Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Miseremini on September 18, 2012, 01:47:37 PM

Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Miseremini on September 18, 2012, 01:47:37 PM
Just stumbled upon this site.  I found it very informative.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Miseremini on September 18, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Sorry the site didn't come up in my previous post

Here it is

http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2012, 06:42:31 PM
Good work, Misereremini!

I would recommend reading it before Fr. Rostand's commands are carried out:
"Just take it down." (See below)

This could prove very helpful for me because it packs a lot of data into one site
where it's all readily accessible, and example of "We don't know how good we
have it, but we very well may soon find out how good we HAD it." How to answer
those who don't have any knowledge of these things because their heads are in
the sand --- here it is. Get your materials, get it organized, and dish it out.

The very first part lists all the priests about whom we are not allowed information,
unless we know someone on the "inside." Why? Because these priests have been
suppressed by the Menzingen-denizens, and told in no uncertain terms that they
are categorically FORBIDDEN to divulge the details of their situation, AND that
they are forbidden from explaining that they have been forbidden. Meanwhile,
useful idiots (or paid subversives!) are prowling about like lions, seeking whom
they might devour, asserting that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PRIESTS ARE
BEING TRANSFERED BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE DEAL WITH ROME, and such
nonsense. Sure. And I have an oil well for sale..............

This site's quite a powerhouse of info and commentary. It begins thusly:





A DISCLAIMER AND ANNOUNCEMENT

           A Sad, sad, time, dear friends and faithful. A priest of the SSPX, with the blessing of his U. S District superior, refuses Holy Communion to a writer who uses the freedoms our fore-fathers earned through their "lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor," to express his beliefs and opinions, and to share with other faithful Catholics timely news of the goings-on in the world of Tradition. Simply, it seems,  because the SSPX superior does not wish the faithful to be informed. Period. End of Story.

What's going on with Father Chazal? None of your business. What's up with Fr. Pfeiffer? None of your business?  What's up with Fr. Basil Meramo? Fr. Damien Fox? Fr. Patrick Girouard (Canada)?  The four German priests? Fr. Gabriel Grosso (Argentina)? Fr. David Hewko? Fr. Eric Jacqmin (Belgium)? Fr. Michael Koller (France)? Fr. Juan Ceriani (Argentina)? Fr. Ernesto Cardoza (Brazil)? Fr. Xavier Beauvais (France)? Dom Nataglia (Italiy)? Bishop Williamson? Fr. Jean de Morgon (France)? Fr. Steven Reiter? Fr. Juan Turco? (Argentina)? Fr. Joven Soliman (Phillipines)? The Capuchins of France? The Monastery of Santa Cruz in Brazil?


In every single case, these brave priests are trying to warn the SSPX and the Superior that his playing with Rome is a mistake. And in every case they are shut up! The answer is the same-- none of your business! That way they can pressure the priests to buckle under or be expelled.

Father leRoux told me personally in Auriesville that none of the three Bishops (Williamson, deGalaretta, or deMallerais) had been given the "grace of State" when the Holy Ghost was placed upon their shoulders and they became bishops-- only Bishop Fellay was!

     So then what--? When they are expelled? Then they lie and say "they were sede-vacantists!"  Fr. Rostand recently told the people that the "nine" of 1983 were expelled because of "sedevacantism"-- a total fabrication. Your editor was there in 1983! The "nine" were complaining of changes in the missal, they were against bringing in novus ordo priests, they were against the SSPX agreeing with novus ordo marriage annulments; they were against introducing liturgical reforms of John XXIII, they were against the expulsion of priests sanctified to Christ without arranging for their care and support. They were not promoting sede-vacantism.

      Fr  Rostand, the appointed superior of the SSPX  U S District was in Ridgefield Sunday, September 16th. He said he would take questions from the parishioners. He said the Mass. The Pastor, Fr. Goldady was hearing confessions until the communion. Fr. Rostand  said he would answer the many questions the parishioners have about the dealings with Rome; he also spoke of the great virtues of charity and love. Fr. Goldady left the confessional to help distribute communion-- and made it a point, in front of several hundred parishioners, to deny Holy Communion to the editor. Of course, Father Rostand later joked, during his conference that "I hear in America you have freedom of speech!"

