Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: morningstar on July 03, 2012, 10:27:04 AM
-
I read the following is on IA, and re-post it here as I found it offers, perhaps, some thoughts for reflection.
First, let’s remind ourselves of the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning how we are to treat suspicions of sin in others.
From John S. Daly's article, "Duties Of Catholics Concerning Their Neighbours' Faults".
We may not:
Believe that our neighbour is guilty of any sin whatsoever when another possibility exists.
Reprove someone for doubtful faults, or with severity when mildness is sufficient.
Treat someone as wicked until the charitable presumption of his goodness has been definitively refuted.
Defame someone without its being certain that what we are saying is true, nor even report a definite sin unless it is necessary to do so; neither may we reveal an unfounded suspicion or an exaggerated suspicion, nor indeed any suspicion at all without necessity.
Generally evaluate the acts and omissions of our neighbour; assign motives, etc., without necessity, or more severely than is necessary.
Attribute to someone a bad motive where another motive, either a good one or a less bad one, is possible.
Suspect the existence of a fault or vice in someone, or doubt his virtue, where we have the reasonable possibility of not forming a judgement or of forming a more favourable judgement.
Report suspicions that are not justified, do so too severely, or do so without necessity.
Attribute a bad motive where a good or less bad motive is possible.
Now, the accusation is that Bishop Fellay lied. That is, that Bishop Fellay spoke against his own mind (i.e. he said something which he knew to be untrue).
Since Bishop Fellay is a fellow Catholic (leaving aside for the moment that he is a cleric, and further, a cleric with episcopal orders), we are obliged to presume that his actions are good. This presumption may be overturned only by certain proof of the contrary. Anything less than such proof would constitute the sin of calumny. Further, even if one became convinced that the allegation was sustained, one would have to demonstrate that a grave reason obliges one to pronounce it publicly, and of course if that were the case, both the proof of the allegation and the grave reason would both need to be given. Otherwise it would be the sin of detraction.
So, for this allegation to be believed, a virtuous man would have to have clear proof that,
1. Bishop Fellay said something which is clearly untrue
2. There is no plausible alternative interpretation of his words
3. He knew that what he said was untrue when he said it
Further, in order to justify the publication of this allegation and its proof, one would have to show that a grave reason exists which demands that the publication take place. Detraction is a serious sin too. Is it possible to oppose Bishop Fellay’s agenda of rallying to the Modernists without relying upon the allegation that he lied? Yes, it is.
Of course, the first thing to be highlighted is that we only have hearsay, second or third hand, for what is meant by the phrase "the rumours from Austria". Nobody who was clear about, and determined to comply with, the teaching of the Church concerning calumny and detraction would be satisfied with a case built upon such data.
Now consider the case here presented. Bishop Fellay is supposed to have said, in a carefully prepared text (the “interview” with DICI), that something was both entirely untrue, and partially true.
To believe that he lied, one is required to believe that he is not merely totally dishonest, but incredibly stupid also. Further, his collaborators at DICI are equally stupid, since they didn’t point out the “obvious” contradiction.
Is a man who is that stupid to be convicted of lying merely because he appears to contradict himself? What standard of judgement would that be? (And whatever standard it is, it's the one to be applied to your own case on Judgement Day.)
Is there a plausible alternative to the allegation that Bishop Fellay lied? Yes.
It is plausible that when he said “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false” he meant to deny that an agreement had already been reached which contained those detailed conditions. Such an allegation would indeed have been entirely false, and that allegation was indeed made.
There is another possibility also. It is plausible that when he said “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false” he meant his remarks in toto, not merely the three specific points reported here about a possible canonical deal. Nor is this a stretch. One reason that people were outraged by the rumours was the implication that Bishop Fellay might accept such conditions as part of a canonical structure. In trying to put to bed such speculation about what he might accept, it is perfectly plausible that he meant to deny that he would accept outrageous conditions, and implausible that he meant to deny that there would be any conditions at all.
Further, both possible interpretations are supported by the fact that Bishop Fellay went on to confirm that one of the conditions mentioned in the rumours from Austria is likely to be required (approval of new establishments by Modernist bishops).
As for the “proof” based upon the Fr. Nely hearsay, it requires even less refutation. Fr. Nely does not even hint that a “timetable” had been given. He merely says what Bishop Fellay himself has said, which is that they were given to understand that the April text was acceptable, with the implication that a deal would proceed. So yes, Menzingen would have expected that some kind of agreement would be imminent, given that agreement on a text had essentially been reached, but Fr. Nely does not indicate that a timetable was known.
Further, we don't know what Bishop Fellay expected from the meeting of June 13. He certainly gave no indication that he thought he was arriving to seal a deal. The contrary is more logical, since he had publicly stated that the deal had been delayed (DICI interview). He would certainly have had theories as to why, but in reality neither he nor anybody else outside Rome could know for sure what the reason for the delay was.
My theory, as I've expressed several times, is that the release of the letters between the bishops of the SSPX was the key factor. "rome" reacted to that very strongly, and Menzingen undertood that this reaction bode ill for the deal, and reacted accordingly itself.
In any case, we can be sure that Menzingen did not think that a deal was both certain and imminent in the period leading up to June 13, contrary to what has been said here. What is clear is that at least up until the release of the letters between the bishops, Bishop Fellay had received assurances from "rome" that his text was acceptable, and that Benedict himself was the one making the decision. After the release of the letters, clearly, he was not sure what would happen - the signals from "rome" were decidedly "difficult." On June 13 he discovered, or had confirmed, that Benedict was demanding clear adherence to Vatican II and clear acceptance of the Novus Ordo. Nothing in Fr. Nely's presentation requires or even suggests a different set of facts.
Is it just, and in accordance with the grave obligations of charity, to allege that Bishop Fellay lied? I think not. Indeed, I think that it is gravely sinful to believe such allegations on the basis of the evidence available, and an additional grave sin to publish such allegations.
These sins would not cease to exist, if on Judgement Day it were found to be true that Bishop Fellay lied. In order to avoid these sins, the requirements listed above must be met, now. Clear proof, with no reasonable alternative interpretation, and a grave reason which necessitates publication.
I doubt that Bishop Fellay's accusers can meet the Catholic Church's standards on these points, and they certainly haven't so far, so the allegations should be abandoned.
"For whatever it is worth, I think John has a point. While I did not lie, neither can I accept that the priest did either, and stepping back and looking at this it seems perhaps the better to give His Excellency the benefit of the doubt in the case of the Austrian rumors.
It is very possible that what he meant was that even if this were part of the "deal" package, it was false in so far as he would not accept such an offer.
It is possible that both the Austrian priest and His Excellency are telling the truth. Perhaps beneath the rubble there is some misunderstanding or miscommunication which might explain the whole thing or maybe not but for the present it may be wise to err on the side of giving him the benefit, and not attribute to His Excellency a willful malice in his words.
I will say that I have since sent to His Excellency my apologies for having posted that bit of information. Not because it was untrue, not because the priest was spreading rumors or lying but because it was not a prudent thing to do.
In retrospect the burden was mine to verify and find out just what exactly was the situation before posting the information given me. I should have asked more questions rather than just posting something said which in hindsight was posting only something one sided.
I have stopped posting on IA for a few reasons. The first is, while I have adamantly opposed for more than just a few months, but rather for years any deal with Rome while Rome remains in its errors, and while I have stood opposed to the discussions from the start because I understood that these men in Rome had no desire whatsoever to accept the Truth from the SSPX but instead wanted to use this opportunity to bring the SSPX down, I am not in agreement with those who constantly scream and carry on that His Excellency is an enemy, traitor, Judas, modernist, and one to be hung in the gallows, or as one demented poster said----"executed".
I agree His Excellency has been playing with fire, albeit he may have had good intentions believing he could convert Rome, but Rome's conversion is not something mere men can accomplish. It is reserved for Our Lady alone.
Where has opening the door to Rome led everyone? What have been the fruits of opening that door? What good has come of it either to the "official Church" or to the SSPX? The answer to these questions are quite simple...just look around.
Rome scoffs and mocks the Truth presented to them and stands firmly rooted in their sick adhesion to vatii, the SSPX is in the worst crisis it has ever known since its inception. Brother has turned against brother, bishop against bishop, faithful against faithful and for what?
I said it a few weeks ago and I will say it again, it is my understanding Bishop Fellay has no intentions of signing what he was given on the 13th of June.
For those more militant souls and those who think every dark and ill motive should be attached to Bp. Fellay's words and actions, I say even if it turns out you are correct you would be wise to listen to the sermon recently given by Father Pfieffer on the Feast of the Precious Blood which was very good. The entire sermon was very good but the words of wisdom I refer to were from 35 minutes on. If such was true of so many sinners and saints such can also be true of +Bernard Fellay.
While it may be necessary to speak up at times and not to remain silent, it is also necessary to have the balance of mercy and compassion and even forgiveness amidst obvious injustices.
The Society of Saint Pius the X does not belong to any one of us, that includes the 4 bishops, it belongs to God and it has been put under the protection of the Mother of God.
From where I am standing, the Lord and His Holy Mother have thus far protected it. Even if it has suffered a great deal of damage, the damage done can be repaired. She, the SSPX is not dead but if we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of disunity and chaos we hand everything willingly over to satan who with or without an agreement wins".
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10125&view=getnewpost
-
Same thread, and even more interesting:
Big fight at Ordinations; the Bishops fought with Bishop Fellay aggressively and within earshot of the Faithful.
Families that were to have Sons ordained were not told in a timely manner their son or relative would not be ordained were furious.
After having spent five thousand or more dollars in plane tickets each, the lavish parties paid for in advance were for naught.
Such is the contempt this Regime has for non-Whitened Sepulcher Pharisees.
The Franciscans and Dominicans battled with Bishop Fellay openly over such a hostile show of arrogance.
Bishop tessier fought with Bishop Fellay in the sacristy within earshot of the Faithful.
Another Holy Priest has given a sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZhHJhmvVMU&feature=colike
The Captain is supposed to go down with the ship.
However, the Captain and his Office Help are not supposed to sink the ship.
Bishop Fellay will not turn his ear to hear the Holy Priest.
The Holy Mother and her Son will not tolerate this for much longer.
In Christo sacerdote et Maria Immaculata.
May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.
Que Dios nos agarre confesados.
-
But back on topic. Whilst I see John's points, he (on IA) doesn't reject Bishop Fellay's betrayal of the Archbishop in a thorough way. War is on now, and he doesn't seem to understand this. So I'm with Gregorio this time. From the same thread:
John, there are priests who will tell you (and have told plenty of people already) that Bp. Fellay told then the terms of the deal with Rome (permission of the local ordinary needed, new SSPX Bishops to be chosen by Benedict XVI, etc.)
This was then reported on Ignis, Cathinfo, etc.
Bp. Fellay then refers to these reports as "rumours" which are "entirely false".
Now, whatever way one looks at it, it can only be that Bp. Fellay uttered word which he knew were untrue. Let's examine the other alternatives:
1. The priests lied. In a case of their word over his, I'd take their word any day. In any case, why would they invent such a thing?
2. The person who reported this is lying, as are all the people who have heard it themselves and can corroborate it; I'm one of them, so I know for a fact that this is not the case. But maybe some people would like to believe I'm inventing things too? Dawn Marie, for her pains, has already been called a "spreader of lies" on I.A....
3. Bishop Fellay was referring to other "rumours" about what he said in Austria. This is a bit desperate. Possible, but highly unlikely. On Ignis, Cathinfo, AQ or anywhere else, I never came across such an alternative version if "Austrian rumours". Did anyone else? If not, then we must conclude that there was only one set of "rumours" to which he could have been referring.
4. Bishop Fellay didn't realise that the words he was uttering in the DICI interview were untrue. Given that the object of his denial was his own words from a couple of weeks before, I don't see how this is possible. How could Bp. Fellay have been unaware of what his own words were?
5. He was using mental reservation, something like "I didn't say three years. I said 36 months." But he said ENTIRELY false, which leaves no room for such sophistry.
6. Any other possibilities? The only one which is left is that Bp. F simply tried to buy himself a little time by telling a fib.
Doubtless he now hopes that people will forget all about it. Don't let him get away with it.
Sooner or later the truth will come out: it cannot be hidden forever.
When it does, in the highly unlikely event that I am wrong, I am ready to eat humble pie. I wonder if everyone else is...?
I will remind everyone of this when the truth does emerge, and I will be interested to observe some reactions...
..
The whole point of my post above, which you ignore, is that there us no room for misunderstanding. Bp. Fellay knows what he told those Austrian priests. He knows what he hinself said. So either his denial via DICI is true, or he is lying.
Where is there room for misunderstanding, John?
ask a few priests who are not definitely against the deal what they think of the personal attacks on Bishop Fellay. These attacks are massively counter-productive.
There is no "personal attack" here.
I am not giving my opinion of Bishop Fellay, his character, etc. I am merely pointing out what was pointed out to me by a very good, holy SSPX priest, namely the inescapable conclusion, whichever way one looks at it, that Bishop Fellay told fibs in that DICI interview.
-
Another Vote of Non Confidence for Fellay.
I promise you Bishop Williamson would consecrate those priests.
I also hereby nominate Williamson for head of the SPPX.
-
In response to inquiry about the photographic evidence of Krah's Zionism, Fellay has ordered that there should be no inference drawn from photos of a "wedding party."
Some wedding party, eh?
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-superior-bp-fellays-lawyerbusiness.html
Yes, he is a liar.
-
He is a LIAR.
-
John Lane the sede who defends Bishop Fellay as he's selling out the SSPX.
The guy is clearly not in his right mind. If Bishop Fellay hasn't lied in some particular case (which is by no means certain, on the contrary, it would appear there is ample reason to conclude that he has lied) what he is doing is entirely dishonest and in fact criminal.
John Lane's defense of Bishop Fellay is only damaging Mr. Lane's reputation.
-
Another Holy Priest has given a sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZhHJhmvVMU&feature=colike
The priest is, in fact, Fr Joseph Pfeiffer, preaching in the ebullient style that has recently become familiar to us.
His remarks about the current leadership of the SSPX -- without mentioning names -- begin shortly after the 24:00 mark.
-
Same thread, and even more interesting:
Big fight at Ordinations; the Bishops fought with Bishop Fellay aggressively and within earshot of the Faithful.
Families that were to have Sons ordained were not told in a timely manner their son or relative would not be ordained were furious.
After having spent five thousand or more dollars in plane tickets each, the lavish parties paid for in advance were for naught.
Such is the contempt this Regime has for non-Whitened Sepulcher Pharisees.
The Franciscans and Dominicans battled with Bishop Fellay openly over such a hostile show of arrogance.
