Author Topic: Few will leave if there is an accord (Read 6592 times)

Ethelred · « **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2012, 02:39:39 PM »

Quote from: Dawn M A

Quote from: John Grace
[..]
I don't believe Dawn Marie in relation to this [..]

With the 'Williamson Affair' and with 'Krahgate' it became obvious the 'hard liners' are few and far between.

A deal is a reality and resisting clerics will be expelled. Of course Bishop Fellay still desires a deal with Rome.

I find it hard to believe myself John, considering what Fr. Phluger has done over the last several years including the 10 page hate filled letter given to Bishop Williamson.

Having said that I do not discount it totally because Fr. Phluger may at least have a modicuм of common sense to recognize that the opposition is to overwhelming for them to get away with it.

A maybe interesting anecdote concerning this hate letter of Fr Pfluger (not Phluger) to Bishop Williamson in the end of 2010 respectively in the beginning of 2011:

Max Krah not only helped Fr Pfluger in writing this vicious letter (generally speaking both men work together very closely), but the original electronic letter shows as docuмent creator this: MK. (You can view the properties of the PDF file to see this.)
Well, this of course is the Mossad friend Max Krah's initials "MK", which he also used as nickname for hundreds of modernistic postings on German Internet forums during the recent years. These initials in that hate letter prove that the letter was even created on Max Krah's computer. Maybe he has some template from the Mossad for this? They're very good in propaganda warfare.

No, don't trust Fr Pfluger (or Bp Fellay). He implanted the Mossad man Krah into the SSPX and is his mentor. If you look at the words and actions of Fr Pfluger and Bp Fellay of the last years, and in particular of the last months, there's the logical working assumption that Fr Pfluger and Bp Fellay can't be as silly as it looks like. So their words and actions are happening intentionally. And so they got backers who work for the enemies of Our Lord.

A deserved and influential priestly follower of the Archbishop labeled with good reason Fr. Pfluger as The Daemon of the SSPX. And this good priest does not easily say that.

JPaul · « **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2012, 02:55:14 PM »

It is very likely that Mr. Krah will be a de facto member of the chapter, both hearing what he is not supposed to hear as well advising his "clients" when he has no place to do so. That is to say, advancing his handler's agenda within the Chapter.

Dawn M A · « **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:24:47 PM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Dawn M A
Quote from: John Grace
[..]
I don't believe Dawn Marie in relation to this [..]

With the 'Williamson Affair' and with 'Krahgate' it became obvious the 'hard liners' are few and far between.

A deal is a reality and resisting clerics will be expelled. Of course Bishop Fellay still desires a deal with Rome.

I find it hard to believe myself John, considering what Fr. Phluger has done over the last several years including the 10 page hate filled letter given to Bishop Williamson.

Having said that I do not discount it totally because Fr. Phluger may at least have a modicuм of common sense to recognize that the opposition is to overwhelming for them to get away with it.

A maybe interesting anecdote concerning this hate letter of Fr Pfluger (not Phluger) to Bishop Williamson in the end of 2010 respectively in the beginning of 2011:

Max Krah not only helped Fr Pfluger in writing this vicious letter (generally speaking both men work together very closely), but the original electronic letter shows as docuмent creator this: MK. (You can view the properties of the PDF file to see this.)
Well, this of course is the Mossad friend Max Krah's initials "MK", which he also used as nickname for hundreds of modernistic postings on German Internet forums during the recent years. These initials in that hate letter prove that the letter was even created on Max Krah's computer. Maybe he has some template from the Mossad for this? They're very good in propaganda warfare.

No, don't trust Fr Pfluger (or Bp Fellay). He implanted the Mossad man Krah into the SSPX and is his mentor. If you look at the words and actions of Fr Pfluger and Bp Fellay of the last years, and in particular of the last months, there's the logical working assumption that Fr Pfluger and Bp Fellay can't be as silly as it looks like. So their words and actions are happening intentionally. And so they got backers who work for the enemies of Our Lord.

A deserved and influential priestly follower of the Archbishop labeled with good reason Fr. Pfluger as The Daemon of the SSPX. And this good priest does not easily say that.

I'm aware of the Krah but I was not aware of the MK info on the docuмent.
Thank you for your answer, it gives me much to consider.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:34:47 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

It is very likely that Mr. Krah will be a de facto member of the chapter, both hearing what he is not supposed to hear as well advising his "clients" when he has no place to do so. That is to say, advancing his handler's agenda within the Chapter.

:applause:

I bet you are right!

Ethelred · « **Reply #19 on:** July 10, 2012, 02:55:45 AM »

Quote from: Dawn M A

I'm aware of the Krah but I was not aware of the MK info on the docuмent.
Thank you for your answer, it gives me much to consider.

