Author Topic: Did Bishop Fellay Lie? (Read 22132 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #15 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:26:30 PM »

In short, it appears that the primary argument of Mr Lane's adversaries appears to be that an opponent is not due justice.

To illustrate the absurdity of that contention, you might recall that i am a fairly vigorous opponent of sedevacantism, yet here i am defending Mr Lane, a prominent sedevacantist.

Shall i be accused of hypocrisy for doing so, when the point in question has nothing to do with sedevacantism ( just as Mr Lane's recital of the rules of Catholic moral theology with regard to Bishop Fellay has nothing to do with sedevacantism)?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2012, 01:31:00 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

In short, it appears that the primary argument of Mr Lane's adversaries appears to be that an opponent is not due justice.

No one said that.

But that's the sort of typical accusation you get from that crowd.

You know, like accusing people of calumny, slander, off the cuff, always in defense of the SSPX

What I don't hear is anyone in the SSPX being accused of that from the ostensible sedevacantist who ostensibly opposes the sellout.

Common sense tells us that the Bishop Fellay SSPX is totally inimical to sedevacantism and is attempting to put himself under modernists.

And where are the man's sympathies? With the guy trying to destroy the SSPX.

This isn't about justice Seraphim.

What the man should do is humbly admit he misjudged the SSPX leadership and its critics and apologize for his rash words about them.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2012, 01:38:43 AM »

There is no suggestion in the post to which you object, that anybody has comitted a sin of calumny etc. The post was not an attack on any individuals or even any class of persons, it was an explanation of the Church's moral doctrine and the application of it to particular facts.

The very thing you complain about, which didn't happen, is what you and others do to anybody who suggests that justice and charity should govern the behaviour of Catholics.

Have a think about it.

As for "always in defense of the SSPX", was that a Freudian slip? Usually, those who attack the defenders of the unity of the SSPX claim that they do so in defence of the SSPX against those who are trying to ruin it, such as Bishop Fellay. But you are quite open. Your agenda is against the SSPX itself. Kudos for candour.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2012, 01:57:11 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

There is no suggestion in the post to which you object, that anybody has comitted a sin of calumny etc.

I read what you wrote. I read what you write over and over again to those you try to browbeat for applying common sense.

Quote

The post was not an attack on any individuals or even any class of persons, it was an explanation of the Church's moral doctrine and the application of it to particular facts.

No, it was accusing those who said Bishop Fellay lied of calumniating him.

Quote

The very thing you complain about, which didn't happen, is what you and others do to anybody who suggests that justice and charity should govern the behaviour of Catholics.

Oh, no we have it, yes, you do accuse others of it all the time.

Quote

Have a think about it.

All I know is that a sede who believes the SSPX does not condemn the sede position is not seeing reality. So I don't take his criticisms very seriously.

Quote

As for "always in defense of the SSPX", was that a Freudian slip?

Of course not. The SSPX is under Bishop Fellay. The priests who dissent from him might yet be in the SSPX, but they aren't the SSPX and they don't define its policy. A policy that is totally opposed to the sedevacantist position.

Quote

Usually, those who attack the defenders of the unity of the SSPX claim that they do so in defence of the SSPX against those who are trying to ruin it,

It's already being ruined, and it's controlled by those who are ruining it. The SSPX is not like the Catholic Church. I'm not to refer to the "conciliar SSPX" to distinguish from the "true SSPX ark"

I approve of the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre and its mission. The SSPX is not the Church, does not have the charisms of the Church, and in opposing the current orientation of the SSPX does not at all put me in opposition to the Church or to the good priests in the SSPX who are trying to save it in its mission.

Quote

such as Bishop Fellay. But you are quite open. Your agenda is against the SSPX itself. Kudos for candour.

This is a good example of the sort of rash statements you make.

What you need to do is rethink how you could have misjudged Bishop Fellay.

Going to an SSPX chapel can lead to a disconnect from reality. Until one is rudely awakened. Some people prefer not to wake up.

Thursday · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2012, 02:27:41 AM »

Remember when Fellay was saying that the pope was saying the Latin Mass privately and then a Vatican official came out and said that he did not.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/07/19/so-the-pope-says-the-old-mass-privately-well-probably-not/

According to Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the SSPX, the Pope says the old rite of Mass privately. (Hat tip to Fr Z at WDTPRS.)

This story has been around for some time, but is it true? Probably not.

So far as I can make out the story first appeared in Catholic World News on July 16, 2007. Beneath the headline “Pope Benedict uses older ritual for his private Mass”, CWN reported:

“Pope Benedict XVI, who recently issued a Motu Proprio allowing all Catholic priests to celebrate the old Latin Mass, uses the older ritual himself for his private Mass, CWN has learned.

“Informed sources at the Vatican have confirmed reports that the Holy Father regularly celebrates Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal.”

That story is still being presented as news today, but think about it for a moment. CWN says it “has learned” that the Pope says the old Mass. No, it hasn’t. All it has learned is that unnamed sources have “confirmed reports” that he does so. Not the same thing at all.

The day after CWN released its story, the Vatican declared that the story was not true.

According to the Catholic News Service (CNS):

“Claims that the Pope celebrates his private Mass using the Tridentine rite are incorrect, Jesuit Fr Federico Lombardi told Catholic News Service July 17.”

Fr Lombardi is the director of the Vatican press office, and seems an honest man. It is hard to believe anyway that if the rumours had been true, the Vatican (and therefore ultimately the Pope) would have denied them.[/i][/color]

Telesphorus · « **Reply #20 on:** July 05, 2012, 02:39:06 AM »

Bishop Fellay has directed the barque of Marcel Lefebvre directly at an iceberg, telling the faithful the trajectory is the answer to millions of rosaries, hiring a rabid Zionist to manage Bishop Williamson's defense and to manage SSPX funds and some people who wrongly trusted him are carping at those who are calling out the man for what he's doing.