Bishop tessier fought with Bishop Fellay in the sacristy within earshot of the Faithful.
Another Holy Priest has given a sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZhHJhmvVMU&feature=colike
The Captain is supposed to go down with the ship.
However, the Captain and his Office Help are not supposed to sink the ship.
Bishop Fellay will not turn his ear to hear the Holy Priest.
The Holy Mother and her Son will not tolerate this for much longer.
In Christo sacerdote et Maria Immaculata.
May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.
Que Dios nos agarre confesados.
Pablo!
Muy bien, compadre! Gracias!
Viva Christo Rey! Viva!
I rest well tonight because I know Padre Pfeiffer and Pablo the Mexican are at the watch!
All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord:
praise and exalt Him above all for ever!
O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless the Lord:
praise and exalt Him above all for ever.
Let us bless the Father, and the Son, with the Holy Ghost:
let us praise and exalt Him above all for ever.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, in the firmament of heaven:
worthy to be praised and glorified, and exalted above all forever.
-- From the Benedicite, the precursor to the Te Deum --
-
John Lane the sede who defends Bishop Fellay as he's selling out the SSPX.
The guy is clearly not in his right mind. If Bishop Fellay hasn't lied in some particular case (which is by no means certain, on the contrary, it would appear there is ample reason to conclude that he has lied) what he is doing is entirely dishonest and in fact criminal.
John Lane's defense of Bishop Fellay is only damaging Mr. Lane's reputation.
Disagree completely.
All here know I am quite vociferous in my opposition to the sellout.
But how do you conclude Mr. Lane is defending Bishop Fellay???
He is simply reciting Catholic moral theology.
Horror of horrors: Yes, even Bishop Fellay is entitled to the benefits of the Church's teachings on detraction, calumny, and slander.
Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.
What next?
Seraphim is now defending Bishop Fellay???
C'mon!! :facepalm:
-
Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.
No one ever said this.
Being a supporter of the other three Bishops yet defending Fellay is hypocritical enough, but a sedevacantist who does so?
Not to mention he put the blame on "home alone" sedevacantists rather than say anything negative about Bishop Fellay. He had no proof of his claim that the woman he was referencing was a home-aloner, yet here he is saying we have no proof that Fellay is a liar.
THAT is hypocritical.
-
Horror of horrors: Yes, even Bishop Fellay is entitled to the benefits of the Church's teachings on detraction, calumny, and slander.
John Lane accuses people of such sins recklessly. The critics of Bishop Fellay are in for the hardest criticism from Mr. Lane. Why is that? Those who have been defending Bishop Fellay and the SSPX generally, (though there are many good priests in it) despite the evidence accuмulating over the years are the ones who have allowed things to reach this point.
Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.
I wouldn't accuse him of being an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of the sellout - anymore than I would accuse him of being an ally of the SSPX in the matter of sedevacantism.
What is preposterous, is the belief that one can be a sede and against an SSPX sellout and not recognize that Bishop Fellay is 100% against your fundamental positions.
John Lane's position is absurd - condemning those he dislikes (for being right) as being slanderers strikes me as a holier than thou pose.
-
THAT is hypocritical.
Francisco had a great post about this problem:
About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted
-
John Lane's position is absurd - condemning those he dislikes (for being right) as being slanderers strikes me as a holier than thou pose.
I can't second that enough.
-
Horror of horrors: Yes, even Bishop Fellay is entitled to the benefits of the Church's teachings on detraction, calumny, and slander.
John Lane accuses people of such sins recklessly. The critics of Bishop Fellay are in for the hardest criticism from Mr. Lane. Why is that? Those who have been defending Bishop Fellay and the SSPX generally, (though there are many good priests in it) despite the evidence accuмulating over the years are the ones who have allowed things to reach this point.
Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.
I wouldn't accuse him of being an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of the sellout - anymore than I would accuse him of being an ally of the SSPX in the matter of sedevacantism.
What is preposterous, is the belief that one can be a sede and against an SSPX sellout and not recognize that Bishop Fellay is 100% against your fundamental positions.
John Lane's position is absurd - condemning those he dislikes (for being right) as being slanderers strikes me as a holier than thou pose.
Disagree completely.
If Ghandi were being slandered by a Catholic, it would not be a contradiction of my principles to point out to my brother Catholic the theology surrounding calumny, slander, detraction, etc.
Neither would it be siding with Ghandi to do so.
That Ghandi opposes my principles does not deprive his benefitting from the moral theology of the Church.
In other words, that Bishop Fellay opposes sedevacantism is besides the point.
As if we are free to slander those who are our opponents?
One cannot be called a hippocrite for simply rendering justice to an adversary.
But one could be damned for refusing to do so.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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!
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
:smirk:
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
I rest my case.
-
I rest my case.
Your problem is you think you're more important (and by extension, you exaggerate the importance of the SSPX) than you are.
-
Another sedevacantist taking up for Bishop Fellay?
These John Lane type-sedes are really naive when it comes to Fellay.
-
There are some pretty strong comments in this post: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12271#p12271
And plenty of others in other posts. You don't appear to have any idea what you're talking about.
Are you a controlled-opposition bot like Tele, seeking to make the resistance to a deal look foolish?
-
There are some pretty strong comments in this post: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12271#p12271
And plenty of others in other posts. You don't appear to have any idea what you're talking about.
Are you a controlled-opposition bot like Tele, seeking to make the resistance to a deal look foolish?
That just proves my point. John Lane, a sedevacantist and supporter of the other three Bishops, defending Bishop Fellay from accusations of lying and accusing others of being home-aloners.
And for your information, I am against a deal with Rome.
-
Another sedevacantist taking up for Bishop Fellay?
These John Lane type-sedes are really naive when it comes to Fellay.
You have chosen to miss the whole point of the thread.
You can't publicly accuse someone of lieing without grave reason to do so, and unless you can prove it.
It is this 2nd element that is missing.
End of story.
Sorry if you don't like what the Church teaches, but you can work that out with God when you meet him.
-
I read the following is on IA, and re-post it here as I found it offers, perhaps, some thoughts for reflection.
First, let’s remind ourselves of the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning how we are to treat suspicions of sin in others.
From John S. Daly's article, "Duties Of Catholics Concerning Their Neighbours' Faults".
We may not:
Believe that our neighbour is guilty of any sin whatsoever when another possibility exists.
Reprove someone for doubtful faults, or with severity when mildness is sufficient.
Treat someone as wicked until the charitable presumption of his goodness has been definitively refuted.
Defame someone without its being certain that what we are saying is true, nor even report a definite sin unless it is necessary to do so; neither may we reveal an unfounded suspicion or an exaggerated suspicion, nor indeed any suspicion at all without necessity.
Generally evaluate the acts and omissions of our neighbour; assign motives, etc., without necessity, or more severely than is necessary.
Attribute to someone a bad motive where another motive, either a good one or a less bad one, is possible.
Suspect the existence of a fault or vice in someone, or doubt his virtue, where we have the reasonable possibility of not forming a judgement or of forming a more favourable judgement.
Report suspicions that are not justified, do so too severely, or do so without necessity.
Attribute a bad motive where a good or less bad motive is possible.
Now, the accusation is that Bishop Fellay lied. That is, that Bishop Fellay spoke against his own mind (i.e. he said something which he knew to be untrue).
Since Bishop Fellay is a fellow Catholic (leaving aside for the moment that he is a cleric, and further, a cleric with episcopal orders), we are obliged to presume that his actions are good. This presumption may be overturned only by certain proof of the contrary. Anything less than such proof would constitute the sin of calumny. Further, even if one became convinced that the allegation was sustained, one would have to demonstrate that a grave reason obliges one to pronounce it publicly, and of course if that were the case, both the proof of the allegation and the grave reason would both need to be given. Otherwise it would be the sin of detraction.
So, for this allegation to be believed, a virtuous man would have to have clear proof that,
1. Bishop Fellay said something which is clearly untrue
2. There is no plausible alternative interpretation of his words
3. He knew that what he said was untrue when he said it
Further, in order to justify the publication of this allegation and its proof, one would have to show that a grave reason exists which demands that the publication take place. Detraction is a serious sin too. Is it possible to oppose Bishop Fellay’s agenda of rallying to the Modernists without relying upon the allegation that he lied? Yes, it is.
Of course, the first thing to be highlighted is that we only have hearsay, second or third hand, for what is meant by the phrase "the rumours from Austria". Nobody who was clear about, and determined to comply with, the teaching of the Church concerning calumny and detraction would be satisfied with a case built upon such data.
Now consider the case here presented. Bishop Fellay is supposed to have said, in a carefully prepared text (the “interview” with DICI), that something was both entirely untrue, and partially true.
To believe that he lied, one is required to believe that he is not merely totally dishonest, but incredibly stupid also. Further, his collaborators at DICI are equally stupid, since they didn’t point out the “obvious” contradiction.
Is a man who is that stupid to be convicted of lying merely because he appears to contradict himself? What standard of judgement would that be? (And whatever standard it is, it's the one to be applied to your own case on Judgement Day.)
Is there a plausible alternative to the allegation that Bishop Fellay lied? Yes.
It is plausible that when he said “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false” he meant to deny that an agreement had already been reached which contained those detailed conditions. Such an allegation would indeed have been entirely false, and that allegation was indeed made.
There is another possibility also. It is plausible that when he said “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false” he meant his remarks in toto, not merely the three specific points reported here about a possible canonical deal. Nor is this a stretch. One reason that people were outraged by the rumours was the implication that Bishop Fellay might accept such conditions as part of a canonical structure. In trying to put to bed such speculation about what he might accept, it is perfectly plausible that he meant to deny that he would accept outrageous conditions, and implausible that he meant to deny that there would be any conditions at all.
Further, both possible interpretations are supported by the fact that Bishop Fellay went on to confirm that one of the conditions mentioned in the rumours from Austria is likely to be required (approval of new establishments by Modernist bishops).
As for the “proof” based upon the Fr. Nely hearsay, it requires even less refutation. Fr. Nely does not even hint that a “timetable” had been given. He merely says what Bishop Fellay himself has said, which is that they were given to understand that the April text was acceptable, with the implication that a deal would proceed. So yes, Menzingen would have expected that some kind of agreement would be imminent, given that agreement on a text had essentially been reached, but Fr. Nely does not indicate that a timetable was known.
Further, we don't know what Bishop Fellay expected from the meeting of June 13. He certainly gave no indication that he thought he was arriving to seal a deal. The contrary is more logical, since he had publicly stated that the deal had been delayed (DICI interview). He would certainly have had theories as to why, but in reality neither he nor anybody else outside Rome could know for sure what the reason for the delay was.
My theory, as I've expressed several times, is that the release of the letters between the bishops of the SSPX was the key factor. "rome" reacted to that very strongly, and Menzingen undertood that this reaction bode ill for the deal, and reacted accordingly itself.
In any case, we can be sure that Menzingen did not think that a deal was both certain and imminent in the period leading up to June 13, contrary to what has been said here. What is clear is that at least up until the release of the letters between the bishops, Bishop Fellay had received assurances from "rome" that his text was acceptable, and that Benedict himself was the one making the decision. After the release of the letters, clearly, he was not sure what would happen - the signals from "rome" were decidedly "difficult." On June 13 he discovered, or had confirmed, that Benedict was demanding clear adherence to Vatican II and clear acceptance of the Novus Ordo. Nothing in Fr. Nely's presentation requires or even suggests a different set of facts.
Is it just, and in accordance with the grave obligations of charity, to allege that Bishop Fellay lied? I think not. Indeed, I think that it is gravely sinful to believe such allegations on the basis of the evidence available, and an additional grave sin to publish such allegations.
These sins would not cease to exist, if on Judgement Day it were found to be true that Bishop Fellay lied. In order to avoid these sins, the requirements listed above must be met, now. Clear proof, with no reasonable alternative interpretation, and a grave reason which necessitates publication.
I doubt that Bishop Fellay's accusers can meet the Catholic Church's standards on these points, and they certainly haven't so far, so the allegations should be abandoned.
"For whatever it is worth, I think John has a point. While I did not lie, neither can I accept that the priest did either, and stepping back and looking at this it seems perhaps the better to give His Excellency the benefit of the doubt in the case of the Austrian rumors.
It is very possible that what he meant was that even if this were part of the "deal" package, it was false in so far as he would not accept such an offer.
It is possible that both the Austrian priest and His Excellency are telling the truth. Perhaps beneath the rubble there is some misunderstanding or miscommunication which might explain the whole thing or maybe not but for the present it may be wise to err on the side of giving him the benefit, and not attribute to His Excellency a willful malice in his words.
I will say that I have since sent to His Excellency my apologies for having posted that bit of information. Not because it was untrue, not because the priest was spreading rumors or lying but because it was not a prudent thing to do.
In retrospect the burden was mine to verify and find out just what exactly was the situation before posting the information given me. I should have asked more questions rather than just posting something said which in hindsight was posting only something one sided.
I have stopped posting on IA for a few reasons. The first is, while I have adamantly opposed for more than just a few months, but rather for years any deal with Rome while Rome remains in its errors, and while I have stood opposed to the discussions from the start because I understood that these men in Rome had no desire whatsoever to accept the Truth from the SSPX but instead wanted to use this opportunity to bring the SSPX down, I am not in agreement with those who constantly scream and carry on that His Excellency is an enemy, traitor, Judas, modernist, and one to be hung in the gallows, or as one demented poster said----"executed".
I agree His Excellency has been playing with fire, albeit he may have had good intentions believing he could convert Rome, but Rome's conversion is not something mere men can accomplish. It is reserved for Our Lady alone.
Where has opening the door to Rome led everyone? What have been the fruits of opening that door? What good has come of it either to the "official Church" or to the SSPX? The answer to these questions are quite simple...just look around.
Rome scoffs and mocks the Truth presented to them and stands firmly rooted in their sick adhesion to vatii, the SSPX is in the worst crisis it has ever known since its inception. Brother has turned against brother, bishop against bishop, faithful against faithful and for what?
I said it a few weeks ago and I will say it again, it is my understanding Bishop Fellay has no intentions of signing what he was given on the 13th of June.
For those more militant souls and those who think every dark and ill motive should be attached to Bp. Fellay's words and actions, I say even if it turns out you are correct you would be wise to listen to the sermon recently given by Father Pfieffer on the Feast of the Precious Blood which was very good. The entire sermon was very good but the words of wisdom I refer to were from 35 minutes on. If such was true of so many sinners and saints such can also be true of +Bernard Fellay.
While it may be necessary to speak up at times and not to remain silent, it is also necessary to have the balance of mercy and compassion and even forgiveness amidst obvious injustices.
The Society of Saint Pius the X does not belong to any one of us, that includes the 4 bishops, it belongs to God and it has been put under the protection of the Mother of God.
