Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: First Time in English: Bishop Fellay's Plan?  (Read 5339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

First Time in English: Bishop Fellay's Plan?
« on: March 10, 2019, 11:44:26 PM »
In 2007, French SSPX priest, Fr. Gregoire Celier, wrote a book called "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists."

It was a hallucination which seems in many respects to have been adopted by Bishop Fellay as the blueprint for the ralliement.

The book was subjected to a remarkable critique by a Frenchman named Paul Chaussee, who it seems to us has hit the nail on the head.

Because of the length of the critique (42 pages/7 of endnotes), I am attaching the translation, rather than copy/pasting it.

If you study any one single docuŠ¼ent regarding the ralliement of the SSPX, and desire to know its causes and methods, YOU NEED TO STUDY THIS DOcuŠ¼ENT.

THIS

IS

IT!

PS: You will need to log in to see/read/download the translation.
Logged

Offline X

Re: First Time in English: Bishop Fellay's Plan?
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2019, 06:13:16 AM »
Shameless bump.

This article needs the widest possible diffusion.

It is THE explanation.

Like the first time you read "The Protocols of Zion," you will catch yourself thinking, "My goodness, this has ALREADY happened!"
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: First Time in English: Bishop Fellay's Plan?
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2019, 06:15:13 AM »
As time permits, I will translate and upload Mr. Chaussee's three appendices, which help to further pull back the mask.
Logged

Offline Meg

Re: First Time in English: Bishop Fellay's Plan?
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2019, 01:36:50 PM »
I've only read the first 26 pages. It seems a very good analysis of Fr. Celier's book by Paul Chaussee. The views of Fr. Celier are kind of scary, and I'm surprised that he was even ordained in Econe.

There do seem to be correlations between Fr. Celeir's views and the views of Bp. Fellay, (and Fr. Pagliarani?). Hopefully, someone will compare and write up a good analysis of this. I can't quite tell when Paul Chaussee's analysis was written, but it looks to have been when Pope Benedict was still Pope.

The main thing that Mr. Chaussee keeps pointing out is that neo-Modernism isn't really properly understood. Here are a couple of paragraphs from page 26, which are quite insightful:

"THESE ARE WHAT WE CALL VERY DANGEROUS PROPOSALS"

"Because what is dangerous is their effects. These proposals tend to push the superiors of the Society to engage in discussions that will quickly become negotiations where, by nature, one must concede one thing to obtain or preserve another thing deemed preferable. In this case, with interlocutors of bad "faith" - remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said - we have much more to lose than to gain, and because we have nothing to give up, any concession is then a loss. This is proven by all of the agreements of the Ecclesia Dei rallies.

However, this fact escapes most of the faithful who do not understand what neo-Modernism is (an almost incurable disease of the intelligence and soul from which the Pope himself is suffering), they will fantasize about peace, unity and reconciliation, and aspire so much to these "agreements" that they will forget prudence and patience and come to accuse our superiors of lacking diplpmacy, being too demanding or even betraying them by sectarianism! And these "faithful", more impatient than faithful, will abandon the fraternity to join the rallies of the Good Shepherd or Saint Peter who await them with open arms, all abandoning the doctrinal struggle to be at peace with Rome."
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: First Time in English: Bishop Fellay's Plan?
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2019, 02:03:48 PM »
Modernists think long-term; the new-sspx and most of their laity is thinking short-term.

Modernists think "If I can get the sspx to accept most of V2, to accept a new-rite bishop, to accept new-rite sacraments, then in 30 years, once all their current bishops are dead, I can replace the "conservative" new-rite bishops with whomever I choose."  The new-sspx/laity thinks "If we can be accepted by new-rome, then they'll change (somehow) for the good."

Modernists think "If I can gain control of the new-sspx's property and get them to pledge obedience to new-rome, then if we start pressuring them to be more liberal, they'll have no choice but to slowly liberalize because they can't say no, since they have no chapels or nowhere else to go."  The new-sspx/laity thinks "If new-rome gives us a personal prelature, then we'll be able to continue doing what we're doing and nothing will change for the worse."

The fact of the matter is, new-rome has all the authority, control and negotiating power once the new-sspx signs a deal.  New-rome knows this, which is why they are perfectly content to give a prelature, to "legalize" the old mass, to "give jurisdiction for confessions" because all these things can be changed in the future.  What the new-sspx can NEVER get back after a deal is their property, their autonomy and their control over their future.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »