Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: suger on March 07, 2013, 04:13:08 PM
-
:really-mad2:
After learning about the letter of the 37 French priests of the La Sapiniere underground resistance network, (and I assume after a huge explosion of wrath)
Mgr. Fellay,
although he had the French superior pretend the letter was a fake written by a lone coward (and likewise with their accomplices on the internet),
set all means in his power to catch the underground dissidents.
The news is out that Mgr Fellays KGB has already succeded in catching three out of the 37 :
- Nicolas Pinaud (based in France)
- Olivier Rioult Joinville (both based in France)
- Mathieu Salenave (based Bruxelles, Belgium).
The first sanctions announced are:
- they are deprived from ministry
- they will be canonically sued
- they will be deported to another place.
Oh our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray Thee that the SSPX be freed from this dictator-treator and all his cunning sellout schemes.
-
So no dissension allowed and coerced by force, and +Fellay is correct, despite a few slips here and there, because he's the SG? :rolleyes: This is how far the SSPX has fallen: first, Fr Raphael Arizaga, OSB, and now these 3 more. It seems to be a matter of time (unless the Pope yet to be elected actually follows the true line of "restoring all things in Christ") that the SSPX will be just another casualty in the long list of groups who tried to negotiate with Rome and be free to criticize Vatican II.
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
-
the SSPX will be just another casualty in the long list of groups who tried to negotiate with Rome and be free to criticize Vatican II.
Thank you for your analysis.
To be more precise, I don't think that the negociations as such are the root of this evil destruction of the SSPX. I see the negociations only as a mean towards corruption and destruction.
I think the root of evil is that, I am unfortunately very sorry to say and hope I am allowed to say so, the head, Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begining. It is exactly the same recipee the enemies of Christ applied to the official church, they got it by the head (John XXIII, Paul VI) and the Catholic duty of obedience. It worked, and now they are doing the same to the SSPX...
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
-
Indeed, there can be other places than Kentucky, if the Resistance faithful are willing.
BTW, it is so hypocritical to begin canonical processes against these 3 SSPX priests, since the SSPX has all this time operated outside of Canon Law (even though it was a necessity)!
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
According to the recent book about GREC, it seems +Fellay countenanced this since the 1990s.
-
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
There was no need for two French-speaking bishops. ABL was happy with 3 bishops + 1 (non-bishop, to avoid undue concentration of power) superior, giving a good linguistic spread :
- French : Mgr TdM
- English : Mgr Williamson
- Spanish / Latin : Mgr. Gallerata
- German : Father Schmidberger (superior)
He had no intention to nominate a further bishop but it is said that he had to change his mind after a major financial swiss backer insisted that a swiss bishop be also nominated and pushed for Mgr Fellay. I think they were related to his family. This may be an indication that he may have been a mole implanted as early as ABL movement was becoming hugely successful..
-
I am starting to back up all this with evidence
There was no need for two French-speaking bishops. ABL was happy with 3 bishops + 1 (non-bishop, to avoid undue concentration of power) superior, giving a good linguistic spread :
- French : Mgr TdM
- English : Mgr Williamson
- Spanish / Latin : Mgr. Gallerata
- German : Father Schmidberger (superior)
He had no intention to nominate a further bishop
For this there is +TdM's book Marcel Lefebvre, p. 581 :
Le 2 février, Mgr Lefebvre confirme la nouvelle : "je suis décidé à sacrer au moins trois évêques le 30 juin"
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
This is right. Remember what Bishop Williamson suggested:
a loose network of independent pockets of Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure
The resistance in this manner would serve many purposes, including what Matthew is speaking to above.
-
March 7th: Communiqué of the Superior of the District of France : Clarification about an anonymous letter
"A letter, supposedly signed by 37 priests of the district of France was published several days ago on an anonymous website.
After taking the time to check this out, we are able to say that it was just a confabulation.
If this is unfortunately true that a few priests did anonymous and gravely subversive actions against the authority of the Society, so that they could obtain the resignation of their superiors, they represent only a small number [of priests].
Three of them have been immediately relieved of their apostolate.
We express our deep sorrow about this attitude, since it does not rest on nothing objective (*). Those priests have been moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society when it [the Society] only continues its role of maintaining and defending the faith in the serious crisis that the Church is going through.
In this month of March, as the Society of Saint Pius X is consecrated to Saint Joseph, it hands its confidence in the supernatural help that the patron of the Holy Church never missed to grant.
However hard this trial is, the Society peacefully continues its apostolical work, in faithfulness to the line that his Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, its founder, to restore everything in Christ.
Father Régis de Cacqueray, Superior of the District of France
Commentary:
Fr. de Cacqueray said:
"After taking the time to check this out, we are able to say that it was just a confabulation.
If this is unfortunately true that a few priests did anonymous and gravely subversive actions against the authority of the Society, so that they could obtain the resignation of their superiors, they represent only a small number [of priests].
Three of them have been immediately relieved of their apostolate."
1) In the 1st quoted sentence, he says this is a complete fabrication;
2) In the 2nd quoted sentence, he says it might not be a complete fabrication.
3) In the 3rd quoted sentence he admits it is definately not a complete fabrication.
4) Has a contageous disease been released from Menzingen that impairs SSPX superiors from talking straight???
-
:really-mad2:
After learning about the letter of the 37 French priests of the La Sapiniere underground resistance network, (and I assume after a huge explosion of wrath)
Mgr. Fellay,
although he had the French superior pretend the letter was a fake written by a lone coward (and likewise with their accomplices on the internet),
set all means in his power to catch the underground dissidents.
The news is out that Mgr Fellays KGB has already succeded in catching three out of the 37 :
- Nicolas Pinaud (based in France)
- Olivier Rioult Joinville (both based in France)
- Mathieu Salenave (based Bruxelles, Belgium).
The first sanctions announced are:
- they are deprived from ministry
- they will be canonically sued
- they will be deported to another place.
Oh our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray Thee that the SSPX be freed from this dictator-treator and all his cunning sellout schemes.
Where did you learn of this? Is it likely that more will be caught and if so enough to form a European "Pfeifferville" with a certain bishop in residence?
-
We express our deep sorrow about this attitude, since it does not rest on nothing objective (*). Those priests have been moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society when it [the Society] only continues its role of maintaining and defending the faith in the serious crisis that the Church is going through.
[/b]
The "contents" of the Letter is not objective? Well Bishop Fellay did not deny anything in the contents when he spoke out about the Letter!
The Priests are moved by an "irrational distrust against the authority" to break the "false" obedience and speak out against it? So is the SSPX leaders also "irrational in distrust against the authority" to break the "false" obedience of following Liberal Rome in order to speak out against it?
SSPX still defending the Faith of ABL? It is mutating (externally) over the last year into something different from what ABL had guided it to do -that is for certain- from the leaders of the SSPX own admittance.
What hypocrisy...
-
We express our deep sorrow about this attitude, since it does not rest on nothing objective (*). Those priests have been moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society when it [the Society] only continues its role of maintaining and defending the faith in the serious crisis that the Church is going through.
[/b]
The "contents" of the Letter is not objective? Well Bishop Fellay did not deny anything in the contents when he spoke out about the Letter!
The Priests are moved by an "irrational" distrust against the authority to break the "false" obedience and speak out against it? So is the SSPX leaders also "irrational" in distrust against the authority to break the "false" obedience of following Liberal Rome in order to speak out against it?
SSPX still defending the Faith of ABL? It is mutating (externally) over the last year into something different from what ABL had guided it to do -that is for certain- from the leaders of the SSPX own admittance.
What hypocrisy...
"We have always been at war with Eurasia!"
-1984
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
Such charity towards a Roman Catholic bishop!
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
Ok, not one, but TWO people had a problem with THIS?
Ok, I'm sorry. Nix what I said. "We should worship him. In fact, I'm going to cut up my couch where he sat 2 weeks ago and turn the whole thing into 3rd class relics."
Happy now?
Seriously, unless that is how you truly feel, how could anyone disagree with my very Catholic, very balanced post (above)?
I'm asking out of courtesy. You all should know by now that the moderator can see who thumbed up or thumbed down a given post.
My guess? Someone is voting out of knee-jerk jingoism. They're voting "for the team". Everything comes down to "team colors" -- Pro-Pfeiffer or Anti-Pfeiffer. Every post is distilled down into one of those 2 simplistic camps.
I'm amazed that Tradition is still a force to be reckoned with at all, with this level of emotionalism and lack of reason displayed.