From where I am standing, the Lord and His Holy Mother have thus far protected it. Even if it has suffered a great deal of damage, the damage done can be repaired. She, the SSPX is not dead but if we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of disunity and chaos we hand everything willingly over to satan who with or without an agreement wins".
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10125&view=getnewpost
To John Lane & supporters of +Fellay:
The below article proves, as far as I'm concerned, that not only +Fellay lies, but that he does not use catholic guidelines to make public charges of gossip against his own fellow Bishop Williamsom who tried his best to warn us at +Fellay's turns for the worst.(Emphasis added)
- REMNANT EXCLUSIVE -
Bishop Fellay Denies
Any Knowledge of New Motu Proprio
Dubs Bishop Williamson Rumor “Gossip” and “Unauthorized;” Doctrinal Talks Continue
by Brian Mershon POSTED: Wednesday Aug. 25., 2010
REMNANT COLUMNIST
______________________
August 24, 2010—Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), one of four bishops whose excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in January 2009, today categorically denied any knowledge of an alleged special motu proprio being planned by the Holy See for the SSPX as stated recently by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson. This rumored MP would not require the SSPX to take any sort of oath of acceptance where Vatican II and the New Mass are concerned.
“I’m very annoyed by the whole thing,” said Bishop Fellay. “Bishop Williamson’s statement is an unauthorized statement and is his own personal statement and not that of the Society.”
“It has never been the policy of the Society to base any kind of action or policy on gossip. I have absolutely no knowledge of any motu proprio.”
Earlier this week, Bishop Richard Williamson—who has allegedly been asked to refrain from publicly speaking on matters outside of faith and morals by the SSPX leadership—wrote a letter that was published initially on his website and then picked up by traditionalist internet Rorate Caeli blog.
In the letter, Bishop Williamson warns Catholics about the “danger” of a rumored motu proprio designed to lure the SSPX lay faithful into union with Rome and said, “…there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church.”
Doctrinal Discussions Continue
Bishop Williamson also said that according to both Holy See and SSPX sources, the ongoing doctrinal discussions have allegedly “run into a brick wall.”
However, in today’s interview Bishop Fellay categorically denied this assertion. He said that the doctrinal talks with the SSPX representatives and Holy See theologians are ongoing and proceeding as planned with the next meeting scheduled in September.
“There is nothing changed,” said Bishop Fellay. “All of this is gossiping and rumors and I’ll have nothing to do with rumors and gossiping. All of this is void—empty.”
“For the time being, everything is fine and everything is going smoothly according to plan,” he said.
Seminary Expansion Plans Revealed
In related SSPX news, RealCatholicTV’s Michael Voris today broke a story that Bishop Fellay had recently visited eastern Pennsylvania prospecting for a new potential seminary—a former Vincentian seminary in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia that could hold up to 160 seminarians. The former seminary is now called Mary Immaculate Center.
Bishop Fellay would not confirm nor deny the specifics of the report, but did say, “It is true we are looking for a second place for our seminarians. That much is true.”
He also added that over the past two to three years, the SSPX has been prospecting for new seminary locations in the United States and that, to date, they have viewed about 150 different properties.
According to the Superior General, the SSPX is exploring different possibilities and sizes of potential seminaries and land holdings.
“We have many vocations, and, right now, our current place is too small,” Bishop Fellay said. “That is our starting point.”
Remnant readers will recall that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) prospected many existing closed seminaries in the eastern United States years ago before settling on building a new one in the Lincoln, Neb. diocese. The reports were that more than one diocese and archdiocese refused outright to sell to the FSSP, presumably due to their adherence to the Traditional Mass and Sacraments and theology.
Bishop Fellay said, “It will be a good test to see how cordial it can be [ecclesial relationships and prospective negotiations with the dioceses and archdioceses possibly selling their seminaries and land to the SSPX].”
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.”
-
Another sedevacantist taking up for Bishop Fellay?
These John Lane type-sedes are really naive when it comes to Fellay.
You have chosen to miss the whole point of the thread.
You can't publicly accuse someone of lieing without grave reason to do so, and unless you can prove it.
It is this 2nd element that is missing.
End of story.
Sorry if you don't like what the Church teaches, but you can work that out with God when you meet him.
I think we all have reason to believe that Bishop Fellay is dishonest.
I'm just not going to kiss Fellay's feet, sorry Seraphim.
-
Seraphim, he still thinks you are demanding that people kiss Bishop Fellay's feet...
Anyway, this is a good indicator of the four-legs-good level of most thinking out there in trad-cat-land. No wonder the Church is in the state it's in. Christian morals come a long way down the order from politics.
-
Seraphim, he still thinks you are demanding that people kiss Bishop Fellay's feet...
Anyway, this is a good indicator of the four-legs-good level of most thinking out there in trad-cat-land. No wonder the Church is in the state it's in. Christian morals come a long way down the order from politics.[/quot
...which is humorous to me, since i was pretty much the first one on this forum to sound the alarm that Bishop Fellay was deviating from the principles of ABL by wanting to sign a practical agreement while all the doctrinal issues remained.
-
Straw-man, GTG. I never said Seraphim was demanding that.
Yes, no wonder the Church is in the state it's in, thanks to people like you who put the blame on other people rather than Bishop Fellay. Aren't you the same person who portrayed Fellay as someone who sympathized with sedes?
-
Straw-man, GTG. I never said Seraphim was demanding that.
Right.
I'm just not going to kiss Fellay's feet, sorry Seraphim.
Of course, you must have meant, you're not only going to kiss his feet, you're going to give him a pedicure and a foot massage as well.
Or something.
Yes, no wonder the Church is in the state it's in, thanks to people like you who put the blame on other people rather than Bishop Fellay. Aren't you the same person who portrayed Fellay as someone who sympathized with sedes?
No, I never said anything remotely similar to that. I said something quite different, and accurate, but since Tele is a bot, and that was not a pre-programmed option, he started flapping his arms and yelling "Emergency! emergency! emergency!" :)
-
Right.
Think what you want.
Of course, you must have meant, you're not only going to kiss his feet, you're going to give him a pedicure and a foot massage as well.
Or something.
All right smart guy.
No, I never said anything remotely similar to that. I said something quite different, and accurate, but since Tele is a bot, and that was not a pre-programmed option, he started flapping his arms and yelling "Emergency! emergency! emergency!" :)
No, I recall you saying the teachings and beliefs of the SSPX "isn't sede but it's not anti-sede". That is incorrect. Bishop Fellay is filled with sede-paranoia. Even Bishop Williamson, as much as I respect him, has made statements regarding sedevacantism that I do not respect. But at least he doesn't obsess over it like Fellay.
-
Right.
Think what you want.
I can only read the English words on the page before me, and understand them as English words. You tell me what you meant, if it wasn't what you seemed very clearly to have actually written.
I don't suppose you have any criticism of Archbishop Muller, or any other Modernist, since you are so flexible in your use of language.
No, I recall you saying the teachings and beliefs of the SSPX "isn't sede but it's not anti-sede". That is incorrect. Bishop Fellay is filled with sede-paranoia. Even Bishop Williamson, as much as I respect him, has made statements regarding sedevacantism that I do not respect. But at least he doesn't obsess over it like Fellay.
You can easily look up what I actually wrote, if it interests you, rather than first take the bot's panicky interpretation, then adopt a new one from memory when that of the bot is denied.
I suppose you rank yourself as a lover of truth? On what basis?
I am a sede, and when Bishop Fellay next visits here, which will be in the near future, I will no doubt speak with him and discuss his thoughts and recent actions. And he will treat me with respect, answer me, and he will also happily give me the sacraments. That's the reality. You can describe that how you like, but to me it indicates that he is comfortable with a Catholic who doesn't think that Benedict is actually the pope.
He also declares publicly that sedevacantism (by which he means dogmatic sedevacantism, you know, the kind that makes people not come to mass any more) is wrong and he wants nothing to do with it. He certainly disagrees with it. But so do I, and so do many other sedes.
What's your own stance? Are you even a sede? And if so, what kind? The kind that recognises his own fallibility, or the infallible kind?
I will do my best to understand what you write in reply. Please understand that I am not very hopeful, after your comment about kissing Bishop Fellay's feet, that this will be possible. But I will try.
-
I don't suppose you have any criticism of Archbishop Muller, or any other Modernist, since you are so flexible in your use of language.
You seem to enjoy introducing irrelevant points into arguments. No one was talking about Archbishop Muller, who by the way is, in fact, a modernist.
You can easily look up what I actually wrote, if it interests you, rather than first take the bot's panicky interpretation, then adopt a new one from memory when that of the bot is denied.
Do you have some sort of obsession with mentioning Telesphorus? This is about what YOU wrote, not about what Tele interpreted your words as being. I said that Bishop Fellay spoke out against sedevacantism, you asked for proof, then said I was spreading "hearsay". The fact is, you can't seem to accept that Bishop Fellay is anti-sede, nor that his mind has become infected with neo-Traditionalism.
I suppose you rank yourself as a lover of truth? On what basis?
This is a ridiculous diversion from the issies at hand.
but to me it indicates that he is comfortable with a Catholic who doesn't think that Benedict is actually the pope.
I wouldn't bet money on that assertion...
He also declares publicly that sedevacantism (by which he means dogmatic sedevacantism, you know, the kind that makes people not come to mass any more) is wrong and he wants nothing to do with it.
He has a problem with sedevacantism period. Not just dogmatic sedevacantism.
What's your own stance? Are you even a sede? And if so, what kind? The kind that recognises his own fallibility, or the infallible kind?
I'm not sure what the point of this question is, but I am a sedevacantist. I don't know what you mean by "what kind".
-
You can easily look up what I actually wrote, if it interests you, rather than first take the bot's panicky interpretation, then adopt a new one from memory when that of the bot is denied.
Do you have some sort of obsession with mentioning Telesphorus? This is about what YOU wrote, not about what Tele interpreted your words as being. I said that Bishop Fellay spoke out against sedevacantism, you asked for proof, then said I was spreading "hearsay". The fact is, you can't seem to accept that Bishop Fellay is anti-sede, nor that his mind has become infected with neo-Traditionalism.
This whole thread, after the first post, is an attempt to divert from what it said, and now you again try the same tactic. Nobody asked you to kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, really or metaphorically, and nobody said that Bishop Fellay has remained the same as he was. Clearly he changed. But you, and Tele, who is the other main poster playing the diversion game, so don't try and cut him out of it, will not deal with what was actually written. Instead, you make accusations, introduce irrelevancies, and ignore the point.
Did Bishop Fellay lie? No Catholic who knows his catechism could assert that. When you have an argument that actually deals with that, put it. Until then, everything you write makes you look like a person with a bad conscience trying to make a rebuke go away without facing it. And the irony is, you're not even mentioned in the original post. That just adds to the impression that guilt is the motivation.
-
Nobody asked you to kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, really or metaphorically
I never said anyone did.
But you, and Tele, who is the other main poster playing the diversion game, so don't try and cut him out of it, will not deal with what was actually written. Instead, you make accusations, introduce irrelevancies, and ignore the point.
Interesting you say this, because you did not address most of what I just wrote.
When you have an argument that actually deals with that, put it.
Bishop Fellay is dishonest. For instance, when asked why the Society hadn't been mentioning Archbishop LeFebvre lately, he replied "Oh, well he wouldn't have wanted to be mentioned much anyway". Yet, he has been suppressing ABL's sermons for a while now. And that is just one example.
And the irony is, you're not even mentioned in the original post. That just adds to the impression that guilt is the motivation.
This makes no sense.
-
We have someone who has tried to shame other Catholics into not criticizing Bishop Fellay. Trying to make Catholics feel scrupulous about exposing what he's up to, and the very obvious inconsistencies in the things he says. A sede who somehow deludes himself that Bishop Fellay is tolerant of sedes.
This is dangerous nonsense.
Bishop Fellay is an unscrupulous and very dangerous priest who cannot be trusted.
I don't feel the least shame in saying that.
But SSPX cultists rely on trying to make people feel ashamed of anything that exposes the real nature of the cult - while at the same time they mercilessly attack the reputations of others.
-
But SSPX cultists rely on trying to make people feel ashamed of anything that exposes the real nature of the cult - while at the same time they mercilessly attack the reputations of others.
Really, that's simply not true. If you think it is, quote the evidence.
The point here is that whatever others do, we have to keep our souls clean, and in doing so, give ourselves the best chance of seeing clearly. Sin obscures the vision. Always has, always will.
What Bishop Fellay has done is to become confused. That's clear. From that has followed a series of effects, each of them horrible. We can condemn each of the things in themselves without having to believe that he is Dr. Evil, plotting against our souls, laughing maniacally with his evil henchman Pfluger in their den in Menzingen.
The caricature of Bishop Fellay that many have been promoting will only turn decent men towards him. They know the man, they know his goodness, and they won't ever adopt the caricatured view of him, because it's absolutely ridiculous. That's why I suggest that people like you are really doing the work of the accordistas.
-
They know the man, they know his goodness, and they won't ever adopt the caricatured view of him, because it's absolutely ridiculous.
They obviously don't know him. Someone who has kicked priests out onto the street for standing up to him, viciously insulted Bishop Williamson, and hired a Zionist to manage affairs.
The problem is that we have some people who don't want to admit the truth of the situation - that the SSPX and its assets have been hijacked.
They want to attack the critics who are pointing out the truth about Bishop Fellay and his cultish following. If they continue to do so they only show how deeply enmeshed in the cult-like thinking they themselves have become.
-
THAT is hypocritical.
Francisco had a great post about this problem:
About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted
Yes, this really is the tactic. A lot of people who have been very well disposed to Bishop Fellay and the SSPX leadership, until they encounter very nasty behavior in the SSPX from some of the priests and start to recognize problems in the consistency of what they say. And then when they in good faith speak about it, they are then treated with the attitude Francisco describes above.
-
They know him better than you, obviously, so maybe just a skerrick of diffidence on your part might be in order?
Men are complex. The sooner you discover that the better for you.
-
They obviously don't know him. Someone who has kicked priests out onto the street for standing up to him, viciously insulted Bishop Williamson, and hired a Zionist to manage affairs.
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
-
We have someone who has tried to shame other Catholics into not criticizing Bishop Fellay. Trying to make Catholics feel scrupulous about exposing what he's up to, and the very obvious inconsistencies in the things he says. A sede who somehow deludes himself that Bishop Fellay is tolerant of sedes.
It's because he follows Jane Lane's line of thinking, and his line of thinking is the same. In spite of being sedevacantists, they are somehow caught up in the "greatness" of the SSPX, too scared to call out Bishop Fellay, and they project their scrupulosity onto others, trying to make them feel scrupulous, as you pointed out. Bishop Williamson warned against getting caught up in the SSPX's "greatness". The greatness that people should always follow is that of Jesus Christ and His Church, not a group that is being led by a dictator who has lost his mind.