And the SSPX leadership loves this technique, and goes to it over and over again - shaming anyone who exposes them with accusations of violating the special immunity from criticism and oversight they seem to believe is legitimate moral theology.

Thursday · « **Reply #21 on:** July 05, 2012, 02:53:29 AM »

Fellay just has to go, how many more times are we going to be duped?!
The man is not trustworthy. The whole "the pope says the mass in private" was to get the SSPX to think Razinger was traditional and one doesn't have to do much digging disprove that.

I think he is a mole but if he isn't he should still be removed for incompetence.

Goodbye Bishop Fellay.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #22 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:05:45 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
The post was not an attack on any individuals or even any class of persons, it was an explanation of the Church's moral doctrine and the application of it to particular facts.

No, it was accusing those who said Bishop Fellay lied of calumniating him.

Well, don't let facts get in the way of your allegations. If you really believed that, you'd quote it and prove your point.

Quote from: Telesphorus

It's already being ruined, and it's controlled by those who are ruining it. ...

I approve of the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre and its mission.

Just make up your mind about that. The Archbishop never declared publicly that the See of Rome was vacant.

You sound like you're happy to claim that you support the SSPX when you mean that you support whatever case can be made against the SSPX. In the abstract, you support the SSPX; in the concrete, you tear it down.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #23 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:07:01 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

Fellay just has to go, ...
Goodbye Bishop Fellay.

Do you think chanting on a Web forum is achieving something? He will either go or he won't. Nothing you or I say can make any whit of difference to it.

judamore · « **Reply #24 on:** July 05, 2012, 08:29:40 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

Fellay just has to go, how many more times are we going to be duped?!
The man is not trustworthy. The whole "the pope says the mass in private" was to get the SSPX to think Razinger was traditional and one doesn't have to do much digging disprove that.

I think he is a mole but if he isn't he should still be removed for incompetence.

Goodbye Bishop Fellay.

I agree!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:

judamore · « **Reply #25 on:** July 05, 2012, 08:37:30 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: Thursday
Nothing you or I say can make any whit of difference to it.

Sure! But even if the voices silent, the stones will cry out. The Tsunami wave begins like this. A little voice here and there, there will soon be a big noise! If the web can move for trivial things mundane, why not do it on things that really matter? Just because people do not talk publicly does not mean they are not reading, is acquainting the facts, and preparing a judgment and ... praying.

If you do not believe in the forums, because it participates in them?

It is probable that Mons. Fellay does not read these manifestations (this one in particular), but he will feel the echo of it. You can be sure! And soon ...

Long live Christ the King!

Incredulous · « **Reply #26 on:** July 05, 2012, 08:49:46 PM »

Quote from: judamore

Quote from: Thursday
Fellay just has to go, how many more times are we going to be duped?!
The man is not trustworthy. The whole "the pope says the mass in private" was to get the SSPX to think Razinger was traditional and one doesn't have to do much digging disprove that.

I think he is a mole but if he isn't he should still be removed for incompetence.

Goodbye Bishop Fellay.

I agree!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:

Hey, Hey... Ho, Ho... Mosignor Fellay... time to go!

:dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:

:jumping2: :jumping2: :jumping2: :jumping2:

:rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #27 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:16:45 PM »

If I were a priest wondering whether Bishop Fellay ought to step down, this kind of puerile nonsense would incline me to support him.

And I happen to know that that has been the exact reaction of more than one member of the SSPX.

Maybe you turkeys are really trying to discredit opposition to the deal. Telesphorous especially comes across as a bot operated by somebody who is worried that opposition to the deal is too credible and realistic.

Incredulous · « **Reply #28 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:26:32 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

If I were a priest wondering whether Bishop Fellay ought to step down, this kind of puerile nonsense would incline me to support him.

And I happen to know that that has been the exact reaction of more than one member of the SSPX.

Maybe you turkeys are really trying to discredit opposition to the deal. Telesphorous especially comes across as a bot operated by somebody who is worried that opposition to the deal is too credible and realistic.

Lighten-up St. Gertrude.
It takes a little pep rally to get people off their duffs.

Bp. Fellay lacks credibility and has abused his authority.
He insults our intelligence.

There are many high-school mentality SSPXers who need a swift kick in the pants for being complacent.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #29 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:35:14 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

If I were a priest wondering whether Bishop Fellay ought to step down, this kind of puerile nonsense would incline me to support him.

What is puerile is for a sede to vigorously defend Bishop Fellay as though he were tolerant of sedes and sedevacantism.

Quote

And I happen to know that that has been the exact reaction of more than one member of the SSPX.

If they would make their decision in reaction to an internet poster's personality and not in reaction to the facts then their behavior is absurd.

Quote

Maybe you turkeys are really trying to discredit opposition to the deal.

What is evident is that you wish to cast discredit on the critics of Bishop Fellay, when in fact you should realize the absurdity of your defense of him.

Quote

Telesphorous especially comes across as a bot operated by somebody who is worried that opposition to the deal is too credible and realistic.

This reminds me of what is always said in politics when a candidate on the Right says something that is goes beyond the bounds of the established liberal discourse. The media clucks and tells them they are only hurting their credibility and their chances.

In fact, it is because they are hitting the vital point.

Bishop Fellay hires a Zionist and Bishop Fellay says the things he said in those interviews because Bishop Fellay has betrayed the faithful priests and laity who use the properties and assets he's managed to consolidate a tight grip on.

And you try to cast discredit on those who point out just how bad this situation is.

The facts are against those who have naively defended Bishop Fellay's SSPX.