Since I advocated not worshipping him, I guess my post is rounded down to Anti-Pfeiffer? (Actually, I would still disagree: Most of my post is about how we should support him wholeheartedly)
-
Matthew,
That was pretty darn funny... Do you have enough couch relics for all of these people!?!? Ha ha!
Sorry... That just struck me as funny!
Love,
+michaela b.
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
I guess it pays to own a website. When I say something like that about Fr. Pfeiffer they all give me thumbs down! :jester:
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
Ok, not one, but TWO people had a problem with THIS?
Ok, I'm sorry. Nix what I said. "We should worship him. In fact, I'm going to cut up my couch where he sat 2 weeks ago and turn the whole thing into 3rd class relics."
Happy now?
Seriously, unless that is how you truly feel, how could anyone disagree with my very Catholic, very balanced post (above)?
I'm asking out of courtesy. You all should know by now that the moderator can see who thumbed up or thumbed down a given post.
My guess? Someone is voting out of knee-jerk jingoism. They're voting "for the team". Everything comes down to "team colors" -- Pro-Pfeiffer or Anti-Pfeiffer. Every post is distilled down into one of those 2 simplistic camps.
I'm amazed that Tradition is still a force to be reckoned with at all, with this level of emotionalism and lack of reason displayed.
Since I advocated not worshipping him, I guess my post is rounded down to Anti-Pfeiffer? (Actually, I would still disagree: Most of my post is about how we should support him wholeheartedly)
A visionary on another forum calls certain priests "holy". I've perhaps seen such a comment made now and then here as well. Is there such a thing as a halometer in circulation?. Also, such and such priest is supposed to give "awesome" sermons. Do these people practice what they preach?. In his time in India I have observed the excessive mutual loyalty between Fr Pfeiffer and his cronies. All credit to Frs Chazal & Pfeiffer for founding the Resistance. But it's about time other priests too take some initiative.
-
:really-mad2:
After learning about the letter of the 37 French priests of the La Sapiniere underground resistance network, (and I assume after a huge explosion of wrath)
Mgr. Fellay,
although he had the French superior pretend the letter was a fake written by a lone coward (and likewise with their accomplices on the internet),
set all means in his power to catch the underground dissidents.
The news is out that Mgr Fellays KGB has already succeded in catching three out of the 37 :
- Nicolas Pinaud (based in France)
- Olivier Rioult Joinville (both based in France)
- Mathieu Salenave (based Bruxelles, Belgium).
The first sanctions announced are:
- they are deprived from ministry
- they will be canonically sued
- they will be deported to another place.
Oh our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray Thee that the SSPX be freed from this dictator-treator and all his cunning sellout schemes.
Sorry to rectify:
this is not Olivier Rioult Joinville but Olivier Rioult (Joinville). Olivier Rioult is a priest based in Joinville (French town in Haute-Marne).
Nicolas Pinaud is based in Couloutre (French hamlet, Nièvre, France), a place owned by Father Bruno Schaeffer, a priest who is helping the SSPX in Paris, whithout being part of it. Father Bruno Schaeffer suffers from a serious cancer. Please, pray also for Father Schaeffer, thank you.
Kind regards.
-
the SSPX will be just another casualty in the long list of groups who tried to negotiate with Rome and be free to criticize Vatican II.
Thank you for your analysis.
To be more precise, I don't think that the negociations as such are the root of this evil destruction of the SSPX. I see the negociations only as a mean towards corruption and destruction.
I think the root of evil is that, I am unfortunately very sorry to say and hope I am allowed to say so, the head, Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begining. It is exactly the same recipee the enemies of Christ applied to the official church, they got it by the head (John XXIII, Paul VI) and the Catholic duty of obedience. It worked, and now they are doing the same to the SSPX...
You are right in what you have said above, Suger. But concerning "canonical sanctions" against these priests, does a "Pious Union" have much/any of these at it's disposal?
-
He had no intention to nominate a further bishop but it is said that he had to change his mind after a major financial swiss backer insisted that a swiss bishop be also nominated and pushed for Mgr Fellay.
From (SSPX) priestly sources who knew and know the family Lovey, we have the information that your mentioned backer who urged Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate a Swiss-French bishop (number 4), was the Swiss-French lawyer Mr. Lovey.
I was told Mr. Lovey meant well. Still today we got the mess.
If I remember correctly Mr. Lovey handled financial affairs in or around Ecône, and was the head of a group of benefactors financially supporting Archbishop Lefebvre.
Mr. Lovey's son Philippe Lovey was ordained a priest in the SSPX and later was the Swiss district superior. If I remember correctly, today Fr. Philippe Lovey is supporting Bp Fellay's sellout to Newrome, as do nearly all Swiss SSPX priests unfortunately.
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
According to the recent book about GREC, it seems +Fellay countenanced this since the 1990s.
Yes, GREC shows the sell-out to Newrome is a long-term operation which didn't start in 2000 or 2007. Like Neil said in another topic, there will probably be more ECs handling the GREC subversion. But already the latest EC is very interesting, see its introduction :
EC 294, 2 March 2013, GREC I.
Just over one year ago was published in France a little book of some 150 pages which has to be a big embarrassment for the leaders of a certain religious Society, because it shows how their promotion of union with the Newchurch goes back many years, at least to the 1990’s. Of course if they are proud of that promotion, they will feel no embarrassment, but if they have for many years been disguising that promotion, then let at least readers of the little book open their eyes. [..]
-
Is it likely that more will be caught and if so enough to form a European "Pfeifferville" with a certain bishop in residence?
Yes, indeed. We Europeans also need resistance priests here. It's also close to the good bishop. :-)
-
But concerning "canonical sanctions" against these priests, does a "Pious Union" have much/any of these at it's disposal?
Given that the SSPX is a 'pious union' what "canonical sanctions" are being cited?
-
It is hard to imagine what is motivating these benefactors, GREC people and influencial district superiors when Rome and the dioceses are in such a mess. Could it be that these prosperous European conservatives no longer want old religious differences to affect a gradual acceptance of the status quo in civil life? They see a solution in conciliar conservatism which has had time to grow and has become a safe attraction for many traditional Catholics .... who can also claim to be not schismatic! And it is significant that SSPX parishes in prosperous Germany, Austria and Switzerland should see the 'benefits' of this solution.
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
Such charity towards a Roman Catholic bishop!
"And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?" Luke 22:48
-
The first sanctions announced are:
- they are deprived from ministry
- they will be canonically sued
- they will be deported to another place.
Being "deported to another place": isn't that a transfer rather than being expelled from the neo-SSPX?
A punishment.....more or less...??
-
Sorry to rectify:
this is not Olivier Rioult Joinville but Olivier Rioult (Joinville). Olivier Rioult is a priest based in Joinville (French town in Haute-Marne).
Nicolas Pinaud is based in Couloutre (French hamlet, Nièvre, France), a place owned by Father Bruno Schaeffer, a priest who is helping the SSPX in Paris, whithout being part of it. Father Bruno Schaeffer suffers from a serious cancer. Please, pray also for Father Schaeffer, thank you.
Kind regards.
Thank you for the correction, Vincent M.
The apologies are mine, I was too fast with this alarming news, and forgot to erase the name of the not so well known city of Joinville (as I did for Couloutre).
Good point about the prayers.
Kind regards
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
Such charity towards a Roman Catholic bishop!
Pius IX ,
- there are many letters by the Society's priests proving that this bishop is a blatant liar
- he betrayed you by secretly plotting the sellout of the Society for decades (check out the G.R.E.C. plot)
- he betrayed you by negociating for a pratical agreement although he had pledged that he would not do so unless there would be a doctrinal agreement first
- etc.
This is indeed very unpleasant, but this is the truth.
(and if you only care about charity let me ask you: what are you doing here? why not just joining any of those protestant evangelical churches full of lovely people...?)
-
Bishop Fellay acts like a freemason, purging opposition to his liberalism remorselessly.
It's this way of behaving that shows us the true colors of these people.
It is harder for some people to understand, just going by his words, which are very tricky. (despite some big blunders on occasion)
However, his associations, and his intolerance for the position of the Archbishop shows his true loyalties, and his inveterate hostility to those who stand with the mission of the Archbishop.
-
But concerning "canonical sanctions" against these priests, does a "Pious Union" have much/any of these at it's disposal?
Given that the SSPX is a 'pious union' what "canonical sanctions" are being cited?
the word "canonical" is indeed shameful, it is a sham as there are no possibilities of appeal!!!! (they will very probably not even given the chance of a fair hearing and defense...!!! as it happened in previous cases)
sanctions =
- either transfer to worst place if they promise to shut up their mouth, never point out any lie or something detrimental to the glory and pride of +Fellay, and to blindly obey anything how wrong it may be, "don't think, just obey like a dumb donkey"
- or expulsion if they don't
-
He had no intention to nominate a further bishop but it is said that he had to change his mind after a major financial swiss backer insisted that a swiss bishop be also nominated and pushed for Mgr Fellay.
From (SSPX) priestly sources who knew and know the family Lovey, we have the information that your mentioned backer who urged Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate a Swiss-French bishop (number 4), was the Swiss-French lawyer Mr. Lovey.
I was told Mr. Lovey meant well. Still today we got the mess.
If I remember correctly Mr. Lovey handled financial affairs in or around Ecône, and was the head of a group of benefactors financially supporting Archbishop Lefebvre.
Mr. Lovey's son Philippe Lovey was ordained a priest in the SSPX and later was the Swiss district superior. If I remember correctly, today Fr. Philippe Lovey is supporting Bp Fellay's sellout to Newrome, as do nearly all Swiss SSPX priests unfortunately.
Thank you so much for this key-piece of information, Ethelred!!!!
I was unable to retrieve the name of the financial backer responsible for this. I do believe too he was a nice person, but was naively manipulated by evil-intended money-lenders. Our Lord was right to chase the banksters out of the temple.
Re. ABL, he was in dire need of financial support and had no choice. This is how the banksters got a pull on the Society, as they have pulls on anything they find important in the West.
And this is why +Fellay had to insert Krah into such a position of financial control over the Society, why he always listens to Krah and always protects him.
Besides praying, it is difficult to see what to do to save the Society from the grip of the banksters.
-
Re. ABL, he was in dire need of financial support and had no choice.
Unbelievable assumption. Surely you don't mean that.
Instead of inferring that His Grace committed simony (money in exchange for a sacrament or an office in the Church) I think that the simple and real explanation is that he could have never imagined that Bishop Fellay would become the destroyer of the SSPX. Who could have imagined that back then, 25 years ago?
-
Is it likely that more will be caught and if so enough to form a European "Pfeifferville" with a certain bishop in residence?
Yes, indeed. We Europeans also need resistance priests here. It's also close to the good bishop. :-)
Let us hope that Bishop Williamson and the three priests are already in touch with one another!
-
Unbelievable assumption. Surely you don't mean that.
Instead of inferring that His Grace committed simony (money in exchange for a sacrament or an office in the Church) I think that the simple and real explanation is that he could have never imagined that Bishop Fellay would become the destroyer of the SSPX. Who could have imagined that back then, 25 years ago?
Indeed I don't mean simony, +Fellay never bargained / purchased his office, and ABL would never have done such a sin.
What I mean is :
re. ABL :
- one fact is that as he was building up the Society from scratch he often was in dire need of money (and things are very expensive in Switzerland), (e.g. check +TdM book)
- he intended only to consecrate +Williamson, +Tdm, +de Gallareta
- this swiss financial backer was influential in changing ABL's mind and having +Fellay additionally consecrated. I assume +ABL saw things like this : this good man and his Swiss friends have helped the Society so much and are still helping so much, and now he is begging for one of his countrymen as a further bishop, I cannot refuse that.
- both Mr. Lovey and +ABL didn't at any time realise they were making a mistake, they acted in all honesty and good faith.
Re. +Fellay and the people providing money to Mr. Lovey, I fear things may not be so nice. Now, 25 years later we can know :
- +Fellay has been betraying the Society for decades (G.R.E.C.), and does clearly not behave as he should
- the zionist Krah has been exposed
- and I know other things I can't put here re. the geopolitics of a given lobby
So it seems to me that the best explanations for all these things, with the hindsight we now have, are:
- M. Folley and ABL were tricked in a push to have +Fellay consecrated, who then worked on gaining all powers in the Society
- interestingly +Fellay was the one caring about the financial issues, before taking all power he could first develop a financial construction most suitable to his long-term schemes
- if +Fellay was pushed like this by financial backers, it is more reasonable to think that he was a mole right from the beginning than he later became soldout
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
Such charity towards a Roman Catholic bishop!
Pius IX ,
- there are many letters by the Society's priests proving that this bishop is a blatant liar
- he betrayed you by secretly plotting the sellout of the Society for decades (check out the G.R.E.C. plot)
- he betrayed you by negociating for a pratical agreement although he had pledged that he would not do so unless there would be a doctrinal agreement first
- etc.
This is indeed very unpleasant, but this is the truth.
(and if you only care about charity let me ask you: what are you doing here? why not just joining any of those protestant evangelical churches full of lovely people...?)
I cannot attest to the veracity of your claims, but I am not an evangelical because those are false sects. Charity isn't a feeling.
-
Suger:
he (ABL) intended only to consecrate +Williamson, +Tdm, +de Gallareta
We hear this over and over again, and I think it's true. Those in a position to best corroborate that assertion are the the three other bishops, I would think. Why have none of them stated either privately or publicly that Fellay was indeed an afterthought as you testify? Surely, the SG is in the hands of tribal banksters. Anyone with a little understanding can see that. But for all of that, speaking now only from our experience here in Post Falls, the rank and file of the ICC faithful are firmly in the grip of Fellayism. They are Society slaves, and happy in their ignorance.
-
Suger: he (ABL) intended only to consecrate +Williamson, +Tdm, +de Gallareta
We hear this over and over again, and I think it's true. Those in a position to best corroborate that assertion are the the three other bishops, I would think. Why have none of them stated either privately or publicly that Fellay was indeed an afterthought as you testify? Surely, the SG is in the hands of tribal banksters. Anyone with a little understanding can see that. But for all of that, speaking now only from our experience here in Post Falls, the rank and file of the ICC faithful are firmly in the grip of Fellayism. They are Society slaves, and happy in their ignorance.
I think just the other day someone posted a quote from the biography of +ABL by Bp. Tissier, where he mentions the "3 candidates." There are other quotes too, I've seen, where he mentions "three." (probably also in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican) Although he doesn't name them, it is clear from these several quotes that during that 1987/early 1988 time frame, he had in mind to consecrate 3 bishops.
-
I think that the simple and real explanation is that he could have never imagined that Bishop Fellay would become the destroyer of the SSPX. Who could have imagined that back then, 25 years ago?
People were opposed to him 25 years ago. Bishop Fellay is the mere puppet to the destroyers of the SSPX. Bishop Fellay could be cut adrift at any time.
Dr Krah and others will decide what happens to Bishop Fellay.
-
From (SSPX) priestly sources who knew and know the family Lovey, we have the information that your mentioned backer who urged Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate a Swiss-French bishop (number 4), was the Swiss-French lawyer Mr. Lovey.
I was told Mr. Lovey meant well. Still today we got the mess.
If I remember correctly Mr. Lovey handled financial affairs in or around Ecône, and was the head of a group of benefactors financially supporting Archbishop Lefebvre.
To be more precise: Mr. Lovey (on behalf of his group of benefactors) actually bought the entire Econe for Archbishop Lefebvre.
Mr. Lovey's son Philippe Lovey was ordained a priest in the SSPX and later was the Swiss district superior. If I remember correctly, today Fr. Philippe Lovey is supporting Bp Fellay's sellout to Newrome, as do nearly all Swiss SSPX priests unfortunately.
Thank you so much for this key-piece of information, Ethelred!!!!
I was unable to retrieve the name of the financial backer responsible for this. I do believe too he was a nice person, but was naively manipulated by evil-intended money-lenders. Our Lord was right to chase the banksters out of the temple.
You're welcome Suger, and thank you for your good informations.
Re. ABL, he was in dire need of financial support and had no choice. This is how the banksters got a pull on the Society, as they have pulls on anything they find important in the West.
Well, the situation is becoming clearer now: After Mr. Lovey bought Ecône for the Archbishop, and then some ~20 years later in 1988 Mr. Lovey urged the Archbishop to consecrate also Fr. Fellay because of the "importance of Switzerland for the SSPX" (quoted according to my sources), I think it's understandable that the good Archbishop could have felt obliged to do so because of what Mr. Lovey did for the society...
That's no accusation.
And this is why +Fellay had to insert Krah into such a position of financial control over the Society, why he always listens to Krah and always protects him.
Besides praying, it is difficult to see what to do to save the Society from the grip of the banksters.
The Neo-SSPX is dead.
Long live the true SSPX, or even better: all faithful Catholics!
-
Besides praying, it is difficult to see what to do to save the Society from the grip of the banksters.
Whilst naturally the Fellayites dismissed it as rubbish but a fair point made regarding El Krahgate was what could people do? Many lay folk felt helpless following the information from William of Norwich.