      During the little conference, Fr Rostand talked of "some" of the steps from 2000 through 2012. He also took some questions, but was unable to answer any of them. He said Bp. Fellay's comments in the CNS interview were taken out of context. But when asked if they contacted CNS and told them to correct the interview, he didn't know. This is the same Fr. Rostand who had his attorney tell SOSSave OURSSPX that "you can't use the pictures of Archbishop Lefebvre!"

      He was asked  by a parishioner if there is a good communications between higher-ups and the priests. After much waffling, he finally admitted "No". When asked directly is there is good communications between  the faithful and the SSPX  (mgmt), after much waffling, he answered no, probably not. But this is the same Father Rostand who said to your editor, when I said, "Father, anything you find inaccurate or wrong (on this website), I'll correct" all he could say was "just take it down".

       When asked directly by one of  the faithful whether Bishop Fellay, over a week ago stated to Seminarians in Econe that he (Bp Fellay) had been deceived by Rome( something covered by many major news sources), he stated "I don't know"-- then, after much waffling, he said "he may have said something like that."
     

   How in the world, could a little web page (sossaveoursspx), which is merely a compilation and amalgamation of information that is freely available to anybody in the entire world, could be upsetting to the higher ups in the SSPX, is beyond me. The pastor, when he threatened to with-hold Holy Communion, was asked by myself: "what lies or calumnies are on the SOSSAVEOURSSPX," and he said, "I didn't know-- I don't have time to look at it." When I asked him, specifically, to tell me what is erroneous or incorrect (for I would immediately change it), he said he "hadn't read it!" I offered him to let me know of any errors or calumnies that he found-- he has notified me of not one!

     At the conference, almost every single question put to Father Rostand was left unanswered. The dancing around the questions was legendary. The first retort on any of the quotes (which parishioners offered) of the Archbishop's was, "when did he say that?"

   So what can a Catholic conclude? 1) Priests like Fr Goldade are scared out of their wits to oppose Fr. Rostand-- and they cannot think for themselves. It was stated during the conference many, many times-- "If they (the priests) don't like it here (in the SSPX) they can leave!" This even pushes them to commit egregious public acts of injustice. 2) The SSPX leaders now think that the Archbishop really didn't know what he believed. One almost comes away thinking "Gee, it's a good thing the Archbishop passed away, because these people believe he was always changing his tune." And now, we have this huge confusion.

     It is really quite simple. It appears Bishop Fellay and Father Rostand want to make the SSPX an organization that novus ordo (modernist) Catholics will want to join. They want to make of it a priestly society where Novus Ordo Bishops (Never ordained in the Catholic faith, many who don't believe the catholic faith), who are protestant and modernist in their thinking, will welcome into their diocese SSPX priests, and will send their candidates to (hopefully), the new SSPX seminary in Virginia. To do this, they have to ditch the traditional baggage; they have to look to the modernists as if they are not that rigid in their thinking, and they even have to portray the Archbishop as flexible, and ever-changing-- just like Ratzinger's notion of tradition. But at the same time, they want to keep the great traditional support base-- all the thousands of faithful who bought the churches, built the schools, supported the seminaries, sponsored the camps. And that is, in my opinion, why they allow the CNS interview to go out, which has Bp. Fellay saying, basically, 'Vatican II is really okay-- there's just some interpretations which are wrong,' but when the traditionalists quote the very same words, the SSPX leaders cry, "You mis-quote me out of context!!"

         When a man is trying to woo two women at the same time, he has to keep his stories straight-- othewise one of them will get wind of something fishy. Same thing's going on here. They can't speak the truth, because either the trads will get upset, OR the Romans will get upset. And, in a few cases, there are different levels of people in each of those groups, who get upset for different reasons.

  Therefore, It becomes best to say nothing, or "I don't know," or "Did you hear him say that?" (As Fr. Jenkins retorted when I quoted the Archbishop, or "when did he say that" as if whatever he said in the 1970's or 1980's were revised by what he said in the later years.) And now, of course, if you continue to quote the Archbishop, or repeat anything someone else says about the Archbishop, "WE WANT YOU TO SHUT UP!"  

