INSIDE STORY – III

November 1, 2014
Number CCCLXXXI (381)

 
The modern world and Vatican II are wrong.
And Bishop F.? Mistaken all along.

To continue the story of Our Lady’s messages to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) six years ago, some background is needed. Vatican II (1962–1965) wrenched the Catholic Church off course to reconcile it with the godless modern world. Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) founded the SSPX in 1970 to help Catholics to stay on course, and for 21 years he kept it on course. But as soon as he died, mistakenly convinced (or self-deluded, God knows) that they were still following him, his younger successors in fact dreamt of a reconciliation with Conciliar Rome.

In 2000 the Conciliar leaders sat up and took notice of the SSPX when it made a highly successful Jubilee pilgrimage to the Basilicas of Rome. Public (as opposed to private) contacts were re-opened between the SSPX and the Romans, who now set about swallowing that SSPX which they had proved unable to spit out. “Let us talk,” they said. The SSPX leaders appeared to be wary: “You must prove your good will by liberating the Tridentine Mass and lifting the excommunications imposed on the SSPX bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988.” Little then happened, at least in public, because on both sides the idea of reconciliation needed to mature, but in 2006 Bishop Fellay, SSPX ringleader of the reconciliation, was re-elected Superior General. As we have seen, this was soon after Our Lady began to intervene with the messages of which we are telling the story.

In 2006 her desire for a Rosary Crusade for Russia’s Consecration was adopted by Bishop Fellay, but re-directed by him towards the first pre-condition for talks with Rome, the liberation of the Mass. In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition, the lifting of the excommunications, whereas Our Lady, immediately after the Motu Proprio, began a series of messages in August of 2007 insistently requesting that any second Rosary Crusade be dedicated to the Consecration of Russia. But Bishop Fellay would not commit himself because he knew that this Consecration did not appeal to the Romans. They wanted talks, and so did he, to reconcile the irreconcilable, Vatican II and Catholic Tradition. Now we can continue with the story.

In early 2008 Our Lady, observing how the Bishop was still hesitating, told him quite firmly through the messenger that he was “not to use the (second) Crusade for the intention of lifting the excommunications,” and that if he did, “it would be fatal for the Society of St Pius X.” She added that she would not bless any such effort, but would instead use the rosaries prayed by the faithful for other purposes. And on March 22, Holy Saturday, she said most specifically, “Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.” And she repeated, “Remember, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.”

Let the story again be interrupted to point out how pertinent this message was for the defence of the Faith, and how perfectly this inside story corresponds to the outside facts. At the head of the last worldwide bastion of the true Faith, Bishop Fellay is being tempted to put it back under the Conciliar Romans, terrible enemies of that Faith. Because he does not understand the modern world, he believes that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and he trusts in the good intentions of its authorities (on the contrary Archbishop Lefebvre, after years of negotiations with the Roman authorities, described them – in private – as “a snake”). So if this inside story is true, and if Bishop Fellay makes the wrong decision, the SSPX is doomed. What happened? (To be continued.)

Kyrie eleison.

IMHO this is no way to reveal a message from the Mother of God, by a prince of the Church no less. Such a message should be delivered with a little more dignity than a Saturday morning serial.

IMHO this is no way to reveal a message from the Mother of God, by a prince of the Church no less. Such a message should be delivered with a little more dignity than a Saturday morning serial.

I agree.  But in this way, there is always a chance to adjust the story.  You can see how the bishop modified his first assertion:

From:

So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.

To:

In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition

However, one needs to recall the original intentions in the crusade:

Along the same lines, the Chapter asks me to communicate to you the following ambitious project: The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.

These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:

1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.

2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

So, the pre-condition was to completely free up the Mass of all time. How could such pre-condition be partially satisfied? Freeing partially the Mass? Then the pre-condition would not be satisfied at all.

And, if the crusade had been blessed by the Blessed Virgin Mary, how come it rendered an incomplete success?

I am sorry, I stand corrected and I am happy to know that one cannot trace an address by searching a picture.

Nevertheless, I maintain that I would feel unsafe if I found a picture of my home in a polemic context.

In early 2008 Our Lady, observing how the Bishop was still hesitating, told him quite firmly through the messenger that he was “not to use the (second) Crusade for the intention of lifting the excommunications,” and that if he did, “it would be fatal for the Society of St Pius X.” She added that she would not bless any such effort, but would instead use the rosaries prayed by the faithful for other purposes. And on March 22, Holy Saturday, she said most specifically, “Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.” And she repeated, “Remember, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.”

Told you so.  I was ruthelessly attacked in the other thread.  Bishop Williamson is using the vision narrative to prop up the Resistance and attack +Fellay.

There's no way Our Lady would ever say, "Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is".  That's Bishop Williamson's rhetoric which Dawn Marie put back into the mouth of Our Lady.  To have a problem with moving "closer to Rome", aka the Vicar of Christ, is simply not from God.  Has there ever been any vision in the recorded history of the Church in which Our Lady advised disobedience to the Vicar of Christ?

Quote from: JMacQ

If this is a picture of her residence, I think it should not be posted. Crazy, fraud, or true visionary, she has the right not to feel unsafe. I would feel unsafe if someone posted a picture of my home, especially if this was done within a polemic context. My opinion.

It is, and there's nothing there which would identify its location. HOWEVER, pilgrims have a right to know!!

You do claim to be a christian right? I think scuм is more like it let me see if I can find a picture of your house chum and see how you like it. What a sleaze.

Ladislaus:

Told you so.  I was ruthelessly attacked in the other thread.  Bishop Williamson is using the vision narrative to prop up the Resistance and attack +Fellay.

Hmm!  Who "ruthlessly" attacked you , Lad?  You and I had a few go arounds on that thread, but certainly nothing "ruthless."  You're being a bit dramatic, aren't you?

Richard:

You (ultra?) do claim to be a christian right? I think scuм is more like it let me see if I can find a picture of your house chum and see how you like it. What a sleaze.

If you refer to ultra, then yes, "scuм" and "sleaze" occur to me also.  I think it will probably be only a matter of minutes before ultra's knuckle-dragging companions will come loping back in. The bishop has deliberately, I think, led with his chin.   The rest of the forum's creepy-crawlies will undoubtedly line up to have their shot.   H.E. does not treat the communications with Our Lady as if they were a possible fiction.  He buys in utterly, as his words indicate.