Author Topic: Bp. Fellay supporters, speak out (Read 12006 times)

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #30 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:18:57 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote
Is it possible that if Bp. Fellay signs an agreement, then the other three Bishops and the rest of the SSPX say "NO!" and then perhaps Bp. Williamson could consecrate a bishop to replace Bp. Fellay?

Its very possible. But what their strategy will be, no one knows. I doubt they'll do what many of the careless sede Bishops have done and give the apostolic succession to just anyone though.

The SSPX bishops would need to consecrate a devout, pious and knowledgeable SSPX priest.

Apostolic succession is handed down through the bishop so a sede bishop isn't being careless. He's passing on the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as handed down from the apostles.

The question isn't whether some bishop is a sede or not, the question is whether or not that bishop teaches and preaches traditional Roman Catholicism and instill a love of God. And, of course, whether or not that bishop is validly consecrated. We are living in a time of spiritual disruption and, thanks to Vatican II and Pope Paul VI's new mass, we're living in a time of grave spiritual danger for all catholics. I personally believe that no individual Catholic could ever be considered in error for embracing sedevacantism because working out our salvation in fear and trembling is what each of us is called to do, God willing.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if Vatican II, the great deception, was never enacted.

Caraffa · « **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:08:14 PM »

Quote from: Jitpring

The rash judgment currently being vented in numerous threads here about Bp. Fellay and the SSPX situation is appalling. Nauseating, really. I for one am waiting to see what actually happens instead of becoming hysterical about what may or may not happen. If Bp. Fellay sells out, I'm gone. But I'm waiting to see what actually happens.

Who's with me? I know some of you are out there. I also know that the screaming mob here has probably intimidated some into silence. Therefore, instead of speaking out here in support of Bp. Fellay, feel free to just give this post a thumbs up if you agree with me.

Jitpring, we do support Bishop Fellay; we support the 1988-2009 Bishop Fellay.

s2srea · « **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2012, 05:19:26 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: s2srea
Quote
Is it possible that if Bp. Fellay signs an agreement, then the other three Bishops and the rest of the SSPX say "NO!" and then perhaps Bp. Williamson could consecrate a bishop to replace Bp. Fellay?

Its very possible. But what their strategy will be, no one knows. I doubt they'll do what many of the careless sede Bishops have done and give the apostolic succession to just anyone though.

The SSPX bishops would need to consecrate a devout, pious and knowledgeable SSPX priest.

Apostolic succession is handed down through the bishop so a sede bishop isn't being careless. He's passing on the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as handed down from the apostles.

The question isn't whether some bishop is a sede or not, the question is whether or not that bishop teaches and preaches traditional Roman Catholicism and instill a love of God. And, of course, whether or not that bishop is validly consecrated. We are living in a time of spiritual disruption and, thanks to Vatican II and Pope Paul VI's new mass, we're living in a time of grave spiritual danger for all catholics. I personally believe that no individual Catholic could ever be considered in error for embracing sedevacantism because working out our salvation in fear and trembling is what each of us is called to do, God willing.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if Vatican II, the great deception, was never enacted.

Thanks Capt McQ. I wasn't referring to the fact that there should be no sede bishops because of sedevecantism, but to the undoubtedly carelessness with which many sedevecantist bishops have passed on the Apostolic succession to men who were less than worthy. Bishop Pivarunas, for example, is sede bishop who seems to have it down pretty well. He doesn't seem careless in choosing bishops, though that's not to say the one's he's consecrated are without their flaws. But he does seem to take his time at it.

The SSPX simply has not dealt with this issue, which is rather grave, because of their lack of consecrations apart form the four in 88. Whether its a good or bad thing, I leave up to the individual to decide.

Graham · « **Reply #33 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:43:38 PM »

Jitpring (I still think of you as Jackson K. Eskew), it's obvious now that Bishop Fellay is manoeuvring for a deal, has been for some time. You have only to read his reply to the other three.

Graham · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:45:34 PM »

I even feel stupid for not having concluded this earlier.

Graham · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:18:30 PM »

Why are Jitpring's posts being deleted?

Matthew · « **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:24:42 PM »

This betrayal by the SSPX leadership has apparently hit Jitpring very hard, in such a way that he can't handle it like many of us here.

He has unfortunately taken a turn for the worse, and has reached a point where he can no longer peaceably stay on CathInfo.

His last few posts proved this.

We (several members here) tried to reason with him, but he insisted on throwing invective on the moderator and a good percentage of the membership here.

Comparing us to the Jєωs who have the devil (the father of lies) for their father, was the last straw for me.

He has been banned.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:40:48 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

This whole +Fellay betrayal has apparently hit Jitpring very hard, in such a way that he can't handle it like many of us here.

He has unfortunately taken a turn for the worse, and has reached a point where he can no longer peaceably stay on CathInfo.

His last few posts proved this.

We (several members here) tried to reason with him, but he insisted on throwing invective on the moderator and a good percentage of the membership here.

Comparing us to the Jєωs who have the devil (the father of lies) for their father, was the last straw for me.

He has been banned.

That is unfortunate, but perhaps it needs only be a temporary measure, for Jitpring has said he's not in favor of what most of us have already concluded--a change in +Fellay's position--only that he has not concluded this himself until a deal is made and +Fellay's position is made absolute.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:41:28 PM »

These are times that try men's souls........................

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:44:36 PM »

I don't disagree with the ban, but I do think Mater raised a good point that, after this is all over (in, say, a few months) lifting Jitpring's ban wouldn't be bad idea, just to see if he has cooled down. If he hasn't, he can be banned for good.

