sin, Mass, errors of Vatican II etc to my eternal shame. For the last few years my ignorance has been slowly becoming apparent to me and I believe its Our Lady and my Guardian Angel who are helping me. Baby steps..reading Good books, asking for help to strengthen my love for God and a deeper devotion to the Rosary. I am no where near where I should be but I keep asking for help.
When I heard the talk about the deal with Rome I was so fearful of a split within SSPX and still am BUT even me in my ignorance knew one thing for sure and that is ABL did not spend almost 30 years being persecuted for not accepting Vatican II, my family did not spend the last 40 years fighting for TLM and loosing friends and respect among their family members to turn around in 2012 and say that was for nothing 'sure Vatican II was alright to begin with'
The declaration to an uneducated soul like me is very obviously WRONG.
To read it in print as I had not done before was shocking to me. I cannot believe that it was sent to Rome for approval.
IMO we should be looking also at who surrounds Bishop Fellay ( I refuse to use slang as he is still our Bishop) and who has his ear. If he is weak then he should go but also those who advise him also should be washed out.
That being said his sermon posted earlier is welcome. Have we any Catholic stories of past Saints, Popes and Bishops who made serious error in judgement and changed. Maybe Bishop Fellay is trying to undo all that he has done after seing the error in his ways. ( How he could allow this declaration is beyond me though and his resignation would stabilise SSPX)
The part about seeing the docuмent for the first time doesn't surprise me.It takes months for folk to discover the information discussed on Cath Info.
-
EM,
Perhaps I missed it, but what exactly is the heresy? Or is it just a case of selective reading?
I did not say it was heresy. An error doesn't have to be heretical to be condemnable. Read carefully to the link and the posts within the link.
-
EM,
Hence my point, no real grounds for the resistance for it's position. Just mere twisting of things to try to scare people into following their position.
-
Again, too many pages and too many words wasted upon what Bishop Fellay says and does. It is irrelevant.
None of it is new and none of it matters in the larger sense.
The SSPX has taken a new direction and is reforming itself in to be compatible with it.
The resistance needs to untie themselves from Bishop Fellay's sash and get about their business. The life preserver will not survive by tying itself to the life boat which is foundering.
-
I agree, i see in my area, once staunch sspx supporters, flocking like lemmings to 'indult' and others, because now, little by little, drip feed, it seems the 'fight' is over, those of us, who are hanging on by our fingernails, to the sspx are castigated... i dont believe all this happened by accident, i believe it has been concerted,and is all coming along nicely for menz, thank you very much.
-
I am encouraged by Bishop Fellay's recent words but also hope that they will soon be followed up by corrective action--starting with the vindication and reinstatement of the priests (and a bishop) who have either been expelled or morally bound to leave.
We all make big mistakes at one time or another, and I venture to guess that none of us have been immune to making those embarrassing 180s in life. I know I have. I continue to pray for Bishop Fellay and am always ready to let bygones be bygones. That said, he must first own up to his mistakes--COMPLETELY.
Complete transparency as to what had happened and where the SSPX had gone wrong, I think, is the first step--a very important step--in helping regain credibility . . . or what's left of it in the SSPX. A mere rehash of the "I had never changed; I had just been misunderstood or unjustly quoted out of context" line would be a sheer deal-killer as far as the aforementioned end.
-
Thats fair enough comment, but bear in mind, BF did not act alone, so he is not the only one culpable...All of the superiors, bear responsability.
-
I am encouraged by Bishop Fellay's recent words but also hope that they will soon be followed up by corrective action--starting with the vindication and reinstatement of the priests (and a bishop) who have either been expelled or morally bound to leave.
We all make big mistakes at one time or another, and I venture to guess that none of us have been immune to making those embarrassing 180s in life. I know I have. I continue to pray for Bishop Fellay and am always ready to let bygones be bygones. That said, he must first own up to his mistakes--COMPLETELY.
Complete transparency as to what had happened and where the SSPX had gone wrong, I think, is the first step--a very important step--in helping regain credibility . . . or what's left of it in the SSPX. A mere rehash of the "I had never changed; I had just been misunderstood or unjustly quoted out of context" line would be a sheer deal-killer as far as the aforementioned end.
That's a healthy outlook, Skunkwurxsspx. And I applaud you for it. :applause:
As the applause.. fades.. out..., however, my subjective
reality segues back into focus. I would not be so Pollyanna,
but would be prone to put it bluntly into the face of XSPXSGBF:
If you are to make such open-ended assertions,
your Excellency, perhaps you would be therefore
so kind so as to do what is the logical consequence
to your words, that is, what is necessary if your
words would not be made into a flat-out LIE. For
if you did mean what you said, you shall now
vindicate and re-instate all the priests you have
inasmuch admitted to have unjustly expelled from
the Society. You have pressured others to become
morally bound to leave the Society under the
irrational and stupid demands you have made on
them over the past 18 years, most notably in the
past 4 years. So own up to your error, and do
what is right, or else turn in your resignation and
let someone else have their turn at the power
levers of the Society, because you would not be
qualified to continue, if you have ever been in the
first place qualified to be there. Your own
salvation hangs in the balance, and you teeter on
the brink of taking many souls with you as you
would fall into the pit (Cf. Matt. xv. 14).
(Can you even imagine him standing still for such a message?
How much of a stretch would it be, to think that if he would not
rely on his microphone to shout over me and thereby attempt
to drown out what I have to say, then one of his handy-dandy
henchmen like Fr. Rostand or Fr. Pfluger (if he's still breathing!)
or whoever, would then step in to disrupt my statement, putting
me into the situation of having to raise my voice above theirs,
which I can assure you, I AM MOST CAPABLE OF DOING.)
-
I agree, i see in my area, once staunch sspx supporters, flocking like lemmings to 'indult' and others, because now, little by little, drip feed, it seems the 'fight' is over, those of us, who are hanging on by our fingernails, to the sspx are castigated... i dont believe all this happened by accident, i believe it has been concerted,and is all coming along nicely for menz, thank you very much.
When the Mass came to an end in the home of the late Deirdre Manifold,most if not all,who attended went to the Indult.A few were never trad to begin with and go to the novus ordo.
-
I agree, i see in my area, once staunch sspx supporters, flocking like lemmings to 'indult' and others, because now, little by little, drip feed, it seems the 'fight' is over, those of us, who are hanging on by our fingernails, to the sspx are castigated... i dont believe all this happened by accident, i believe it has been concerted,and is all coming along nicely for menz, thank you very much.
When the Mass came to an end in the home of the late Deirdre Manifold,most if not all,who attended went to the Indult.A few were never trad to begin with and go to the novus ordo.
That's sad to hear, John Grace. The stalwart Deirdre Manifold had long
been one of my most preferred and inspiring authors. In fact, it was
her writings that drew me back from the malaise of unfaith that had
overshadowed my sensibilities in the wake of the unclean spirit of Vat.II.
From time to time I entertained the notion of somehow seeking her out
to meet her and to have some manner of meaningful conversation, but
I never pursued that idea. Now it's too late.
I'd like you to know that you have been most blessed to have had made
her aquaintance, and it rather seems to me that some of her spiritual
good sense has rubbed off on you. Please don't hesitate to let it shine.
Erin go bragh!
-
Bishop Fellay is correct. Pope Francis is a modernist.
A real Modernist...
But why is it that he looks like a Khazar rabbi ? :thinking:
(http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1310q.jpg)
-
"I accuse Bishop Fellay" should be another Headline.
Bishop Fellay complained many times to us (after dragging out of him), that what he was verbally told from the Romans was different from what he received in Docuмents from them.
This new conference of yours Bishop Fellay, accuses yourself also, that what you say to us verbally is very different from your Official Docuмents you send to conciliar Rome; of the which, we only find out later about them from "leaks".
And you wonder why there is a problem?
Is that honest...?
-
Bishop Fellay is correct. Pope Francis is a modernist.
A real Modernist...
But why is it that he looks like a Khazar rabbi ? :thinking:
(http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1310q.jpg)
He's in disguise here with a Roman collar, is all. Maybe it's time
to get ready for trick-or-treat!! How many kinds of Halloween costumes
could there be to look like Pope Francis? Holding a beach ball? Wearing
black shoes (instead of red slippers)? Wearing a green golf hat? Okay --
a black yarmulke! A Roman collar! A white shoulder cape!
Why not be innovative? How about a cheese-head? Or a red clown
nose and Bozo hair? Or a propeller-beanie??
Or.......
(http://www.greatamericanthings.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Howdy-by-rollingduckdotcom.jpg)
"It's Howdy Doody time!"
-
UNTIL HEBF either apologizes, reverses his unjust expulsions or resigns I can't feel any better about him...In fact; I don't mind a picture of Pope Francis in the chapel...I just don't want to see Bp Fellay's.
-
St. Pius X preached that Modernism the synthesis of all heresies. So, if we are to call someone a Modernist, we are called him a heretic. A heretic is excluded from the Catholic Church. Are we sure we share the same faith and are una cuм Mr. Bergoglio?
-
.
HE'S BA-A-A-A-ACK!
[/size][/font][/color][/b]
There you have it. And that should be good enough for everyone. No one has the right to say that Bishop Fellay does not mean what he is saying. No one can read his mind, not Bishop Williamson or anyone else.
And maybe those who are so base as to call him "Bernie" can start to show the proper respect.
I say, Deo Gratias! He is back.
Post (from page 7) (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27744&min=30#p3)
Stop focusing on what he says, and consider his actions and policies.
Father John O'Conner always said, "Don't just look at what they say; watch what they do."
This guy is at least consistent. He custom-tailors his words for the
audience at hand. What he says is only good for proof of what he
wants you to think; it has nothing to do with the truth.
Let me say that again: WHAT HE SAYS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE TRUTH. IT'S ONLY WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO THINK.
When B. Fellay gives a 3-hour lecture/sales pitch, followed by
another 3 or 4-hour sales pitch/soliloquy, what he is doing is attempting
to hypnotize the crowd............ Again!
I believe Francis is a godsend for Bp. Fellay. The pope is so overtly goofy and unhinged that Fellay can confidently create distance between himself and the pontiff, and not run the risk of having people think he has reneged upon his plan of full regularization with the Holy See. He escapes his earlier Rome-ward faux pas and comes out relatively unscathed in the minds of his confreres. He gives Fellay's defenders the ability once again to say to the SG's foes: "I told you so."
ABSOLUTELY!! Hollingsworth scores a 3-pointer from halfcourt!
(I hope you don't mind if I borrow your term, "Rome-ward faux pas!")
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X [sic] warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:
The Great One is here ACTING AS IF he were talking about Pope
Francis, but in fact, what he is talking about is HIMSELF.
The Great One (TGO) is a typical Modernist, as Pope St. Pius X warned
us about in Pascendi, the Modernist, that is SGBF, will sometimes
speak in a manner offensive to pious ears, such as in his abominable
AFD from 2012 which he kept hidden for a year because
he was aware of how scandalous it is, and then the Modernist, that
is SGBF, will speak in an orthodox manner, such as at this ridiculous
dog-and-pony show in Kansas the other day.
He says what he knows you want to hear, and no, we are not inside
his head, nor would we want to be there (shudder!), but we are not
stupid, and we know what he is thinking because we can SEE WHAT
HE DOES. What he says is only comprehensible in light of his actions,
because then we can know what he means by way of his deeds.
