Never let reality get in the way of a good rumor. Is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais still under house arrest in Chicago?

What good rumor?  That there was a purge in the American SSPX seminary after  +W was exiled to Argentina?

Because *I was there*.  It's no rumor.

And actually, Pablo the Mexican's "rumor" about +Tissier being under house arrest in Chicago has turned out to be largely true -- he's being stationed there. Of course it's going to be distorted a *bit* as it travels from mouth to ear (the famous game of "telephone")

Quote from: Columba

When Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.

What you say is true in spirit, but not quite factually correct. When +Williamson was reassigned, there were already four young men who were deacons. They were not removed from orders and they were elevated to the priesthood in June 2004 (Frs. Lester, Goldade, Magana, and Thomas). 2005 saw the first of the low counts with Fr. Asher alone being ordained. In 2006-2008, there were 4, 1, and 0 priests ordained, respectively.

2009 was a large group of new priests, many of whom would have only been at the seminary under +Williamson for one year or none at all.

(While the numbers do a pretty good job, even 2003 ordinations had only 2 priests, so you'd really need more than strict numbers to make the case for this purging which I do believe took place.)

I know one of the seminarians removed after Bishop Williamson was exiled. He described a politically-motivated mass expulsion of +Williamson followers. He was very bitter, having dedicated many years and many thousands of dollars to becoming a priest of the Society. I was very pro-Fellay at the time so I took what the ex-seminarian said with a grain of salt. The following June there was only one priest ordained and I remembered the harrowing tale of expulsion (apparently told to me in after the June 2004.) Since that time, both my suspicion of +Fellay and my belief in the the credibility of that disappointed ex-seminarian has continued to increase.

Fr. Rostand will be at our chapel in NY on Sunday.  I suspect that means he is already at the Priory in Syracuse.

Interestingly, Bishop Williamson was a priest at the chapel where I attend for quite sometime when he was just Fr. Williamson.  He is much loved by many people and they speak of him fondly.  I think there may even be one or two people who actually keep in contact with him in some way.

I am not certain if we will be there or not.  We may be planning to assist at Mass at an independent chapel that morning instead of attend Mass at the SSPX chapel.

If I do, though, I will follow up.

It does seem, then that Fr. Rostand is making rounds for some reason.

Well, I hope he Father Rostand or Bishop Fellay comes back to Los Gatos soon for a visit as there are some questions I would like ask them.  No one likes to create a scene and embarrass our families, however, these are extra ordinary times and the future of the Traditional Catholic Church is in the lurch.  Each of us must not refrain from placing ourselves in the direct line of potential ridicule by others by asking the tough questions at the right time.  We don't have to wait for their visit.  We can and should write to the Society district offices regarding our stance on the ongoing crisis.

The enemy relies on intimidation and our human reluctance to be shamed in public. Therefore, when folks such as Father Rostand do visit, we are polite, gracious, and ask softball questions so as to not create a commotion.  The devil himself relies on this.  We must have questions in hand, asked in a respectful and courteous way that command a response.  We must have counter questions for the expected soft answers that politicians tend give.  

Our priests and bishops were not ordained as politicians.  They were ordained in Holy Orders as apostles and priests of the Church.  Let us give them our respect, but in doing so, command they respond in a way that glorifies our Lord, not political endeavors.

Maybe we should compile a list of the best questions here.  

I would like to develop a list of questions to to ask the District Superior and +Fellay should he visit our chapel in the next several months while Rome ponders the future of the SSPX.  I put this out on IA also.  We should all have some good questions at the ready even for our priest who may be pro-agreement.  Any suggestions?

Question:

Is +Fellay going to lead BXVI 's "reform of the reform" ?

A few Questions, for starters:

~ Is the SSPX leadership willing to incorporate any changes that may be on the
way from Rome's authority, in the so-called "1962 Missal" -- changes including but
not limited to new Prefaces, new Collects or other new Propers?

~ If Rome demands that the SSPX start recognizing the new "feast days" of such
as JPII or Mother Teresa of Calcutta or Paul VI, will the SSPX leadership comply?
And, if so, why would the SSPX comply with that kind of requirement?

