Author Topic: CathInfo position on allowing Bp Fellay supporters here (Read 6503 times)

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2012, 05:37:19 AM »

Quote from: RomanKansan

Roland Deschain you are missing the point completely, others have already pointed this out to you, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not maliciously being obtuse I will make an effort to answer your objection…
No one here has claimed to have seen any written agreement, what we are objecting to is what we HAVE seen, just a few examples …

An article by Fr Iscara has been put out trying to persuade Traditional Catholics to remain silent in the face of modern errors…how could you not have read Bishop DeMallerais’ sermon where he explicitly, in detail, explains how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong. There are no signs that Rome is presently converting and we must not cease condemning the errors of Vatican II. Bishop DeMallerais HAS seen the doctrinal preamble and he says unmistakably in his sermon that its ambiguity is unacceptable for a Catholic, that a Catholic must profess the Faith clearly in the face of error…

Bishop Fellay has already changed his position to say Vatican II doesn’t contain error, it’s the “interpretation” that can be in error. Bishops DeMallerais and Williamson have re-iterated that the docuмents of Vatican II themselves contain errors that must be reversed…

An article is put out “interpreting” the writings/sayings of Archbishop Lefebvre according to the principles of historical modernism…

Numerous articles and statements by Bishop Fellay and his inner circle have appeared assuring us that somehow, secretly Benedict XVI wants Tradition restored…though Benedict has changed nothing of his teaching or practice in favor of ecuмenism, religious liberty and the new theology condemned by Pope Pius XII…

Articles expressing Church teachings critical of Jews have been expunged from SSPX websites…

I say again…We do not object to a mythical written agreement that we have not seen but to public attempts to change from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the positions of the Society before talk of an imminent agreement started to circulate.
Obviously you may continue to disagree with us but I believe you are required in Catholic justice to cease misrepresenting our position.

I thank you for taking the time to explain that; and also not assuming that I am just acting in bad faith. I will look over the sermon you referenced.

If I seem to be mis-representing your position then I apologize. I do not agree with everything above but at least it helps me understand better where you are coming from. I still believe prudence and prayer are much needed before anything is official.

Thanks.

Sunbeam · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2012, 08:03:58 AM »

Ethelred said:

Quote

But when hearing it a several times, and when we together guess some not so clear words, we can figure out what the good father says.

It sounds then as if you are having difficulty in understanding Fr Pfeiffer’s pronunciation, because of the difference between his native language and yours. I had exactly this problem with Fr Chazal’s sermon – a problem overcome once the transcript became available.

Likewise, if you haven’t already noticed it, you will be helped by the transcript of Fr Pfeiffer’s sermon kindly provided by Neil Obstat here:

Transcript of Fr Prieffer's sermon on Pentecost Sunday

Ethelred · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:13:54 AM »

Sunbeam, thanks for your support. You're right with the pronunciation bit. I'm used to British English.
Neil's shortened transcript is good. Still waiting for J.Paul's complete one.

The real problem of the MP3 audio file of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon is however the bad MP3 quality. Matthew noticed it first :

Quote from: Matthew

http://www.cathinfo.com/FrJosephPfeifferMay272012.mp3

I wish the laymen who make these recordings would realize that you aren't just "saving some hard drive space -- the more the better!" when choosing a bitrate for these recordings.

For me, at least, the recording is almost un-listenable because of all the MP3 artifacts due to the high compression rate they chose.

You don't get something for nothing, come on!

When you go from 20 MB to 10 MB you DO give up something.

Even so.
I checked your (Sunbeam's) Youtube-links and it looks like they're the very same MP3 source as Matthew's file.

But, of course this is true:

Quote from: Matthew

Nevertheless, I'm guessing the content is very, very good, so I might have to listen to this sermon anyhow.

So: Whoever has ears ought to hear.

Diego · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:18:39 AM »

Quote from: brainglitch

This is sad to hear. I don't know what to think anymore. I cannot believe that you would allow sedevacantists to spew their vile doctrines, and yet treat good-willed people who support Bishop Fellay- or who at least give him the benefit of the doubt, until we know more- like moral lepers.

All of this is very confusing.....

Quote
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Brainglitch. How apropos an appellation.

Diego · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:24:27 AM »

Quote from: Malleus 01

...In order for Schism to exist - lawful authority must likewise exist.

Since The Vatican II Itself was Pastoral (Not a single Anathema) enforcing it as lawful authority is likewise nonexistant.

Therefore the charge of Schism is groundless at best and at worst laughable.

Its like saying that Arius had the power to excommunicate St Athanasius because he refused to accept the Arian heresy and used his power as a Bishop to see it through with Liberias. Somehow , I do not think St Athanasius was all that worried , nor are we. ...

This is the key example for us all. Were the Arians who held the buildings and ecclesiastical titles Catholics?

Hell no!

Neither are the perverse and heretical modernists Catholics—not even the one "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter.

Diego · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:28:15 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

...Arius was dead. ...

To be more specific, struck dead on a latrine floor.

Diego · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:30:46 AM »

Quote from: finegan

Oh please. I'm sure there's space for another cheerleader over on Rorate (aka, "the Full Communion Gazette").

a.k.a. The Elder Brothers' Gazette.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2012, 04:31:08 PM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: Matthew
So it's really no change to my existing moderation policy.

Yes, you ban strident Novus Ordites, so it only stands to reason to ban strident Fellayites.

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX (still), found even stronger words for them -- and for Bp. Fellay, betrayer of the Faith. Keyword "satanic disorientation".

Can't wait to get that transcript, because the low MP3 quality gave us non-English-speakers a hard time.... but it was well worth it. :-)

Looks like you got your "keyword" term a bit wrong, if you're referring to the Pentecost Sunday sermon.

