The more that Fr. Laisney and the other Menzingenites write, the further they expose themselves for the liars and poor sophists that they are. They simply believe that the end justifies the means, so they continue to hide what they don't want us and the conciliarists to know. It is really very simple to defend the truth, it does not take much effort and explanation. If they had the truth, they would be better communicators.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: donatus

Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.

Looks like someone made the wrong turn on their way to AngelQueen.

....and looking through the "Newly Issued" neo-SSPX glasses. (Sit boy, now that's good dog!!!......Sit, Play, & Obey).

 

Quote from: Machabees

Has anyone noticed the "Apostolate trail" of Bishop Williamson, from where his assignments have been, to which places he has been transferred, to what has been left in the fruit of his wake?

-  Country of the United States (Seminary).
-  Country of Argentina (Seminary).
-  Country of England (muzzled is an attic).

Does anyone see anything in common to all of them?

These three countries have been the strongest in the Catholic Resistance against the liberal theology of the N-SSPX!

Indeed, thank you Bishop Williamson, for training some good priests who have been popping up all around the world in the battle of the Faith; and for teaching us faithful how to discern, how to love the Truth, how to Love God, and how to fight these "dogs of error" with the same tools Archbishop Lefebvre gave to us: the tried and true Encyclicals of the Popes, all of Catholic Tradition, and Fathers of the Church.

I have been saying for years now, among friends who know lots of
SSPX priests and even work with them, that it is most telling that every
one of the SSPX priests that you find who have fire and zeal are priests
who were seminarians under the guidance (at least briefly) of Bishop
Williamson (and some +de Mallerais), and every one of the Society
priests who are now liberal or strongly leaning in the direction of
normalization with modernist Rome had their formation under +Fellay,
at least briefly.

All this could be verified, I'm sure, but whenever I bring it up, I have heard
no objections from those who know this topic.  Rather they react as if it's
old hat, nothing new and not even worth discussing.  I find that reaction a
bit odd.  

When I say, "The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree," they say things like,
"Certainly not in this case," or "Yep," or "Unh-huh."

To be fair, I don't know any priest who trained under +de Galarreta.

When you say "formation under +Fellay", I assume you mean in some kind of generic sense, because I am not aware of him having ever been a teacher at a seminary, or forming priests in that sense of the word.  The only job I'm aware of his ever having was bursar, and then Superior General.  I'm not aware of his ever being a prior, or even the pastor of a parish, except I assume when he was bursar, he likely was pastor at mission chapels.  And he was only a priest for 6 years when he was consecrated bishop.    If anyone is aware of this being inaccurate, I would be interested in the information.  

Oh if we only had 100 more priests like Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal and the other Resistance priests....the once menacing clique in Menzingen would be forced to step aside..

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: donatus

Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.

Looks like someone made the wrong turn on their way to AngelQueen.

....and looking through the "Newly Issued" neo-SSPX glasses. (Sit boy, now that's good dog!!!......Sit, Play, & Obey).

For those who understand French, there is a conference here:

Abbé Rioult: Conférence sur « La crise dans la Fraternité » – Mai 2013

Abbot Rioult: Conference on "The Crisis in the Brotherhood" - May 2013

At around the 5 minute mark, he pulls out a pair of rose-colored glasses and black glasses.    

He explains why they are needed, quoting Bishop Fellay:

Extrait de la conférence donnée par Mgr Bernard Fellay aux sœurs dominicaines de Saint-Pré et aux fidèles, le 4 mai 2012.
 A propos de la réponse que j'ai envoyée juste après Quasimodo, le 17 avril, à Rome, je ne sais pas encore ce qu'en pense la Congrégation de la Foi. Tout simplement, je ne sais pas. D'après ce que je peux savoir de sources privées, j'ai l'impression que cela convient. Chez nous, je pense qu'il faudra l'expliquer comme il faut, parce qu'il y a (dans ce docuмent) des expressions ou des déclarations qui sont tellement sur la ligne de crête que si vous êtes mal tourné ou selon que vous mettez des lunettes noires ou roses, vous les voyez comme ce-ci ou comme cela. Alors il faudra qu'on vous explique bien que cette lettre ne change absolument rien à notre position. Mais que, si on veut la lire de travers, on arrivera à la comprendre de travers.