A point was made though that some conceded they had not questioned enough. They gave Bishop Fellay the benefit of the doubt and still put money in the plate each Sunday. That is for their conscience but not only the SSPX are under the grip of the banksters.
Given the Gutmann/Rothschild direct involvement in the SSPX, they are in a difficult position and the point is brought home when you see priests expelled.
It's difficult for Society priests to preach on usury, on Deicide when their society is in the grip of bankers.
-
The only way forward that I see is to start again with "a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X."
-
The only way forward that I see is to start again with "a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X."
Now that is one wise quote!
-
Here are is the 2 pages of the letter sent yesterday by the politburo about the 3 priests caught. It contains no answer to they strong proof of +Fellay's lies, they are simply accused of destroying the Society by lying, etc...
It is 1984, +Fellay goes on lying and cheating , but any honest priest genuinely proving this is made into a criminal liar, without a single shred of proof...
-
One of the good priest has already provided an answer to these absurd charges, exposing one more time more hypocrisy. He ends by saying that their site will go on the work of exposing the truth, they are not afraid, etc.
http://www.lasapiniere.info/rectificatif/
Posted on 8 mars 2013
Rectificatif au sujet du Communiqué du Supérieur du District de France à propos de la lettre du 28 février à Mgr Fellay
Une lettre partagée par 37 prêtres du district de France a bien été postée sur le site La Sapinière. Les vérités qu’elles contiennent ont manifestement fort déplu à la Maison Générale qui a décidé de sanctionner trois prêtres parmi les trente-sept l’approuvant. Leur crime: ne pas supporter les mensonges de la Maison Générale.
Elle les somme au nom du canon 2331 § 2 de cesser leur ministère et d’être mis en quarantaine jusqu’à un procès où celui que nous accusons deviendra aussi notre juge. C’est-à-dire que Mgr Fellay sera juge et partie.
Nous ne connaissons aucun canon du Droit de l’Eglise qui permette de mentir. Nous connaissons par contre le 8e commandement de Dieu qui l’interdit.
Tout le contenu de la lettre du 28 février est vrai et vérifiable. La Maison Générale, gênée, a d’abord dit qu’il s’agissait d’un faux, que cette lettre ne pouvait pas venir de prêtres. Devant les faits, on cherche à faire croire « qu’il s’agissait là d’une affabulation».
Nous n’avons rien « contre l’autorité de la Fraternité », à laquelle nous devons tout, nous voulons simplement que la Maison Générale cesse de déformer la réalité et de favoriser un libéralisme pratique.
Quoiqu’ils en disent, il n’y a pas « qu’un très petit nombre » de prêtres qui souhaitent « la démission de ses Supérieurs »!
Trois prêtres ont été sanctionnés, certes, mais cela ne change rien aux faits. Le problème reste entier. Nous refusons l’accusation du Secrétaire Général. Nous avons toujours justifié nos sources. Nous n’avons commis ni calomnies, ni diffamations, ni amalgames. Si nous nous sommes résolus à manifester le mal fait par le Supérieur Général et ses Assistants, ce n’est qu’après avoir consulté saint Thomas et des autorités morales de la Fraternité. Notre but est de faire cesser le scandale de la politique trouble et ambiguë de la Maison Générale.
Notre « attitude » ne se fonde pas « sur rien d’objectif », au contraire! Nous ne nous sommes pas « laissés emporter par une méfiance irraisonnée contre l’autorité de la Fraternité ». Les raisons de notre inquiétude sont non seulement raisonnées mais argumentées et résumées dans le « Catéchisme de la Crise dans la Fraternité».
Nous ne doutons pas de la rectitude doctrinale du Supérieur du District de France, mais nous constatons qu’il n’est plus libre d’écrire ce qu’il pense. Il doit tordre sa conscience pour exempter son Supérieur de ses défaillances afin de pouvoir prêcher la doctrine.
Sans la lettre du 28 février des 37 prêtres, Mgr Fellay aurait-il donné cette conférence à Nantes le 1er mars de cette manière ?
La Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs de mars aurait-elle obtenue l’autorisation de publication de Menzingen sans cet ajout de l’abbé de Cacqueray, qui jure avec la beauté du reste de son texte, ajout où celui-ci exprime à Mgr Fellay sa « reconnaissance pour son refus courageux qu’il a adressé au pape. » Ici nous ne sommes plus dans la rectitude doctrinale mais dans les marécages de la diplomatie.
La Sapinière continuera son travail. Est est, Non non.!
Nous ne haïssons personne, ni Mgr Fellay quoique sa duplicité nous effraye, ni l’abbé de Cacqueray pour qui nous avons la plus grande estime. Mais à tous les deux, et à tous les capitulants qui au lieu de résoudre vraiment le problème au chapitre de juillet 2012 n’ont fait que le cacher et le cautionner en partie, nous leur disons ces paroles du Lieutenant Degueldre à ses bourreaux avant d’être fusillé : « je ne vous hais pas, je vous plains ».
Abbé Olivier Rioult>, Fsspx,
un des trois prêtres sanctionnés.
-
This is my reply to post #23 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23420&min=23):
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
According to the recent book about GREC, it seems +Fellay countenanced this since the 1990s.
Yes, GREC shows the sell-out to Newrome is a long-term operation which didn't start in 2000 or 2007. Like Neil said in another topic, there will probably be more ECs handling the GREC subversion. But already the latest EC is very interesting, see its introduction :
EC 294, 2 March 2013, GREC I.
Just over one year ago was published in France a little book of some 150 pages which has to be a big embarrassment for the leaders of a certain religious Society, because it shows how their promotion of union with the Newchurch goes back many years, at least to the 1990’s. Of course if they are proud of that promotion, they will feel no embarrassment, but if they have for many years been disguising that promotion, then let at least readers of the little book open their eyes. [..]
Sorry I'm so late in responding to this.
Quo Vadis Petre provides the transcript here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Conference-from-Brazil-Fr-Pfeiffer#p4) to a recent conference Fr. Pfeiffer
gave in Brazil on January 25th A.D. 2013:
...Now they are telling us not to look at what Bishop Fellay is doing today, but to look at all the beautiful things he has done over the last eighteen years. When we look over those last eighteen years we discover it's not so beautiful, like, for example, what is now coming out in public : this Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques (Reflection Group Between Catholics), or GREC. This group started in Paris, in 1997. Four SSPX priests were involved. Firstly, Father Lorans, to whom Bishop Fellay gave the permission. Father Lorans was once the superior at the seminary at Econe and he now runs the Dici website. Then there was Father Celier and Father Du Chalard. Father Du Chalard was one of our priests in Rome and he is friends with many cardinals, and has been one of our principle contacts with Rome for more than twenty years. He was thrown out by the 'Si Si No No' sisters because he was too liberal. And lastly, the priest who wrote the book "Towards a Necessary Reconciliation", about, and promoted by, GREC: Father Lelong. Father Lelong founded GREC alongside Father Lorans. He said Father Du Chalard had been a continual support, though secretly. What is the purpose of this group? They want to reconcile the SSPX and Rome using the principles of Vatican II. So in applying the principles of Vatican II to SSPX, the key phrase, admitted by GREC is the 'Light of Tradition'...
When +W touches on the same topic 5 weeks later, it seems he is picking up
some slack. I expect +W has noticed, by his correspondence and interaction
with Catholics the world over, that this concept is not being appreciated. He
sees that there is a weakness, a failure in the thinking of Catholics today to
see the truth, the truth that is not "Internet rumor" or gossip, or presumption,
but truth that the perpetrators themselves have proclaimed.
+W asks that "the readers open their eyes."
Fr. Du Chalard has been SECRETLY promoting this 'deal' with modernist Rome
since the inception of GREC, which means since 1997.
"Of course if they are proud of that promotion, they will feel no embarrassment, but if they have for many years been disguising that promotion, then let at least readers of the little book open their eyes."
And 5 weeks before +W writes this in his "forbidden ECs" Fr. Pfeiffer has already
given the 'goods' to the monks in Brazil.
But meanwhile, Catholic mothers and fathers here in the USA are blithely
making plans to send their sons off to Winona expecting the "same old
traditional formation" that would have been proffered 20 years ago.
Mothers and Fathers, please: OPEN YOUR EYES.
-
PAT:
I think just the other day someone posted a quote from the biography of +ABL by Bp. Tissier, where he mentions the "3 candidates." There are other quotes too, I've seen, where he mentions "three." (probably also in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican) Although he doesn't name them, it is clear from these several quotes that during that 1987/early 1988 time frame, he had in mind to consecrate 3 bishops.