That's why I suggest that people like you are really doing the work of the accordistas.
Actually, it's people like you who are doing the work of the accordistas, because you give Fellay way too much credit. You basically kiss his feet, saying he's confused but that he's not a liar, and then putting the blame on those who call him a liar. How do you propose to get anything accomplished with reasoning like that? I tell you, if the other three Bishops and all of their supporters were like that, the SSPX would have already been destroyed.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them.
More so to those that have something to gain from Fellay's advancement, but to the others, their minds can be changed, though it's not easy.
-
You basically kiss his feet, saying he's confused but that he's not a liar, and then putting the blame on those who call him a liar. How do you propose to get anything accomplished with reasoning like that? I tell you, if the other three Bishops and all of their supporters were like that, the SSPX would have already been destroyed.
I've not blamed anybody. Quote me if you think I have.
As for the clergy, name a bishop or priest of the SSPX that has accused Bishop Fellay of lying.
I'm with the anti-accord clergy. You've got your own position, different from ours.
-
I've not blamed anybody.
So now you begin to show your lack of honesty by saying you have't blamed anyone. You keep railing against Telesphorus and I, yet you haven't said one negative thing about Bishop Fellay, except that he's confused. How about calling it like it is? He's a dictator.
Same with John Lane. He's obsessed over a certain poster on Ignis Ardens and constantly criticizes her, but won't criticize Bishop Fellay.
As for the clergy, name a bishop or priest of the SSPX that has accused Bishop Fellay of lying.
No one said this.
I'm with the anti-accord clergy. You've got your own position, different from ours.
Yes, I do have a position different from yours. You and John Lane believe Bishop Fellay is just a confused man with good intentions, whereas I believe he's a liberal dictator.
-
One way of dealing with Bishop Fellay.
Not Another Dime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR9woa2PbHI
Until Bp. Williamson is Free
Anti-agreement priests should be supported financially.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
Are you calling me a "Bishop Fellay loyalist?"
I who highlighted the sellout at the onset?
I who have mobilized and extended offers to house several priests, to see to the continuity of traditional Catholicism in my area?
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
-
So a question is why did an ordained priest Fr Rostand seek to dismiss truth as "rumours". This SSPX drama gets stranger by the day.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
Are you calling me a "Bishop Fellay loyalist?"
I who highlighted the sellout at the onset?
I who have mobilized and extended offers to house several priests, to see to the continuity of traditional Catholicism in my area?
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Certainly not directed at you. The likes of John De Lallo need to answer these questions. I realise there are those who would jump into the fire if Bishop Fellay told them to but my point was why did Fr Rostand, an alter Christus seek to dismiss facts as "rumours". I realise his Against the Rumours video was stage managed which few believed but the fact he went to these lengths speaks volumes.
-
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, Seraphim. John Grace did not direct that post at you.
The bottom line is that Bishop Fellay has proven himself to be dishonest. The proof is out there for all to see.
-
These threads should not be about us falling out with each other either. I didn't actually encounter a single person who believed Fr Rostand. His video was not convincing and as Spiritus Sanctus has stated, Bishop Fellay has not been honest.
Some priests even here in Ireland are pro-agreement so naive to suggest there was a strong resistance. Would these priests have given over chapels to Diocesan structures is a valid question?.
Even Bishop Williamson mentions the 'harsh treatment' opponents of the agreement are receiving and Bishop Fellay was clearly willing to compromise. Priests expelled or threatened with expulsion. Crazy.
The SSPX is not what it was several years ago.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
Are you calling me a "Bishop Fellay loyalist?"
I who highlighted the sellout at the onset?
I who have mobilized and extended offers to house several priests, to see to the continuity of traditional Catholicism in my area?
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Certainly not directed at you. The likes of John De Lallo need to answer these questions. I realise there are those who would jump into the fire if Bishop Fellay told them to but my point was why did Fr Rostand, an alter Christus seek to dismiss facts as "rumours". I realise his Against the Rumours video was stage managed which few believed but the fact he went to these lengths speaks volumes.
I'm not suggesting John is a bad sort but I could never adopt his mindset or view. A strange sort but not representative of Trads in America.It's strange some just don't seem to grasp it.
I did state before of trying to see where Bishop Fellay is coming from in his view point of converting Rome from inside but it is not realistic. Only a miracle will convert Rome.
-
Aha! GTG claimed he never portrayed Bishop Fellay as sede-sympathetic, but look what he wrote here back in December:
Bishop Fellay's views on sedevacantism are identical with those of Tissier and Williamson, in terms of the "arguments." They all think what Archbishop Lefebvre thought, which is that it's a legitimate position.
:facepalm:
-
Aha! GTG claimed he never portrayed Bishop Fellay as sede-sympathetic, but look what he wrote here back in December:
Bishop Fellay's views on sedevacantism are identical with those of Tissier and Williamson, in terms of the "arguments." They all think what Archbishop Lefebvre thought, which is that it's a legitimate position.
:facepalm:
What do you mean by "sede-sympathetic?"
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
Are you calling me a "Bishop Fellay loyalist?"
I who highlighted the sellout at the onset?
I who have mobilized and extended offers to house several priests, to see to the continuity of traditional Catholicism in my area?
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Seraphim, FWIW, I think you should stay. I agree that there is no cause or need to call Bp. Fellay a liar. Based on what I've seen posted as evidence, he could very well be an ignorant and duped leader. I'll have to assume the latter.
It seems SSPX as an organization has the means available to remove him as their leader. Regardless of the question of truthfulness, he has failed as a leader.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
Are you calling me a "Bishop Fellay loyalist?"
I who highlighted the sellout at the onset?
I who have mobilized and extended offers to house several priests, to see to the continuity of traditional Catholicism in my area?
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Seraphim was the one who posted this thread at the beginning http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Great-Post-on-AQ-Condemns-Bishop-Fellay
he is not a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist". Please do not leave this forum.
-
Aha! GTG claimed he never portrayed Bishop Fellay as sede-sympathetic, but look what he wrote here back in December:
Bishop Fellay's views on sedevacantism are identical with those of Tissier and Williamson, in terms of the "arguments." They all think what Archbishop Lefebvre thought, which is that it's a legitimate position.
:facepalm:
What do you mean by "sede-sympathetic?"
Sede-sympathetic = open to sedevacantism, tolerant of sedevacantists.
-
I've not blamed anybody.
So now you begin to show your lack of honesty by saying you have't blamed anyone. You keep railing against Telesphorus and I, yet you haven't said one negative thing about Bishop Fellay, except that he's confused. How about calling it like it is? He's a dictator.
Same with John Lane. He's obsessed over a certain poster on Ignis Ardens and constantly criticizes her, but won't criticize Bishop Fellay.
He's criticised Bishop Fellay very severely. Anybody who reads Bellarmine Forums or IA knows that. If you don't have the facts, you just make them up? Is that how it works? No wonder Seraphim doesn't want to post here!
As for the clergy, name a bishop or priest of the SSPX that has accused Bishop Fellay of lying.
No one said this.
Read the OP. It was a reply to those who DID accuse Bishop Fellay of lying. If you agree with it, you should say so and stop shooting the messenger.
-
He's criticised Bishop Fellay very severely. Anybody who reads Bellarmine Forums or IA knows that.
Not really. It took him a while to even admit Fellay had changed.
If you don't have the facts, you just make them up? Is that how it works?
This is just absurd. You keep introducing irrelevant points into the argument.
Read the OP. It was a reply to those who DID accuse Bishop Fellay of lying. If you agree with it, you should say so and stop shooting the messenger.
The bottom line is that Bishop Fellay is a liar, not whether or not clergy have accused him of lying.
-
The bottom line is that Bishop Fellay is a liar, not whether or not clergy have accused him of lying.
So we return to the point made earlier:
You basically kiss his feet, saying he's confused but that he's not a liar, and then putting the blame on those who call him a liar. How do you propose to get anything accomplished with reasoning like that? I tell you, if the other three Bishops and all of their supporters were like that, the SSPX would have already been destroyed.
I've not blamed anybody. Quote me if you think I have.
As for the clergy, name a bishop or priest of the SSPX that has accused Bishop Fellay of lying.
I'm with the anti-accord clergy. You've got your own position, different from ours.
Your position is not that of the anti-accordista clergy. Your position is different from theirs.
-
Your position is not that of the anti-accordista clergy. Your position is different from theirs.
Another irrelevant point. The bottom line is I'm against a deal, and support the other three Bishops.
-
Actually, you're a sede who doesn't agree with the restraint and charity shown by the SSPX clergy.
That's the point.
It's the same point made in the OP, which you purport to be answering and commenting upon, trying to turn it into a pro-deal post, which it isn't.
You've lost this debate. Go and bother people who are less interested in fact and logic.
-
Actually, you're a sede who doesn't agree with the restraint and charity shown by the SSPX clergy.
Straw-man. I never said this.
trying to turn it into a pro-deal post, which it isn't.
Absurd. I never said this.
You've lost this debate. Go and bother people who are less interested in fact and logic.
No, you're just saying I've lost the debate to excuse yourself. You rely on straw-mans and red herrings to win your debates. Of course, even arguing that way doesn't help you win.
The fact is the John Lane position on Bishop Fellay is hypocritical.
-
Aha! GTG claimed he never portrayed Bishop Fellay as sede-sympathetic, but look what he wrote here back in December:
Bishop Fellay's views on sedevacantism are identical with those of Tissier and Williamson, in terms of the "arguments." They all think what Archbishop Lefebvre thought, which is that it's a legitimate position.
:facepalm:
What do you mean by "sede-sympathetic?"
Sede-sympathetic = open to sedevacantism, tolerant of sedevacantists.
Based on your definition, I don't see what problem you'd have with the above statement of GtG.
-
Based on your definition, I don't see what problem you'd have with the above statement of GtG.
Anyone who thinks the SSPX is friendly to sedevacantism has stockholm syndrome.
You should go back and read the ridiculous things he was saying in those threads. It goes way beyond what was quoted.
It is delusional.
-
You've lost this debate. Go and bother people who are less interested in fact and logic.
No, you're just saying I've lost the debate to excuse yourself. You rely on straw-mans and red herrings to win your debates. Of course, even arguing that way doesn't help you win.
What was the point about Fellay and sedevacantism, if not a red herring introduced by you in order to discredit your opponent? An argument ad hominem, because you can't handle the real argument. What was the comment about kissing Bishop Fellay's feet, if not a straw man?
Tell us all, did you ever lose a debate? Of course not, you never lose debates. Your opponents are all hypocrities with strawmans and lots of red pickled herrings.
Go tell your mother she wants you.
-
Based on your definition, I don't see what problem you'd have with the above statement of GtG.
Anyone who thinks the SSPX is friendly to sedevacantism has stockholm syndrome.
You should go back and read the ridiculous things he was saying in those threads. It goes way beyond what was quoted.
It is delusional.
Bishop Fellay's views on sedevacantism are identical with those of Tissier and Williamson, in terms of the "arguments." They all think what Archbishop Lefebvre thought, which is that it's a legitimate position.
According to your new definition, Tele, even Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't "friendly to sedevacantism."
-
"Friendly to sedevacantism" is just a way of re-defining what I said in order to make it appear ridiculous. In other words, a straw man.
Just like taking the OP and describing it as a global defence of Bishop Fellay.
And just like claiming that Seraphim or I wish these self-imagined heroes of the faith to stoop and kiss Bishop Fellay's feet.
Straw man arguments, designed carefully to obfuscate the real issue so as to avoid true debate on the matter at issue.
This is the mark of the devil, the father of lies, who cannot stand an open and candid discussion, but seeks always for the safety of darkness and obscurity.
Tele seems like a Mossad bot, deployed to make the opposition to a deal look foolish and paranoid, instead of rational and honest as it really is. Do you think perhaps that Max Krah is on the joystick, making Tele run left, right, up, down, as he desires?
-
According to your new definition, Tele, even Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't "friendly to sedevacantism."
What "new definition" (that you attribute to me) are you talking about?
This guy was practically saying the SSPX didn't have an official position against sedevacantism.
-
What was the point about Fellay and sedevacantism, if not a red herring introduced by you in order to discredit your opponent? An argument ad hominem, because you can't handle the real argument. What was the comment about kissing Bishop Fellay's feet, if not a straw man?
You do kiss Fellay's feet. Defending him from accusations of lying, painting him as a sede-sympathizer, and bragging about potentially getting to meet him. If that isn't kissing his feet, I don't know what is.
Tell us all, did you ever lose a debate? Of course not, you never lose debates. Your opponents are all hypocrities with strawmans and lots of red pickled herrings.
I've lost numerous debates before, but you're losing this one. It is you who is using straw-mans and red herrings.
-
Tele seems like a Mossad bot, deployed to make the opposition to a deal look foolish and paranoid, instead of rational and honest as it really is. Do you think perhaps that Max Krah is on the joystick, making Tele run left, right, up, down, as he desires?
You seem like a bot to me, a bot designed to make supporters of the other three Bishops look bad. If people looked at your position, they'd think you were a Bishop Fellay supporter.
By the way, I recall you saying you knew who Tele was by looking over at Ignis Ardens. Do you post there?
-
Calling me a "mossad bot" is typical loopiness.
-
These current disagreements among the resistance is reminding me of the same thing that happened during the change to the new Good Friday Prayer. On Angelqueen, there was bitter arguing for and against the Redemptorists accepting the prayer. Bishop Fellay at that time demanded obedience to himself over the pope. He "would not accept the change". The Redemptorists compromised and went to Rome. Now, + Fellay is eager to go to Rome come what may (or so it seems). Was he pushing the Redemptorists into "reintegration" to please Rome? What does he really believe? Is he now going to get the Redemptorists out of the Limbo they are in when he gets to Rome? What has Rome Promised him?
In 2007, +Fellay would not obey BXVI. Now, he says:" We would like more time to think things more clearly, but it seems that the pope wants it to happen now..." (from memory). Now...he wants what the pope wishes. Good luck to him when he gets to Rome because he's going to need it.
My point is, do not lose your charity. It's not worth it! Things will get a lot worse before they get better.
-
I'm waiting for a response, Gertrude.
-
...Things will get a lot worse before they get better.
On a positive note, I am POSITIVE that things will get MUCH worse before they get better.
-
I've lost numerous debates before,
Please, give us a list, and point us to a few examples.
-
...Things will get a lot worse before they get better.
On a positive note, I am POSITIVE that things will get MUCH worse before they get better.