~ Is the SSPX prepared to set aside common sensus catholicus when Rome
makes any new demands on the Society? That is, does the SSPX leadership plan
on forgetting everything Archbishop Lefebvre taught about remaining true to the
traditions that have been handed down from the Apostles?

~ In your interview, Fr. Rostand, published in the Angelus website, you said that
the comments by Bishop Fellay regarding the religious liberty of Vatican II cannot
be excerpted out of an hour-long context because they were only a minute in
duration. If, then Bishop Fellay does not really think that the religious liberty of
Vatican II is "very, very limited," then what exactly does he believe, if it is
something different that that, and, most importantly, if he truly thinks otherwise,
then why did he say "it is very, very limited - a very limited liberty," in the CNS
interview?

~ Do you deny, Fr. Rostand, that the subject, that is, the topic of religious liberty,
as described in the words of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, is something that
we should be prohibited from discussing? If not, are you willing to discuss it
right now?

~ When Bishop Fellay said in his CNS interview, that it is not what Vatican II
actually contains but rather the common interpretation of Vatican II that is the
problem, are you able to describe the main points of this common interpretation
that is at odds with what Vatican II ostensibly teaches? (Take note of his points, if
any, and compare them to what ABL had to say in I Accuse the Council!)

~ Why has Angelus Press decided to stop publishing I Accuse the Counicl!,
and why is Angelus Press unwilling to answer whether it can be made into an
e-book for download on the Internet?

~ Is Angelus Press interested in selling copy, or is Angelus Press only interested
in promoting the latest agenda that the Superior General comes up with?

~ Can you give a specific list of the principal things over which you believe Bishop
Williamson has changed his position over the years, so as to be held up as some
kind of separatist, as you have repeatedly said he is?

~ When Pope Benedict XVI appointed Archbishop Muller to prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did it occur to you that after any
regularization of the Society, the SSPX would become subject to obedience under
this man who is on public record for having extremely liberal, if not heretical
beliefs?

~ When Pope Benedict XVI appointed Bishop DiNoia to resurrect the office left
vacant for 3 years by Msgr. Perl, the erstwhile head of Ecclesia Dei Commission,
was it any concern to you that the Society faces an uncertain future of becoming
answerable to this same DiNoia, who denies the perpetual virginity of Our Lady
and the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?

~ Are you aware, Fr. Rostand, that when Archbishop Lefebvre observed such
things as these two highly questionable appointments, as he did with Assisi I and
the refusal of Rome to allow a new bishop to be consecrated for the Society (the
first name for his candidate was Fr. Richard Williamson, by the way!), are you
aware, that ABL took Rome's action as a sign from God that he was to not have
anything more to do with being subject to false obedience under the apostate
Rome, apostate by its own actions in these matters?  

~ Does the Society's leadership relish the thought that the near future could very
well entail being held to obedience under the authority of several out-and-out
practitioners of the "errors of Russia?"



There are a lot of questions! These are a few that come to mind off the
top of my head. I hope Fr. Rostand can spend some time answering them. That is,
after three or four good ones, he could very well suddenly remember that he
has a previous engagement that he had almost forgotten. You know, a
manicure or a shoe shine, or an appointment with his psychiatrist?

I say this out of experience. On several occasions, when I have met progressivist
bishops in Los Angeles, including but not limited to Mahony, when I have asked
such questions, they suddenly turn and run away. They have turned on their heel
and have run away. I have noticed this odd behavior from other Modernists, as
well, such as Fr. Matthew Fox, on stage, getting ready for a Q&A from a patient
audience, when a well-spoken challenger put him on the spot, he rose from his
seat and walked out of the auditorium, leaving the whole audience with no one
to listen to.

To preclude this possibility, I recommend asking him at the very start, before
asking anything else, if he can promise two hours of his time. Tell him that the last
time Bishop Fellay came to visit, he was answering questions for two hours. Make
Fr. Rostand feel like he's obliged to follow +Fellay's example in this manner.