The District Superior's US chapel visits remain a popular event.


Report from Mr. Silverfarb, SSPX Reno:

His homely was a briefing to the political situation of the SSPX towards Rome. He stated that:

1. Bp. Fellay is staying firm regarding the preservation of the tradition.
 
2. He is currently back-tracking from the negotiations with Rome, because the  
    Holy Father, who apparently did not want to impose V2 upon the Society, now
    wants the SSPX to accept it.  He acknowledged the Pope was guilty of
    double-talk.

3. Fr. Rostand complained of personal attacks against Bp. Fellay
    by "sedevacantists".

4. Fr. Rostand reaffirmed his allegiance to the Pope, in hoping that in the future
    there will be some favorable outcome towards the restoration of the Church.


After Mass, the District Superior took questions.

I bluntly confronted him by stating that the Pope is evil.
To support my accusations, I made references to two articles from Chiesa Viva about the Satanic Miters of Benedict XVI.

I then suggested to Fr. Rostand that the reason of the personal attacks against Bp. Fellay were likely due to his ban against the publication of the Sermons of Monseigneur Marcel Lefêbvre.
 
I told him that before the ban perhaps a hundred copies were distributed, and
were now circulating throughout the world, and that I had read the three
volumes. I was made to understand Monseigeur Lefebvre' s true positions against consiliar Rome and was outraged that Bp. Fellay would keep them from the public.

I further explained that at such a ban on the Sermons was "like kicking a bees-nest", thus explaining the "personal attacks".

Ignoring my point, the District Superior told me that what I had "done was illegal".

So, I conclude by asking: My reading of Monseigneur Lefebrve's sermons is "illegal", but towards which laws?

Is it the Laws of Truth, or the laws of the money-changers whom Our Lord chased-out with whips after kicking their tables!

END

The District Superior's US chapel visits remain a popular event.

I then suggested to Fr. Rostand that the reason of the personal attacks against Bp. Fellay were likely due to his ban against the publication of the Sermons of Monseigneur Marcel Lefêbvre.END[/b]

I had not heard anything about a ban on Archbishop Lefebvre's books. Which books are you speaking about? When was this done? Was it at Angelus Press when they were to be re-published? Can I get a copy of these?

The District Superior's US chapel visits remain a popular event.


Report from Mr. Silverfarb, SSPX Reno:

His [homily] was a briefing to the political situation of the SSPX towards Rome. He stated that:

1. Bp. Fellay is staying firm regarding the preservation of the tradition.
 
2. He is currently back-tracking from the negotiations with Rome, because the  
    Holy Father, who apparently did not want to impose V2 upon the Society, now
    wants the SSPX to accept it.  He acknowledged the Pope was guilty of
    double-talk.

Let's face it: History will not be so forgiving of B16. We will all see the day when
it becomes commonplace to use much stronger language to describe what he has
done, if God grants us a few more years of life!

3. Fr. Rostand complained of personal attacks against Bp. Fellay
    by "sedevacantists".

There are no doubt a few sedes who will be proud they've been noticed, but only
a few. Most of them are puzzled at Fr. Rostand's "double-talk!"

4. Fr. Rostand reaffirmed his allegiance to the Pope, in hoping that in the future
    there will be some favorable outcome towards the restoration of the Church.


After Mass, the District Superior took questions.

I bluntly confronted him by stating that the Pope is evil.
To support my accusations, I made references to two articles from Chiesa Viva about the Satanic Miters of Benedict XVI.

Well, it seems you got away with it this time, but it could have been a mistake.
I would recommend to others that we avoid any mention of the "satanic miters"
problem, not because it's not valid, but because they are going to find a way to
turn that against us, by criticizing our reliance on Internet rumors, or chasing
after fables, or being disrespectful of the Papacy, or whatever. I'd say, "don't
open that door." Don't give them the chance to attack on detail and ignore much
more consequential ones. These satanic miters might be the least of their
obstacles, once they figure out how to cope with it.

I then suggested to Fr. Rostand that the reason of the personal attacks against Bp. Fellay were likely due to his ban against the publication of the Sermons of Monseigneur Marcel Lefêbvre.
 
I told him that before the ban perhaps a hundred copies were distributed, and
were now circulating throughout the world, and that I had read the three
volumes. I was made to understand Monseigeur Lefebvre's true positions against [Conciliar] Rome and was outraged that Bp. Fellay would keep them from the public.

Now this is good. This is what I'd call a "body blow." You got him in the ribs.

I further explained that at such a ban on the Sermons was "like kicking a bee's-nest," thus explaining the "personal attacks."

Ignoring my point, the District Superior told me that what I had "done was illegal."

This is how you know you've struck pay dirt: he ignores your point!
What to do? DON'T GIVE UP! That's what he wants you to do. Rather, you should
have a backup question, or perhaps two. And I might add that it is most effective
when you begin with a softball body-blow question, because then when he tries to
ignore it, you follow up with a more SERIOUS question, with MORE biting grip.
Think of how a Pit Bull's jaw locks down so that it does not have to try to keep
pressure on its victim, because his jaw's geometry keeps it tight automatically. If
the answer man attempts to divert the topic, pull him back with an even TOUGHER
question, on the same principle.