So why don't we get the clear story today? It seems to me that an historical summary from a truly knowledgeable and authoritative source, revealing the events leading up to Fellay's add-on appointment, would be most appropriate at this point in time.
-
Bishop Fellay acts like a freemason, purging opposition to his liberalism remorselessly.
It's this way of behaving that shows us the true colors of these people.
It is harder for some people to understand, just going by his words, which are very tricky. (despite some big blunders on occasion)
However, his associations, and his intolerance for the position of the Archbishop shows his true loyalties, and his inveterate hostility to those who stand with the mission of the Archbishop.
:applause:
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
Ok, not one, but TWO people had a problem with THIS?
Ok, I'm sorry. Nix what I said. "We should worship him. In fact, I'm going to cut up my couch where he sat 2 weeks ago and turn the whole thing into 3rd class relics."
Happy now?
Seriously, unless that is how you truly feel, how could anyone disagree with my very Catholic, very balanced post (above)?
I'm asking out of courtesy. You all should know by now that the moderator can see who thumbed up or thumbed down a given post.
My guess? Someone is voting out of knee-jerk jingoism. They're voting "for the team". Everything comes down to "team colors" -- Pro-Pfeiffer or Anti-Pfeiffer. Every post is distilled down into one of those 2 simplistic camps.
I'm amazed that Tradition is still a force to be reckoned with at all, with this level of emotionalism and lack of reason displayed.
Since I advocated not worshipping him, I guess my post is rounded down to Anti-Pfeiffer? (Actually, I would still disagree: Most of my post is about how we should support him wholeheartedly)
Matthew,
Why should I be afraid to know that you know I’m the one that gave you thumbs down? Are you willing to intimidate me because of your moderation authority? Ok my “lord“ I will not disagree with you. Sure!
What about if I do not agree that there is cult of personality to the person of Fr. Pfeiffer but a gratitude for his leadership that is also recognized by all the priests from the resistance in North America and many others around the world?
What about if I think that there are opportunists trying to have the holophotes of the show over their heads taking advantage of a Fr. Pfeiffer’s assistance (possible) grave faults 12 years ago? Or even more, trying to sabotage Fr. Pfeiffer leadership because of that? Am I allowed to think like that?
How many people from the resistance would be without the sacraments if it wasn't the hard work of Fr.Pfeiffer? How many priests and faithful would be in the resistance right now if it wasn't his brave attitude? And you want make me to believe that this fake “Pablo’s gate“ will put me in doubt of his leadership? And that if I think otherwise I’m worshiping him? It is not a matter of put all our hope in him, I place my hope first in God. I'm grateful for his work, not only because I have a personal benefit of it ( his work has help me to strengthen my faith) but because I can see the good he has done. And that is reality, as Bishop Williamson used to say.
Trying to put in doubt his leadership without serious reasons do not seem to be a balanced attitude. And I would have no fear of saying that not only him but all the priests I had the opportunity to meet in the resistance are holy men. Not in exaggerated way that you pictured, but in the ordinary sense in which we Catholics call those men that we recognize are deeply concerned about the salvation of souls and faithful to their mission.
And more, the fact of been the moderator of this forum and having the knowledge of what happened behind the screen also give you the power to know what happen between “Pablo the Mexican” (can I still say his name in here?) and his confessor?
Are you that sure that you have always balanced attitudes? Why did you stand quiet when “Lepanto Again” implied that “Pablo the Mexican”, with no prove whatsoever, was “trying to increase the donations for his benefit” when Pfeiffer’s Ville burned down? What a grave accusation, and the moderator did nothing.
And yes, there is a formation of a “pro“ and “anti“ Fr. Pfeiffer groups, but I have the feeling that it is actually an anti-resistance movement. I’m sure some of those people in the anti-Fr. Pfeiffer side are doing nothing in the real world but writing in the forums and/or trying to get attention for their websites.
It seems to me that the “hyenas“ are willing to find a place in the resistance.
My best wishes
-
Besides the excellent posts of suger, there have been several others that are
key to this topic.
The whole thing is growing to a critical mass of evidence against the notorious
and malevolent Menzingen-denizens. There is no longer any 'nice' way to look
at this...........
Bishop Fellay acts like a freemason, purging opposition to his liberalism remorselessly.
It's this way of behaving that shows us the true colors of these people.
It is harder for some people to understand, just going by his words, which are very tricky. (despite some big blunders on occasion)
However, his associations, and his intolerance for the position of the Archbishop shows his true loyalties, and his inveterate hostility to those who stand with the mission of the Archbishop.
:applause:
If we want to be prepared for a conversation, without resorting to emotionalism,
we need to memorize some key sentences, folks.
Do your homework:
Bp. Fellay acts like a Freemason.
He remorselessly purges opposition to his LIBERALISM.
By their works they make their true colors known.
When you insist on going by his words, you will therefore be decieved.
Because his words are very tricky.
Sure, he does make an occasional blunder -- BUT HIS LACKEYS SCAMPER IN
to cover his trail, doing damage control and backtracking.
B. Fellay's intolerance for the position of the Archbishop shows his true loyalties.
His associations show his true loyalties.
His inveterate hostility toward those who stand with the mission of ABL shows
his true loyalties.
&c.....
Besides praying, it is difficult to see what to do to save the Society from the grip of the banksters.
Whilst naturally the Fellayites dismissed it as rubbish but a fair point made regarding El Krahgate was what could people do? Many lay folk felt helpless following the information from William of Norwich.
A point was made though that some conceded they had not questioned enough. They gave Bishop Fellay the benefit of the doubt and still put money in the plate each Sunday. That is for their conscience but not only the SSPX are under the grip of the banksters.
Given the Gutmann/Rothschild direct involvement in the SSPX, they are in a difficult position and the point is brought home when you see priests expelled.
It's difficult for Society priests to preach on usury, on Deicide when their society is in the grip of bankers.
The only way forward that I see is to start again with "a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X."
Now that is one wise quote!
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
Ok, not one, but TWO people had a problem with THIS?
Ok, I'm sorry. Nix what I said. "We should worship him. In fact, I'm going to cut up my couch where he sat 2 weeks ago and turn the whole thing into 3rd class relics."
Happy now?
Seriously, unless that is how you truly feel, how could anyone disagree with my very Catholic, very balanced post (above)?
I'm asking out of courtesy. You all should know by now that the moderator can see who thumbed up or thumbed down a given post.
My guess? Someone is voting out of knee-jerk jingoism. They're voting "for the team". Everything comes down to "team colors" -- Pro-Pfeiffer or Anti-Pfeiffer. Every post is distilled down into one of those 2 simplistic camps.
I'm amazed that Tradition is still a force to be reckoned with at all, with this level of emotionalism and lack of reason displayed.
Since I advocated not worshipping him, I guess my post is rounded down to Anti-Pfeiffer? (Actually, I would still disagree: Most of my post is about how we should support him wholeheartedly)
Matthew,
Why should I be afraid to know that you know I’m the one that gave you thumbs down? Are you willing to intimidate me because of your moderation authority? Ok my “lord“ I will not disagree with you. Sure!
What about if I do not agree that there is cult of personality to the person of Fr. Pfeiffer but a gratitude for his leadership that is also recognized by all the priests from the resistance in North America and many others around the world?
What about if I think that there are opportunists trying to have the holophotes of the show over their heads taking advantage of a Fr. Pfeiffer’s assistance (possible) grave faults 12 years ago? Or even more, trying to sabotage Fr. Pfeiffer leadership because of that? Am I allowed to think like that?
How many people from the resistance would be without the sacraments if it wasn't the hard work of Fr.Pfeiffer? How many priests and faithful would be in the resistance right now if it wasn't his brave attitude? And you want make me to believe that this fake “Pablo’s gate“ will put me in doubt of his leadership? And that if I think otherwise I’m worshiping him? It is not a matter of put all our hope in him, I place my hope first in God. I'm grateful for his work, not only because I have a personal benefit of it ( his work has help me to strengthen my faith) but because I can see the good he has done. And that is reality, as Bishop Williamson used to say.
Trying to put in doubt his leadership without serious reasons do not seem to be a balanced attitude. And I would have no fear of saying that not only him but all the priests I had the opportunity to meet in the resistance are holy men. Not in exaggerated way that you pictured, but in the ordinary sense in which we Catholics call those men that we recognize are deeply concerned about the salvation of souls and faithful to their mission.
And more, the fact of been the moderator of this forum and having the knowledge of what happened behind the screen also give you the power to know what happen between “Pablo the Mexican” (can I still say his name in here?) and his confessor?
Are you that sure that you have always balanced attitudes? Why did you stand quiet when “Lepanto Again” implied that “Pablo the Mexican”, with no prove whatsoever, was “trying to increase the donations for his benefit” when Pfeiffer’s Ville burned down? What a grave accusation, and the moderator did nothing.
And yes, there is a formation of a “pro“ and “anti“ Fr. Pfeiffer groups, but I have the feeling that it is actually an anti-resistance movement. I’m sure some of those people in the anti-Fr. Pfeiffer side are doing nothing in the real world but writing in the forums and/or trying to get attention for their websites.
It seems to me that the “hyenas“ are willing to find a place in the resistance.
My best wishes
Yes I'm the moderator of this discussion forum, which means it's my burden to help teach people how to discuss, how to be logical, how to think.
(And let's face it -- considering I'm a human being, there are no posts I'll be more interested in than my own. But I do attack illogical statements affecting other members' posts too.)
Basically, you're giving me a perfect example of the jingoism and team spirit that I was criticizing. You skim my post, guess that it's vaguely "anti-Pfeiffer" and set yourself against it.
What I'm saying is that you get an F in "reading comprehension".
How about you judge WHAT I ACTUALLY TYPED and not WHAT YOU INFER from it.
I never said that Pablo-gate should shatter our trust in Fr. Pfeiffer.
I never said that Fr. Pfeiffer wasn't brave and a good priest.
I never said that there was a cult of personality around Fr. Pfeiffer.
I certainly never raised a false dichotomy of "worship Fr. Pfeiffer" or "lose trust in him over Pablo".
READ MY POST. Carefully.
And yes, there is a formation of a “pro“ and “anti“ Fr. Pfeiffer groups, but I have the feeling that it is actually an anti-resistance movement. I’m sure some of those people in the anti-Fr. Pfeiffer side are doing nothing in the real world but writing in the forums and/or trying to get attention for their websites.
1. Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT the resistance. He is a big part of it, but he is not synonymous with it.
2. Your "feeling" isn't worth anything. "What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied."
3. Even a person who wants nothing to do with Fr. Pfeiffer (personality conflict?) might be fervently pro-resistance. Your opinion is not logical.
4. You're sure, huh? Guess what! I know MANY (as in, more than 5) Resistance chapel organizers who are not afraid to criticize Pablo and/or Fr. Pfeiffer. They're just internet warriors hiding behind a keyboard, not doing anything in the real world? How about the exact opposite! We're talking about people who ORGANIZED the Resistance in their local area.
Anyhow -- my post, as it was written, with no "jumping to conclusions", should have been offensive to NO ONE. It was very carefully worded and written.
Here's what I want you to do. You can disagree with me (don't worry, I'm not going to ban you), but I want you to QUOTE THE PART OF MY POST YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Deal?
-
A house divided against Mexicans cannot stand.
-
A house divided against Mexicans cannot stand.
:roll-laugh2:
-
I find it disturbing that people are throwing the label "mentally ill" at Pablo. This is the same tactic used by scuм like Father Cekada and his ilk to discredit people. No one has the right to classify someone with that label unless they have a Phd in psychology and have performed the appropriate battery of tests. That Phd would then be bound by rules of confidentiality and HIPPA.
-
When I use that term, I'm merely stating my layman's opinion, based on his publicly-known behavior.
I'm not appealing to Psychology, I'm appealing to common sense.
If a man sits in the street in a monkey costume nibbling on concrete, most people will conclude he's not right in the head.
It doesn't require a PhD in Psychology to make that determination.
If I were to tell you that I fight crime in my spare time, dressed in spandex, would you be tempted to say I was crazy, or "mentally ill"?
Fighting crime dressed in spandex, talking about myself like I'm a superhero, is NOT NORMAL. PERIOD. It is not the behavior of a sane individual. That much is not open for debate.
But with recent events in mind, now I know what would happen. Some people on CathInfo would apparently take issue with that label being applied to me, because I'm such a nice person, I run such a great forum, etc.
They'd boil it down to "pro-Matthew" and "anti-Matthew" and everyone would fall into 2 camps, with few people being able to distinguish between "Matthew with his good works" and "Matthew and his insanity".
-
From (SSPX) priestly sources who knew and know the family Lovey, we have the information that your mentioned backer who urged Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate a Swiss-French bishop (number 4), was the Swiss-French lawyer Mr. Lovey.
I was told Mr. Lovey meant well. Still today we got the mess.
If I remember correctly Mr. Lovey handled financial affairs in or around Ecône, and was the head of a group of benefactors financially supporting Archbishop Lefebvre.
To be more precise: Mr. Lovey (on behalf of his group of benefactors) actually bought the entire Econe for Archbishop Lefebvre.
Mr. Lovey's son Philippe Lovey was ordained a priest in the SSPX and later was the Swiss district superior. If I remember correctly, today Fr. Philippe Lovey is supporting Bp Fellay's sellout to Newrome, as do nearly all Swiss SSPX priests unfortunately.
Thank you so much for this key-piece of information, Ethelred!!!!
I was unable to retrieve the name of the financial backer responsible for this. I do believe too he was a nice person, but was naively manipulated by evil-intended money-lenders. Our Lord was right to chase the banksters out of the temple.
You're welcome Suger, and thank you for your good informations.
Re. ABL, he was in dire need of financial support and had no choice. This is how the banksters got a pull on the Society, as they have pulls on anything they find important in the West.
Well, the situation is becoming clearer now: After Mr. Lovey bought Ecône for the Archbishop, and then some ~20 years later in 1988 Mr. Lovey urged the Archbishop to consecrate also Fr. Fellay because of the "importance of Switzerland for the SSPX" (quoted according to my sources), I think it's understandable that the good Archbishop could have felt obliged to do so because of what Mr. Lovey did for the society...
That's no accusation.
And this is why +Fellay had to insert Krah into such a position of financial control over the Society, why he always listens to Krah and always protects him.
Besides praying, it is difficult to see what to do to save the Society from the grip of the banksters.
The Neo-SSPX is dead.
Long live the true SSPX, or even better: all faithful Catholics!
Ecône was purchased in 1968, on 05.31. M. Roger Lovey was not alone, he was with four locals : Alphonse and Marcel Pedrosi, Guy Genoud and Gratien Rausis. The problem is that none of them had a "single penny." They were lucky with the bank which provided a loan for 100% of the price. BUT on the other hand here comes the problem, they had a huge debt and were entirely dependent on banksters to regularly provide enough funds for paying back the loan + interests, otherwise the bank would size the Ecône property... (not to speak of huge amounts of money to be invested in fixing the place, buying stuff, etc.)
-
I find it disturbing that people are throwing the label "mentally ill" at Pablo. This is the same tactic used by scuм like Father Cekada and his ilk to discredit people. No one has the right to classify someone with that label unless they have a Phd in psychology and have performed the appropriate battery of tests. That Phd would then be bound by rules of confidentiality and HIPPA.
But you don't have issue with calling Fr. Cekada "scuм?"
-
I am sorry Ethelred, I forgot to thank you for your further posts which are also so excellent.
Back to the dark business of Mammon/MONEY, what gave Roger Lovey a key role in interfacing with the kind of very rich people and with dealing with the property / fund issue, is that he was a lawyer and a notary, unlike the four other swiss locals mentioned above.
And this is how Roger Lovey got manipulated into pushing for an additional, fourth bishop, a Swiss one... who, seeing how m uch is ruled by MONEY, was set on being the Society's TREASURER...
It all loops back to same thing : MONEY.
As John Grace pointed out :
- there is the issue of the funds, the MONEY of the Israelite familiy...
- the zionist Krah, the current lawyer in charge of this MONEY stuff
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
POWER, CONTROL, LOBBY...
the ROOT of ALL EVIL...
-
If I were to tell you that I fight crime in my spare time, dressed in spandex, would you be tempted to say I was crazy, or "mentally ill"?
Fighting crime dressed in spandex, talking about myself like I'm a superhero, is NOT NORMAL. PERIOD. It is not the behavior of a sane individual. That much is not open for debate.
But with recent events in mind, now I know what would happen. Some people on CathInfo would apparently take issue with that label being applied to me, because I'm such a nice person, I run such a great forum, etc.
They'd boil it down to "pro-Matthew" and "anti-Matthew" and everyone would fall into 2 camps, with few people being able to distinguish between "Matthew with his good works" and "Matthew and his insanity".
LOL
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/BatmanRobin.jpg/250px-BatmanRobin.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/Froot-Loops-Box-Small.jpg/220px-Froot-Loops-Box-Small.jpg)
-
Unbelievable assumption. Surely you don't mean that.