Being at it, I just saw John's bumping of an old thread, which can be helpful however to this thread, too:
Bp. Williamson verifies essential truth of docuмents

(There I linked to the Internet postings of Krah with his two nicknames "Pius XII" and "MK28".)

P.S.
In an humorously way the initials MK not only stand for Max Krah but also for Mossad Krah.
Actually I think this is very funny.

1917 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 10, 2012, 08:02:17 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

John,

You are probably right about the chapter. Judging from Bishop Fellay's recent, and not so recent, actions,I do not think he would have allowed the Chapter if he was in any peril and its end was not a foregone conclusion. As was floated before ,they are likely to announce the structure and terms of the agreement, not debate it.
But one must pause to remember the statements and activities of Bishops Mueller, and DiNoia. How does Bishop Fellay get around it when they have truly blown away any cover or ambiquity surrounding Rome's intentions to reconfigure the Society? It seems that it will be much harder, if not impossible, to convince priests who are wavering and concerned that it would be a good thing to move forward. But the current crop of priests has been conditioned to this over the last ten years.
I would also think that some opposers might have kept quite so as not to be excluded from the Chapter? However, Bishop Fellay could simply refuse to acknowledge the Chapter's authority to deny his power to do as he wills.
That being in accordance with the groundwork of statements claiming his sole authority within the Society.

Perhaps B Fellay is meant to sign ... God allow's things to happen for ultimate good. Perhaps the SSPX will be absorbed into the Church ... and be no longer visible. Perhaps the 'visible' Church will continue to become more and more modern until it becomes invisible. Those who remain faithful to Archbishop L will be persecuted, go underground, etc... And then when the time is right ... all very melodramatic but maybe that is what is coming?
Perhaps more priests will come forward should the agreement go ahead and either a new SSPX will go forward or many will be independant.
God's will be done

JPaul · « **Reply #21 on:** July 10, 2012, 08:20:57 AM »

Quote from: 1917

Quote from: J.Paul
John,

You are probably right about the chapter. Judging from Bishop Fellay's recent, and not so recent, actions,I do not think he would have allowed the Chapter if he was in any peril and its end was not a foregone conclusion. As was floated before ,they are likely to announce the structure and terms of the agreement, not debate it.
But one must pause to remember the statements and activities of Bishops Mueller, and DiNoia. How does Bishop Fellay get around it when they have truly blown away any cover or ambiquity surrounding Rome's intentions to reconfigure the Society? It seems that it will be much harder, if not impossible, to convince priests who are wavering and concerned that it would be a good thing to move forward. But the current crop of priests has been conditioned to this over the last ten years.
I would also think that some opposers might have kept quite so as not to be excluded from the Chapter? However, Bishop Fellay could simply refuse to acknowledge the Chapter's authority to deny his power to do as he wills.
That being in accordance with the groundwork of statements claiming his sole authority within the Society.

Perhaps B Fellay is meant to sign ... God allow's things to happen for ultimate good. Perhaps the SSPX will be absorbed into the Church ... and be no longer visible. Perhaps the 'visible' Church will continue to become more and more modern until it becomes invisible. Those who remain faithful to Archbishop L will be persecuted, go underground, etc... And then when the time is right ... all very melodramatic but maybe that is what is coming?
Perhaps more priests will come forward should the agreement go ahead and either a new SSPX will go forward or many will be independant.
God's will be done

Pehaps this is so. If the Society is indeed dragged into an agreement, then our only concern with them, at that point, will be to avoid them.
We will remain faithful with those priests who do the same.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #22 on:** July 10, 2012, 09:13:01 AM »

From "Capablanca" on IA:

Quote

For Pete's sake, what does it take to get through to those who don't want to believe it ? The deal is dead. The single most fanatical accordista in the SSPX was Bishop Fellay and he has announced that it is clearly impossible to sign what he has been asked to sign.

There are big issues to be discussed about the present and future of the SSPX but whether a deal is imminent isn't one of them. The deal is dead.

And it has been killed by "Rome" - they have deliberately raised the stakes to a level they knew perfectly well to be unacceptable. And since they have done so they are no longer even pretending to be traditional. Ratzi's mask has fallen even further - and it was already somewhere around his ankles ! Once the letter of the three bishops was "leaked" (as intended) they had won - Fellay had no united SSPX to deliver. The Vatican wasn't interested in half or even two thirds or three quarters.

I am getting the impression that the most fervent pro-accordistas and the most fervent anti-accordistas are the only ones who haven't got the message that there is no longer a deal on the menu to refuse. It's over.