Extract from Bp Fellay's conference to the Dominican teaching sisters of St Pré and faithful, 4th May 2012
Concerning the reply I sent to Rome just after Quasimodo, 17th April, I still don't know what the CDF thinks of it. I quite simply don't know. From what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to explained properly because there are (in this docuмent) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tightrope that if you are ill disposed or whether you are wearing black or pink tinted glasses, you will see it as this or as that. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read it sideways, one will succeed in understanding it sideways.

Quote

For those who understand French, there is a conference here:

Abbé Rioult: Conférence sur « La crise dans la Fraternité » – Mai 2013

Abbot Rioult: Conference on "The Crisis in the Brotherhood" - May 2013

Around 11 minutes, he is talking about how in June 2012, Bishop Fellay said Vatican II was a secondary problem - from that pathetic DICI interview - and in 2013 he is saying it's the primary problem.

Quote

A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
 
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome.  Has your position on this point changed?

Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II.  What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution.  Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council.  Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council;  she is much larger.  Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems.  This new awareness  [ ] can help us to understanding what is really happening:  we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve.  [Haven't you been doing that all along?  :confused1: ]
 
So the attitude of the official Church is what changed;  we did not.  We were not the ones who asked for an agreement;  the pope is the one who wants to recognize us.  You may ask:  why this change?  We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us!  Why?  The answer is right in front of us:  there are terribly important problems in the Church today.  These problems must be addressed.  We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly;  you have to read between the lines to understand.

I was always surprised that pitiful interview never got more attention than it did.

It would be most enlightening to hear why doctrine was a secondary concern in 2012, but a primary concern in 2013.

Perhaps we can't be 2012ers anymore?

Of course, the explanation is obvious:

If there is an opportunity for a practical accord, doctrine will take a back seat (as Bishop Fellay explained in his letter to bxvi);

If there is no perceived opportunity for a practical accord, doctrine will be permitted to take the front seat again, but only so long as Rome doesn't come knocking again, as Bishop fellay's letter also explains (ie., "I intend to remain committed to this goal...").

In this Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members
of the SSPX Singapore, May 12, 2013, Fr. Laisney provides the one tidbit that
the Accordistas have latched onto, in answer to the claim that the
AFD has not been withdrawn by +Fellay.  Here are the two sentences:

It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it (your French KE 303, but not in the English version: which one is the original?)

Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.

Of all the tangled words in this too-long letter, it is remarkable to me that
someone who is not an SSPX chapel regular would know offhand about
these two sentences.  

I just encountered this today. Here is the post in which I describe the
conversation.

I had given this person my 3 x 5 index card with The Recusant's challenge
on it, front and back, as described in the post linked above.  The person
reading the card very rarely assists at SSPX Mass sites.  But some friends
of his have provided him with opinions, apparently, but he does not tell me
where he gets his information.  He is the expert, you see.  This is how they
have been brainwashed -- pretending that "the buck stops here."

He said to me that +Fellay had retracted the AFD.  I asked to know when
that happened, and where I could go to read about it.  He did not know the
date, but said that it was described in the response to a letter that +Williamson
had written, and the author was another priest, but he did not know the
name of the priest.  

But that this sentence was the response that was a correct answer to my
assertion that +F had not retracted the AFD is significantly noteworthy to me:

"Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012
that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work."

Now, if this is true, where, except in this letter, is it that this was "said?"  Was
it written? Or, was this a conversation that +F had with DiNoia?  If the former,
I want to see the docuмent.  If the latter, whose word are we relying on?  
Fr. Laisney was told by someone, perhaps not +F, that this is what was said?
Did DiNoia say this in some interview from DICI or whatever?  What is
the source?  Where does Fr. Laisney come up with this?  How can it be
verified?  Was Fr. Laisney present to hear this statement made at the time?
He doesn't say!!