Instead of inferring that His Grace committed simony (money in exchange for a sacrament or an office in the Church) I think that the simple and real explanation is that he could have never imagined that Bishop Fellay would become the destroyer of the SSPX. Who could have imagined that back then, 25 years ago?
Indeed I don't mean simony, +Fellay never bargained / purchased his office, and ABL would never have done such a sin.
What I mean is :
re. ABL :
- one fact is that as he was building up the Society from scratch he often was in dire need of money (and things are very expensive in Switzerland), (e.g. check +TdM book)
- he intended only to consecrate +Williamson, +Tdm, +de Gallareta
- this swiss financial backer was influential in changing ABL's mind and having +Fellay additionally consecrated. I assume +ABL saw things like this : this good man and his Swiss friends have helped the Society so much and are still helping so much, and now he is begging for one of his countrymen as a further bishop, I cannot refuse that.
- both Mr. Lovey and +ABL didn't at any time realise they were making a mistake, they acted in all honesty and good faith.
Re. +Fellay and the people providing money to Mr. Lovey, I fear things may not be so nice. Now, 25 years later we can know :
- +Fellay has been betraying the Society for decades (G.R.E.C.), and does clearly not behave as he should
- the zionist Krah has been exposed
- and I know other things I can't put here re. the geopolitics of a given lobby
So it seems to me that the best explanations for all these things, with the hindsight we now have, are:
- M. Folley and ABL were tricked in a push to have +Fellay consecrated, who then worked on gaining all powers in the Society
- interestingly +Fellay was the one caring about the financial issues, before taking all power he could first develop a financial construction most suitable to his long-term schemes
- if +Fellay was pushed like this by financial backers, it is more reasonable to think that he was a mole right from the beginning than he later became soldout
Let us not forget that +Fellay has been in charge of finances since ABL appointed him in the late seventies, and it clearly never occurred to any (it seems) of the 3 other bishops, or any of the superiors and priests, that one person in charge for so many years with little or no control - a most dangerous and tempting position for anyone, including a bishop, should have been more closely monitored. Money + power = control! Whether +Fellay was a plant from the beginning, or not, is something I don't think we can prove at this stage, but that he was corrupted by the power emanating from his handing of large finances, as well as his continuing as head of the Society for so long, appears to be a fact, at any rate.
Of course, there is no excuse for that corruption, since he has 'free will' and appears to have used it to his own benefit. After all, one does NOT have to be corrupted, but must be willing to be corrupted. I do not think he "was pushed by financial backers", but a willing pawn, if not a willing partner.
"- and I know other things I can't put here re. the geopolitics of a given lobby -", as mentioned above, I would be most interested to know about these geopolitics, as I do not doubt that it is a distinct possibility. One would have to have one's head in the sand, to wish that one away.
-
1531:
Let us not forget that +Fellay has been in charge of finances since ABL appointed him in the late seventies, and it clearly never occurred to any (it seems) of the 3 other bishops, or any of the superiors and priests, that one person in charge for so many years with little or no control - a most dangerous and tempting position for anyone, including a bishop, should have been more closely monitored. Money + power = control! Whether +Fellay was a plant from the beginning, or not, is something I don't think we can prove at this stage, but that he was corrupted by the power emanating from his handing of large finances, as well as his continuing as head of the Society for so long, appears to be a fact, at any rate.
Are we really to believe that from the late 70s until his death in '91 (12-15 years?) that ABL never saw the inherent dangers in appointing his chief financial officer a bishop, as well? As Suger and 1531 make clear, money is at the center of the sspx problems. Money, truth be told, along with the inordinate power it confers on Fellay & Co, is at the root of present divisions. These men have no moral authority. IMO, they are not holy and spiritual priests. They are powermongers manipulated and ultimately controlled by zionist interests. For those reasons, they differ little from the Vatican hierarchy which is also controlled and manipulated by money and zionism.
-
Are we really to believe that from the late 70s until his death in '91 (12-15 years?) that ABL never saw the inherent dangers in appointing his chief financial officer a bishop, as well? As Suger and 1531 make clear, money is at the center of the sspx problems. Money, truth be told, along with the inordinate power it confers on Fellay & Co, is at the root of present divisions. These men have no moral authority. IMO, they are not holy and spiritual priests. They are powermongers manipulated and ultimately controlled by zionist interests. For those reasons, they differ little from the Vatican hierarchy which is also controlled and manipulated by money and zionism.
If that were true, then the SSPX (at least the leadership) would no longer be fundamentally against Rome. They'd probably not have much of a problem with going back to Rome, if they could just arrange things so that there wasn't too much of a fallout when they did.
It would probably take them a decade or more to place all their willing yes-men into positions of power, and establish a certain amount of control over information distribution in the SSPX. They'd have to forbid all priests to have blogs, establish several propaganda avenues, etc.
I guess this isn't very likely, because they'd probably have to get rid of Bishop Williamson for it to succeed. How could they ever accomplish that? There'd be a HUGE backlash if they tried to expel him.
...Wait a minute! All this is exactly what happened!
-
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
If Fellay is really a traitor, I hope his treachery is recent and not from the beginning.
Such charity towards a Roman Catholic bishop!
Pius IX ,
- there are many letters by the Society's priests proving that this bishop is a blatant liar
- he betrayed you by secretly plotting the sellout of the Society for decades (check out the G.R.E.C. plot)
- he betrayed you by negociating for a pratical agreement although he had pledged that he would not do so unless there would be a doctrinal agreement first
- etc.
This is indeed very unpleasant, but this is the truth.
(and if you only care about charity let me ask you: what are you doing here? why not just joining any of those protestant evangelical churches full of lovely people...?)
Charity for Bp. Fellay? True charity is in correcting your brother.
Please show me where Bp. Fellay or his minions EVER went to the faithful and said:
" (smiling, always, of course) Hello dears peeples... itsa so nice to bee here after all theeze dayz... we have been soo buzy lateley, darting back and forth, trying to ezscape the brick bats and attacks from every side. But-- wee carry on--- we are working hard to get an agreement to get us back into rome-- into the conciliar church of the great big tent-- into the sodomite church of all the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ cardinals and bishops. We have been working so hard behind the scenes ! (more big smiles) You know, we have had some setbacks( big frown). Our friends in Campos knew what we were doing with GREC, so they just went ahead and made a deal of their own-- now they are ahead of us in the new roman conciliar religion! Plus the Papa Stransay monks-- after we gave them so much support and help, they also found out we were coming back to rome-- so they made a deal also.Imagine that ! The Papa Stransay monks one-upping us also! "
"Of course ( big, big smile, followed by deep, deep frowns), Fr Lorans works hard with GREC and the French Cardinals to sneak us in; and I have placed into positions of leadership in every district only people who will be "yes-men" for me, so, when times come for us to sign, there will be no resistance ."
"Fr Rostand does an excellent job in the US-- every time I leak something stupid, he says something stupider to cover it up-- so youze peeples get more and more confused"
"Yes, dears peoples, I know you heart is heavy-- you are tired of being separated from the sodomites in rome for so long-- so we work hard, but very quietly, for this purpose. In the meanstime, we appreciate your donations and money, so we continue to build schools and chapels, and even now a new seminary. We have a number of conciliar bishops of the new religion who want us to train there fake priests--- this is so good news for us! And it's many, many secret things like this which gives us warm and fuzzy feelings about joining conciliar rome ! And my finance guy-- they just came back from a tour of the secret military bases in Israel-- Everyone in Israel was all very excited in Israel to know that the finances of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Society of the firm anti-Communist and anti liberal Archbishop Lefebvre, who Ratzinger and the israelis absolutely hated, are all in the hands of a confirmed Israeli, a supporter of the Mossad and a fund-raiser for Jєωιѕн causes in New York
(more big smiles)."
" Oh, dears peeples, so many things we could tell you we do behind the scenes-- but we can't say too much, because otherwise those traditionalists like that Williamson, who I triad to bury in London, will hear it and run with it-- criticizing us publicly, and making us embarrassed. Soooo-- we work quietly, dears peeples-- please continue to send in your cash to our Mossad agents , so wees can builds more and more places to impress the romans--- then wees be sure they will give us a good, good deal to come back in ..."
So-- just tell me where he told his "faithful" the truth-- then we'd all respect him more! Hugh wwwsossaveoursspx.com
-
....zee istory of zee fraternite moderne in zee nutshell ......
-
I hope there is room for them in Pfeifferville.
I hope they are joining the Resistance, yes.