For example, you could ask why Angelus Press has allowed I Accuse the
Council to become depleted and out of stock, and it's not being reprinted or
made available as a e-book online? Follow that up with asking, "Isn't Angelus
Press in the business of selling books? When a popular title like I Accuse the
Council isn't reprinted, Angelus Press is throwing away business!! At least
make it available as a e-book, for crying out loud!"

So, I [concluded] by asking: My reading of Monseigneur Lefebrve's sermons is "illegal," but towards which laws?

Is it the Laws of Truth, or the laws of the money-changers whom Our Lord chased-out with whips after kicking their tables![/color]  GOOD ONE!

END

Bp. Fellay is staying firm regarding the preservation of the tradition

I had to laugh reading this. Fr Rostand might believe this but the reality is Bishop Fellay is weaselling around for certain. It's well docuмented and based on his own words and actions and not based on "internet rumour".

All you have to do is present what Bishop Fellay has said and written. Bishop Fellay is bad news.

Quote from: Incredulous

The District Superior's US chapel visits remain a popular event.

I then suggested to Fr. Rostand that the reason of the personal attacks against Bp. Fellay were likely due to his ban against the publication of the Sermons of Monseigneur Marcel Lefêbvre.END[/b]

I had not heard anything about a ban on Archbishop Lefebvre's books. Which books are you speaking about? When was this done? Was it at Angelus Press when they were to be re-published? Can I get a copy of these?

Paraphrased from http://www.virgo-maria.org

Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger directly deposited a criminal complaint against Fr. Schoonbroodt (a long time friend of ABL) before the Public Prosecutor in Belgium.

The complaint accused Fr. Schoonbroodt (a good and holy 80+ year old Priest) of "theft" of intellectual property "owned" by the SSPX (i.e. the public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre).  Essentially they attempted to block the release of these sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre they kept hidden for 20 years as they shed light on Menzingen's agenda in the sanitization / revision of ABL.  

Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah accused Fr. Schoonbroodt of libel for referring to the association's financial Bishop and business lawyer in the joint management of several investment companies.

Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah also accused Fr. Schoonbroodt of racism and xenophobia.

Faced with these startling accusations from the two successors of Archbishop Lefebvre and their lawyer, Fr. Schoonbroodt made a statement in which he strongly rejects these accusations.

Fr. Schoonbroodt has since died from injuries he recently received in a car accident.

2. He is currently back-tracking from the negotiations with Rome, because the  
    Holy Father, who apparently did not want to impose V2 upon the Society, now
    wants the SSPX to accept it.  He acknowledged the Pope was guilty of
    double-talk.

So the "sedes" are responsible for this?

Quote from: JuanDiego

Quote from: Incredulous

The District Superior's US chapel visits remain a popular event.

I then suggested to Fr. Rostand that the reason of the personal attacks against Bp. Fellay were likely due to his ban against the publication of the Sermons of Monseigneur Marcel Lefêbvre.END[/b]

I had not heard anything about a ban on Archbishop Lefebvre's books. Which books are you speaking about? When was this done? Was it at Angelus Press when they were to be re-published? Can I get a copy of these?

Paraphrased from http://www.virgo-maria.org

Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger directly deposited a criminal complaint against Fr. Schoonbroodt (a long time friend of ABL) before the Public Prosecutor in Belgium.

The complaint accused Fr. Schoonbroodt (a good and holy 80+ year old Priest) of "theft" of intellectual property "owned" by the SSPX (i.e. the public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre).  Essentially they attempted to block the release of these sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre they kept hidden for 20 years as they shed light on Menzingen's agenda in the sanitization / revision of ABL.  

Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah accused Fr. Schoonbroodt of libel for referring to the association's financial Bishop and business lawyer in the joint management of several investment companies.

Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah also accused Fr. Schoonbroodt of racism and xenophobia.

Faced with these startling accusations from the two successors of Archbishop Lefebvre and their lawyer, Fr. Schoonbroodt made a statement in which he strongly rejects these accusations.

Fr. Schoonbroodt has since died from injuries he recently received in a car accident.

I didn't know the Schoonbroot court case was so bad.  

Max Krah is such a versatile lawyer! We should applaud Msgr. Fellay for hiring a this efficient human resource and legal asset.

Trumped-up charges of "Racism, and Xenophobia" are surely Dr. Krah's specialty.



 

Report from Mr. Silverfarb, SSPX Reno:

His homely was a briefing to the political situation of the SSPX towards Rome. He stated that:

1. Bp. Fellay is staying firm regarding the preservation of the tradition.

[

2. He is currently back-tracking from the negotiations with Rome, because the  
    Holy Father, who apparently did not want to impose V2 upon the Society, now
    wants the SSPX to accept it.  He acknowledged the Pope was guilty of
    double-talk. [

This is the communist tactic of "2 steps forward and one step back".  After proper re- education of the priests and then the faithful, the opposition will be quelled, and they can take 2 steps forward again.