Failing that, there is no freedom of Speech in the Society of St Pius X's concept of the Catholic faith, so you shall not receive Holy Communion. Yes, it is true, open abortionists, open paedophiles, open sodomites, open child-abusers, can receive holy communion, can serve as priests, and can even be bishops, cardinals and popes in Bp Fellay's Church of the new Advent, the church he wants to re-join. But if you dare to give the news you shall not receive Holy Communion! Change Canon Law, Change the slabs given to Moses, the Eleventh Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Print the News."


   This web site is not for those who do not want to read it-- stay off is my recommendation. As I stated on the very first page some three months ago, (you can find this way down at the beginning of this page) SOSSaveOurSSPX will be taken down,when as as soon as the Management of the Society of St Pius X drops it's foolish plans to join Rome, restores it's priests and bishops to their rightful positions, and begins telling the faithful the whole truth of what they are doing with Rome. There's nobody on the world wide web that is being forced to access this page.To hit "enter" is totally voluntary. Those who access this page love their Catholic faith, and they love the Society of St Pius X. They respect greatly Achbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and they likewise respect deeply the bishops and priests, brothers, sisters, monks and faithful who have sacrificed for so many years, through so many trials, to keep our faith with purity. We don't want to see the faith adulterated with the falsehoods and heresies of the Rome of today. And we love and support our priests-- even when they are driven by their superiors to make mistakes. Pray for our priests! Cardinal Ratzinger has said the curtain is falling over Christian civilization.  The very people in Rome are working for that curtain to fall!  The Catholic Faith is the rock of that Christian Civilization. it is upon that rock of the FAITH, the FAITH expressed by St Peter, upon which the Christ promised He would build His Church. Christ's promise lives on today, and must live within each of us who professes that faith. It is, or it must be, the same faith that St Peter professed to Christ Himself. We can back down, and let the faith erode,and thousnds upon thousands of Catholic and Christians be deceived into hell-- or we can sound the alarm, and help preserve the faith of Our Lord, the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the faith of St. Peter, St. Pius and Marcel Lefebvre.

And so we work, for the keeping of that faith-- and that's all we work for. If any of our readers find anything calumniating, or erroneous, or false, please advise me, and I will remove it. It takes a long time to put these news articles together. I have no computer, I have no internet, I have no TV.  I am a little pebble in the ocean.  I must rely solely on free-access computers, and very, very little free time. It would be far better for the current management to get back to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer and Pope Pius X, and stop dealing with these snakes in Rome, and they wouldn't have to always couch their words based on their audience. We pray for their priests, for our priests, driven to erroneous actions because of their fear of the management.  

NOTE : A CALL FOR PHOTOS: Father Rostand has instructed his law firm to claim ownership rights to all photos of Archbishop Lefebvre, all priests of the SSPX, and all buildings paid for by the people! They have embarked upon another foolish waste of time! Any readers who have original photos, of all things traditional and Catholic, please send them along to me, include a short note, of course, letting us know where you took it, who/what it is, and permitting me to post it, if appropriate to the subject being discussed. Thank-you





Some things bear repeating....



     It is really quite simple. It appears Bishop Fellay and Father Rostand want to make the SSPX an organization that novus ordo (modernist) Catholics will want to join. They want to make of it a priestly society where Novus Ordo Bishops (Never ordained in the Catholic faith, many who don't believe the catholic faith), who are protestant and modernist in their thinking, will welcome into their diocese SSPX priests, and will send their candidates to (hopefully), the new SSPX seminary in Virginia. To do this, they have to ditch the traditional baggage; they have to look to the modernists as if they are not that rigid in their thinking, and they even have to portray the Archbishop as flexible, and ever-changing-- just like Ratzinger's notion of tradition. But at the same time, they want to keep the great traditional support base-- all the thousands of faithful who bought the churches, built the schools, supported the seminaries, sponsored the camps. And that is, in my opinion, why they allow the CNS interview to go out, which has Bp. Fellay saying, basically, 'Vatican II is really okay-- there's just some interpretations which are wrong,' but when the traditionalists quote the very same words, the SSPX leaders cry, "You mis-quote me out of context!!"
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2012, 07:08:55 PM


Oh-oh.  

Here goes the little pebble stuff again ..........

Quote
I am a little pebble in the ocean.  I must rely solely on free-access computers, and very, very little free time.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: magdalena on September 18, 2012, 07:52:33 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat


Oh-oh.  