:roll-laugh1:
-
I've lost numerous debates before,
Please, give us a list, and point us to a few examples.
What? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I have admitted I have lost debates. I shouldn't have to give specific examples.
That is just a distraction from the topic at hand. You didn't answer my question about Ignis Ardens, nor did you address the other points I made. I get the feeling that you are intentionally beating around the bush, attempting to avoid my questions and arguments and derail this topic.
-
I've lost numerous debates before,
Please, give us a list, and point us to a few examples.
What? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I have admitted I have lost debates. I shouldn't have to give specific examples.
Well if you can't recall losing a specific debate, your admission that you've lost plenty of them looks like a throw-away line.
That is just a distraction from the topic at hand. You didn't answer my question about Ignis Ardens, nor did you address the other points I made. I get the feeling that you are intentionally beating around the bush, attempting to avoid my questions and arguments and derail this topic.
Oh, that's rich!
I've addressed all the points you've made, and demolished them them.
What have you done?
1. Ignored the arguments put in the OP and mischaracterised them repeatedly.
2. Declared that you wouldn't kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, then when challenged on that, denied that you were saying that Seraphim or I were demanding that you kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, then when answered again you decided after all that you would directly accuse me of kissing Bishop Fellay's feet. When your head stops turning, maybe you'll find your lips on Bishop Fellay's feet? :scratchchin:
3. Raised the irrelevant question of whether the SSPX is "sede friendly".
4. Raised other irrelevancies.
Stop flapping around in a panic in the dark and either deal with what's at issue, or go home to Mommy.
-
GTG,
Your refusal to answer a simple question or to address what I wrote gives me the impression that you have something to hide. Whatever that something is, you'd be better off giving me a direct answer to my question. Sometimes silence or avoidance can speak louder volume than words, you know? In other words, your avoidance of my question only does you more harm than good. How can anyone here take you seriously if you can't address questions or arguments? As for your absurd remarks:
Well if you can't recall losing a specific debate, your admission that you've lost plenty of them looks like a throw-away line.
Debates I have lost have nothing to do with this thread. Now, while in the middle of a discussion, if someone asked you to list debates you have lost, would you do it, or would you call that out for the red herring it is? You know what you'd do, you just have too much pride to admit it.
I've addressed all the points you've made, and demolished them
"Demolished"? You have done no such thing. Most of my points you don't even address. You seem to struggle with pride, thinking you're the "real deal" and that anyone who dares to question your authority is a fallacy-filled bot.
Ignored the arguments put in the OP and mischaracterised them repeatedly.
I've been responding to you, not the OP.
Declared that you wouldn't kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, then when challenged on that, denied that you were saying that Seraphim or I were demanding that you kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, then when answered again you decided after all that you would directly accuse me of kissing Bishop Fellay's feet. When your head stops turning, maybe you'll find your lips on Bishop Fellay's feet?
I never once said that you and Seraphim demanded I kiss Bishop Fellay's feet. You either misunderstood what I wrote or are dishonest. But I did say that you kiss Fellay's feet, and you do.
Raised the irrelevant question of whether the SSPX is "sede friendly".
You claimed Bishop Fellay tolerated sedevacantism, I told you that you are incorrect. That's not irrelevant.
Raised other irrelevancies.
Kind of like how you seem centered on debates I have lost, and on Telesphorus? None of that is irrelevant?
-
This whole thread, after the first post, is an attempt to divert from what it said, and now you again try the same tactic. Nobody asked you to kiss Bishop Fellay's feet, really or metaphorically, and nobody said that Bishop Fellay has remained the same as he was. Clearly he changed. But you, and Tele, who is the other main poster playing the diversion game, so don't try and cut him out of it, will not deal with what was actually written. Instead, you make accusations, introduce irrelevancies, and ignore the point.
Did Bishop Fellay lie? No Catholic who knows his catechism could assert that. When you have an argument that actually deals with that, put it. Until then, everything you write makes you look like a person with a bad conscience trying to make a rebuke go away without facing it. And the irony is, you're not even mentioned in the original post. That just adds to the impression that guilt is the motivation.
We're back to this point of the debate, it seems.
-
I'm just not going to kiss Fellay's feet, sorry Seraphim.
-
Straw-man, GTG. I never said Seraphim was demanding that.
Right.
I'm just not going to kiss Fellay's feet, sorry Seraphim.
Of course, you must have meant, you're not only going to kiss his feet, you're going to give him a pedicure and a foot massage as well.
Or something.
-
Once again you won't answer me. I'm going to try my best to simplify this:
1- Have you ever posted on Ignis Ardens?
2- Why do you seem so centered on Telesphorus?
3- What do you say to Bishop Fellay's lame excuse for not mentioning Archbishop LeFebvre anymore?
4- How is Bishop Fellay tolerant of sedevacantists if he himself has indicated quite the opposite?
Answer ALL FOUR questions and I them promise to answer any questions or objections you have. Until then, answer mine first.
-
You do kiss Fellay's feet.
-
Answer ALL FOUR questions and I them promise to answer any questions or objections you have. Until then, answer mine first.
Sorry, but I have no interest in you, other than demonstrating that you have no argument in response to the OP of this thread. And I've done that, in spades.
Why don't you tell us your real name and where you go to mass, and I'll email your priest with a few of your choice comments and ask him to raise them with you?
My bet is that you only horrid when you blasphemously present yourself as the Holy Ghost on the Internet. In person with your priest, I'd be willing to bet you'd behave much differently.
Now, did you have an argument concerning the OP, or are you still unable to answer it?
-
Sorry, but I have no interest in you, other than demonstrating that you have no argument in response to the OP of this thread. And I've done that, in spades.
Yeah, the fact is that you're hiding something. You're being a coward.
Why don't you tell us your real name and where you go to mass, and I'll email your priest with a few of your choice comments and ask him to raise them with you?
Why don't you tell us your name, Mr. Big Shot? And actually, I don't have access to a TLM. I would love to attend one, but cannot. No TLMs near me. Only the Bogus Ordo, and I refuse to attend that junk.
My bet is that you only horrid when you blasphemously present yourself as the Holy Ghost on the Internet.
So I guess Telesphorus should change his screen-name since he's presenting himself as a Saint? Do you see how absurd your argument is?
Now, did you have an argument concerning the OP, or are you still unable to answer it?
I've addressed that on Ignis Ardens, actually. I'm not addressing your hypocritical position again.
-
SS and GTG,
Any chance one or the other of you would please play dead for a day or so, til the other loses interest? Only it's getting difficult to find the content in threads like this.
-
SS and GTG,
Any chance one or the other of you would please play dead for a day or so, til the other loses interest? Only it's getting difficult to find the content in threads like this.
I'll back away when my questions are answered.
-
SS and GTG,
Any chance one or the other of you would please play dead for a day or so, til the other loses interest? Only it's getting difficult to find the content in threads like this.
There's only one thread in which we are arguing, Charl(e)s.
Thanks for your interest.
-
Yeah, the fact is that you're hiding something. You're being a coward.
We all judge by our own standards.
So you think others are hiding, when they're not. Because you are hiding, as is Charls, and as are a whole series of others. Shall we "out" Immaculata on IA, "Therese" on your forum, "Stuart" on your forum, "anastasia" on your forum, "Sede Trad" and a few of the other prominent posters on your forum?
My reason for using a pseudonym here is purely to avoid my real name being found here by casual browsers of the forum. But I've said that before, last time I bothered to make comment here.
Again, all of this is a tactical means for you to avoid refuting the theology or the arguments in the OP. You imagine that by threatening to out people they'll run scared. Wrong idea, son, you have no idea what you're doing.
I'm glad you told me you don't go to Holy Mass. Makes a lot of sense. I'm really sorry for you.
-
So you think others are hiding, when they're not. Because you are hiding, as is Charls, and as are a whole series of others. Shall we "out" Immaculata on IA, "Therese" on your forum, "Stuart" on your forum, "anastasia" on your forum, "Sede Trad" and a few of the other prominent posters on your forum?
So have you just revealed who you are?
And please leave the posters on my forum out of it. Oh, and "Sede Trad"? I believe you mean "Sede Catholic".
Again, all of this is a tactical means for you to avoid refuting the theology or the arguments in the OP.
I refuted that on Ignis. Why do it again?
-
I should add that I drive the distance to Mass when I can.
-
And please leave the posters on my forum out of it.
Why, if there's nothing wrong with "outing" people? I named them precisely to show, by your inevitable reaction, that YOU regard it as an evil to out people, something you've just spent several posts threatening, and accusing me of being a coward for not addressing.
You're actually a little creep, using a tactic you think will instill fear and then accusing me of being a coward when I ignore it. My identity was known here long before this thread was begun. You could have determined that if you'd used a little diligence.
I refuted that on Ignis. Why do it again?
Why comment at all on this thread, if you've spoken apostolically elsewhere already? Because you hate justice. Now go away, where your diversions, accusations, threats, and love of darkness might be appreciated. I feel soiled merely from having been in your presence.
-
You're actually a little creep
Pretty typical language for a certain type of trad..
Because you hate justice.
Reminds me of this:
About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted
-
Pretty typical language for a certain type of trad..
The guy is clearly not in his right mind.
... what he is doing is entirely dishonest and in fact criminal.
SSPX cultists rely on trying to make people feel ashamed of anything that exposes the real nature of the cult - while at the same time they mercilessly attack the reputations of others.
...they only show how deeply enmeshed in the cult-like thinking they themselves have become.
-
Why, if there's nothing wrong with "outing" people?
Those people have nothing to do with this discussion. It's one thing to criticize me and my forum, but you really shouldn't bring my members into it.
that YOU regard it as an evil to out people, something you've just spent several posts threatening, and accusing me of being a coward for not addressing.
I never said that. You wouldn't answer a simple question.
You're actually a little creep, using a tactic you think will instill fear and then accusing me of being a coward when I ignore it.
I'd take being called a "little creep" by someone with serious issues such as yourself as a badge of honor, actually. You do have issues, such as the fact that you kept pestering me and others about a certain someone on Ignis Ardens. You really need to repent for your sinful behavior.
I feel soiled merely from having been in your presence.
Only someone who lacks charity or humility would accuse me of thinking I'm the Holy Ghost, or use something about my personal life that I have no control over against me. That isn't Catholic at all.
I have no desire to continue this discussion with you, you've shown that you aren't capable of honest debate. You'll have my prayers. Goodbye.
God Bless.
-
You have shown yourself to not be in your right mind with regard to Bishop Fellay.
Yes.
What Bishop Fellay is doing is dishonest and criminal, yes.
People who are irrationally attached to the SSPX behave like members of a cult, yes, and they do constantly and hypocritically browbeat those who criticize the SSPX with holier than thou cant about "calumny" - when they don't hesitate to use despicable and abusive language. They are deeply enmeshed in cult-like thinking.
-
Why, if there's nothing wrong with "outing" people?
Those people have nothing to do with this discussion. It's one thing to criticize me and my forum, but you really shouldn't bring my members into it.
You called me a coward for not answering your question. What fear did you think you had engendered by that question? Evidently you thought that I was afraid that my real name would be known here.
So you tried to engender fear, then accused me of cowardice for not responding to you.
And you complain about the title "creep"? I could easily say much stronger things about you with perfect justice.
I don't have any intention of outing your forum members, I was just extracting from you an objection to that, to illustrate the fact that you were engaging in something against me which you yourself considered evil.
that YOU regard it as an evil to out people, something you've just spent several posts threatening, and accusing me of being a coward for not addressing.
I never said that. You wouldn't answer a simple question.
This is pure disingenuousness. No wonder you so readily believe that other people lie!
No wonder you took the OP to be an attack on others. It was an attack on you, but only you realised it. I certainly didn't, but I do now.
Only someone who lacks charity or humility would accuse me of thinking I'm the Holy Ghost, or use something about my personal life that I have no control over against me.
I'm sorry, but you've now reversed the whole course of the exchange over yet another point. I suggested that if you were interested in my real name, perhaps you could provide yours, and I could email your comments here to your priest. You responded by saying that you don't go to Mass. I said well that explains a few things, and said I was sorry for you.
How that became using "something about my personal life that I have no control over against me" I don't know, but it yet again illustrates your utter inability to discuss in any logical, consistent way.
Of course you later added that you do indeed go to Mass, about once a month, so you do have a priest or priests that we could share your comments with. Again, disingenuous in the extreme.
No doubt all of this will all be twisted once again, so I'll remind you of the facts and principles once more.
1. YOU asked a question which was designed to out me (thinking my real name was unknown here).
2. I took this at face value (something which is a very helpful tactic when dealing with disingenuous behaviour), and suggested that since you believe in real names being known, we should email your priest and give him some of your comments from here. It's always the same with people like you - you take no responsibility for what you publish, and the very possibility of being held responsible for your own words terrifies you.
3. I also suggested that we out the prominent members of your forum. As expected, you objected to that, showing that you don't have any consistent principle on the matter, you just wanted to bully another.
Now you declare that I cannot have a proper debate. Well, let anybody who is inclined to believe anything you write go back and read the OP and each of your purported responses to it. Everything you wrote was off-topic and most of it was ad hominem.
Tele has the same problem as you - he resorts to ad hominem instead of addressing arguments. Then, like you, he squeals when he finds that ad hominem is unpleasant coming back the other way.
Next time either of you hasn't an answer to an argument, maybe you'll manage not to comment at all. And the world will be better for that.
-
when they don't hesitate to use despicable and abusive language.
Tele, Cecilia on IA ("Immaculata") called another member a "schmuck" yesterday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_%28pejorative%29
I'd call that about the most despicable and abusive language I've ever heard from a traditional Catholic.
Perhaps you could object to that, instead, and demonstrate that you have principles.
-
Sorry John Lane, but you have gone off the deep end and need help.
-
SS you need to reflect. I know you have written here several times that you have no intention of ever having your real name disclosed.
Also, you called for GTG to be banned in another thread. You have a history of calling for bans. Why is that?
.
-
Actually the first post that started it and what eventually led to Cecilia, aka Immaculata getting banned, was this comment...
"Well if a certain member of CI were here, that would be "shmoko"
From there she went into one of her usual obsessed-filled rants about John Lane, and that is what got her banned.
Good riddance, and Deo Gratias.
-
SS you need to reflect. I know you have written here several times that you have no intention of ever having your real name disclosed.
John Lane's name is all over the internet, Elizabeth. Mine isn't. I won't even give my name on my forum. I do not give my name. Period.
Also, you called for GTG to be banned in another thread. You have a history of calling for bans. Why is that?
I apologized for it, I shouldn't have said that.