His words are ALL DECEPTION. Once we realize that he lies through
his teeth constantly, then we can see what the words coming out
actually signify, because his ACTIONS define his words.
In this OP article there are numerous catch-phrases that he knows
his audience will EAT UP because they have longed to hear him say
them:
~ The present pope is making the disaster 10,000 times worse.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is making the crisis 10,000 times worse!)
~ The Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both
a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is part of the chastisement, and part of the 3rd Secret!)
~ Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse
is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the
coming of Antichrist.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is a mini-Antichrist, seductively leading the Faithful
away from the Faith of our Fathers and into the clutches of Newchurch!)
~ Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his
pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth.
(READ: Well, guess what? XSPXSGBF is already here, on the earth, too!)
~ He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII
mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.
(READ: Gee. I wonder why XSPXSGBF never reads the "original version
of the St. Michael prayer" from the pulpit, or as part of any kind of
ceremony in church? If he knows it's great stuff, why just drop a
clue at a boring 4-hour soliloquy/salespitch session? Maybe it's
because HEBF aims to establish his seat in Rome, too? Hmmmmm?)
~ The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all
the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret
we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church
begins at the top.”
(READ: And this is NEWS? We have all been aware of this for what,
now going on 20 years, due to Fr. Gruner's work and the indefatiguable
Fr. Paul Kramer, and Fr. James Wathen, and Canon Gregorius Hesse,
and Fr. Paul Trinchard, and Fr. Jarecki, and Fr. Wickens, and on and on.
How about this headline):
THE APOSTASY IN THE SSPX BEGINS AT THE TOP!
~ He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957
interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated
that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and
that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated
to God.”
(READ: Entire populations of Catholics will disappear, and SSPX
chapels will transform into diocesan Indultery Mass sites
indistinguishable from the ICK, FSSP or IGS, and the devil will do
all in his power to convince the SSPX pew-sitters that XSPXSGBF is
their GREAT LEADER who has their interests at heart!)
~ “Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder,
the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation.
The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This
is 'the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church'.”
(READ: The Great One is struck with this confusion and disorder,
and the SSPX Faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own
salvation while their good pastors are arbitrarily transferred to
the South Pole to evangelize the penguins, lest they be EXPELLED
for "disobedience" just like so many under the mini-Antichrist Pope
Paul VI the Abominable. The help that should be provided by
Churchmen is not there BECAUSE XSPXSGBF has forbidden it. The
“greatest tragedy you can ever imagine in the SSPX” is the
deliberate, willful, intentional and custom-designed tragedy that
XSPXSGBF has formed with his own hands. Make no mistake about it!)
~ ETC.
~ Let's see: where was I??
~ The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation,
“and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is
the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.”
(READ: Since the NovusOrdo hierarchy are doing nothing to help us
sanctify ourselves, become holy, and seek our salvation, we are
left hoping to find such helps in the SSPX, but now we find they are
following suit and imitating Rome, and we are now further deprived
of this very important element which is the support of the SSPX
leadership. WHAT A TRAGEDY!)
~ He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two
last remedies for us: The Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate
Heart.
(READ: The SGBF demonstrates that he knows well all about the
Fatima apparitions, for he's fully aware of the comforting words God
gave as two last remedies for us in this troubled time when the SSPX
has failed to hand down what ABL passed on to it before he died.
We're looking at having no Masses anymore because the XSPX has
become corrupted, so all we'll have left is the Rosary and the Brown
Scapular -- wait -- the Great One didn't mention the Scapular. Probably
because OUR LADY OF MT. CARMEL gives him cold sweats, now that
Fr. Pfeiffer's chapel goes by that name! We need two more chapels:
Chapel of the Rosary of Our Lady and Devotion to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary Chapel. Then +F won't be able to lie to us any more.
BECAUSE HE WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS!!!!) HAHAHA
~ Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see
what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank
God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year.
(READ: Look, fellas, I know, what I said with much unction for 3
years running about the Rosary Crusades and how important it was
to pray for the Collegial Consecration is all water under the bridge, now.
We have to move on! What I strove for night and day long since before
my abominable AFD and long after that (although, yes, I know, I did not
manage to stir up the fortitude to tell you I was secretly trying with all
my heart to forge a 'deal' with modernist Rome) was to forge a 'deal'
with modernist Rome! And I know, once bitten, twice shy and all, but hey,
let's let bygones be bygones! I violated your trust before, and now, of
course, you're going to forgive me so I can violate your trust again!
Won't that be fun????????????????)
~ And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is
that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God.
(READ: I collected 12 million Rosaries from you at a dollar a pop -- wait
-- scratch that. I didn't mean it. Really I didn't (heh-heh). What I mean
to say is, you guys prayed all those Rosaries for the intention of the
Pope and bishops of the world to make the Collegial Consecration of
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, all on one day, you know, like
Our Lady asked for the pope and bishops to do, and so did Our Lord
Jesus Christ, warning that they could face a fate as bad OR WORSE
than the guillotine of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette (both of whom are
now saints in heaven but you moderns are hard pressed to meet up
with that achievement, thus your "or worse" aspect comes into play),
but after the Rosary crusade was OVER (It should never have stopped!)
we didn't get for Christmas what we asked Santa for, and so we had a
preschool tantrum and looked for some other thing to claim that our
prayers were able to tell God what to do. We got the lifting of the
excoms (which didn't need lifting) and the freeing of the CTLM (which
didn't need to be 'freed'), and that spin zone project went over like
a lead trial balloon, so we scrapped that and now we're latching on
to the idea we stole from Bishops Tissier de Mallerais and Richard
Williamson, both of whom are thorns in our sides and we only wish
there was some way to obliterate their consecration and make them
no longer bishops but we can't, and we took their idea that the
rejection of Rome would be viewable as a 'grace' and we ran that one
by our Dutch Re-Branding firm with the forgettable Flemish name and
they told us OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. But we have some very
important details for you to make sure this really works, which are
readily available by e-mail to you if you would please remit payment
for this invoice of $39,835.61 for this service installment, which includes
your past due balance and penalty and interest for non-payment in a
timely manner. -------- OH, not to mention the fact that we really, really
tried to get that 'deal' with modernist Rome but if we can't have it, then
at least we're going to 'spin' this top to make it look like 'everything's
coming up roses,' just as Ethel Merman said!)
(http://cloud.freehandmusic.netdna-cdn.com/preview/530x4/hal_leonard/hl_dds_0000000000103822.png)
~ It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be
Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized
as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that.
Of course not.”
(READ: When I say "be Catholics" what I mean is conform to what the
Modernists in Rome want us to be so THEY can call us "Catholics," okay?
Now that that's clear, we can move along here. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
HAVE THOSE MODERNISTS IN ROME THINK OF US AND 'recognize' US
TO BE THE 'CATHOLICS' WHICH MEET THEIR GREAT EXPECTATIONS.
And if you don't know what I mean, read Charles Di*ckens but be sure
you get the Swiss German version because I cut my teeth on that back
in the 60's. Speaking of "treasures." Do you have any idea how many
real estate treasures, I mean, deeds bear my signature? I mean, I
couldn't possibly step down now, there would be far too much paper-
work to do!)
~ He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are
decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really
challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something
else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
(READ: Any of you trolls out there who appreciate lessons in trollism
that you pick up on my transcripts duly provided by my personal butler,
I mean lackey Vennari, don't hesitate to send your donations to DICI
Hey that even has a nice ring to it "Donations to DICI, tra-la-la-la!"
As for the "poor people" -- don't think I've forgotten about the four
sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. I studied my catechism very well.
But I didn't study my English lessons too well, you see, I prove I mean
right here. Let those poor people whose wages I defraud, I mean, I
prove, I mean, I pretend I mean something else from what I say I do,
I mean, just look at my actions and compare it to my words --- WAIT! ---
Don't Do That! Can we talk about something else, now? St. Luke ii.
35: "And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that out of many
hearts thoughts may be revealed." Lk. i. 51: "He hath shown
might in his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of
their heart." [Hey, SGBF, are we still not inside your head? I
mean, what's the point in ASKING that if you're not THINKING that?!?!])
~ As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition
ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012. That
very day I told them, ‘this docuмent I cannot accept.’ I told them from
the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this
‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is
against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in
continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that
we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition,
we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re
not going to recognize that’.”
(READ: Oh, dear. Those guys on CI have dragged this paragraph through
the mud already -- what in the world is Neil Obstat going to do with it?
[Commercial break: Folks, better minds than mine have already taken
this to task, but let me say this about that: You can pretty much here
just think of what the opposite is that these words would seem to say,
and that's what you should NOT RULE OUT for TGO* to be thinking. In
a case like this one, TGO doesn't want to be here. He hates talking
about this because everything he says can and will be used against him
In the USA we say, "Miranda rights," but in the Gospel Our Lord says,
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned" (Matt. xii. 37).] *The Great One)
~ “The same for the Mass. The[y] want us to recognize not only that the [New]
Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I
told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have
enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New
Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!” Of course the
Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”
(READ: Perhaps this is where Johnnier gets his "Bishop Fellay is talking
about 'licit' not legitimate" schtick, but if you read the actual words here,
you see that TGO has "We don't use that word (licit)..." [because] "It's a
bit messy." After all, it has two I's, and that makes it look like it's looking
at you! We don't want to say "spooky" so we say "messy." Got it? Now
for the really spooky stuff: We Have To Water Down What We Say To
Our Faithful Because They Are A Bunch Of Dunces. "They have too much
to worry about" means that they have insufficient intelligence, and WE,
THE MASTERS FROM MENZINGEN, are in CONTROL of their minds. WE
TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK AND HOW TO THINK ABOUT IT. Remember
when I said "the Resistance (crowd) is not in my head?" Well, I AM IN
THE HEADS OF MY MINIONS. In fact, I like the way Rush Limbaugh says
it: "I live rent free inside the heads of these liberals." So now, our
Great Leader is pinch-hitting for us high in the ninth inning. The Romans
were not very happy with our great work. They were like bugs hitting
the glass, or maybe goldfish. Just remember: we are doing all we can in
this good-cop/bad-cop schtick to keep you from looking at the FACT that
the Newmass was never promulgated. Oh, and that the excoms were
never real. Oh, and that this whole dog-and-pony show is a nonstop
rehash of the 'Bread and Circuses' routine that this city (Rome) has in
its very blood. Been there done that.)
~ He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the
Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’.”
(READ: OOOHHHH, no. Let's see if they'll swallow this WHOPPER. We have
made NO SECRET of our proposition that Vatican II is 95% acceptable,
and that the Newmass was 'legitimately promulgated', which, translated
means that the Council might give one a little IRREGULARITY, but
speaking of swallowing Whoppers, we think that some Maalox or Pepto
Bismol ought to fix you right up. Maybe some Ex-Lax. They have a
new chocolate flavor. But I digress. When I say "It has never been our
intention, what is IN MY HEAD is that while this is exactly what I was
thinking all along, what it was entirely my INTENTION to make it SEEM
like what was going on here, is that the opposite was in fact the case,
and you can know that by what I DID, the things that I MADE HAPPEN
during that time: I expelled those good priests who stood up for the
truth, therefore I was opposed to the truth. I transferred those good
priests who dared to oppose my push for a 'deal' with modernist Rome,
therefore I was hell-bent on destroying the opposition, regardless of
what I say, EVEN NOW. Let the imbeciles like Joan.nier tow the party
line, but the show must go on, with him or without him. There are
plenty more where he came from.)