Here goes the little pebble stuff again ..........

Quote
I am a little pebble in the ocean.  I must rely solely on free-access computers, and very, very little free time.


I agree.  Not the best choice of words.  
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: NeelyAnn on September 18, 2012, 09:45:40 PM
Quote
Fr. Goldady left the confessional to help distribute communion-- and made it a point, in front of several hundred parishioners, to deny Holy Communion to the editor. Of course, Father Rostand later joked, during his conference that "I hear in America you have freedom of speech!"



My husband was there and I will verify this with him when he returns.


Quote
During the little conference, Fr Rostand talked of "some" of the steps from 2000 through 2012. He also took some questions, but was unable to answer any of them.


This is simply not true.  My husband was there and he called afterwards.  Fr. Rostand answered all the questions.  The 'opposition' was not a very large group, and in speaking with a number of the regulars afterwards, he found that many of them were not SSPX Mass goers.


Quote
He said Bp. Fellay's comments in the CNS interview were taken out of context. But when asked if they contacted CNS and told them to correct the interview, he didn't know.


Again, I will ask my husband about this.


Quote
He was asked  by a parishioner if there is a good communications between higher-ups and the priests. After much waffling, he finally admitted "No". When asked directly is there is good communications between  the faithful and the SSPX  (mgmt), after much waffling, he answered no, probably not. But this is the same Father Rostand who said to your editor, when I said, "Father, anything you find inaccurate or wrong (on this website), I'll correct" all he could say was "just take it down".


I will also ask him about this.  I beleive he already mentioned this to me and his account differs from this one.  I will verify when he gets back.


Quote
When asked directly by one of  the faithful whether Bishop Fellay, over a week ago stated to Seminarians in Econe that he (Bp Fellay) had been deceived by Rome( something covered by many major news sources), he stated "I don't know"-- then, after much waffling, he said "he may have said something like that."


I will check on this one too.
     
   
Quote
At the conference, almost every single question put to Father Rostand was left unanswered. The dancing around the questions was legendary. The first retort on any of the quotes (which parishioners offered) of the Archbishop's was, "when did he say that?".


This is not true.  This was one of the first items my husband told me of.  He asked the person when did ABL say that and the person did not know.  He told him and then went on to quote other ABL quotes that came after that.


Quote
So what can a Catholic conclude? 1) Priests like Fr Goldade are scared out of their wits to oppose Fr. Rostand-- and they cannot think for themselves. It was stated during the conference many, many times-- "If they (the priests) don't like it here (in the SSPX) they can leave!"


I will verify this, too.  Since so many other things are incorrect.

   
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: magdalena on September 18, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
NeelyAnn,
Does your husband know how to read and write?  I'm not big on hearsay.
 :confused1:
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: NeelyAnn on September 18, 2012, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: magdalena
NeelyAnn,
Does your husband know how to read and write?  I'm not big on hearsay.
 :confused1:


Funny, because that entire article is based on hearsay and my guess is you liked it very much and you are ready to swallow every bit of what it says, true or not, simply because it is what you want to hear.

My husband was there and called me after the conference to tell me what was said and how it went.  He also made a point to speak with Fr. Rostand in person, on his own.

As I stated, when he returns, I will go over the entire post, from the 'sos...' website, with him.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: magdalena on September 18, 2012, 10:15:39 PM
Quote from: NeelyAnn
Quote from: magdalena
NeelyAnn,
Does your husband know how to read and write?  I'm not big on hearsay.
 :confused1:


Funny, because that entire article is based on hearsay and my guess is you liked it very much and you are ready to swallow every bit of what it says, true or not, simply because it is what you want to hear.

My husband was there and called me after the conference to tell me what was said and how it went.  He also made a point to speak with Fr. Rostand in person, on his own.

As I stated, when he returns, I will go over the entire post, from the 'sos...' website, with him.


Good.  Then have him type in the answer.  Or does he let you handle the forums for him?  
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2012, 10:17:45 PM



Oh boy, this is rich. NeelyAnn is going to stand in judgment and find things she
can misinterpret so she can hurl firey darts of cantankerisms. I can hardly wait.....

................. NOT.


