Author Topic: Did Bishop Fellay Lie? (Read 24075 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #145 on:** July 14, 2012, 08:18:09 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

There will be phases and workbooks and other propaganda to ease the sspx into novus ordo. REal estate will be sold off. If they can't afford to keep their own properties what makes you think they can afford to keep sspx properties??!!

I have seen first hand the novus ordo workbooks for those difficult people (me) who are grieving over the loss of church and school being closed. *LOL* Recently, they mentioned Carl jung in novus ordo catholic newspaper which is heresy.

Also there is much talk about "secular catholics" . I heard Fordham university received grant money to research "secular catholicism".

And didn't we just learn that etwn and George weigle mocked the Social Kingship for Jesus Christ?

And many novus ordo catholics do not know their religion.

I was on a trad site on facebook and talked to a novus ordo seminarian who didn't know anything about the Oath against Moderism.

The Jєωιѕн h0Ɩ0cαųst is being taught instead of the Catholic faith. They won't talk about or teach about anti-catholicism in America which still exists today.

All good points.

But I have another good point:

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #146 on:** July 14, 2012, 04:37:39 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Your statement has quite the pejorative dint to it

Your interpretation is, incidentally, yet another proof of my long-standing theory that we all judge by our own standards. For you the mere recitation of true moral doctrine and the careful statement of facts, amounts to "making excuses for Bishop Fellay." A mind like yours sees everything in pejorative terms. It's how YOU think, so you assume everybody else does too.

So when did you discover you have the Gift of Discernment? Personally I will speak of visible
actions, but never would I dare to presume the interior disposition of the perp.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: ultrarigorist
- please explain "about him and his actions"?

The letter from Fr. Thouvenot stated the case against him, and the vote was in response to an appeal against that case. I haven't seen the appeal, obviously.

Perhaps you should hold your tongue then.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

My comment, far from being pejorative, was meant to distinguish what are in reality entirely unrelated matters - viz. whether there should be a deal, and whether Bishop Williamson should be at the General Chapter. These two things are being (perhaps deliberately) confounded by many. The result of the General Chapter will show that they are quite distinct (although that is already abundantly, undeniably, obvious).

With an adverb/adjective loaded flourish, you claim there's a distinction. Most of us know otherwise, based on at least as much data as you have access to. You might do well to read all the back issues of +Williamson's weekly, and maybe, just maybe, you would learn something.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

I doubt he's interested in purging the Fraternity, of any element, even the "best" as you label it. He could have expelled Bishop Williamson years ago and didn't. If there's an amnesty issued after the General Chapter, so that the priests presently facing canonical sanctions are let off with the warning they have already been given, will that change your conviction?

Canonical sanctions is it? Do please explain that. We also must infer that you ASSUME that they've done something wrong. Would you please justify your grave accusations without use of pathetic literary panache.

GtG, the way you behave on this forum strikes me like the housewife who, with aerosol tin of
air-freshener in hand, dispenses it here and there as needed to mask the stench caused by her errant tomcat. And who then proceeds to tell her guests that good 'ole Tom is sooo clean and fastidious, you'd never know a cat lived here....

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #147 on:** July 14, 2012, 07:02:32 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Personally I will speak of visible actions, but never would I dare to presume the interior disposition of the perp.

:roll-laugh1:

...and make prophecies. You left that bit out. :roll-laugh2:

Quote

With an adverb/adjective loaded flourish, you claim there's a distinction. Most of us know otherwise, based on at least as much data as you have access to.

Right, that's why you were predicting a sell-out. The people who read the data with an unprejudiced eye knew that Bishop Williamson's support was not great, and that opposition to the deal was very great indeed.

And that's what the outcome shows.

I'm happy there's no deal. It's evident that some others are annoyed, and not because they were in favour of a deal...

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #148 on:** July 14, 2012, 08:08:30 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
There will be phases and workbooks and other propaganda to ease the sspx into novus ordo. REal estate will be sold off. If they can't afford to keep their own properties what makes you think they can afford to keep sspx properties??!!

I have seen first hand the novus ordo workbooks for those difficult people (me) who are grieving over the loss of church and school being closed. *LOL* Recently, they mentioned Carl jung in novus ordo catholic newspaper which is heresy.

Also there is much talk about "secular catholics" . I heard Fordham university received grant money to research "secular catholicism".

And didn't we just learn that etwn and George weigle mocked the Social Kingship for Jesus Christ?

And many novus ordo catholics do not know their religion.

I was on a trad site on facebook and talked to a novus ordo seminarian who didn't know anything about the Oath against Moderism.

The Jєωιѕн h0Ɩ0cαųst is being taught instead of the Catholic faith. They won't talk about or teach about anti-catholicism in America which still exists today.

All good points.

But I have another good point:

I guess I'm jumping ahead.. sorry. The bottom line is that we all want God, Our Blessed Mother and the True Mass and Catholic Church to continue on.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #149 on:** July 17, 2012, 11:31:35 AM »

From page 4 of this thread:

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

... Confirmed: High-Ranking Vatican Prelate Predicted End of Novus Ordo Missae

And finally, shortly after Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, thereby affirming the right of every Latin-rite priest to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments without his bishop’s permission, while confirming the traditional Mass had never been abrogated, a few reports included a statement by Bishop Fellay regarding his conversation with a Vatican official on the MP’s potential effect on the future of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Despite news of a new translation of the Novus Ordo missal becoming available for use in Advent 2011, this new missal, as Remnant readers know, retained only 17 percent of the original orations from the 1962 missal.

Bishop Fellay today confirmed that after Summorum Pontificuм was issued, “the high-ranking prelate thought we would have 20 to 25 years before the New Mass would disappear.”
Posted Jul 6, 2012, 6:24 am
Ignored by: 0

Does anyone know who the "high-ranking prelate" was? And does his expectation
for the disappearance of the Novus Ordo liturgy have any direct basis in the rise
in use of the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass? The context seems to be the MP SP,
but that might be merely coincidental.

It has been stated that B16's goal is to phase the 1962 missal into a hybrid of the
Novus Ordo liturgy, in order to finally consign the Canonized Latin Mass to the
dustbin of history, using an organic process over 10 years. Is that what the prelate,
above, was talking about when he said the new mass would "disappear?" That is,
that by "disappear" he means merged with the 1962 missal to produce one,
unified mass for the Roman Church? (I use lower case for new mass and unified
mass because it's not a proper noun when it keeps changing: it does not refer to
the same thing from day to day!)