~ “The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole docuмent, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.
This piece of trash deserves special attention. Oh, so now we're supposed
to believe that this "BIG PRINCIPLE FROM VATICAN I" was supposed to
be the underlying foundation of the abominable AFD?! And the moon is
made of cheese, correct? Oh, right: SWISS CHEESE! (I'll bet you can't say
that without a mile! :clown: ) I have just one question for His Excellency
here: If THAT was the "base of the whole docuмent," the "principle" upon
which the entire AFD is squarely planted, why has it taken you ONE AND
ONE HALF YEARS to come up with that excuse? No, Why Was That Not In
The Docuмent Itself? I don't have to wait for your ridiculous answer, which
would take FAR TOO LONG to read anyway because you could stretch this
out for at LEAST 45 minutes. No, I can answer it right now. The answer is,
that the AFD was NOT based on this proposition from Vatican I at all, and
the fact that you'd dare to claim that it was is FURTHER PROOF that you are
nothing but an inveterate liar and a cheat. Your abominable AFD has no
truck with the truth of the Holy Ghost, and you know it. You're just groping
at straws. You know it stinks from beginning to end, but you refuse to
admit as much, and therefore you are trying, as Martin Luther did, to cover
your sins with the blanket of snow, that would be the Holy Ghost. Sin, and
sin MORE BOLDLY, correct, Martin-Luther-Fellay? Which,
by the way, looks unmistakably congruent to the UNFORGIVABLE SIN!
~ “And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
Gag me with a spoon. Lord god king bufu. Totally! Hi! I am a Val, I know....
We are dealing here with Val-speak from the XSPXSGBF without any attempt
at making any excuse for it. Where is Moonunitzappa when you need her? She
could decode this stuff. We've got a live wire, captain! TGO has somehow
managed to stick into his abominable AFD "sentences that have never been our
thinking and our life." Well, then where did they come from? Oh, right: the
teenage girl from the Valley. Some chick from Encino has been giving him
lessons, and he's been enjoying that FAR MORE than Thomistic philosophy ever
was in class. Maybe he flunked like Ratzinger did. Or plagiarized the answers?
Naaah. Impossible! Anyways, it's the SUBTLETY that's key, now. We jump
from one category to another like a leapfrog, or perhaps a flea. That's why you
withdrew that text, eh? Too ambiguous, eh? Too ambiguous like the explanation
that "IT" is too ambiguous and that's why you withdrew "IT?" Of course, you
don't dare say WHAT you withdrew. No, of course not. This way, Azul or one
of the other Accordista minions on board can accuse this writer of having
ignored the answer to his previous question: "No, Why Was That Not In
The Docuмent Itself?" OH, (+W's squeaky voice) but it waaas in the
docuмent itsewf - but we weemoved it becawse it was ambigwuous!")
Kyrie eleison.
~ “So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We
have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We
have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next
generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We
do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the
treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize
them.
(READ: Our principle is to stay faithful, and that's why we're actively
expelling all the good priests and especially the ones with enough
gumption to take a stand against our self destructive path. Right. And
I have an oil well for sale. We have removed the only Rector who has
consistently produced the militant missionary spirit priests that ABL
was hoping and praying would come out of his seminaries, but we are
not going to jeopardize our treasures. Of course not. Give me a break.)
~ He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as
abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an illusion to the
unnatural ‘re-definition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of
what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians.
(READ: Uhh, how about the defrauding a laborer his just wages and
oppression of the poor ------- the things of which this XSPXSG is, shall
we say, "not entirely innocent?" What about those? What about when
a working family spends years and years supporting the local SSPX
chapel to safeguard the Faith of Catholics and then along comes this
liar and cheat, who destroys in stages its very foundation and
principles of Catholicism as if by a sinister plan, by direct order and
deliberate action, while all along lying about it right and left, which see?
What about oppression of the poor -- telling them when they notice
the things he's doing that they're "poor people" who can't manage to
get up to speed with his nefarious program of aggiornamento? That
sin that cries to heaven for vengeance? Eh? EH?)
Time for a break...........................
-
St. Pius X preached that Modernism the synthesis of all heresies. So, if we are to call someone a Modernist, we are called him a heretic. A heretic is excluded from the Catholic Church. Are we sure we share the same faith and are una cuм Mr. Bergoglio?
Are you willing to listen and learn, or have you already made up
your mind such that all you need to do is encounter any one
word giving you difficulty, you will immediately run away from it?
-
Frankie Goes To Hollywood
-
EM,
Hence my point, no real grounds for the resistance for it's position. Just mere twisting of things to try to scare people into following their position.
I don't think you read closely what I said. Read again and read the links I gave. If you have a problem with a specific point, then go ahead and make your case.
-
Bishop Fellay,
“When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God."
From TheRecusant.com:
"Err... ...hold on a moment! Who was it who told you not to do it? And where are they now? God used them as His instrument in preserving you from the agreement you so much wanted. 'Thank God' is easy to say, but how have you shown Him your gratitude?"
-
Machabees,
Yes, same old story, 'if only the Superiors had listened to us' - Yes, if only the Archbishop had you and the resistance for his advisers. Poor Bishop.
-
Machabees,
Yes, same old story, 'if only the Superiors had listened to us' - Yes, if only the Archbishop had you and the resistance for his advisers. Poor Bishop.
This man has nothing of substance to say. He are illogical, like a woman, and don't merit a response.
-
Machabees,
Yes, same old story, 'if only the Superiors had listened to us' - Yes, if only the Archbishop had you and the resistance for his advisers. Poor Bishop.
This man has nothing of substance to say. He are illogical, like a woman, and don't merit a response.
He is a PR man, he does not have to make sense but only dispute the facts in evidence and keep the ball in the air.
-
Neil Said
How +Fellay could have gotten away with this for so long is well-
nigh inconceivable. But it is what it is. He is a professional con-man
and he knows no other life. It is what he is. For God to change him
into a holy man would take enormous re-construction. What we see
now, ever more clearly, is the face of a duplicitous opportunist who
will stop at nothing. He is FULLY AWARE of the concerns that we
have had all along, and he is FULLY COMMITTED to making an ill-
advised 'deal' with (M)odernist Rome, only he has to back off a bit
right now. This is the one-step-back-phase, so WATCH OUT for the
two-steps-forward! That might not happen even this year, at this
rate. He has let out a new Re-Rebranding M.O. as of October 2013,
and it's going to take a few weeks, at least, before it can settle in.
Wow! Neil, thats a powerful post. This is Hegalian Dialectics in its pure form and you called it! :applause:
1.... 2 steps forward The Declaration
2.....Sit back and let the resistence surface and form
3.....NOW take a step back to do damage control. Present a new image AND
Villify the resistence, and attempt to dismantle it.
You are right....the next move is 2 steps forward. .
I do believe that this radical Francis precipitated this.
However, while BF is calling Francis a modernist and is, Im sure embarassed by him, he has ordered his picture put in every church. We have a small SSPX chapel where I live. They had Pope Pius X11 displayed there. In the last 2 weeks or so, they now have Francis' picture displayed. Pope Pius X11 is gone!
-
I agree, i see in my area, once staunch sspx supporters, flocking like lemmings to 'indult' and others, because now, little by little, drip feed, it seems the 'fight' is over, those of us, who are hanging on by our fingernails, to the sspx are castigated... i dont believe all this happened by accident, i believe it has been concerted,and is all coming along nicely for menz, thank you very much.
When the Mass came to an end in the home of the late Deirdre Manifold,most if not all,who attended went to the Indult.A few were never trad to begin with and go to the novus ordo.
That's sad to hear, John Grace. The stalwart Deirdre Manifold had long
been one of my most preferred and inspiring authors. In fact, it was
her writings that drew me back from the malaise of unfaith that had
overshadowed my sensibilities in the wake of the unclean spirit of Vat.II.
From time to time I entertained the notion of somehow seeking her out
to meet her and to have some manner of meaningful conversation, but
I never pursued that idea. Now it's too late.
I'd like you to know that you have been most blessed to have had made
her aquaintance, and it rather seems to me that some of her spiritual
good sense has rubbed off on you. Please don't hesitate to let it shine.
Erin go bragh!
Indeed. Those who attended were very privileged to have a student of the "pure Saint" offer Mass. The "pure Saint" being Fr Denis Fahey. A student of his regularly said the Mass. Another "heavyweight" was Fr Paul Kramer. SSPX priests also offered Mass.
-
Emerentiana,
However, while BF is calling Francis a modernist and is, Im sure embarassed by him, he has ordered his picture put in every church. We have a small SSPX chapel where I live. They had Pope Pius X11 displayed there. In the last 2 weeks or so, they now have Francis' picture displayed. Pope Pius X11 is gone!
This is the obligatory critique which must be given after the weeks long protests against his silence.
Francis knows this as he is a politician like Bishop Fellay. This is all done with the wink and the nod.
One can see this in the fleeting nature of the criticism. The momentous charges are made and yet neither in his speech nor in his actions does Bishop Fellay draw the most obvious conclusions or call for protest or action against what is a compelling and dangerous reality regarding this Pope.
Instead, he calls him a name and then hangs his picture upon the wall.
He hangs the picture to show his solidarity with he who he defines as a Genuine Modernist.
Folks....do you get the " picture " ?
-
Yes, Francis is the Pope and the resistance think they are Pope. This can be hard to grasp for some, but not so hard for others. I wonder why?
-
Yes, Francis is the Pope and the resistance think they are Pope. This can be hard to grasp for some, but not so hard for others. I wonder why?
Just as I said, Francis is the Pope and that is that. (don't hold me to anything that I might say in a speech or an interview as my words only have a very limited sincerity)
Si No No Si
-
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner.
Perhaps this is why Bishop Fellay can do a 180 without so much as an apology or a "mea culpa".
Bishop Fellay on whether VII can be interpreted in a Catholic way:
Lefebrivists demand Council be “corrected,” not interpreted (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lefebrivists_demand_council_be_corrected_not_interpreted/)
Rome, Italy, Oct 30, 2007 / 01:05 pm (CNA).- In an interview with Italian journalist Paolo Luigi Rodari, the author of the blog “Palazzo Apostolico,” Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, said the schismatic movement demands not only a “correct interpretation” of Vatican II, but that the Council docuмents actually be changed.
2007:
(Bishop Fellay said)
In my opinion, to sign an agreement is to miss the point and hide the real problem. Rome would like a practical agreement as an easy way out, which does not oblige them to reflect upon the Council and the great theological problems it raises. They cannot simply say that the Council is good and can only be good, and claim that its disastrous results are due only to the fact that the Council has not been applied! After 40 years of Conciliar reforms? This is not serious!
interview with + Fellay (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2646)
2012:
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"
Fellay speaks to U.S.Bishops's Catholic News Service (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9379)
Bishop Fellay, April 2012:
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens ... certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
_____________________
Spring 2012 Angelus article:
"Silence in the Face of Apostasy."
Summer 2012 Bishop Fellay statement:
"Doctrinal Mutism is not the Answer to the Silent Apostasy."