I suppose right now the Pfeiffer ranch in Kentucky is the best equipped to house Resistance priests as a sort of "Resistance priory". And priests do need the companionship and moral support of fellow priests in their battles with the world. Abp. Lefebvre knew this, which is why he designed the SSPX around Priories.
But we should all take heed to not place ALL our hopes in Fr. Pfeiffer. He is an excellent priest and his sermons are downright awesome, but he might have fatal flaws like all of us -- for example, being irrationally loyal to a given layman.
Such could be his undoing. If that happens, we will have to continue to keep the Faith and not give up.
Remember in Greek mythology, Achilles was dipped in an "invincibility" potion, but they had to hold him by his heel when they dipped him in it. So he was vulnerable in that one spot -- the Achilles' Heel. Guess where he got shot with an arrow?
Let's not set ourselves up for massive disappointment by treating Fr. Pfeiffer like he's "The One" or something.
Would he even want that?
Since this is CathInfo, I have to spell out everything I'm trying to say (and spell out what I'm NOT trying to say).
What I advocate: Love, support, and attend the Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer. Spread the word about the Resistance, record the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer and the other Resistance priests, post them online, and encourage people to attend Masses of all the Resistance priests. Support him with volunteer work, money, and prayers.
What I advise against: Forming a cult of personality around him. Don't worship the man. He's just ONE priest. And though he is very holy, he may yet have flaws. Not even sins, mind you -- just flaws. Like trusting the wrong person, etc.
Ok, not one, but TWO people had a problem with THIS?
Ok, I'm sorry. Nix what I said. "We should worship him. In fact, I'm going to cut up my couch where he sat 2 weeks ago and turn the whole thing into 3rd class relics."
Happy now?
Seriously, unless that is how you truly feel, how could anyone disagree with my very Catholic, very balanced post (above)?
I'm asking out of courtesy. You all should know by now that the moderator can see who thumbed up or thumbed down a given post.
My guess? Someone is voting out of knee-jerk jingoism. They're voting "for the team". Everything comes down to "team colors" -- Pro-Pfeiffer or Anti-Pfeiffer. Every post is distilled down into one of those 2 simplistic camps.
I'm amazed that Tradition is still a force to be reckoned with at all, with this level of emotionalism and lack of reason displayed.
Since I advocated not worshipping him, I guess my post is rounded down to Anti-Pfeiffer? (Actually, I would still disagree: Most of my post is about how we should support him wholeheartedly)
Matthew,
Why should I be afraid to know that you know I’m the one that gave you thumbs down? Are you willing to intimidate me because of your moderation authority? Ok my “lord“ I will not disagree with you. Sure!
What about if I do not agree that there is cult of personality to the person of Fr. Pfeiffer but a gratitude for his leadership that is also recognized by all the priests from the resistance in North America and many others around the world?
What about if I think that there are opportunists trying to have the holophotes of the show over their heads taking advantage of a Fr. Pfeiffer’s assistance (possible) grave faults 12 years ago? Or even more, trying to sabotage Fr. Pfeiffer leadership because of that? Am I allowed to think like that?
How many people from the resistance would be without the sacraments if it wasn't the hard work of Fr.Pfeiffer? How many priests and faithful would be in the resistance right now if it wasn't his brave attitude? And you want make me to believe that this fake “Pablo’s gate“ will put me in doubt of his leadership? And that if I think otherwise I’m worshiping him? It is not a matter of put all our hope in him, I place my hope first in God. I'm grateful for his work, not only because I have a personal benefit of it ( his work has help me to strengthen my faith) but because I can see the good he has done. And that is reality, as Bishop Williamson used to say.
Trying to put in doubt his leadership without serious reasons do not seem to be a balanced attitude. And I would have no fear of saying that not only him but all the priests I had the opportunity to meet in the resistance are holy men. Not in exaggerated way that you pictured, but in the ordinary sense in which we Catholics call those men that we recognize are deeply concerned about the salvation of souls and faithful to their mission.
And more, the fact of been the moderator of this forum and having the knowledge of what happened behind the screen also give you the power to know what happen between “pablo the Amateur Exorcist” (can I still say his name in here?) and his confessor?
Are you that sure that you have always balanced attitudes? Why did you stand quiet when “Lepanto Again” implied that “pablo the Amateur Exorcist”, with no prove whatsoever, was “trying to increase the donations for his benefit” when Pfeiffer’s Ville burned down? What a grave accusation, and the moderator did nothing.
And yes, there is a formation of a “pro“ and “anti“ Fr. Pfeiffer groups, but I have the feeling that it is actually an anti-resistance movement. I’m sure some of those people in the anti-Fr. Pfeiffer side are doing nothing in the real world but writing in the forums and/or trying to get attention for their websites.
It seems to me that the “hyenas“ are willing to find a place in the resistance.
My best wishes
Yes I'm the moderator of this discussion forum, which means it's my burden to help teach people how to discuss, how to be logical, how to think.
(And let's face it -- considering I'm a human being, there are no posts I'll be more interested in than my own. But I do attack illogical statements affecting other members' posts too.)
Basically, you're giving me a perfect example of the jingoism and team spirit that I was criticizing. You skim my post, guess that it's vaguely "anti-Pfeiffer" and set yourself against it.
What I'm saying is that you get an F in "reading comprehension".
How about you judge WHAT I ACTUALLY TYPED and not WHAT YOU INFER from it.
I never said that Pablo-gate should shatter our trust in Fr. Pfeiffer.
I never said that Fr. Pfeiffer wasn't brave and a good priest.
I never said that there was a cult of personality around Fr. Pfeiffer.
I certainly never raised a false dichotomy of "worship Fr. Pfeiffer" or "lose trust in him over Pablo".
READ MY POST. Carefully.
And yes, there is a formation of a “pro“ and “anti“ Fr. Pfeiffer groups, but I have the feeling that it is actually an anti-resistance movement. I’m sure some of those people in the anti-Fr. Pfeiffer side are doing nothing in the real world but writing in the forums and/or trying to get attention for their websites.
1. Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT the resistance. He is a big part of it, but he is not synonymous with it.
2. Your "feeling" isn't worth anything. "What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied."
3. Even a person who wants nothing to do with Fr. Pfeiffer (personality conflict?) might be fervently pro-resistance. Your opinion is not logical.
4. You're sure, huh? Guess what! I know MANY (as in, more than 5) Resistance chapel organizers who are not afraid to criticize Pablo and/or Fr. Pfeiffer. They're just internet warriors hiding behind a keyboard, not doing anything in the real world? How about the exact opposite! We're talking about people who ORGANIZED the Resistance in their local area.
Anyhow -- my post, as it was written, with no "jumping to conclusions", should have been offensive to NO ONE. It was very carefully worded and written.
Here's what I want you to do. You can disagree with me (don't worry, I'm not going to ban you), but I want you to QUOTE THE PART OF MY POST YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Deal?
You jumped to the conclusion that because I gave you a thumb down the only option left was to worship him“. You also jumped to the conclusion that I was against every thing you sad, and that your post is so well balanced, so divine inspirited, that no one could ever disagree with anything you sad.
Not setting ourselves up for massive disappointment is something that every catholic should be ready to do, no matter what, where, when or to whom. But them when you start giving names and circuмstances you start putting REAL doubt to that given person. And that is what I affirm: You are putting in doubt his LEADERSHIP supposedly because he is been “irrationally loyal to a given layman”, and then, “Such could be his undoing”. Someone that acts irrationally is, for sure, someone that does not deservers our hope, especially to be leading anyone. The rest of your post I don’t care, it is just logical things in your little world.
Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT the resistance. He is a big part of it, but he is not synonymous with it.
You're sure, huh? Guess what! I know MANY (as in, more than 5) Resistance chapel organizers who are not afraid to criticize Pablo and/or Fr. Pfeiffer. They're just internet warriors hiding behind a keyboard, not doing anything in the real world? How about the exact opposite! We're talking about people who ORGANIZED the Resistance in their local area.
He is not the resistance but his is leading it (at least in North America), it is not a matter of been a big or small part. He is LEADING it! And he has also been accepted by his colleges to do so. If anyone starts to discredit him for personal divergences and/or playing dirty games, it shows that that person only worries about their little independent chapel (and some are already creating sectarian ideas) and/or playing the game of the enemy to divide the already small group of the resistance.
Your "feeling" isn't worth anything. "What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied."
I don’t mind if it isn’t worth anything and I would actually be glad if you were right, it means that it has no connection to the reality. Believe me, I have no attachment to my feelings.
(don't worry, I'm not going to ban you)
Thank you for you kindness, I was really worried about that.