But John Lane does owe me an apology for calling me a "little creep" and for dragging my forum members into an argument. I didn't drag his members from Bellarmine into this. I have just as much of a right to my opinion regarding Bishop Fellay as he has to his. But anyone who doesn't give Fellay the benefit of the doubt about being a liar receives the wrath of John Lane. And of course, here come all these people from Ignis running over to take his side. I realize he's going to get support because a lot of people like him, I even used to like him. But there is no excuse for some of the things he has done on this forum or at Ignis.
As for calling for bans? I've called for three people in the past to be banned: Tele (which I deeply regret), PIO (which I also deeply regret), and roscoe (don't regret that, actually). Oh, and also David Hobson, but that's understandable.
From there she went into one of her usual obsessed-filled rants about John Lane, and that is what got her banned.
Good riddance, and Deo Gratias.
Are you "lousia" on IA?
I always thought it was hypocritical of non-sedevacantists to take up for sedes such as John Lane. Then again, perhaps I can understand, since they both share similar ideas about Bishop Fellay
-
But John Lane does owe me an apology for calling me a "little creep" and for dragging my forum members into an argument. I didn't drag his members from Bellarmine into this. I have just as much of a right to my opinion regarding Bishop Fellay as he has to his. But anyone who doesn't give Fellay the benefit of the doubt about being a liar receives the wrath of John Lane.
When you apologise for trying to create fear, then abusing me for "cowardice" in the face of that imagined fear, I will certainly withdraw the title which you have, by those acts, richly deserved. By apologising for such gross bullying, you will show that you acted under passion and recognise the foulness of it.
As for "wrath" you have receieved NONE merely for disagreeing over Bishop Fellay. Go back and read the whole thread, and find anywhere that I have shown any anger at all over the rash judgement of others in relation to Bishop Fellay. It doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad about the lack of morals of my fellow traditional Catholics.
But where there certainly was wrath was in the reaction to the OP, by those who FELT judged by it. Yes, you and Tele certainly showed some wrath, as did certain others. Why that is, you can examine for yourself. It's a matter for you.
I always thought it was hypocritical of non-sedevacantists to take up for sedes such as John Lane. Then again, perhaps I can understand, since they both share similar ideas about Bishop Fellay
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how people shift position and then rapidly forget that they have done so, so that they display no diffidence at all. Less than two years ago, as I understand it, you were attending mass at the Fraternity of St. Peter. Now you're the judge of everybody else, and even whether those who hold differing views ought to support or defend each other. You ignorant, silly, little man. You have absolute proof that you can be entirely mistaken about the gravest matters - you yourself think you were entirely wrong about the most important matters less than two years ago. Why would you not distrust your own judgement? What possible grounds could you have to think that you are a person who should be making negative judgements of others?
And you wonder why I say that dogmatic sedevacantism is one of the most corrosive and really evil things affecting traditional Catholics. It's absolutely a matter of direct observation that when people go "sede" (meaning, dogmatic sedevacantism) they tend to become judgemental, bitter, and stupid to boot. Why don't you try and become an exception?
-
When you apologise for trying to create fear, then abusing me for "cowardice" in the face of that imagined fear, I will certainly withdraw the title which you have, by those acts, richly deserved. By apologising for such gross bullying, you will show that you acted under passion and recognise the foulness of it.
I was mad because you wouldn't answer my question about Ignis, but I shouldn't have called you a coward. I'm sorry. Now it's your turn to apologize for calling me a creep.
Less than two years ago, as I understand it, you were attending mass at the Fraternity of St. Peter.
That doesn't pertain to this discussion.
And you wonder why I say that dogmatic sedevacantism is one of the most corrosive and really evil things affecting traditional Catholics. It's absolutely a matter of direct observation that when people go "sede" (meaning, dogmatic sedevacantism) they tend to become judgemental, bitter, and stupid to boot. Why don't you try and become an exception?
I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist. Never have been.
No need to continue this discussion.
-
When you apologise for trying to create fear, then abusing me for "cowardice" in the face of that imagined fear, I will certainly withdraw the title which you have, by those acts, richly deserved. By apologising for such gross bullying, you will show that you acted under passion and recognise the foulness of it.
I was mad because you wouldn't answer my question about Ignis, .
You need to apologise for asking it in the first place, and insisting that I answer it. You need to acknowledge that you were trying to create fear, fear which you thought you had succeeded in producing, which was why you then called me a coward for not answering.
You also need to make up your mind whether "creep" is a badge of honour or not. If it is, then surely you don't want it withdrawn!
But again, aologise for what you actually did, not just for one word, and I'll happily withdraw it.
What was done on IA was approved by two good priests. Don't comment on what you know nothing about, and you certainly know nothing about that!
Go get the movie "What About Bob?" and watch it. That will be the beginning of your education in the matter you seem to be interested in.
-
Worst of all, he disregards the warnings of the other three bishops. Let's see if he disregards the warning from God, the appointment of Muellar, a heretic, to the head of the Office that overseas the purity of the Faith, of doctrine.
The problem with the loyalists is that evidence makes no impression on them. What is it that they don't understand about calling the Jews "elder brothers" - hiring this rabid Zionist to hire the defense lawyer (from the Green Party) for Bishop Williamson. What part of saying "what we condemned in the Council wasn't really in the Council" don't they understand?
What don't they understand about the change in rhetoric of the SSPX?
What don't they understand about the fact that Bishop Fellay practically said he was willing to split the Society?
I can see the way the SSPX operates, and its not pretty. There's a big problem, it's deviated seriously from the mission of the Archbishop, and there's a point at which one needs to apply common sense to what the problem is.
These Fellayite 'loyalists' are disingenuous or have certain political affiliations. They have also built up little comfort zones for themselves. I mean the loyalists who are laity. Pro-Fellay priests are under obedience and must believe what Menzingen or sspx.org tells them. Then the sheeple in the pews are just expected to believe it and give them their money.
Look at the ridiculous lengths that Fr Rostand went regarding "rumours" which turened out to be true. Yet he an alter Christus would try convince people that truth is a "rumour" Hardly a priest I would trust with salvation of souls.
Are you calling me a "Bishop Fellay loyalist?"
I who highlighted the sellout at the onset?
I who have mobilized and extended offers to house several priests, to see to the continuity of traditional Catholicism in my area?
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Certainly not directed at you. The likes of John De Lallo need to answer these questions. I realise there are those who would jump into the fire if Bishop Fellay told them to but my point was why did Fr Rostand, an alter Christus seek to dismiss facts as "rumours". I realise his Against the Rumours video was stage managed which few believed but the fact he went to these lengths speaks volumes.
Yet, for all this opposition to Bishop Fellay's sellout plans, I am to become a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist" simply because I agree (with a sedevacantist!) on a simple point of justice, according to Catholic moral theology?
I have just posted my last on this forum.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, Seraphim. John Grace did not direct that post at you.
The bottom line is that Bishop Fellay has proven himself to be dishonest. The proof is out there for all to see.
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Seraphim, FWIW, I think you should stay. I agree that there is no cause or need to call Bp. Fellay a liar. Based on what I've seen posted as evidence, he could very well be an ignorant and duped leader. I'll have to assume the latter.
It seems SSPX as an organization has the means available to remove him as their leader. Regardless of the question of truthfulness, he has failed as a leader.
...
I have just posted my last on this forum.
Goodbye.
Seraphim was the one who posted this thread at the beginning http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Great-Post-on-AQ-Condemns-Bishop-Fellay
he is not a "Bishop Fellay Loyalist". Please do not leave this forum.
Several members begging Seraphim to stay, but Seraphim has left, four days now.
And for what? Because of a disagreement? Perhaps. But that's not all.
This action of +Fellay, to pertinaciously work toward an agreement with Rome, in
spite of everything else (cheerfulness in the Society, good example, promotion of
the Faith, support for all the clerics and faithful who work in the vinyard of the
Society, even adherence to the principles of ABL) is not what +Lefebvre would
have done were he still alive. We should not have any doubts about that.
What is happening here on this forum is a microcosm of what is happening in
the Society and in the world at large.
What +Fellay is doing by obstinately pursuing regularization in the face of all
reasonable opposition from the Society members is really the same thing that
B16 is doing to the Church by obstinately pursuing adherence to the demonic
principles of the Council: the Unclean Spirit of Vatican II.
They both play into the hands of satan, the father of lies, a liar from the beginning,
a liar in principio, whose motto is, Divide and Conquer.
But here this whole thread is running around in circles over whether +Fellay lied.
What does it mean to lie? -- the opening post asks.
What do we mean by "lying?"
How do we know someone lied?
How do we know +Fellay lied?
Etc., etc.
We ought to have no qualms about whether satan lied.
But we ought to step back and think, isn't this all a product of satan's lies?
Why would there be all this dissension in the ranks if it were not the bad fruit of
the Unclean Spirit of satan?
The Unclean Spirit of Vatican II?
If it is, then what?
Then, whether or not +Fellay "lied," his work is the work of satan because it is not
faithful to the intentions of the Founder, to whose principles +Fellay had pledged
his allegiance, and against which principles he is now acting, is he not??
Is he not?
I ask you -- members of the forum:
Is +Fellay not acting against the principles of the perhaps saintly Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX?
Don't +Fellay's actions belie a disloyalty to his ostensible mission, the preservation
of the Society in conformity with the founding principles, the passing on of
Tradition as it has been received, to the future generations of the world?
Isn't that the only "lie" with which we need concern ourselves?
-
John,
It's clear that you are not accusing Bishop Fellay of lying, and that's good, because the charge is not sustainable.
Yes, the father of lies is behind both V2 and the attempt to hook the SSPX into a deal. Unfortunately Bishop Fellay could not see that, but his efforts to make it work have come to naught. Hopefully he will see more clearly after his six-day retreat and the strong and clear advice of his many conferes at the General Chapter.
-
Anyone who excuses +Fellay of diligently striving for 18 years to subvert the work
of +Lefebvre because he doesn't know any better must think he's pretty stupid.
There should be a new category, worse than invincibly ignorant: invincibly stupid.
How many of the Vatican II bishops were opposed to Dignitatis Humanae and
the rising specter of false ecuмenism and the error of false collegiality at the end
of the council? 250! And how many of them founded a seminary to sustain
Tradition? ONE! And how many bishops did he consecrate? 4! And who is +Fellay?
One of the four. He couldn't know otherwise.
If +Fellay is innocent by ignorance, then Benedict XVI and JPII are equally
innocent, and so are all the Modernists: INNOCENT.
So then everything is fine, there is no crisis in the Church.
And everyone lived happily ever after.
Now, go to sleep.
-
Unfortunately Bishop Fellay could not see that, but his efforts to make it work have come to naught. Hopefully he will see more clearly after his six-day retreat and the strong and clear advice of his many conferes at the General Chapter.
He hasn't seen any more clearly in view of the "strong and clear advice of his many confreres" prior to the Chapter, so what ever makes you think he will heed them now?
Making excuses for +Fellay is about the least constructive thing one can do right now.
-
Anyone who excuses +Fellay of diligently striving for 18 years to subvert the work of +Lefebvre because he doesn't know any better must think he's pretty stupid.
There should be a new category, worse than invincibly ignorant: invincibly stupid.
How many of the Vatican II bishops were opposed to Dignitatis Humanae and the rising specter of false ecuмenism and the error of false collegiality at the end of the council? 250! And how many of them founded a seminary to sustain Tradition? ONE! And how many bishops did he consecrate? 4! And who is +Fellay?
One of the four. He couldn't know otherwise.
If +Fellay is innocent by ignorance, then Benedict XVI and JPII are equally innocent, and so are all the Modernists: INNOCENT.
So then everything is fine, there is no crisis in the Church.
And everyone lived happily ever after.
Now, go to sleep.
Your recent postings here in this thread hit the nail right on the head (your older ones probably, too, but now I only see your latest two). Thanks for them!
Also I see that you enjoyed the brilliant Eleison Comments. Although it's unlikely, I still hope that the following part of your mentioned EC still applies, too :
Ooh, Mummy, did the story end happily ever after?
Darling, I can’t tell you. It's not yet over.
-
+Fellay has had ample advice of his confreres for years and years and years. But he
has spent the past 3 years, especially, holed up in his bunker in Munzingen, with his
fingers in his ears, pretending not to hear his confreres.
Invincible doesn't come close. Pertinacious is a much better word.
Untrustworthy is even better.
IF the Society can survive this General Chapter,
AND +Fellay appears to pay attention,
AND he continues on as Superior General for the next year,
THEN, we should expect that come January 2013, the whole thing will then start
anew, for by then he would have found ways of hog-tying or expelling his opposition.
B16 is not converting, nor is he giving up.
And +Fellay has followed his lead for years and years. Why would he stop now?
-
Anyone who excuses +Fellay of diligently striving for 18 years to subvert the work of +Lefebvre because he doesn't know any better must think he's pretty stupid.
There should be a new category, worse than invincibly ignorant: invincibly stupid.
How many of the Vatican II bishops were opposed to Dignitatis Humanae and the rising specter of false ecuмenism and the error of false collegiality at the end of the council? 250! And how many of them founded a seminary to sustain Tradition? ONE! And how many bishops did he consecrate? 4! And who is +Fellay?
One of the four. He couldn't know otherwise.
If +Fellay is innocent by ignorance, then Benedict XVI and JPII are equally innocent, and so are all the Modernists: INNOCENT.
So then everything is fine, there is no crisis in the Church.
And everyone lived happily ever after.
Now, go to sleep.
Your recent postings here in this thread hit the nail right on the head (your older ones probably, too, but now I only see your latest two). Thanks for them!
You are most welcome, ER!
Also I see that you enjoyed the brilliant Eleison Comments.
I usually do. And I think, "What would it be like if we had a pope like this?"
Then I realize that when +Giuseppe Sarto put his feet into those papal slippers, he
was no longer the humorist he had been up to that point. "To Restore All things in
Christ," Instaurare Omnia in Christo is no joke.
Although it's unlikely, I still hope that the following part of your mentioned EC still applies, too :
Ooh, Mummy, did the story end happily ever after?
Darling, I can’t tell you. It's not yet over.
Feelings are mutual!
-
Is there any reliable information or insight into +Fellay's relationship or possible bewitching by the Swiss Mystic?
Is there any relationship between the Swiss Mystic and the Crow?
The overall weirdness of this situation, the timing of B16's new appointments, the "it's now or never" ultimatum at the outset of this episode---combined with the Swiss Mystic and Crow cause me to wonder. I wonder if +Fellay believes he has been given important End Times information he must act upon?
It's only a half-baked theory based on scarce information, but the Swiss Mystic might be a clue? Good people are often seduced by false prophets.
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
Niel Obstat's remark about +Fellay being holed up for three years is what makes me wonder about the effects of some type of Rasputin scenario.