____________________
Bishop Fellay on Pope Benedict:
FELLAY-VATICAN Feb-22-2011 (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100721.htm)
Fellay said the scheduled beatification of Pope John Paul II on 1 May 2011 poses "a serious problem, the problem of a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along 'progressive' lines, toward everything that they call 'the spirit of Vatican II.'"
FELLAY-SSPX May-11-2012 (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201931.htm)
Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope's efforts to correct "progressive" deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. "Very, very delicately -- he tries not to break things -- but tries also to put in some important corrections," the bishop said.
"But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job."
__________________________________
Bishop Fellay on whether he is in the Church or needs to "re-enter":
BISHOP FELLAY’S LETTER TO CASTRILLON HOYOS
June 22, 2001
...We refuse to be forced to choose between each of these alternatives. On the one hand, we have never left the Church.
Interesting words (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/12/interesting-words.html)
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) to the Caledonian newspaper Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes (Dec. 27, 2010):
Question: The goal of your Fraternity is still to integrate the Catholic Church?
Bishop Fellay: Yes, we have always maintained that we do not wish to go our own way. We maintain that we are Catholic and that we remain so. We wish that Rome will recognize us as true Bishops. Otherwise, the word schismatic is not used any longer regarding us. Now, if we are not schismatics, nor heretics, then we are truly Catholic. Otherwise, the Pope says that there is solely a problem of a canonical nature. An act of Rome suffices to state that it's over and that we reenter the Church[/color]. This will happen [Ça viendra.]. I am very optimistic.
[Source: Le Forum Catholique; tip: Le Salon Beige]
Fellay speaks: I am confident (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/10/fellay-speaks-we-are-all-on-same-line.html)
10/25/2007From an interview granted by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to Paolo Luigi Rodari, in Il Riformista:
Fellay... has often been defined as the head of the more moderate wing of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Bishop Richard Williamson, who would represent the more intransigent wing in the Fraternity, that [wing] of the "never and never again" regarding a compromise with Rome.
"Nothing could be falser - Fellay explains it -, Williamson and I are on the same line, that which believes that we could hardly re-enter a Church as is. And the reasons are quite simple. Benedict XVI has indeed liberalized the ancient rite, but I cannot explain for what reason he made such a decision if he then allows the majority of Bishops to criticize and disobey him regarding what he determined. What should we do? Re-enter the Church and then be insulted by all those people?[/color]"
_____________________
Bishop Fellay on oversight by N.O. Bishops:
2009:
Interview with Bishop Fellay (http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-mershon-interview-fellay.htm)
Mershon: Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?
Bp. Fellay: That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive.
2012:
Interview with Bishop Fellay (http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/)
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory. ... are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Bishop Fellay: ... It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? ... And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
-
Emerentiana,
However, while BF is calling Francis a modernist and is, Im sure embarassed by him, he has ordered his picture put in every church. We have a small SSPX chapel where I live. They had Pope Pius X11 displayed there. In the last 2 weeks or so, they now have Francis' picture displayed. Pope Pius X11 is gone!
This is the obligatory critique which must be given after the weeks long protests against his silence.
Francis knows this as he is a politician like Bishop Fellay. This is all done with the wink and the nod.
One can see this in the fleeting nature of the criticism. The momentous charges are made and yet neither in his speech nor in his actions does Bishop Fellay draw the most obvious conclusions or call for protest or action against what is a compelling and dangerous reality regarding this Pope.
Instead, he calls him a name and then hangs his picture upon the wall.
He hangs the picture to show his solidarity with he who he defines as a Genuine Modernist.
Folks....do you get the " picture " ?
Good point. Very true.
In a similar vein, also worth considering and mentioned earlier in this thread, is the question of who the audience are. Angelus Press conference is clearly aimed at the SSPX laity. Dici, on the other hand, seems to be written for Rome to read. Spot the difference.
Bishop Fellay may moan about Pope Francis in front of the faithful, in order to shore up his increasingly shaky credibility. He knows he risks nothing in so doing, so he can play to the gallery. But would he ever say those things to the Romans? And which is the more important?
-
Let's not forget the interview where "things that we thought were from the council, were not really from the council," among the other disastrous things he says here.
He never retracted anything he said here, either, especially the beautiful line about "bow(ing) down."
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/DdnJigNzTuY?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
-
.
PFT, are you really going to make me watch that thing again? . . :barf:
:furtive:
I hope you're better behaved in Kentucky next week! . . . HAHAHAHA
-
I find it good to be reminded why i support the resistance wholeheartedly... :dancing:
-
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner.
Perhaps this is why Bishop Fellay can do a 180 without so much as an apology or a "mea culpa".
Bishop Fellay on whether VII can be interpreted in a Catholic way:
Lefebrivists demand Council be “corrected,” not interpreted (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lefebrivists_demand_council_be_corrected_not_interpreted/)
Rome, Italy, Oct 30, 2007 / 01:05 pm (CNA).- In an interview with Italian journalist Paolo Luigi Rodari, the author of the blog “Palazzo Apostolico,” Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, said the schismatic movement demands not only a “correct interpretation” of Vatican II, but that the Council docuмents actually be changed.
2007:
(Bishop Fellay said)
In my opinion, to sign an agreement is to miss the point and hide the real problem. Rome would like a practical agreement as an easy way out, which does not oblige them to reflect upon the Council and the great theological problems it raises. They cannot simply say that the Council is good and can only be good, and claim that its disastrous results are due only to the fact that the Council has not been applied! After 40 years of Conciliar reforms? This is not serious!
interview with + Fellay (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2646)
2012:
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"
Fellay speaks to U.S.Bishops's Catholic News Service (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9379)
Bishop Fellay, April 2012:
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens ... certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
_____________________
Spring 2012 Angelus article:
"Silence in the Face of Apostasy."
Summer 2012 Bishop Fellay statement:
"Doctrinal Mutism is not the Answer to the Silent Apostasy."
____________________
Bishop Fellay on Pope Benedict:
FELLAY-VATICAN Feb-22-2011 (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100721.htm)
Fellay said the scheduled beatification of Pope John Paul II on 1 May 2011 poses "a serious problem, the problem of a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along 'progressive' lines, toward everything that they call 'the spirit of Vatican II.'"
FELLAY-SSPX May-11-2012 (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201931.htm)
Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope's efforts to correct "progressive" deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. "Very, very delicately -- he tries not to break things -- but tries also to put in some important corrections," the bishop said.
"But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job."
__________________________________
Bishop Fellay on whether he is in the Church or needs to "re-enter":
BISHOP FELLAY’S LETTER TO CASTRILLON HOYOS
June 22, 2001
...We refuse to be forced to choose between each of these alternatives. On the one hand, we have never left the Church.
Interesting words (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/12/interesting-words.html)
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) to the Caledonian newspaper Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes (Dec. 27, 2010):
Question: The goal of your Fraternity is still to integrate the Catholic Church?
Bishop Fellay: Yes, we have always maintained that we do not wish to go our own way. We maintain that we are Catholic and that we remain so. We wish that Rome will recognize us as true Bishops. Otherwise, the word schismatic is not used any longer regarding us. Now, if we are not schismatics, nor heretics, then we are truly Catholic. Otherwise, the Pope says that there is solely a problem of a canonical nature. An act of Rome suffices to state that it's over and that we reenter the Church[/color]. This will happen [Ça viendra.]. I am very optimistic.
[Source: Le Forum Catholique; tip: Le Salon Beige]
Fellay speaks: I am confident (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/10/fellay-speaks-we-are-all-on-same-line.html)
10/25/2007From an interview granted by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to Paolo Luigi Rodari, in Il Riformista:
Fellay... has often been defined as the head of the more moderate wing of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Bishop Richard Williamson, who would represent the more intransigent wing in the Fraternity, that [wing] of the "never and never again" regarding a compromise with Rome.
"Nothing could be falser - Fellay explains it -, Williamson and I are on the same line, that which believes that we could hardly re-enter a Church as is. And the reasons are quite simple. Benedict XVI has indeed liberalized the ancient rite, but I cannot explain for what reason he made such a decision if he then allows the majority of Bishops to criticize and disobey him regarding what he determined. What should we do? Re-enter the Church and then be insulted by all those people?[/color]"
_____________________
Bishop Fellay on oversight by N.O. Bishops:
2009:
Interview with Bishop Fellay (http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-mershon-interview-fellay.htm)
Mershon: Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?
Bp. Fellay: That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive.
2012:
Interview with Bishop Fellay (http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/)
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory. ... are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Bishop Fellay: ... It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? ... And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
Nice job B from A!
Certainly, the pro-apologists for +Fellay, like Johnnier, do not want to read about these contradictions and dangers to the Traditional Faith coming from +Fellay.
They just kick in the program of re-branding and ignore it...
-
Contradictions. .. . Hmm. . . yes, Bp. Fellay speaks with infallibility and is good when we resistance say so, but when what he says doesn't pass the resistance selective filter test, then it can't be good, and he must be contradictory. . . . Now, for anyone this is clear logic and infallible resistance wisdom. :thinking:
Facts . . . I am still waiting for the heresies. . . but I guess I will have to keep waiting :sleep:
-
.
HE'S BA-A-A-A-ACK!
[/size][/font][/color][/b]
There you have it. And that should be good enough for everyone. No one has the right to say that Bishop Fellay does not mean what he is saying. No one can read his mind, not Bishop Williamson or anyone else.
And maybe those who are so base as to call him "Bernie" can start to show the proper respect.
I say, Deo Gratias! He is back.
Post (from page 7) (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27744&min=30#p3)
Stop focusing on what he says, and consider his actions and policies.
Father John O'Conner always said, "Don't just look at what they say; watch what they do."
This guy is at least consistent. He custom-tailors his words for the
audience at hand. What he says is only good for proof of what he
wants you to think; it has nothing to do with the truth.
Let me say that again: WHAT HE SAYS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE TRUTH. IT'S ONLY WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO THINK.
When B. Fellay gives a 3-hour lecture/sales pitch, followed by
another 3 or 4-hour sales pitch/soliloquy, what he is doing is attempting
to hypnotize the crowd............ Again!
I believe Francis is a godsend for Bp. Fellay. The pope is so overtly goofy and unhinged that Fellay can confidently create distance between himself and the pontiff, and not run the risk of having people think he has reneged upon his plan of full regularization with the Holy See. He escapes his earlier Rome-ward faux pas and comes out relatively unscathed in the minds of his confreres. He gives Fellay's defenders the ability once again to say to the SG's foes: "I told you so."
ABSOLUTELY!! Hollingsworth scores a 3-pointer from halfcourt!
(I hope you don't mind if I borrow your term, "Rome-ward faux pas!")
As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X [sic] warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:
The Great One is here ACTING AS IF he were talking about Pope
Francis, but in fact, what he is talking about is HIMSELF.
The Great One (TGO) is a typical Modernist, as Pope St. Pius X warned
us about in Pascendi, the Modernist, that is SGBF, will sometimes
speak in a manner offensive to pious ears, such as in his abominable
AFD from 2012 which he kept hidden for a year because
he was aware of how scandalous it is, and then the Modernist, that
is SGBF, will speak in an orthodox manner, such as at this ridiculous
dog-and-pony show in Kansas the other day.