Check the first post on page 3 of the SSPX Rome sermon Fr Joseph Pfeiffer thread:

Quote

Pope Benedict XVI is a master of disaster. [1:00:55]

He has been destroying and dividing Tradition for the past 20 years, 30 years. Now he has Bishop Fellay in a diabolical disorientation. He has the bishop believing that the new friends in Rome are going to help him, and he's going to help them become good Catholics. He doesn't need his old friends anymore. He doesn't need his 3 bishops anymore. And you will see a PURGE, barring a MIRACLE, you will see a purge: this priest was expelled from the Society because he's disobedient, that one because he's crazy, this one because, well, we can't tell you: you don't want to know!

We must stand firm in the Faith. Many souls are in grave jeopardy today, because Bishop Fellay has decided to play with fire, with a smile.

I know, "satanic disorientation" is 2 syllables shorter than diabolical disorientation, but the latter are the words quoted from Sister Lucia of The Immaculate Conception (popularly referred to as Sister Lucy of Fatima). It is most likely that these two words, diabolical disorientation, are to be found in the Third Secret of Fatima, but like the Doctrinal Preamble, we haven't seen it yet!

I had a friend who refused to learn the phrase, diabolical disorientation, and kept saying "demonic disorientation," but I think he was merely confused. Whenever I mentioned it to him, he didn't seem to be able to recognize the difference, and soon thereafter would revert to his habitual phraseology. Old habits are hard to break. I say I "had" a friend, because he died about 3 years ago, from complications of diabetes.

Fr. Pfeiffer's use of this term is rather telling. He is evidently a serious student of Church history and a devoted son of Our Blessed Mother. It gives me great consolation to hear his tone of voice when he mentions Our Lady in his sermon. If only more priests would be so kind as to risk the wrath of the devil by publicly upholding their own loyalty to the Blessed Virgin, our Mother.

Incredulous · « **Reply #23 on:** June 05, 2012, 07:27:16 PM »

Quote from: Roland Deschain

Quote from: Matthew
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.

Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.

So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.

But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?

That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.

I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.

I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.

I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.

In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.

The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.

Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.

If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"

I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."

I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.

God bless,

Matthew

I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.

I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.

Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.

Adios.

And good riddance!
Roland looked very dangerous and threatening with those guns.
:rolleyes:

Incredulous · « **Reply #24 on:** June 05, 2012, 07:32:16 PM »

I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."

I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.

God bless,

Matthew
[/quote]

Matthew,

I think the Fellayites or accordistas should have a little corner on this forum,
so for pleasure and pratice we can go there...
to beat them up.

:boxer:

Ethelred · « **Reply #25 on:** June 06, 2012, 01:43:35 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

"diabolical disorientation"

Thanks for the correction, Neil.
I appreciate your love for your native language. It is important. Our languages influence our thinking.

Logos72 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.

Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.

They may not be dogmatic, but still errors and heresies, nonetheless. You state rather unambiguously that you must be careful not to allow errors or heresies but actually allow them? :confused1:

Quote

So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.

You also have a duty of care as a forum owner not to allow the Catholics registered here to be exposed to errors and heresies and refute and oppose them as much as you can - but you don't seem to.

Quote

But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?

That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.

Same is true of allowing Sedevacantists and Sede-plenists - they too are in error, their private opinions become published publicly and this forum is a platform for it - the SSPX is in turmoil but it's ok to inject more error into the mix and a few more souls going astray into the wilderness of Sedeland - ie up the proverbial creek without a paddle or land in sight, just so long as those nasty "Accordistas" who, despite what your opinion is, and it is only an opinion, are still Catholics who, just as you do, recognize that the Chair of Peter is not vacant and in common with you, are Catholic Traditionalists, don't get to air their views, right or wrong may they be.

Quote

I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.

The entire Catholic Faith includes recognizing the Pope as a valid and legitimate successor of St Peter. You compromise the Faith of your fellow Catholics by allowing Sedes their platform and exposing the very people you have claimed a responsibility for.

Quote

I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.

I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.

You may well be right, Matthew. But allowing the Fellayites a platform the same you do others does not amount to compromising anyones Catholic faith, nor will it lead people into error.

Quote

In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.

The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.

By allowing them to air their views, you can possibly change their position. You owe that to them, too.

Quote

Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.

I doubt any Fellayite will be able to cause confusion with people here.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #27 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:35:50 PM »

Quote from: Logos72

You compromise the Faith of your fellow Catholics by allowing Sedes their platform and exposing the very people you have claimed a responsibility for.

Nonsense.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #28 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:38:42 PM »

Quote

But allowing the Fellayites a platform the same you do others does not amount to compromising anyones Catholic faith, nor will it lead people into error.

Oh yeah?

Quote

"We, I may say in the discussions, I think we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council. But the common understanding of it."

That's leading people into error about Vatican II.

Claiming on the other hand, that sedevacantism is certainly an error, is not in harmony with what Archbishop Lefebvre said about it.

Logos72 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:49:13 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote
But allowing the Fellayites a platform the same you do others does not amount to compromising anyones Catholic faith, nor will it lead people into error.

Oh yeah?

Quote
"We, I may say in the discussions, I think we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council. But the common understanding of it."

That's leading people into error about Vatican II.

It certainly raised my brows when I heard it said, admittedly, and I'd have to agree with you. But can you be sure all the Pro-Dealers believe Msgr Fellay's words there?

Claiming on the other hand, that sedevacantism is certainly an error, is not in harmony with what Archbishop Lefebvre said about it.
[/quote]

Unfortunately Telesphorus, it is true that the saintly Archbishop's view on Sedevacantism wasn't reflected in his actions.