-
He hasn't seen any more clearly in view of the "strong and clear advice of his many confreres" prior to the Chapter, so what ever makes you think he will heed them now?
He hasn't a choice.
Making excuses for +Fellay is about the least constructive thing one can do right now.
I think you mean, trying to understand what is really going on, taking into account known facts and applying reason, within the bounds of Christian moral doctrine.
I think that's about the only constructive thing anybody could do, but then again, I don't like mobs.
Stepping back from the emotional turmoil, it is instructive to observe this kind of thing, for example, on IA:
Bishops de Galarreta and Tissier de Mallerais may not support an agreement with Rome, but there is nothing to indicate that they support Bishop Williamson. They can be against an agreement, yet still be against Bishop Williamson. I have yet to see either of them come to his defense at all. Not only in his dealings with Bishop Fellay, but also his trouble over the Jews. Their silence with regards to Bishop Williamson may very well indicate that they wish to distance themselves from him.
No, you're right. I think it is clear that they are against an agreement with Rome. There is no 'may' about it. However, as you note, neither has come to the defense of Bp. Williamson publicly. Their silence in this regard is deafening. So you may conclude fairly that they have distanced themselves from +W, but for which of a number of possible reasons?: 1) Because they are afraid to cross the Superior General? 2)They do not fear the SG, but for the sake of the faithful, they wish for the present not to be cut off from doing ordinations and confirmations. 3) They genuinely disagree with +W over his remarks about the h0Ɩ0cαųst and other matters? 4) They have basic agreement with +W and have expressed as much in private consultations with him 5) They wish to do all in their power to hold the Society together? 6)They have chosen a specific time future in which to express their support of +W?
Other possible explanations for their silence come to mind, but those above will do for starters.
Would you describe that as "making excuses for Tissier and de Galarreta"?
Well, that would be a way of characterising it without having to switch one's brain on, saving mental energy. But would it be accurate or just?
Is not Hollingsworth merely trying to understand what truly motivates the actions of Tissier and de Galarreta, without leaping to the conclusion that they are just cowardly schoolgirls who haven't the backbone to stand up for Williamson?
There are plenty of indications of what motivates Bishop fellay, what his thinking has really been, and why he decided, disastrously, to shift position on the necessary priority of doctrinal correction, and it doesn't lead to the conclusion popularly repeated on Web forums. It's actually much more interesting, complex, and in some ways concerning, than the mob-cry of "Crucify him!" I don't think he is in the position of Our Lord, but neither do I think he is Judas.
And the deal is not only dead, but I predict that the General Chapter will inter it with full honours, much to the disappointment of those who for varying reasons hate the SSPX.
-
Making excuses for +Fellay is about the least constructive thing one can do right now.
I think you mean, trying to understand what is really going on, taking into account known facts and applying reason, within the bounds of Christian moral doctrine.
I think that's about the only constructive thing anybody could do, but then again, I don't like mobs.
No, I meant exactly what I said, not all the blather you tried to attribute to it.
-
Well that was an intelligent and helpful contribution to the discussion!
I'm trying to think of an excuse for you, but I'm unable. Perhaps you could assist? :)
-
He hasn't seen any more clearly in view of the "strong and clear advice of his many confreres" prior to the Chapter, so what ever makes you think he will heed them now?
He hasn't a choice.
Making excuses for +Fellay is about the least constructive thing one can do right now.
I think you mean, trying to understand what is really going on, taking into account known facts and applying reason, within the bounds of Christian moral doctrine.
I think that's about the only constructive thing anybody could do, but then again, I don't like mobs.
Stepping back from the emotional turmoil, it is instructive to observe this kind of thing, for example, on IA:
Bishops de Galarreta and Tissier de Mallerais may not support an agreement with Rome, but there is nothing to indicate that they support Bishop Williamson. They can be against an agreement, yet still be against Bishop Williamson. I have yet to see either of them come to his defense at all. Not only in his dealings with Bishop Fellay, but also his trouble over the Jews. Their silence with regards to Bishop Williamson may very well indicate that they wish to distance themselves from him.
No, you're right. I think it is clear that they are against an agreement with Rome. There is no 'may' about it. However, as you note, neither has come to the defense of Bp. Williamson publicly. Their silence in this regard is deafening. So you may conclude fairly that they have distanced themselves from +W, but for which of a number of possible reasons?: 1) Because they are afraid to cross the Superior General? 2)They do not fear the SG, but for the sake of the faithful, they wish for the present not to be cut off from doing ordinations and confirmations. 3) They genuinely disagree with +W over his remarks about the h0Ɩ0cαųst and other matters? 4) They have basic agreement with +W and have expressed as much in private consultations with him 5) They wish to do all in their power to hold the Society together? 6)They have chosen a specific time future in which to express their support of +W?
Other possible explanations for their silence come to mind, but those above will do for starters.
Would you describe that as "making excuses for Tissier and de Galarreta"?
Well, that would be a way of characterising it without having to switch one's brain on, saving mental energy. But would it be accurate or just?
Is not Hollingsworth merely trying to understand what truly motivates the actions of Tissier and de Galarreta, without leaping to the conclusion that they are just cowardly schoolgirls who haven't the backbone to stand up for Williamson?
There are plenty of indications of what motivates Bishop fellay, what his thinking has really been, and why he decided, disastrously, to shift position on the necessary priority of doctrinal correction, and it doesn't lead to the conclusion popularly repeated on Web forums. It's actually much more interesting, complex, and in some ways concerning, than the mob-cry of "Crucify him!" I don't think he is in the position of Our Lord, but neither do I think he is Judas.
And the deal is not only dead, but I predict that the General Chapter will inter it with full honours, much to the disappointment of those who for varying reasons hate the SSPX.
The deal is not dead. If the deal was dead, + Fellay would not have refused to ordain the Dominicans & Franciscans just because they needed 48 hrs. to decide if they would go with him if he signed an agreement with Rome. He would not have gone through with Part 3 of "Against the Rumors" with their ridiculous slogan: "It is only just that we may be more reintegrated into the Church" or exclude + Williamson from the Chapter. Even if he didn't vote, he controled it. His intent is more clear than ever. Nothing short of a miracle will stop him and he knows full well what he's doing. Unfortunately, many will follow him because "they follow anything that moves..." (Henry the VIII in Man For All seasons)
-
Is there any reliable information or insight into +Fellay's relationship or possible bewitching by the Swiss Mystic?
Is there any relationship between the Swiss Mystic and the Crow?
The overall weirdness of this situation, the timing of B16's new appointments, the "it's now or never" ultimatum at the outset of this episode---combined with the Swiss Mystic and Crow cause me to wonder. I wonder if +Fellay believes he has been given important End Times information he must act upon?
It's only a half-baked theory based on scarce information, but the Swiss Mystic might be a clue? Good people are often seduced by false prophets.
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
Niel Obstat's remark about +Fellay being holed up for three years is what makes me wonder about the effects of some type of Rasputin scenario.
Something else has been going on for the past 3 years, and it's not unrelated to
the SSPX's relations with Rome.
"Archbishop" Joseph Di Noia was just now demoted, effectively, to the Ecclesia Dei
Commission, to fill a post that has been vacant for 3 years, after B16 rejected
+Fellay's negotiations with the Vatican, and to thwart +Fellay with a demand that
he conform to Vatican II teachings.
Keep in mind that +Fellay has been devoted to this project of regularization for
the past 18 years, meaning for 15 years before DiNoia's predecessor, Perl, was
practically fired from the post of Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
Perl had been cut loose by the effect of the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae unitatem
of July 6, 2009, in which Benedict XVI demoted the Ecclesia Dei Commission to
become an inferior part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It
seems it wasn't necessary for there to be a "vice president of the vice president."
I got the clue to look into this when I saw DiNoia's wimpy response to the
question of how the secretary's post was vacated, and for how long. It was as
though he really didn't want to think about it. Therefore, it must be an
embarrassment to him, or somehow connected to things that do not suit his
purposes. He tried to shrug it off, and that somehow didn't look like a "nothing."
DiNoia had been secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments, and was replaced by Arthur Roche, bishop of Leeds,
England.
The Ecclesia Dei Commission (EDC) was originally constituted by JPII in 1988, in
that panicked reaction when Archbishop Lefebvre had consecrated four traditional
Catholic bishops in opposition to direct order from JPII. It used to be an
independent commission, directly responsible to the pope, but Ecclesiae
unitatem demoted it to become an inferior part of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). One could say, the purpose of the double layer of
bureaucracy (CDF/EDC) is precisely to make doubly sure that the SSPX conforms
to Modernist principles. Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the CDF, became
EDC President, and B16 fired the former president, cardinal Dario Castrillon-
Hoyos, when he thus let go the secretary, monsignor Camille Perl. Since then, 3
years ago, the position that DiNoia now fills had been vacant.
And DiNoia doesn't like to talk about it. If it's been vacant for 3 years, why is
he suddenly needed to do a job that obviously NOBODY was doing before?
In the past few weeks, Levada has been relieved, and replaced with Muller. That
would put Muller in a position superior to DiNoia, for the moment anyway. Or,
they might turn out to be more like partners in the coming years, a sort of
Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, or Eek and Meek, or ...... Enoch and Elias? Not!
This means this double-stacked boilerplate, if you will, is set with a double stack
of new chairmen just in time for the SSPX to show up, hat in hand, begging for
crumbs from the rich man's table -- even though the SSPX is ironically in much
better shape financially than Rome is!
B16 seems to be intent on having +Fellay running in circles trying to keep up
with his demands, a tactic to effect control, which +Fellay has been then passing
on down to his underlings in the Society.
One of the things that accomplishes this control scenario is having DiNoia at this
post in the EDC. He is highly regarded in the Jєωιѕн community, secular members
of which criticized the "lifting" of the (invalid!) excommunications of the surviving 4
SSPX bishops in 2009. Remember, that an invalid excommunication cannot be
"lifted," because it doesn't exist. You cannot "lift" something if it has no being. The
only action that could ever make sense is if the Pope annuls the invalid
excommunications. Anything short of annulment is more smoke and mirrors.
Also, the so-called "lifting of the excoms" did nothing to address one third of them:
the excoms of Archbishop Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer. But if an annulment
were done, then ABL and Mayer would have to be included -- probably why they
chose the stupid "lifting" option, -- an option that is obviously stupid if you know
what this is going on, here.
To top it off, DiNoia is a rabid, false ecuмenist, and he's quite warm and fuzzy
with the Protestant evangelicals. In his new position of overseeing the SSPX, he
would be expected to demand such attitudes be adopted thereby, making it even
more impossible for the SSPX priests (who stay on), to practice the Faith.
When DiNoia was appointed (demoted, actually), the Vatican press office
mentioned how the SSPX maintains unacceptable notions of Tradition, the Novus
Ordo liturgy, Vatican II, false ecuмenism, relations with false religions,
religious freedom, and false collegiality among the bishops (they don't disregard
the primacy of the Pope in all collegial matters). We might suspect this has
something to do with the contents of the "Preambe." Therefore, we could suppose
that DiNoia's appointment (actually, his demotion) was a move that is set to give
the SSPX a challenge of metamorphosing into nice, neo-Modernists. I would not at
all be surprised if B16 has given DiNoia the job of pounding a Modernist reform into
the SSPX over the next 3 to 5 years, an assignment his successful completion of
which would then earn him a higher post, a more prestigious post, than
"vice-president of the vice-president." That, then, would be DiNoia's incentive,
a motivation that he would be expected to pursue with the utmost zeal and vigor!
It looks like B16 has taken an ideological fighter (inasmuch as he is clawing his
way to a more prominent office, or a "red hat"), a friend of the Jews, and an
opportunist, to place directly over the regularization of the SSPX, with the
ostensible mission of reforming the Society, which is not a small task, and
therefore requires a staunch push in the "right" direction.
-
My previous post is a glimpse into the tangled web into which the SSPX is poised to
set foot, like a backpacker, a pilgrim, stepping on a bear trap. The thing is what it is,
and the SSPX doesn't need to go there. They should be capable of seeing the trap,
and avoiding it, but will they?
They have a leader who is not only oblivious to the danger, but seems to be also
infatuated with the prospect. If he were to explain it that way, he would lose at least
some of his support, so, like a good con, he only promotes what's to his advantage.
....Even if what he thinks is his advantage is really his own perdition!
-
Thanks, Niel Obstat, that's a lot to think about. The SSPX is a force to be reckoned with, even today.
DiNoia I am suspicious about. I really have no way of knowing much about him, except his JP2 Cultural Institute failure. I am tempted to think he's some agency spook, because of his history with the hideous USCCB.
-
The deal is not dead. If the deal was dead, + Fellay would not have refused to ordain the Dominicans & Franciscans just because they needed 48 hrs. to decide if they would go with him if he signed an agreement with Rome. He would not have gone through with Part 3 of "Against the Rumors" with their ridiculous slogan: "It is only just that we may be more reintegrated into the Church" or exclude + Williamson from the Chapter. Even if he didn't vote, he controled it. His intent is more clear than ever. Nothing short of a miracle will stop him and he knows full well what he's doing. Unfortunately, many will follow him because "they follow anything that moves..." (Henry the VIII in Man For All seasons)
There are shades of Henry VIII in this, I agree. But this story isn't ended.
What you suggest is possible. But other explanations for the data to which you point are possible, and more likely.
The vote on Bishop Williamson is about him and his actions, not the deal. The numbers on whether a deal should be pursued would be at least as strong in exactly the opposite direction.
That doesn't mean Bishop Fellay won't try to pursue a deal anyway, but he will have a hard time pursuing a deal with men who don't want what he has to offer - one of three bishops, and a part of the Fraternity, even if it's the bulk of it.
Rome killed the deal by demanding acceptance of Vatican II, and then buried it at the cross-roads outside town by appointing Muller to head the CDF. You're right that a miracle is needed. But the miracle needed is the one which Bishop Fellay will need to perform on the corpse, after he goes out to the crossroads with his spade and digs it up...
-
The vote on Bishop Williamson is about him and his actions, not the deal.
Your statement has quite the pejorative dint to it - please explain "about him and his actions"?
That doesn't mean Bishop Fellay won't try to pursue a deal anyway, but he will have a hard time pursuing a deal with men who don't want what he has to offer - one of three bishops, and a part of the Fraternity, even if it's the bulk of it.
Not immediately, but he will after purging the best of SSPX. The men he's dealing with will be satisfied with a fragmented Fraternity, although they would rather he delivered it up whole.
-
Thanks, Niel Obstat, that's a lot to think about. The SSPX is a force to be reckoned with, even today.
DiNoia I am suspicious about. I really have no way of knowing much about him, except his JP2 Cultural Institute failure. I am tempted to think he's some agency spook, because of his history with the hideous USCCB.