One thing's for sure: Fr. Rostand et. al. will be a little more aware they can't just
roll out the same old program again and again and get away with it. The words they
use will be duly noted. And the shills they employ will be on overtime refuting what
they don't approve of. But that's okay, because there will be witnesses, and they will
know what is true and what is spin zone stuff.  

Let's see the hard questions answered, the ones Fr. Rostand shies away from.
Maybe NeelyAnn's husband can give Fr. Rostand's answers, since he heard them
first hand. Oh, wait, he can deny the questions were asked! Perhaps he had to step
out for a minute to move his car, and that's when they must have asked all these
really sticky questions, and all the waffling happened. Yeah. That's the ticket.





Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2012, 10:57:06 PM
Regarding whether +Fellay really said that he had been deceived by Rome, and
how Fr. Rostand replied to that question, there is more on the same page (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/):




(http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/uploads/1/9/4/6/1946138/5331771.jpg)



BISHOP FELLAY CLAIMING HE WAS DECEIVED BY BENEDICT XVI?


I'm sorry, this just looks too big for one thread. So it has it's own thread, now:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20629 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20629)
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: MaterDominici on September 18, 2012, 11:21:40 PM
Quote from: Lepanto Again
Yes, we like this site but it is not a site for the faint hearted. It isn'tgoing  to convince anybody. It's too aggressive. We like it. The weak and/or ignorant might not.


I guess you can count me among the weak and/or ignorant because I find that site in poor taste. The facts all speak clearly enough for themselves. I don't need anyone's dramatic spin to understand what's going on.

Further, it does a grand job at muddying the water between facts and rumors. In time, many rumors do become supported by facts, but as some do not, I think it's important to maintain some clarity in where information came from so that individuals can make their own decisions on whether or not to trust the source.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on September 19, 2012, 12:45:44 PM
Neely Ann, the results of your interview with your husband would be appreciated.  It would be a very grave matter if a SSPX priest withheld Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from a faithful on account of public disagreement with the decisions of the Society leadership.  
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Miseremini on September 19, 2012, 09:33:19 PM
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
Neely Ann, the results of your interview with your husband would be appreciated.  It would be a very grave matter if a SSPX priest withheld Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from a faithful on account of public disagreement with the decisions of the Society leadership.  



And just why is Neely Ann's husband to be believed over the person who was actually denied receiving Our Lord????????
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on September 19, 2012, 11:46:26 PM
I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 20, 2012, 02:12:08 AM
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    

Warning: off topic ahead!!

It's only been a day. Give him a break. How would you like to catch buses and trains
without using the schedules? Then there's those guys that like to play games with
you. I knew some in Malibu, when an out-of-towner asked for directions on PCH,
they would tell them "Go out to the highway here and turn right, then go about 3
miles, and turn right on Highway 23, Decker Canyon Road. That'll take you right to
Thousand Oaks!"  

Locals know what I'm talking about. They would watch the people tootle on up the
highway and then laugh their heads off for hours. Fun, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w)

(Video shows going the easy way, south -- starting at PCH and going north is a lot
more challenging, uphill and sharp turns.) Canyon down below on the left (on the
right in this video) is strewn with rusted hulks of crashed cars -- they didn't make it!
This could be a theme park ride but too many would get carsick!

Minute 4:50 -- crossing the double yellow line to pass a vehicle, $1200 and possible
jail time, if you're caught. It's actually cheaper to hire a lawyer!
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: NeelyAnn on September 20, 2012, 07:06:53 AM
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    



I always stated from the beginning, WHEN MY HUSBAND GETS BACK.  My husband is not home and when he returns, I will ask him very specifically about all said.  So save your rash judging and snide remarks.  

It will not matter what he says because you will continue to insist that Miseremini's report is correct, even though it is not.  I previously noted 2 instances where my husband had already contradicted what Miseremini reported on the 'SOS' website and you seem to ignore those.



As for this:

Quote
"It would be a very grave matter if a SSPX priest withheld Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from a faithful on account of public disagreement with the decisions of the Society leadership."



I have not yet been able to verify this, but if Communion was withheld, I am sure it was not for public disagreement but because the priest knows that person to be in state of unrepentent sin.  That is a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to withhold Communion.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Miseremini on September 20, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
NEELY Ann Said:
It will not matter what he says because you will continue to insist that Miseremini's report is correct, even though it is not.  I previously noted 2 instances where my husband had already contradicted what Miseremini reported on the 'SOS' website and you seem to ignore those.