The immediate question is whether Bishop Fellay, despite having ruined the Society's (apparent) unity for nothing can still cling to power. He deserves to lose it, but that is because he has failed, not because he might succeed.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #23 on:** July 10, 2012, 03:08:12 PM »

I agree with Capablanca that Rome has killed the deal, but haven't ruled out that if +Fellay continues on for six more years that he'll remove the most vocal opponents and then try again.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #24 on:** July 10, 2012, 04:56:29 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

From "Capablanca" on IA:

Quote
For Pete's sake, what does it take to get through to those who don't want to believe it ? The deal is dead. The single most fanatical accordista in the SSPX was Bishop Fellay and he has announced that it is clearly impossible to sign what he has been asked to sign.

There are big issues to be discussed about the present and future of the SSPX but whether a deal is imminent isn't one of them. The deal is dead.

And it has been killed by "Rome" - they have deliberately raised the stakes to a level they knew perfectly well to be unacceptable. And since they have done so they are no longer even pretending to be traditional. Ratzi's mask has fallen even further - and it was already somewhere around his ankles ! Once the letter of the three bishops was "leaked" (as intended) they had won - Fellay had no united SSPX to deliver. The Vatican wasn't interested in half or even two thirds or three quarters.

I am getting the impression that the most fervent pro-accordistas and the most fervent anti-accordistas are the only ones who haven't got the message that there is no longer a deal on the menu to refuse. It's over.

The immediate question is whether Bishop Fellay, despite having ruined the Society's (apparent) unity for nothing can still cling to power. He deserves to lose it, but that is because he has failed, not because he might succeed.

The deal is absolutely not dead. Only because information flowed too freely, +Fellay changed his rhetoric and put the grand finale on hold for a short while. Menzigen will begin purges immediately after the Chapter while saying "see, +Fellay was looking out for us all along, and we must be rid of those who caused dissension". The good priests who spoke the truth will be forced to publicly recant, or get pitched out the gate with "sedevacantist" tattooed across their foreheads.
There's also evidence at least one was fed a barium meal, and unfortunately may be made out to be a fool for mentioning it in an otherwise brilliant sermon, but more on that if it comes to pass.

Kelley · « **Reply #25 on:** July 10, 2012, 06:21:20 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

I agree with Capablanca that Rome has killed the deal, but haven't ruled out that if +Fellay continues on for six more years that he'll remove the most vocal opponents and then try again.

The decree reads:
Extermination of All Opposition

Buckle up! We're entering into the "Laity Faze"...
Sacramental extortion coming to a Chapel near you.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #26 on:** July 10, 2012, 08:00:20 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

The deal is absolutely not dead. Only because information flowed too freely, +Fellay changed his rhetoric and put the grand finale on hold for a short while. Menzigen will begin purges immediately after the Chapter while saying "see, +Fellay was looking out for us all along, and we must be rid of those who caused dissension". The good priests who spoke the truth will be forced to publicly recant, or get pitched out the gate with "sedevacantist" tattooed across their foreheads.
There's also evidence at least one was fed a barium meal, and unfortunately may be made out to be a fool for mentioning it in an otherwise brilliant sermon, but more on that if it comes to pass.

Charles,

Were you drinking heavily when you wrote the above? Could you perhaps re-write it when you're sober?

Thanks.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #27 on:** July 10, 2012, 08:50:18 PM »

Are you really going to bring all that drama from Ignis over to CathInfo, Benson? :smoke-pot:

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #28 on:** July 10, 2012, 10:13:19 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Charles,

Were you drinking heavily when you wrote the above? Could you perhaps re-write it when you're sober?

Thanks.

Neither drinking nor Charles, but if any part needs further explanation for you, ask.
It's a rough approximation of how Menzigen will proceed, from a source closer to the strategy room than anyone on Ignis (so far as I know).

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #29 on:** July 10, 2012, 10:16:05 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Are you really going to bring all that drama from Ignis over to CathInfo, Benson? :smoke-pot:

I'm sorry, but again and again you display the greatest confusion over facts.

I'm not, and never was, Benson. The double-ID poster on IA accused me of that quite falsely, and I can only imagine that was because, as I always say, we all judge by our own standards, so that guilty minds imagine that others share their guilt. The same principle illustrates why good people are generally naive, and wicked people cynical. People with doubtful motives are always ready to accuse others of evil intent.

As for bringing "drama" here, go and have a look at the aggressive and nasty posts Charles St-George has made here against John Lane, then you can work out who has brought "drama" here from elsewhere.

At least his dragon didn't arrive in his train, as usually seems to happen.

Now, back to the topic. Did you understand what Charles wrote above? I didn't, and I don't usually have any difficulty with reading comprehension. Perhaps you could explain it.