You're welcome, Elizabeth. I had reservations about putting all that in a thread on
+Fellay's honesty, but it's background for the topic, inasmuch as he is making a
longstanding decision to pursue this rapproachement at all costs.
He seems to be speaking to the SSPX with a "mental reservation," similar to how
B16 speaks with a "mental reservation" about the Third Secret of Fatima. Both are
in a position from which they should be able to see the danger to souls and the
life of faith in Christians, but they choose a more worldly path instead of the
highest law of the Church, which is the salvation of souls. An that, it seems to me,
if it isn't a lie, has the fruit of a lie because it's effects are the same as a lie's effects.
-
Thanks, Niel Obstat, that's a lot to think about. The SSPX is a force to be reckoned with, even today.
DiNoia I am suspicious about. I really have no way of knowing much about him, except his JP2 Cultural Institute failure. I am tempted to think he's some agency spook, because of his history with the hideous USCCB.
In these parts we call them the United States Conference of Communist Bishops. :soapbox:
-
The vote on Bishop Williamson is about him and his actions, not the deal.
Your statement has quite the pejorative dint to it
No, it doesn't, but it's instructive that you take it that way.
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.
- 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.
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).
That doesn't mean Bishop Fellay won't try to pursue a deal anyway, but he will have a hard time pursuing a deal with men who don't want what he has to offer - one of three bishops, and a part of the Fraternity, even if it's the bulk of it.
Not immediately, but he will after purging the best of SSPX. The men he's dealing with will be satisfied with a fragmented Fraternity, although they would rather he delivered it up whole.
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?
And in any case, what is your conviction founded upon? Clearly nothing in the public sphere. There's been no purge so far. Not that I'm hopeful that Mr. Morrison and his readers will let mere facts influence their analysis or their prophecies.
-
The deal was made a long time ago. novus ordo is infamous for lying and covering up.
Why doesn't Bishop Fellay or any other SSPX mention about the pedophilia, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs which is rampant like a disease in Rome and the rest of the novus ordo.
Also, novus ordo has ecuмeical parishes and even replaced Holy Name, Legion of Mary, with ecuмenical group right in catholic church,
There are catholic churches holding service where protestatns hold their service. They share their building. It is done in Georgia and NJ. They say the ecuмenical parish is in Massachusettes.
Also, many good novus ordo priests were kicked out of their parishes and replaced with lutheran, married with children minister..
It seems many give love and obedience to Bishop Fellay instead of God.
-
The vote on Bishop Williamson is about him and his actions, not the deal.
Your statement has quite the pejorative dint to it
No, it doesn't, but it's instructive that you take it that way.
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.
- 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.
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).
That doesn't mean Bishop Fellay won't try to pursue a deal anyway, but he will have a hard time pursuing a deal with men who don't want what he has to offer - one of three bishops, and a part of the Fraternity, even if it's the bulk of it.
Not immediately, but he will after purging the best of SSPX. The men he's dealing with will be satisfied with a fragmented Fraternity, although they would rather he delivered it up whole.
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?
And in any case, what is your conviction founded upon? Clearly nothing in the public sphere. There's been no purge so far. Not that I'm hopeful that Mr. Morrison and his readers will let mere facts influence their analysis or their prophecies.
WHEN IS THE SSPX GOING TO ADDRESS THE SINS AND ACTIONS OF ROME WHICH INCLUDES MANY OF THEIR PRIESTS RAPING INNOCENT CHILDREN, ALTAR SERVERS AND EVEN SEMINARIANS. wHEN ARE THEY GOING TO ADDRESS THE CLERGY WHO IS ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. WHEN IS THE SSPX GOING TO MENTION THE LUKEWARM LIBERAL "SECULAR" CATHOLICS WHO DENY GOD AND HIS COMMANDMENTS. THE SINS AND APOSTACY OF ROME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. IT IS A SIN AGAINST GOD TO REMAIN SILENT AND INDIFFERENT TO SIN. MY PRAYERS ARE WITH SSPX, AND OUR HOLY FATHER SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION AND DEFEAT THE DEVIL.
-
The deal was made a long time ago. novus ordo is infamous for lying and covering up.
Why doesn't Bishop Fellay or any other SSPX mention about the pedophilia, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs which is rampant like a disease in Rome and the rest of the novus ordo.
Also, novus ordo has ecuмeical parishes and even replaced Holy Name, Legion of Mary, with ecuмenical group right in catholic church,
There are catholic churches holding service where protestatns hold their service. They share their building. It is done in Georgia and NJ. They say the ecuмenical parish is in Massachusettes.
Also, many good novus ordo priests were kicked out of their parishes and replaced with lutheran, married with children minister..
It seems many give love and obedience to Bishop Fellay instead of God.
I love God, Our Blessed Mother and the Catholic faith. We cannot be indifferent or silent to sin. Again, we keep Bishop Fellay, SSPX and even the Pope in our prayers.
-
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.
-
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: (http://i2.ifrm.com/16087/138/emo/smiley6.gif)
-
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.
- 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.
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.
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....
-
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:
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...
-
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: (http://i2.ifrm.com/16087/138/emo/smiley6.gif)
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.
-
From page 4 of this thread:
... 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!)
-
It seems to me this thread degraded rather quickly, which isn't suprising around here. After reading the first few pages, it is clear to me where the degradation started.
No, Spiritus S, I don't think GtG was bullying anybody, just fighting back.
-
From page 4 of this thread:
... 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!)
Yes, he was talking about the hybrid "reform of the reform" missal that would begin by dressing up the N.O (which already begun last Advent) and watering down the 1962 (which is being done now) with the idea of having both masses side by side until they convince the indult and N.O crowd that there is no difference between them and releasing the final version: "the reform of the reform" hybrid.
The article you quote above is from The Remnant: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Main%20Remnant%20Site%202011/Archives/2010-0831-mershon-fellay-interview.htm which I posted as an example of +Fellay having no scruples accusing his fellow bishop (Williamson) of gossip. In "The Remnant" article + Fellay is angry about +Williamson's Eleison Comments CLXII (Aug. 21, 2010), I found this link with it:
http://nonnisite.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
EC CLXII ends: "... The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.
Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.
DANGER !
Kyrie eleison
Now we know from the Meeting at Albano that that was exactly one of the conditions: The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" of JPII.
-
From page 4 of this thread:
... 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!)
Yes, he was talking about the hybrid "reform of the reform" missal that would begin by dressing up the N.O (which already begun last Advent) and watering down the 1962 (which is being done now) with the idea of having both masses side by side until they convince the indult and N.O crowd that there is no difference between them and releasing the final version: "the reform of the reform" hybrid.
The article you quote above is from The Remnant: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Main%20Remnant%20Site%202011/Archives/2010-0831-mershon-fellay-interview.htm which I posted as an example of +Fellay having no scruples accusing his fellow bishop (Williamson) of gossip. In "The Remnant" article + Fellay is angry about +Williamson's Eleison Comments CLXII (Aug. 21, 2010), I found this link with it:
http://nonnisite.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
EC CLXII ends: "... The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.
Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.
DANGER !
Kyrie eleison
Now we know from the Meeting at Albano that that was exactly one of the conditions: The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" of JPII.
Incredible duplicity on the part of the Pope and Bp. Fellay.
In effect, this is the next phase to the one-world religion.
They both "scattereth" as our Lord warned and assist the anti-christ.
-
From page 4 of this thread:
... 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!)
Yes, he was talking about the hybrid "reform of the reform" missal that would begin by dressing up the N.O (which already begun last Advent) and watering down the 1962 (which is being done now) with the idea of having both masses side by side until they convince the indult and N.O crowd that there is no difference between them and releasing the final version: "the reform of the reform" hybrid.
The article you quote above is from The Remnant: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Main%20Remnant%20Site%202011/Archives/2010-0831-mershon-fellay-interview.htm which I posted as an example of +Fellay having no scruples accusing his fellow bishop (Williamson) of gossip. In "The Remnant" article + Fellay is angry about +Williamson's Eleison Comments CLXII (Aug. 21, 2010), I found this link with it:
http://nonnisite.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
EC CLXII ends: "... The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.
Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.
DANGER !
Kyrie eleison
Now we know from the Meeting at Albano that that was exactly one of the conditions: The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" of JPII.
Incredible duplicity on the part of the Pope and Bp. Fellay.
In effect, this is the next phase to the one-world religion.
They both "scattereth" as our Lord warned and assist the anti-christ.
Luke xi. 23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
It used to be that converting pagans was rewarded, and it was a goal of the Church.
Now, a priest gets in trouble for converting pagans:
I learned from my friend that about 5 or so years before he was removed from his parish, he had found a priest to teach him the Tridentine Mass. He was removed from the diocese because he was witnessed converting a Buddhist on his deathbed, administering the man's Baptism and hearing his confession.
Since his faculties were removed by the diocese, he has remained underground. He has a Mass daily. That evening his chapel was full with familiar faces from my SSPX chapel (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17753&min=14&num=1).
-
From page 4 of this thread:
... 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!)
Yes, he was talking about the hybrid "reform of the reform" missal that would begin by dressing up the N.O (which already begun last Advent) and watering down the 1962 (which is being done now) with the idea of having both masses side by side until they convince the indult and N.O crowd that there is no difference between them and releasing the final version: "the reform of the reform" hybrid.
The article you quote above is from The Remnant: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Main%20Remnant%20Site%202011/Archives/2010-0831-mershon-fellay-interview.htm which I posted as an example of +Fellay having no scruples accusing his fellow bishop (Williamson) of gossip. In "The Remnant" article + Fellay is angry about +Williamson's Eleison Comments CLXII (Aug. 21, 2010), I found this link with it:
http://nonnisite.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
EC CLXII ends: "... The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.
Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.
DANGER !
Kyrie eleison
Now we know from the Meeting at Albano that that was exactly one of the conditions: The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" of JPII.
Incredible duplicity on the part of the Pope and Bp. Fellay.
In effect, this is the next phase to the one-world religion.
They both "scattereth" as our Lord warned and assist the anti-christ.
Luke xi. 23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
It used to be that converting pagans was rewarded, and it was a goal of the Church.
Now, a priest gets in trouble for converting pagans:
I learned from my friend that about 5 or so years before he was removed from his parish, he had found a priest to teach him the Tridentine Mass. He was removed from the diocese because he was witnessed converting a Buddhist on his deathbed, administering the man's Baptism and hearing his confession.
Since his faculties were removed by the diocese, he has remained underground. He has a Mass daily. That evening his chapel was full with familiar faces from my SSPX chapel (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17753&min=14&num=1).
The 1962 was used as a phase right before the vatican II orginal novus ordo mass which they keep changing. Most parishes even do their own thing including pagan rituals such as liturgical dancing as an example.
Some of the new changes to the novus ordo mass was to take certain parts of Latin mass and combining in English form of novus ordo mass.
A priest recently got thrown out of novus ordo washington DC diocese for refusing to give communion to lesbian budist. So, there is no surpise to learn that priest gets in trouble for converting pagans.
With novus ordo, if you are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, liberals etc. get rewarded just like the pedophile who were protected for so many years while at the same time they were excommunicating traditional catholics over disobedience.
The novus ordor act like a bunch of communists by closing churches and schools and allowing secular to buy or rent these properties.
-
No, Spiritus S, I don't think GtG was bullying anybody, just fighting back.
Wrong.
-
No, Spiritus S, I don't think GtG was bullying anybody, just fighting back.
Wrong.
SS, your posts on Cathinfo have become, at least in the SSPX debate area, a lot like Angelqueen was back around 2006. Lacking substantive arguments and getting nasty with those who disagree with you.
-
No, Spiritus S, I don't think GtG was bullying anybody, just fighting back.
Wrong.
SS, your posts on Cathinfo have become, at least in the SSPX debate area, a lot like Angelqueen was back around 2006. Lacking substantive arguments and getting nasty with those who disagree with you.
You're entitled to your opinion.
-
From page 4 of this thread:
... 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!)
Yes, he was talking about the hybrid "reform of the reform" missal that would begin by dressing up the N.O (which already begun last Advent) and watering down the 1962 (which is being done now) with the idea of having both masses side by side until they convince the indult and N.O crowd that there is no difference between them and releasing the final version: "the reform of the reform" hybrid.
The article you quote above is from The Remnant: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Main%20Remnant%20Site%202011/Archives/2010-0831-mershon-fellay-interview.htm which I posted as an example of +Fellay having no scruples accusing his fellow bishop (Williamson) of gossip. In "The Remnant" article + Fellay is angry about +Williamson's Eleison Comments CLXII (Aug. 21, 2010), I found this link with it:
http://nonnisite.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
EC CLXII ends: "... The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.
Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.
DANGER !
Kyrie eleison
Now we know from the Meeting at Albano that that was exactly one of the conditions: The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" of JPII.
Incredible duplicity on the part of the Pope and Bp. Fellay.
In effect, this is the next phase to the one-world religion.
They both "scattereth" as our Lord warned and assist the anti-christ.
Luke xi. 23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
It used to be that converting pagans was rewarded, and it was a goal of the Church.
Now, a priest gets in trouble for converting pagans:
I learned from my friend that about 5 or so years before he was removed from his parish, he had found a priest to teach him the Tridentine Mass. He was removed from the diocese because he was witnessed converting a Buddhist on his deathbed, administering the man's Baptism and hearing his confession.
Since his faculties were removed by the diocese, he has remained underground. He has a Mass daily. That evening his chapel was full with familiar faces from my SSPX chapel (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17753&min=14&num=1).
This is a dramatic and beautiful story.
Thanks for telling it.
The traditional Catholic priest of the remnant have true zeal for souls.
-
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.
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.
+Fellay was quoted in CFN back in October 2010 (http://www.cfnews.org/fellay-40th.htm#_ftnref2) saying this:
Bishop Fellay noted that Pope Benedict does not like the New Mass. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated in print that it is a “banal on-the-spot fabrication.” He prefers the Old Mass, and there is word he celebrates it from time to time. Yet due to the pressure from bishops, he allows himself to be intimidated into not celebrating it publicly.
The opposition is so fierce from the progressivists that even mildly conservative Novus Ordo prelates are denounced as “ultra conservative.”
Along the same line, in 2007 the Vatican noted that “pro multis” in the words of consecration must be translated as “for many”, since “for all” is inaccurate. The German bishops recently stated that in spite of the Vatican’s order, they plan to keep “for all,” because – and this is priceless – “it is tradition, and we have to keep to tradition.”
If Bishop Fellay lied, perhaps it's because he's been schmoozing with Vatican liars,
and these German bishop liars who say they "must keep to tradition," and he is
learning their vices and bad habits? -- If so, that's all the more reason to stay
away from these Modernists!