Author Topic: Fr. Laisney Responds to Bishop Williamson: (Read 10896 times)

Machabees · « **Reply #35 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:20:10 PM »

Fr. Laisney said,

Quote

“The same accusations are sometimes made against the Protocol of May 5, 1988, which had been prepared by the future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Would you accuse these two the way you accused Bishop Fellay?”

If Bishop Tissier de Mallerais helped draft the 1988 Protocol, as Fr. Laisney states, I would like to know what Bishop Tissier says about Bishop Fellay's 2012 Protocol?

Has there been any word from the "engine" these days? Or, is he still hiding under false obedience in not defending the attack on the Faith and to uphold the brethren?

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #36 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:46:02 PM »

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..

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #37 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:56:05 PM »

Fr. Laisney's only response should have been along the lines of: " Yes, your Excellency, we recognize the problem much the same way as you do and rest assured that we're organizing discretely to oust Bp Fellay, Fr. Pflueger and Fr. Neely ASAP..They will be re-assigned to different seminaries where they will mop and serve food for a year as penance...More details to follow. Yours in Christ, " Now THAT would have been an appropriate, albeit private, response..

PAT317 · « **Reply #38 on:** May 17, 2013, 08:05:55 AM »

Quote from: Mea Culpa

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:

Quote

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.

PAT317 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 17, 2013, 08:27:30 AM »

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.