He says what he knows you want to hear, and no, we are not inside
his head, nor would we want to be there (shudder!), but we are not
stupid, and we know what he is thinking because we can SEE WHAT
HE DOES. What he says is only comprehensible in light of his actions,
because then we can know what he means by way of his deeds.
His words are ALL DECEPTION. Once we realize that he lies through
his teeth constantly, then we can see what the words coming out
actually signify, because his ACTIONS define his words.
In this OP article there are numerous catch-phrases that he knows
his audience will EAT UP because they have longed to hear him say
them:
~ The present pope is making the disaster 10,000 times worse.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is making the crisis 10,000 times worse!)
~ The Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both
a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is part of the chastisement, and part of the 3rd Secret!)
~ Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse
is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the
coming of Antichrist.
(READ: XSPXSGBF is a mini-Antichrist, seductively leading the Faithful
away from the Faith of our Fathers and into the clutches of Newchurch!)
~ Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his
pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth.
(READ: Well, guess what? XSPXSGBF is already here, on the earth, too!)
~ He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII
mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.
(READ: Gee. I wonder why XSPXSGBF never reads the "original version
of the St. Michael prayer" from the pulpit, or as part of any kind of
ceremony in church? If he knows it's great stuff, why just drop a
clue at a boring 4-hour soliloquy/salespitch session? Maybe it's
because HEBF aims to establish his seat in Rome, too? Hmmmmm?)
~ The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all
the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret
we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church
begins at the top.”
(READ: And this is NEWS? We have all been aware of this for what,
now going on 20 years, due to Fr. Gruner's work and the indefatiguable
Fr. Paul Kramer, and Fr. James Wathen, and Canon Gregorius Hesse,
and Fr. Paul Trinchard, and Fr. Jarecki, and Fr. Wickens, and on and on.
How about this headline):
THE APOSTASY IN THE SSPX BEGINS AT THE TOP!
~ He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957
interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated
that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and
that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated
to God.”
(READ: Entire populations of Catholics will disappear, and SSPX
chapels will transform into diocesan Indultery Mass sites
indistinguishable from the ICK, FSSP or IGS, and the devil will do
all in his power to convince the SSPX pew-sitters that XSPXSGBF is
their GREAT LEADER who has their interests at heart!)
~ “Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder,
the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation.
The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This
is 'the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church'.”
(READ: The Great One is struck with this confusion and disorder,
and the SSPX Faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own
salvation while their good pastors are arbitrarily transferred to
the South Pole to evangelize the penguins, lest they be EXPELLED
for "disobedience" just like so many under the mini-Antichrist Pope
Paul VI the Abominable. The help that should be provided by
Churchmen is not there BECAUSE XSPXSGBF has forbidden it. The
“greatest tragedy you can ever imagine in the SSPX” is the
deliberate, willful, intentional and custom-designed tragedy that
XSPXSGBF has formed with his own hands. Make no mistake about it!)
~ ETC.
~ Let's see: where was I??
~ The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation,
“and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is
the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.”
(READ: Since the NovusOrdo hierarchy are doing nothing to help us
sanctify ourselves, become holy, and seek our salvation, we are
left hoping to find such helps in the SSPX, but now we find they are
following suit and imitating Rome, and we are now further deprived
of this very important element which is the support of the SSPX
leadership. WHAT A TRAGEDY!)
~ He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two
last remedies for us: The Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate
Heart.
(READ: The SGBF demonstrates that he knows well all about the
Fatima apparitions, for he's fully aware of the comforting words God
gave as two last remedies for us in this troubled time when the SSPX
has failed to hand down what ABL passed on to it before he died.
We're looking at having no Masses anymore because the XSPX has
become corrupted, so all we'll have left is the Rosary and the Brown
Scapular -- wait -- the Great One didn't mention the Scapular. Probably
because OUR LADY OF MT. CARMEL gives him cold sweats, now that
Fr. Pfeiffer's chapel goes by that name! We need two more chapels:
Chapel of the Rosary of Our Lady and Devotion to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary Chapel. Then +F won't be able to lie to us any more.
BECAUSE HE WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS!!!!) HAHAHA
~ Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see
what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank
God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year.
(READ: Look, fellas, I know, what I said with much unction for 3
years running about the Rosary Crusades and how important it was
to pray for the Collegial Consecration is all water under the bridge, now.
We have to move on! What I strove for night and day long since before
my abominable AFD and long after that (although, yes, I know, I did not
manage to stir up the fortitude to tell you I was secretly trying with all
my heart to forge a 'deal' with modernist Rome) was to forge a 'deal'
with modernist Rome! And I know, once bitten, twice shy and all, but hey,
let's let bygones be bygones! I violated your trust before, and now, of
course, you're going to forgive me so I can violate your trust again!
Won't that be fun????????????????)
~ And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is
that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God.
(READ: I collected 12 million Rosaries from you at a dollar a pop -- wait
-- scratch that. I didn't mean it. Really I didn't (heh-heh). What I mean
to say is, you guys prayed all those Rosaries for the intention of the
Pope and bishops of the world to make the Collegial Consecration of
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, all on one day, you know, like
Our Lady asked for the pope and bishops to do, and so did Our Lord
Jesus Christ, warning that they could face a fate as bad OR WORSE
than the guillotine of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette (both of whom are
now saints in heaven but you moderns are hard pressed to meet up
with that achievement, thus your "or worse" aspect comes into play),
but after the Rosary crusade was OVER (It should never have stopped!)
we didn't get for Christmas what we asked Santa for, and so we had a
preschool tantrum and looked for some other thing to claim that our
prayers were able to tell God what to do. We got the lifting of the
excoms (which didn't need lifting) and the freeing of the CTLM (which
didn't need to be 'freed'), and that spin zone project went over like
a lead trial balloon, so we scrapped that and now we're latching on
to the idea we stole from Bishops Tissier de Mallerais and Richard
Williamson, both of whom are thorns in our sides and we only wish
there was some way to obliterate their consecration and make them
no longer bishops but we can't, and we took their idea that the
rejection of Rome would be viewable as a 'grace' and we ran that one
by our Dutch Re-Branding firm with the forgettable Flemish name and
they told us OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. But we have some very
important details for you to make sure this really works, which are
readily available by e-mail to you if you would please remit payment
for this invoice of $39,835.61 for this service installment, which includes
your past due balance and penalty and interest for non-payment in a
timely manner. -------- OH, not to mention the fact that we really, really
tried to get that 'deal' with modernist Rome but if we can't have it, then
at least we're going to 'spin' this top to make it look like 'everything's
coming up roses,' just as Ethel Merman said!)
(http://cloud.freehandmusic.netdna-cdn.com/preview/530x4/hal_leonard/hl_dds_0000000000103822.png)
~ It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be
Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized
as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that.
Of course not.”
(READ: When I say "be Catholics" what I mean is conform to what the
Modernists in Rome want us to be so THEY can call us "Catholics," okay?
Now that that's clear, we can move along here. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
HAVE THOSE MODERNISTS IN ROME THINK OF US AND 'recognize' US
TO BE THE 'CATHOLICS' WHICH MEET THEIR GREAT EXPECTATIONS.
And if you don't know what I mean, read Charles Di*ckens but be sure
you get the Swiss German version because I cut my teeth on that back
in the 60's. Speaking of "treasures." Do you have any idea how many
real estate treasures, I mean, deeds bear my signature? I mean, I
couldn't possibly step down now, there would be far too much paper-
work to do!)
~ He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are
decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really
challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something
else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
(READ: Any of you trolls out there who appreciate lessons in trollism
that you pick up on my transcripts duly provided by my personal butler,
I mean lackey Vennari, don't hesitate to send your donations to DICI
Hey that even has a nice ring to it "Donations to DICI, tra-la-la-la!"
As for the "poor people" -- don't think I've forgotten about the four
sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. I studied my catechism very well.
But I didn't study my English lessons too well, you see, I prove I mean
right here. Let those poor people whose wages I defraud, I mean, I
prove, I mean, I pretend I mean something else from what I say I do,
I mean, just look at my actions and compare it to my words --- WAIT! ---
Don't Do That! Can we talk about something else, now? St. Luke ii.
35: "And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that out of many
hearts thoughts may be revealed." Lk. i. 51: "He hath shown
might in his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of
their heart." [Hey, SGBF, are we still not inside your head? I
mean, what's the point in ASKING that if you're not THINKING that?!?!])
~ As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition
ended when they gave me the docuмent to sign on June 13, 2012. That
very day I told them, ‘this docuмent I cannot accept.’ I told them from
the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this
‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is
against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in
continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that
we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition,
we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re
not going to recognize that’.”
(READ: Oh, dear. Those guys on CI have dragged this paragraph through
the mud already -- what in the world is Neil Obstat going to do with it?
[Commercial break: Folks, better minds than mine have already taken
this to task, but let me say this about that: You can pretty much here
just think of what the opposite is that these words would seem to say,
and that's what you should NOT RULE OUT for TGO* to be thinking. In
a case like this one, TGO doesn't want to be here. He hates talking
about this because everything he says can and will be used against him
In the USA we say, "Miranda rights," but in the Gospel Our Lord says,
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned" (Matt. xii. 37).] *The Great One)
~ “The same for the Mass. The[y] want us to recognize not only that the [New]
Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I
told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have
enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New
Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!” Of course the
Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”
(READ: Perhaps this is where Johnnier gets his "Bishop Fellay is talking
about 'licit' not legitimate" schtick, but if you read the actual words here,
you see that TGO has "We don't use that word (licit)..." [because] "It's a
bit messy." After all, it has two I's, and that makes it look like it's looking
at you! We don't want to say "spooky" so we say "messy." Got it? Now
for the really spooky stuff: We Have To Water Down What We Say To
Our Faithful Because They Are A Bunch Of Dunces. "They have too much
to worry about" means that they have insufficient intelligence, and WE,
THE MASTERS FROM MENZINGEN, are in CONTROL of their minds. WE
TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK AND HOW TO THINK ABOUT IT. Remember
when I said "the Resistance (crowd) is not in my head?" Well, I AM IN
THE HEADS OF MY MINIONS. In fact, I like the way Rush Limbaugh says
it: "I live rent free inside the heads of these liberals." So now, our
Great Leader is pinch-hitting for us high in the ninth inning. The Romans
were not very happy with our great work. They were like bugs hitting
the glass, or maybe goldfish. Just remember: we are doing all we can in
this good-cop/bad-cop schtick to keep you from looking at the FACT that
the Newmass was never promulgated. Oh, and that the excoms were
never real. Oh, and that this whole dog-and-pony show is a nonstop
rehash of the 'Bread and Circuses' routine that this city (Rome) has in
its very blood. Been there done that.)
~ He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the
Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’.”
(READ: OOOHHHH, no. Let's see if they'll swallow this WHOPPER. We have
made NO SECRET of our proposition that Vatican II is 95% acceptable,
and that the Newmass was 'legitimately promulgated', which, translated
means that the Council might give one a little IRREGULARITY, but
speaking of swallowing Whoppers, we think that some Maalox or Pepto
Bismol ought to fix you right up. Maybe some Ex-Lax. They have a
new chocolate flavor. But I digress. When I say "It has never been our
intention, what is IN MY HEAD is that while this is exactly what I was
thinking all along, what it was entirely my INTENTION to make it SEEM
like what was going on here, is that the opposite was in fact the case,
and you can know that by what I DID, the things that I MADE HAPPEN
during that time: I expelled those good priests who stood up for the
truth, therefore I was opposed to the truth. I transferred those good
priests who dared to oppose my push for a 'deal' with modernist Rome,
therefore I was hell-bent on destroying the opposition, regardless of
what I say, EVEN NOW. Let the imbeciles like Joan.nier tow the party
line, but the show must go on, with him or without him. There are
plenty more where he came from.)