Of course, it's Matthew's call, and truthfully it makes little difference to me.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #40 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:57:13 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: s2srea
Quote
Is it possible that if Bp. Fellay signs an agreement, then the other three Bishops and the rest of the SSPX say "NO!" and then perhaps Bp. Williamson could consecrate a bishop to replace Bp. Fellay?

Its very possible. But what their strategy will be, no one knows. I doubt they'll do what many of the careless sede Bishops have done and give the apostolic succession to just anyone though.

The SSPX bishops would need to consecrate a devout, pious and knowledgeable SSPX priest.

Apostolic succession is handed down through the bishop so a sede bishop isn't being careless. He's passing on the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as handed down from the apostles.

The question isn't whether some bishop is a sede or not, the question is whether or not that bishop teaches and preaches traditional Roman Catholicism and instill a love of God. And, of course, whether or not that bishop is validly consecrated. We are living in a time of spiritual disruption and, thanks to Vatican II and Pope Paul VI's new mass, we're living in a time of grave spiritual danger for all catholics. I personally believe that no individual Catholic could ever be considered in error for embracing sedevacantism because working out our salvation in fear and trembling is what each of us is called to do, God willing.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if Vatican II, the great deception, was never enacted.

Usually, and if at all possible, two or three bishops are present to consecrate a new bishop together. For the present 4 SSPX bishops, +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer both laid on hands.

I would suppose that at least 2 would be used for any new SSPX bishop, but I would not be surprised if the 3rd is not present, as that would be an opportunity for dark forces to commit a dirty deed. As it is now, all 4 are never present together, by prudent foresight. If they are, they had better have a significant bankroll for super tight security measures.

One of the more difficult and demanding jobs of any bishop is to have about him the perpetual eye of observation to keep tabs on possible candidates for successor(s).

As for Vatican II, if the Catholics of the day had practiced the virtue of fortitude, they would have vehemently protested against the innovations, and the Modernists would have backed off. But that was not to be, somehow. The enemy had made incursions into high offices and the devil winds of change were blowing. It was truly the unclean spirit of Vatican II that made inroads to usurp Sacred Tradition -- which proved to be a much more fragile thing that it seemed to be at the time!

John Grace · « **Reply #41 on:** May 16, 2012, 05:01:30 AM »

So what do his supporters have to say about this pertinent piece from 'Freshwater'?

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9466

Quote

Your Excellency,
On a recent interview, you expressed the opinion that the Society of St. Pius X could have an imminent split, because of the lack of understanding of those who are opposed to any agreement with Rome.

If such a split should occur, I need to do due diligence to allow me to make a prudent choice for my family and myself, in what direction I take.

Therefore, could you please help me understand your position on the following:-
•   Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII?
•   Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings?
•   You still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath?
•   Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

You are correct if you recognize that these words are from Archbishop Lefebvre, and in my opinion are still valid today, as they were 1988. I trust that these questions are still answered by you in the affirmative.

Your Excellency, I respect that a final decision is to be made by you as being Superior General of the Society. However, there is something that has been truly troubling me. For most organizations, including the Vatican, and corporations, prudence dictates that the head (or CEO) of that organization, is primarily focused on the future of that organization, and its longevity. He sets the direction based on its constitution. It is quite an abnormal situation when that person also has fiscal control as well as ultimate control of the organizations assets. It is a well known fact that you are both Superior General, as well as President/CEO/director of a number of companies and trusts in Switzerland and internationally. Rightly or wrongly, people are concerned that this is an abnormal situation and one that should not exist if one looks at it objectively.

I therefore ask from you, as a sign of good faith, and as an indication of your convictions, that you relinquish control over those companies, and set up a structure that doesn’t have the potential to be abused.

In closing, I would like to add that although my family and I are continuing with the Rosary Crusade, as it is a worthy cause, I do not intend to submit a tally of the Rosaries that we have said. I am of the opinion that publishing such results, as has been in the past, appears to be more of an accolade and for the publicity. Indeed, someone I know, called it in all innocence, a “Rosary competition”. Our Lady knows how many Rosaries that we have done, and that is what matters most for me.

rcentros · « **Reply #42 on:** May 16, 2012, 07:44:35 AM »

Quote from: Jitpring

The rash judgment currently being vented in numerous threads here about Bp. Fellay and the SSPX situation is appalling. Nauseating, really. I for one am waiting to see what actually happens instead of becoming hysterical about what may or may not happen. If Bp. Fellay sells out, I'm gone. But I'm waiting to see what actually happens.

I think most of the discussion has been about what has actually happened. We have the two letters in front of us, it's no longer debatable that they are genuine.

That said, I do agree that some of the criticism of +Fellay seems juvenile, almost in the Traditio mode of junior high school style name-calling. And I do think we need to wait and see if 1) +Fellay signs the Preamble and 2) What's actually written in it (though I wonder if we'll ever get to see it).

I'm not that hopeful -- any compromise seems wrong and a betrayal of +Lebfevre's defense of the Church against the Masonic (Modernist) infiltration.

rcentros · « **Reply #43 on:** May 16, 2012, 07:48:07 AM »

Quote from: Jitpring

The clamor of the mob for or against it should have absolutely no bearing on the decision. Bp. Fellay's task is to make the right decision, whether or not the mob supports it. I for one am not a democrat. I also reject collegiality, of course.

But the opinion of the Three Bishops should have a bearing on the decision. At least it should mean more than the opinion of the lawyer, Maxiimilan Krah.

rcentros · « **Reply #44 on:** May 16, 2012, 08:07:59 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Comparing us to the Jєωs who have the devil (the father of lies) for their father, was the last straw for me.

He has been banned.

I'm guessing I missed something but, had I known he had been banned, I wouldn't have responded to his posts. I find it fundamentally unfair to attack someone's position when he is unable to respond.