CAN YOU NOT READ ! ! ! !  I HAVE NOT reported anything either here or on the "SOS" website.  I don't even reside in the U.S.A. so could not have been a witness to the subject matter.
Please read the first entry in this thread.  I merely stated I had found the "SOS" site and liked it.  And I have never posted anything on the "SOS" site.

Talk about getting your FACTS straight ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 :cussing:
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 20, 2012, 10:05:10 AM
Right here in Orange County, mortal sin was announced to be committed by
any Catholic who returns from receiving Communion and kneels in his pew,
instead of standing in his pew. IOW: if you kneel after receiving Communion and
you don't confess it and repent for having kneeled without "permission," then
you cannot receive Communion tomorrow.

Since the Menzingen-denizens are promoting a NewChurch-friendly atmosphere,
who knows what the latest criteria is for "being in mortal sin?" Don't be surprised
if it has something to do with "obedience," mind you, even though the SSPX has
no jurisdiction. OH -- that's it! May be the "editor" took note of the fact there is
no jurisdiction to command the faithful comply with A, B, or C,  and for that -- he
has committed "mortal sin!" Might not be such a long shot ....


Examples of A, B, or C:
No more criticizing Vat.II
That the lifting of the "excoms" was a "miracle" is an article of the Faith, effectively
Assent of mind and will is required of every word uttered by +Fellay
Religious liberty in Vat.II is very, very limited
Bishop Williamson was rightfully forbidden participation in the Chapter
Prayer together with Protestants is not "indifferentism"
The Menzingen-denizens always have your best interest at heart
Frs. Pheiffer and Chazal are being justly "disciplined"
It's no big deal to hand over the SSPX to NewRome, as +Fellay has stated
It doesn't matter what ABL said, that was then and this is now
Thou Shalt Not Question the intentions of the Rosary Crusades
Thou Shalt Not Post an Internet website without the approval of your pastor
When Fr. Rostand says, "Take it down!" Thou Shalt Comply
Thou Shalt Adhere to the Party Line, in its most up-to-date form
Frs. Cardozo, Fox, Scott, et. al., all justly dealt with and business as usual
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to the de-facto worldliness of +Fellay's accommodation
Thou Shalt Not Wonder Aloud whether +Fellay has made any "secret agreement" with NewRome
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to whether your priest preaches one thing and practices another
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to how +Fellay goes soft on false ecumenism
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to the curious ABSENCE of annullment of the "excoms"
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to the replacement with capitularies with yes-men robots
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to that man behind the curtain!!!!
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Ferdinand on September 20, 2012, 11:33:27 AM
Quote from: Lepanto Again
"Now, after all these months of anguish, Bishop Fellay says he was deceived by Rome. No-- the devil is the great deceiver. There's been a whole lot of deceiving going on-- most of it from Menzingen and St Louis. Rome has consistently, regularly, loudly, unequivocally stated that the SSPX must accept all of the Vatican Council II to be readmitted into the Church of the New Advent. The Roman cardinals, the European Rabbis, even European Heads of State said that Benedict CANNOT readmit the SSPX unless the SSPX agrees to all of the Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Mass, Religious Liberty, the falsehood that Jewish people can be saved in their false religion, and the best yet-- that the "Holy Ghost" was present and guided the Second Vatican Council!
     Recall that Bp Fellay, in order to get his way and push this deal through, even stated on world news that he could accept a split in the Society of St Pius X! So, no-- while we are happy to see that bp fellay may have realized that deception was going on-- you can't pin it on Rome. Those snakes just do what snakes always do. The problem is the snakes that have slithered into the SSPX. SOSSaveOurSSPX."---Excellent. Well said! Truth


+Forked-Tongue thought his red hat was just going to be handed to him.

Apostate rome was displeased by the sell-out plot being exposed by the three, a handful of good Priests and the efforts of some valiant laity.  Too few souls would have ended up in roman clutches.