~ “The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole docuмent, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.
This piece of trash deserves special attention. Oh, so now we're supposed
to believe that this "BIG PRINCIPLE FROM VATICAN I" was supposed to
be the underlying foundation of the abominable AFD?! And the moon is
made of cheese, correct? Oh, right: SWISS CHEESE! (I'll bet you can't say
that without a mile! :clown: ) I have just one question for His Excellency
here: If THAT was the "base of the whole docuмent," the "principle" upon
which the entire AFD is squarely planted, why has it taken you ONE AND
ONE HALF YEARS to come up with that excuse? No, Why Was That Not In
The Docuмent Itself? I don't have to wait for your ridiculous answer, which
would take FAR TOO LONG to read anyway because you could stretch this
out for at LEAST 45 minutes. No, I can answer it right now. The answer is,
that the AFD was NOT based on this proposition from Vatican I at all, and
the fact that you'd dare to claim that it was is FURTHER PROOF that you are
nothing but an inveterate liar and a cheat. Your abominable AFD has no
truck with the truth of the Holy Ghost, and you know it. You're just groping
at straws. You know it stinks from beginning to end, but you refuse to
admit as much, and therefore you are trying, as Martin Luther did, to cover
your sins with the blanket of snow, that would be the Holy Ghost. Sin, and
sin MORE BOLDLY, correct, Martin-Luther-Fellay? Which,
by the way, looks unmistakably congruent to the UNFORGIVABLE SIN!
~ “And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
Gag me with a spoon. Lord god king bufu. Totally! Hi! I am a Val, I know....
We are dealing here with Val-speak from the XSPXSGBF without any attempt
at making any excuse for it. Where is Moonunitzappa when you need her? She
could decode this stuff. We've got a live wire, captain! TGO has somehow
managed to stick into his abominable AFD "sentences that have never been our
thinking and our life." Well, then where did they come from? Oh, right: the
teenage girl from the Valley. Some chick from Encino has been giving him
lessons, and he's been enjoying that FAR MORE than Thomistic philosophy ever
was in class. Maybe he flunked like Ratzinger did. Or plagiarized the answers?
Naaah. Impossible! Anyways, it's the SUBTLETY that's key, now. We jump
from one category to another like a leapfrog, or perhaps a flea. That's why you
withdrew that text, eh? Too ambiguous, eh? Too ambiguous like the explanation
that "IT" is too ambiguous and that's why you withdrew "IT?" Of course, you
don't dare say WHAT you withdrew. No, of course not. This way, Azul or one
of the other Accordista minions on board can accuse this writer of having
ignored the answer to his previous question: "No, Why Was That Not In
The Docuмent Itself?" OH, (+W's squeaky voice) but it waaas in the
docuмent itsewf - but we weemoved it becawse it was ambigwuous!")
Kyrie eleison.
~ “So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We
have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We
have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next
generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We
do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the
treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize
them.
(READ: Our principle is to stay faithful, and that's why we're actively
expelling all the good priests and especially the ones with enough
gumption to take a stand against our self destructive path. Right. And
I have an oil well for sale. We have removed the only Rector who has
consistently produced the militant missionary spirit priests that ABL
was hoping and praying would come out of his seminaries, but we are
not going to jeopardize our treasures. Of course not. Give me a break.)
~ He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as
abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an illusion to the
unnatural ‘re-definition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of
what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians.
(READ: Uhh, how about the defrauding a laborer his just wages and
oppression of the poor ------- the things of which this XSPXSG is, shall
we say, "not entirely innocent?" What about those? What about when
a working family spends years and years supporting the local SSPX
chapel to safeguard the Faith of Catholics and then along comes this
liar and cheat, who destroys in stages its very foundation and
principles of Catholicism as if by a sinister plan, by direct order and
deliberate action, while all along lying about it right and left, which see?
What about oppression of the poor -- telling them when they notice
the things he's doing that they're "poor people" who can't manage to
get up to speed with his nefarious program of aggiornamento? That
sin that cries to heaven for vengeance? Eh? EH?)
Time for a break...........................
~ ETC.
~ Let's see: where was I??
~ “If the present pope continues in the way he started, he is going to
divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it
is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say
[and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him
as Pope, but don’t follow him. He’s provoking anger. Many people
will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be
tempted to “throw it all away.”
(READ: If the present XSPX-SG continues in the way he has gradually
developed he is going to divide the Society of St. Pius X. He is
exploding everything. So People will say: "It is impossible that
he is really the Superior General! We refuse him!" Others will say
"Wait, consider him as XSPXSGBF, but don't follow him! He's
provoking anger." Many people will be discouraged by what
people in the Church do, people who assist regularly at Society
Masses, and will be tempted to “throw away all their years of
contributions to the SSPX.”)
~ But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able
to have the Church continue” and even can work through these
imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them.
Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish,
you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must
be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a
mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer
a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”
(READ: Through all this, God is able to have the Society continue,
even through these corrupted Menzingen-denizens. But don't follow
them! When they speak truth, follow them, but DON'T FOLLOW
THEIR RUBBISH, their Balony. True obedience is obedience to God.
When I obey a person, his commands should be a reflection of God's
commandments. But when they bear no resemblance to God's
commandments, like this rubbish out of Menzingen, Johnnier, then I
don't follow that, and neither should you.)
~ Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes
without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we
would endanger our Faith.
(READ: The Superior General of the XSPX noted that we cannot simply
obey the present XSPXSGBF and his henchmen without question,
because then we would destroy ourselves; We would endanger
our Faith!)
~ Following the warning of Sister Lucia, Pope Leo XIII and Pius X, Bishop
Fellay further warned that we may be entering into the time of
Antichrist, but we cannot know when, or how far off in the future this
may be.
(READ: Following the warning of Our Lady of La Salette, Pope Leo
XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Our Lady of Fatima and Sister Lucia of Fatima,
XSPXSGBF further warned that we may be entering into the time of
Antichrist, or, at least the time of one of the many precursors to the
Antichrist, like the current Menzingen-denizens would sometimes
appear, but we cannot know when, like, maybe this speech, for
example! -or how far off in the future this may be, like, maybe only
one or two seconds............ like........... NOW!)
~ He amplified a few points regarding Fatima, the Secret, the 2012
drama with Rome, and then spoke of some of the many grave
problems with Pope Francis.
(READ: He dragged out some catch-phrases from Tradition to keep
the attention of the audience from drifting away into la-la land,
and to give them what they wanted to hear, duly downplaying his
Most Nefarious AFD and the associated scandal that it caused
as merely "the drama of 2012," as if you had had a night out at the
local theater and saw a stage play that wasn't quite suitable fare for
the family or something like that, and furthermore, to exemplify this
obnoxiously duplicitous behavior, after he spoke of some of the many
grave problems with Pope Francis, he turned around and ordered all
the XSPX houses to hang his lurid photo prominently on the wall for
all to see, and, if you want to impress XSPXSGBF, you'd best remove
that outdated photo of Pope Pius XII, because we don't want to be
reminded of what a real pope is like, or what happens to the Faith of
Catholics when a dogma is defined like it was on November 1st, All
Saints' Day, 1950, which was BTW before most of us were born,
including the current XSPXSG, BF, and it is therefore most
FORGETTABLE.)
~ “From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have
something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to
distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.” A small example
of this is Francis’ insistence on wearing black shoes instead of the red
papal shoes, but this is minor compared to greater issues. We must
look, said the bishop, at what is his vision of the Church, his vision of
the council, and what is his plan.
(READ: From the start, we had the impression there was something
wrong with this SGBF, because from the start he wanted to distinguish
himself from the Founder ABL and his teachings. We were not quite
sure just how he was going to do it, though, because he spoke many
of the same words, albeit with a quirky Swiss accent foreign to the
wonderful lilt of the Archbishop's voice (cf. Jn. x. 4.27), even so, there
was something about him that you couldn't quite put your finger on.
And many priests of the SSPX in 1994 and 95 and 96 were heard to
often say, "We should pray for our Superior General because he
needs our prayers" and the Faithful took pause to wonder what the
true meaning was of those words. And then came the little changes.
One word here, one word there, only later we would discover that
HEBF was actively promoting GREC in 1997, without making any kind
of public acknowledgement of it, nor was there any cutting-edge
journalist around who could make the NEWS available. No, that
would take YEARS, and only after the widow of the founder, Hughette
Perol, wrote a book on the subject did it start to wake up the sleeping
Faithful of the SSPX, but even then it was sluggish. Too many Pollyanna
parishioners, I guess! I was one of them. It takes one to know one!
But this is minor compared to the greater issues! We must
look at what this SG's vision is for the Society, his vision of the
conciliar church, and of the Council - WHAT IS HIS PLAN?)
~ It was around the time of World Youth Day, late July of this year, that
Francis began an avalanche of talks, interviews, phone calls, etc. “We
may not have the entire picture at this point, we have enough to be
scared to death.”
(READ: There have been times in the past years, when XSPXSGBF
has been conspicuously silent for months at a time, as if holed up
in his bovine-shrouded pastures of Menzingen, and then, all of a
sudden he has emerged with a spate of speech venues in odd
places all over the planet, his traveling usually accompanied by
select visits to the local notary to BRAND his signature onto a Deed
of Trust or two. But I digress. Talks, interviews (CNS, Angelus Press)
phone calls, etc. We may not have the entire picture at this point,
but what we do have is enough to scare the living bejingles out
of us!)
~ As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the
Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak
in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these
contradictions:
(READ: We are most capable of sourcing out longstanding words that
+F spoke years ago, and comparing them to what he says today
provides a stark contrast in content. But we sometimes now don't
even have to do that. We can look at what he says to one crowd,
and then the very next day what he says to another, and it's like
night and day! Who is this, Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde? or is it a clinical
condition a shrink might diagnose?)
(http://img0.etsystatic.com/012/0/5488389/il_570xN.451048646_q2cg.jpg)
-
.
Johnnier is going to complain!! So is Azul!! I'll save them the trouble..
You see, I really WAS controlling myself. I was tempted to post
something more like the following, but I managed to hold back those
wild horses:
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles17/387181/projects/2020343/1ea68bf49894e8de8c13054f15722b5d.jpg)
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d2/06/46/d206464f2e2c275ea287d1fb5b879470.jpg)
(http://a1.tapuz.co.il/Albums/resimgurl.asp?pw=100&ph=75&image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2%2Etapuz%2Eco%2Eil%2FTop%5FSocialNetwork%2FMainPictures%2F1260000%2FFullImage%5F800Mx600M%2F1260197%5F530b32ab%2D6187%2D432d%2Da44c%2D64d73ff12500%5FFullImage%5F800Mx600M%2Ejpg)
-
.
~ Thread Title = Bp. Fellay on Pope Francis:
"What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!"
(READ: "What we have before us is the Pot calling the Kettle...")
(http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/5201264/il_570xN.113366792.jpg)
-
Contradictions. .. . Hmm. . . yes, Bp. Fellay speaks with infallibility and is good when we resistance say so, but when what he says doesn't pass the resistance selective filter test, then it can't be good, and he must be contradictory. . . . Now, for anyone this is clear logic and infallible resistance wisdom. :thinking:
Facts . . . I am still waiting for the heresies. . . but I guess I will have to keep waiting :sleep:
Johnnier,
Self-evidence and objective observation is not one of your strong points; I understand. However, to say that "Bp. Fellay speaks with infallibility" is quite an inordinate attachment to "Authority"; isn't it?
You cannot see, because the "big elephant in the room" that is right in front of you, is blocking your view to look at other things you fictionally desire. Sorry, step two-feet back and you will see the "elephant".
Your jesting is without substance. So please discontinue the "red-herrings"; you make no sense.
Balance is key; so isn't the integral Traditional Catholic Faith.
-
Yes, Francis is the Pope and the resistance think they are Pope. This can be hard to grasp for some, but not so hard for others. I wonder why?
Johnnier,
The pope says "God isn't Catholic", but if we then resist him, you claim we
are making ourselves pope?
He contradicted the First Commandment.
You are putting the "man-in-white" above the Faith.
-
Man in white= Pope. It isn't that hard to grasp, really it isn't. But for some well, it might difficult - It might go against their own pontificate.
-
Facts . . . I am still waiting for the heresies. . . but I guess I will have to keep waiting :sleep:
Perhaps when you awaken from your slumber, and your eyes are open, you will see them before you.
-
Machabees,
As said, you still can't put anything forward to substantiate the resistance. Perhaps, one day, you might have the honesty admit you haven't a leg to stand on. . . . till then :sleep:
He is still sleeping...a Menzingen loyalist to the end....
-
Machabees,
As said, you still can't put anything forward to substantiate the resistance. Perhaps, one day, you might have the honesty admit you haven't a leg to stand on. . . . till then :sleep:
Johnnier,
Why the Games? I have provided you, as with others here, with some of the problems of Bishop Fellay and his sellout that you have requested; you refuse to engage and to look at it because you do not like the problems; nor Bishop Williamson as a source. Everything to you is a "spin" outside of your own fictional world. I am sorry for you.
I do agree that the n-sspx is in a comatose; and wishes rather to sleep as you do.
Keep sleeping then...it is a shame; however, there will be others to fill your place.
-
Just thinking aloud.
Mmm, wonder why it took so long for Bishop Fellay to come out of his shell and realize that Francis is a 'modernist'. Tell us something we don't know!
You see, I remain suspicious of Bishop Fellay, because in an attempt to safeguard his own postion, it is only when his position was or still is threatened that he has now 'come out' and publically admitted that Rome is modernist.
It was clear as crystal right from the start the Francis is a modernist and intent on reforms. He's probably a freemason to boot.
-
What evidence. Cite a text that shows that Bp. Fellay has taught one single heresy? You think that you are up to the task? - The reality is that you can not.
How many times was the Archbishop accused of supposedly going to sell out the SSPX. For all that he remain on course.
The real problem is that the resistance can not see beyond it's own personal dislike for Bp. Fellay. The consequence of their false ideas of the faith and authority will have disastrous consequences.
Well, the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012 is the Modernist heresy in practice.
You seem to have no ability to defend this man without calling
upon the memory of a deceased Archbishop and you seem not to be able to see beyond your adulation of the King into the reality of the situation.
The doctrinal Declaration of 2012, the re-branding campaign, the new priestly formation, and so on, now there are the disastrous consequences of liberalized thought.
-
There is an article written in french by Fr. Chazal in which he breaks down Bishop Fellay's comments on Pope Francis.
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.com/2013/10/le-chancre-le-scalpel-et-le-sparadrap_20.html
-
I think this is the first time Fellay has criticized Francis publicly. I am glad he did.
It's far too late and it means nothing.It will have no bearing on how laity and priests perceive him.
For some people if they would've criticized Pope Francis they day his was born it would be too late.....when should he have passed to criticize the pope the day before the election. Nope still too late. Get real. Cynicism has no place with Catholicism.
-
Here's the audio (I think…):
http://www.dici.org/wp-content/plugins/mp3-player-plugin-for-wordpress/mp3/Angeluspress12.mp3
http://www.dici.org/wp-content/plugins/mp3-player-plugin-for-wordpress/mp3/Angeluspress22.mp3
-
Google translation:
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Bishop Fellay really takes us for idiots !
by Michael
At the congress of the Angelus Press, 11 and 12 October 2013, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X , gave a lecture , followed the next Sunday in a sermon. You will find below some comments from the report published on KID .
Bishop Fellay has alluded to the difficult situation in 2012, when relations between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican : " When you see what is happening now [ under Pope François ] , we give thanks to God, we bear thanks to God that we were protected from any sort of agreement last year. And we can say that one of the fruits of the Crusade [ rosary ] we made is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune . God thank you . "
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-popWXMGvSic/UmT6qTJjfYI/AAAAAAAADCA/3BS9Cmyz_w4/s400/voiture+Mgr+Fellay+Rome+13+juin+2012.jpg)
Bishop Fellay arrives in Rome to sign an agreement .
The Blessed Virgin has protected the SSPX Bishop Fellay ! Bishop Fellay really take us for idiots!
Bishop Fellay: "It is not that we do not want to be Catholic , of course, we want to be Catholic and we are Catholics , we have the right to be recognized as Catholic . But we will not jeopardize our treasures for it. Of course not . "
The purpose of Bishop Fellay: the right to be recognized by the Catholic heretics ! Means to achieve this end : endangering our treasures . Recognition of the legitimacy of the promulgation of the New Mass , the new Code of Canon Law , Vatican II , etc. , see DQA
On discussions with Rome: " Any kind of approach for recognition ended when the Roman authorities gave me the docuмent to be signed on 13 June 2012. That day , I told them : ' I can not accept this docuмent . " I told them from the beginning in September of the previous year , we could not accept this ' hermeneutic of continuity ' because it is not a truth , it is not reality. It goes against the reality. So we do not accept . The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. There is not.
Bishop Fellay leads boat for the paper and the pope are almost identical . cf. Article Rome Menzingen agree.
So when Pope Benedict XVI has asked that we recognize that Vatican II is an integral part of the tradition, we said, 'Sorry, this is not reality , so we will not sign . We will not recognize it . '"
But Bishop Fellay wrote solemnly : " The whole tradition of the Catholic faith should be the criterion and guide the understanding of the teachings of Vatican II , which in turn lights - that is to say, deepens and explicit later - some aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in it or not yet formulated conceptually . " Bishop Fellay really take us for idiots !
He continued: "It was never our intention either to argue that the Council is considered good , or that the New Mass is " legitimate " .
But Bishop Fellay wrote solemnly : "We declare recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church is according to the rites indicated in typical editions of the Roman Missal and Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II. "
Here is what the Abbot de la Rocque :
"Can we recognize the legitimacy of the New Mass ? We are in shades of words you say , but very important. Can we recognize the legitimacy of the new mass or, equivalently , the legitimacy of its promulgation ? it is exactly in the same case for the new code . Recognize the New Mass as legitimate would mean that the New Mass is not bad in itself. Yet it is bad in itself , since it obscures the essential aspects Mass, his sacrifice and atonement purpose . so we can not say that the New Mass is good in itself, and therefore can not recognize in the Church the legitimacy of the new Mass , since bad law does not become law . can not . "
Bishop Fellay really take us for idiots !
"The text [ 15 April 2012] we presented in Rome was , shall we say, a difficult text that should be understood , it was meant to be read in the light of a great principle who ran everything. This great principle is nothing new in the Church : "The Holy Spirit was not promised to St. Peter and his successor so that , thanks to a new revelation , Pope teaches something new , but with his help , the Pope and faithfully keeps transmit the deposit of faith . ' This is taken from the definition of infallibility [ set by Vatican I] . It was the principle , the basis of the entire docuмent , which automatically excludes any novelty .
"So take any sentence of text, excluding the principle , is to make sentences that were neither our thoughts nor our lives. These words themselves are ambiguous , so to resolve this ambiguity , we wanted to introduce this principle. Unfortunately , maybe it was too subtle and that is why we removed the text because it was not clear enough as it was written. "
Here, Bishop Fellay really explicitly takes us for fools ! He said black and white that his opponents are limited intellectually. Bishop Fellay is " subtle " to negotiate with Rome because he uses " ambiguous " sentences ( he says) to be interpreted with a principle that contradicts . Dear reader, (probably a bit limited , according to Bishop Fellay ) , you find that this doctrinal preamble sentence of 15 April 2012 is ambiguous : "In accordance with the criteria set out above (III , 5 ) and canon 21 of the Code , we pledge to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws , especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1983) and in the code of law canon of the Eastern Churches promulgated by Pope Paul VI (1990), without prejudice to the discipline to concede the Society of St. Pius X by a special law. "
Pope Francis
Bishop Fellay: "At the beginning of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, I said . ' The crisis of the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put the brakes ' In other words , the Church will continue to drop , but with a parachute. And since the beginning of his pontificate [ the pope François ] , I say, it cut the strings, and there hangs a rocket [ downward ] . ' "
Bishop Fellay has not changed his mind about Benedict XVI , it is serious . But we had some serious events :
- 21.10.2007 : Interfaith Meeting of Naples ;
- 28.04.2008 : Visit the New York ѕуηαgσgυє ;
- 15.07.2008 : J.M.J. Sydney with its liturgy " inculturation " and pagan rituals ;
- 12.05.2009 : Visit the Dome of Jerusalem ;
- 12.05.2009 : Jєωιѕн Ritual Wailing Wall ;
- 17.01.2010 : Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome ;
- 14.03.2010 : Active participation in the Lutheran church in Rome ;
- 01.05.2011 : Beatification of John Paul II;
- 27.10.2011 : Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi ;
Not to mention the Motu Proprio which formally repealed the Tridentine Mass as ordinary rite of the Latin Catholic Church.
Etc. .
That is a Pope who " tries to put the brakes " ? Bishop Fellay really take us for idiots !
Advice Mgr: But has he reminded God is " much, much bigger than us . God is able to allow the Church to continue "and it can work even through these imperfect ministers. " But again ," said he repeated : "Do not follow them. Follow them when they tell the truth, but when you talk nonsense , do not follow these points. "
For Bishop Fellay, must follow the heretics when they say good things. The position of the Church has never been one. Indeed, what can be said of many a heretic has little value because it is also so wrong . In addition, the sort in which Pope seems right or wrong does not follow the Pope but the judge at all times. In addition, if you are a little trained in the techniques of subversion , we know that a liberal gives tokens of good faith and pretends sometimes it is best not to fall asleep distrust.
Bishop Fellay rejects the principle of nullam partem with modernist heretics principle so dear to the saints. Thus, the liberal drift prepares rallying in Asia, are published in a newsletter of the SSPX good pages of Pope Francis, the United States we pray in communion with the Pope François for Syria.