In any case, if it was spoken only, you know how those things go:  it can
easily be UNSPOKEN with one phone call.  No docuмent, no writing, no
existence, because "words fly."  They are there one minute and gone the
next.  Who was the witness?  Where is the record?  When was it reported?  
What did DiNoia say about it?   Nothing????  Most likely.

This seems to be a very important question.  Because if it cannot be
verified, then that is the reply that we need to have on hand when we hear
this assertion, that +F has retracted this AFD.  

I suspect it is A RUMOR, that Fr. Laisney is spreading, doing the very thing
that he scolds his opposition for doing, when they have in fact done no such
thing.  And if this is the case, he needs to BE CALLED OUT ON THIS.





For reference, here is the text in my post linked above that mentions
this:

They said, "No, +Fellay has since taken this back."  I asked them to
please tell me when he did so, and on what occasion and how do I
find a copy of that anywhere that I can read?  They replied that it
was some other priest who was commenting on the letter of
+Williamson who said that this AFD "SHOULD" be taken back by
+Fellay.  I replied, "Well some other priest saying he 'should' take it
back is not the same thing as +Fellay taking it back, is it?"

"The priest said that the wording was deficient, and it should be re-
worked, but for now, there is no agreement, so we should be over
this." [I guess it was Fr. Laisney saying "especially paragraph 7" and
all that, which is his comment on the +W letter - correct me if I'm
wrong.]

Quote from: Neil Obstat

In this Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members
of the SSPX Singapore, May 12, 2013, Fr. Laisney provides the one tidbit that
the Accordistas have latched onto, in answer to the claim that the
AFD has not been withdrawn by +Fellay.  Here are the two sentences:

Quote from: Fr. Laisney

It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it....
Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.

...  He said to me that +Fellay had retracted the AFD.  I asked to know when
that happened, and where I could go to read about it.  He did not know the
date, but said that it was described in the response to a letter that +Williamson
had written, and the author was another priest, but he did not know the
name of the priest.  

... "Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012
that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work."

Now, if this is true, where, except in this letter, is it that this was "said?"  Was
it written? Or, was this a conversation that +F had with DiNoia?  If the former,
I want to see the docuмent.  If the latter, whose word are we relying on?  ...

Good question.  In one of his longest (at least for which we have a transcript) talks in recent months, in Canada in late 2012, I don't remember +F mentioning this.  You'd think if he retracted it, he would mention it.  Here, and also here is a copy of the transcript.  I don't have time (or the stomach) to read the whole long thing again, but with a word seach for "retract", "rescind", "DiNoia", and "August", I did not find any reference.  Why did he not mention such an important item?  

Thanks PAT317, why not mention it, indeed.  

As a woman, I should think you'd also like to know, "If he's keeping things
like this secret so sneakily, what ELSE has he been hiding from us?"  In my
experience, anyway, that's how women think, and God bless them for it!  

There has been a development.  The Recusant has released a copy of the
Note Regarding the Doctrinal Declaration that +Fellay sent out in the Easter
Cor Unum to all the priests of the SSPX.  Here is a copy of the
relevant (final) paragraph:


"After sending to Rome the texts of the General Chapter of last July, I met Mgr. Di Noia on 28th August 2012, and I informed him that I was withdrawing our April proposal, which could no longer serve as a basis from which to work. There remains the Doctrinal Preamble of 14th September, 2011, whose substance was taken up again on 13th June, 2012, and our double response: the letters of 30th November, 2011 and 12th January 2012 on the one hand; on the other, the 14th July 2012 Declaration of the General Chapter with the conditions required for any canonical recognition."

 

Therefore, the source is +Fellay, and he is describing A CONVERSATION, as
I suspected it was, not a verifiable written docuмent.  And he provides no
witness.  So it cannot be proved.  Ask Msgr. de Noia if Msgr. Fellay ever said
this and be prepared for a di-Nial. . . . . . . .  HAHAHAHAHA





Note:  the Cor Unum is an INTERNAL LETTER and is meant only for the priests,
so this way, +Fellay can claim to have announced his meeting with Msgr. di Noia
and what he SAID then, and at the same time not mention it to the Faithful, who
are kept in the dark like mushrooms and fed B.S.