The DICI article concludes: " As a result of Sister Lucia , of Popes Leo XIII and Pius X , Bishop Fellay has warned more forcefully though we may be about to enter the time of Antichrist , but we can not know exactly where or how long it can happen. "
Bishop Fellay is trying to close ranks by fear. He prophesies with " maybe" and " we can not know." This is not serious . We are not at the end of the world since before this, the Apocalypse , St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort and the Fatima apparitions indicate that there will be the reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and a time of great achievements for the Church ( explanation : here, here, here). Certainly, Bishop Fellay took us for idiots through.
Original:
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.com/2013/10/mgr-fellay-nous-prend-vraiment-pour-des.html
mardi 22 octobre 2013
Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment pour des idiots !
Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment
pour des idiots !
Par Michaël
Lors du congrès de l’Angelus Press, des 11 et 12 octobre 2013, Mgr Bernard Fellay, Supérieur général de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, a donné une conférence, suivie le lendemain dimanche d’un sermon. Vous trouverez ci-dessous quelques commentaires à partir du compte-rendu paru sur DICI.
Mgr Fellay a fait allusion à la situation difficile de 2012, lors des relations entre la Fraternité Saint-Pie X et le Vatican : « Quand on voit ce qui se passe maintenant [sous le pape François], nous rendons grâce à Dieu, nous rendons grâce à Dieu de ce que nous avons été préservés de toute sorte d’accord l’an dernier. Et nous pouvons dire que l’un des fruits de la croisade [du rosaire] que nous avons faite, c’est que nous avons été préservés d’un tel malheur. Dieu merci. »
Mgr Fellay arrive à Rome pour signer un accord.
La Sainte Vierge a donc protégé la FSSPX de Mgr Fellay ! Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment pour des idiots !
Mgr Fellay : « Ce n’est pas que nous ne voulons pas être catholiques, bien sûr, nous voulons être catholiques et nous sommes catholiques, nous avons le droit d’être reconnus en tant que catholiques. Mais nous n’allons pas mettre en péril nos trésors pour cela. Bien sûr que non. »
Le but de Mgr Fellay : le droit d’être reconnu catholique par des hérétiques ! Moyens pour arriver à cette fin : mise en péril de nos trésors : reconnaissance de la légitimité de la promulgation de la nouvelle messe, du nouveau code de droit canon, du concile Vatican II , etc., voir DQA
Au sujet des discussions avec Rome : « Tout type de démarche pour une reconnaissance a pris fin quand les autorités romaines m’ont donné le docuмent à signer, le 13 juin 2012. Ce jour-là, je leur ai dit : ‘je ne peux pas accepter ce docuмent’. Je leur ai dit dès le début, en septembre de l’année précédente, que nous ne pouvions pas accepter cette ‘herméneutique de la continuité’, car ce n’est pas une vérité, ce n’est pas la réalité. Elle va à l’encontre de la réalité. Donc, nous ne l’acceptons pas. Le Concile n’est pas en continuité avec la Tradition. Il ne l’est pas.
Mgr Fellay nous mène en bateau car son docuмent et celui du pape sont quasi-identiques. cf. article Rome et Menzingen sont d'accord.
Alors, quand le pape Benoît XVI a demandé que nous reconnaissions que le concile Vatican II est une partie intégrante de la Tradition, nous avons dit : ‘Désolé, ce n’est pas la réalité, donc nous n’allons pas signer. Nous n’allons pas reconnaître cela’ ».
Pourtant Mgr Fellay a écrit solennellement : « L’entière Tradition de la foi catholique doit être le critère et le guide de la compréhension des enseignements du Concile Vatican II, lequel à son tour éclaire – c’est-à-dire approfondit et explicite ultérieurement – certains aspects de la vie et de la doctrine de l’Eglise, implicitement présents en elle ou non encore formulés conceptuellement. » Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment pour des idiots !
Et de poursuivre : « Il n’a jamais été dans notre intention non plus de prétendre que le Concile soit considéré comme bon, ou que la nouvelle messe soit ‘légitime’.
Pourtant Mgr Fellay a écrit solennellement : « Nous déclarons reconnaître la validité du sacrifice de la Messe et des Sacrements célébrés avec l’intention de faire ce que fait l’Eglise selon les rites indiqués dans les éditions typiques du Missel romain et des Rituels des Sacrements légitimement promulgués par les papes Paul VI et Jean-Paul II. »
Voici ce que dit l’Abbé de la Rocque :
"Peut-on reconnaître la légitimité de la nouvelle messe ? Nous sommes dans des nuances de mots vous me direz, mais très importantes. Peut-on reconnaître la légitimité de la nouvelle messe ou, ce qui revient au même, la légitimité de sa promulgation ? On est là exactement dans le même cas que pour le nouveau Code. Reconnaître la nouvelle messe comme légitime voudrait dire que la nouvelle messe n’est pas mauvaise en soi. Or, elle est mauvaise en soi, puisqu’elle voile les aspects essentiels de la messe, son sacrifice et sa finalité propitiatoire. Donc on ne peut pas dire que la nouvelle messe soit bonne en soi, et donc, on ne peut pas reconnaître au sein de l’Eglise la légitimité de la nouvelle messe, puisqu’une loi mauvaise n’a pas valeur de loi. On ne peut pas."
Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment pour des idiots !
« Le texte [du 15 avril 2012] que nous avons présenté à Rome était, dirons-nous, un texte délicat qui devait être bien compris, il était censé être lu à la lumière d’un grand principe qui dirigeait le tout. Ce grand principe n’avait rien de nouveau dans l’Eglise : ‘Le Saint-Esprit n’a pas été promis à saint Pierre et son Successeur de telle sorte que, grâce à une nouvelle révélation, le pape enseigne quelque chose de nouveau, mais que, avec son aide, le pape conserve saintement et transmette fidèlement le dépôt de la foi.’ Cela est tiré de la définition de l’infaillibilité [fixée par Vatican I]. C’était le principe, la base de l’ensemble du docuмent, qui exclut d’emblée toute sorte de nouveauté.
« Ainsi donc prendre n’importe quelle phrase du texte, en en excluant ce principe, revient à prendre des phrases qui n’ont jamais été ni notre pensée, ni notre vie. Ces phrases en elles-mêmes sont ambiguës, c’est pourquoi, afin de dissiper cette ambiguïté, nous voulions y introduire ce principe. Malheureusement, peut-être était-ce trop subtil et c’est pourquoi nous avons retiré ce texte, car il n’était pas assez clair tel qu’il était écrit. »
Ici, Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment explicitement pour des idiots ! Il dit noir sur blanc que ses opposants sont limités intellectuellement. Mgr Fellay est "subtil" car pour négocier avec Rome, il utilise des phrases "ambiguës" (dit-il) qu’il faut interpréter avec un principe qui les contredit. Cher lecteur, (sans doute un peu limité, d’après Mgr Fellay), trouvez-vous que cette phrase du préambule doctrinal du 15 avril 2012 est ambiguë : « En suivant les critères énoncés ci-dessus (III, 5), ainsi que le canon 21 du Code, nous promettons de respecter la discipline commune de l’Église et les lois ecclésiastiques, spécialement celles qui sont contenues dans le Code de droit canonique promulgué par le pape Jean-Paul II (1983) et dans le code de droit canon des Églises orientales promulgué par le même Pontife (1990), restant sauve la discipline à concéder à la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X par une loi particulière. »
Le pape François


Mgr Fellay : « Au début du pontificat de Benoît XVI, j’ai dit : ‘la crise de l’Église va se poursuivre, mais le pape essaie de mettre les freins.’ En d’autres termes, l’Église va continuer de chuter, mais avec un parachute. Et depuis le début de ce pontificat [celui du pape François], je dis : ‘il coupe les cordes, et il y accroche une fusée [dirigée vers le bas].’ »
Mgr Fellay n’a pas changé d’avis sur Benoît XVI, c’est grave. Pourtant on a eu quelques événements graves :
– 21.10.2007 : Réunion interreligieuse de Naples ;
– 28.04.2008 : Visite de la ѕуηαgσgυє de New York ;
– 15.07.2008 : J.M.J. de Sydney avec sa liturgie « inculturée » et ses rituels païens ;
– 12.05.2009 : Visite de la mosquée du Dôme de Jérusalem ;
– 12.05.2009 : Rituel juif au Mur des lamentations ;
– 17.01.2010 : Visite à la ѕуηαgσgυє de Rome ;
– 14.03.2010 : Participation active au culte luthérien à Rome ;
– 01.05.2011 : Béatification de Jean-Paul II ;
– 27.10.2011 : Réitération du scandale d’Assise ;
Sans oublier le Motu Proprio qui a abrogé officiellement la messe tridentine comme rite ordinaire de l’Église catholique latine.
Etc.
C’est ça un pape qui "essaie de mettre les freins" ? Mgr Fellay nous prend vraiment pour des idiots !
Les conseils de Mgr Fellay : Mais, a-t-il rappelé, Dieu est « beaucoup, beaucoup plus grand que nous. Dieu est capable de permettre à l’Église de continuer » et il peut travailler même à travers ces ministres imparfaits. « Mais encore une fois », a-t-il répété : « Ne les suivez pas. Suivez-les quand ils disent la vérité, mais quand ils vous disent des bêtises, ne les suivez pas sur ces points. »
Pour Mgr Fellay, Il faut suivre les hérétiques quand ils disent de bonnes choses. La position de l’Église n’a jamais été celle-là. En effet, ce que peut dire de bien un hérétique n’a guère de valeur car il se trompe par ailleurs tellement. De plus, trier chez le pape ce qui nous semble bien ou mal n’est pas suivre le pape mais le juger en permanence. De plus, si l’on est un peu formé aux techniques de subversion, on sait qu’un libéral donne des gages de bonne foi et se fait passer parfois pour meilleur qu’il n’est afin d’endormir la méfiance.
Mgr Fellay refuse le principe du nullam partem avec les hérétiques modernistes, principe si cher aux saints. Ainsi, cette dérive libérale prépare un ralliement : en Asie, on publie dans un bulletin de la FSSPX de bonnes pages du pape François, aux États-Unis on prie en communion avec le pape François pour la Syrie.
L’article de DICI conclut : « À la suite de sœur Lucie, des papes Léon XIII et saint Pie X, Mgr Fellay a averti avec plus de force encore que nous sommes peut-être sur le point d’entrer dans le temps de l’Antéchrist, mais nous ne pouvons pas savoir précisément où ni dans combien de temps cela peut arriver. »
Mgr Fellay tente de resserrer les rangs en faisant peur. Il prophétise avec des "peut-être" et des "nous ne pouvons pas savoir". Ce n’est pas sérieux. Nous ne sommes pas à la fin du monde puisqu’avant cette fin, l’Apocalypse, Saint Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort et les apparitions de Fatima précisent qu’il y aura le règne du Cœur Immaculé de Marie et un temps de grandes conquêtes pour l’Église (explications : ici, ici, ici). Décidément, Mgr Fellay nous aura pris pour des idiots jusqu’au bout.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27744&min=30#p4)
I believe Francis is a godsend for Bp. Fellay. The pope is so overtly goofy and unhinged that Fellay can confidently create distance between himself and the pontiff, and not run the risk of having people think he has reneged upon his plan of full regularization with the Holy See. He escapes his earlier Romeward faux pas and comes out relatively unscathed in the minds of his confreres. He gives Fellay's defenders the ability once again to say to the SG's foes: "I told you so."
Excellent post, hollingsworth.
.