B16 sent him back to purge the resistance and repackage the deal.  In the end rome will "honour" the 6 conditions, but like all Indian Treaties it won't be worth the paper it is written on.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: magdalena on September 20, 2012, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: Ferdinand


Apostate rome was displeased by the sell-out plot being exposed by the three, a handful of good Priests and the efforts of some valiant laity.  Too few souls would have ended up in roman clutches.

B16 sent him back to purge the resistance and repackage the deal.  In the end rome will "honour" the 6 conditions, but like all Indian Treaties it won't be worth the paper it is written on.


Of course, "In the end rome will "honour" the 6 condition...."   since the "6 conditions" are in reality, compromises of the Faith.  And these compromises will be further compromised, and further compromised, ad infinitum, until we will no longer recognize it as anything remotely Traditional, because end justifies the means.  And the end Rome desires is the utter destruction of the True Catholic Faith as it was once practiced and believed throughout antiquity.      
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: magdalena on September 20, 2012, 08:37:27 PM
Sorry, accidently re-submitted.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on September 21, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote:
"I have not yet been able to verify this, but if Communion was withheld, I am sure it was not for public disagreement but because the priest knows that person to be in state of unrepentent sin."  

Well that's a certainty without any proffered evidence.  You know something about the state of this person's soul?

Quote continued:
"That is a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to withhold Communion."

That raises an interesting question.  If a person is in a state of mortal sin, the priest knows it, but the rest of the congregation does not, is the priest obliged to withhold Communion, and thereby publish the state of the soul, or to give Holy Communion so as not to "out" the sinner?   Sorry, but I'm not willing to automatically accept your opinion on the matter.    
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: MaterDominici on September 21, 2012, 01:07:11 AM
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
That raises an interesting question.  If a person is in a state of mortal sin, the priest knows it, but the rest of the congregation does not, is the priest obliged to withhold Communion, and thereby publish the state of the soul, or to give Holy Communion so as not to "out" the sinner?


I'm pretty sure the Church goes so far as to say that the priest is not allowed to deny Communion (in a public setting) to the sinner whose sins are private.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 21, 2012, 11:14:02 PM
Quote from: NeelyAnn
Quote from: magdalena
NeelyAnn,
Does your husband know how to read and write?  I'm not big on hearsay.
 :confused1:


Funny, because that entire article is based on hearsay and my guess is you liked it very much and you are ready to swallow every bit of what it says, true or not, simply because it is what you want to hear.

My husband was there and called me after the conference to tell me what was said and how it went.  He also made a point to speak with Fr. Rostand in person, on his own.

As I stated, when he returns, I will go over the entire post, from the 'sos...' website, with him.



NeelyAnn, keep in mind (did you read this part?):

Quote from: sossaveoursspx
This web site is not for those who do not want to read it -- stay off is my recommendation... There's nobody on the world wide web that is being forced to access this page. To hit "enter" is totally voluntary.  
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on September 21, 2012, 11:22:24 PM
Has he returned yet?
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 22, 2012, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
Has he returned yet?


Returned from what? NeelyAnn's entire message is based on hearsay, for she wasn't
there, and she's relying on someone else's report.

Quote
Funny, because that entire article is based on hearsay and my guess is you liked it very much and you are ready to swallow every bit of what it says, true or not, simply because it is what you want to hear.


She's going to believe whatever she hears, "true or not," simply because she wants
to believe it. You see, she explains it herself, right there.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: magdalena on September 22, 2012, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    

Warning: off topic ahead!!

It's only been a day. Give him a break. How would you like to catch buses and trains
without using the schedules? Then there's those guys that like to play games with
you. I knew some in Malibu, when an out-of-towner asked for directions on PCH,
they would tell them "Go out to the highway here and turn right, then go about 3
miles, and turn right on Highway 23, Decker Canyon Road. That'll take you right to
Thousand Oaks!"  

Locals know what I'm talking about. They would watch the people tootle on up the
highway and then laugh their heads off for hours. Fun, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w)

(Video shows going the easy way, south -- starting at PCH and going north is a lot
more challenging, uphill and sharp turns.) Canyon down below on the left (on the
right in this video) is strewn with rusted hulks of crashed cars -- they didn't make it!
This could be a theme park ride but too many would get carsick!

Minute 4:50 -- crossing the double yellow line to pass a vehicle, $1200 and possible
jail time, if you're caught. It's actually cheaper to hire a lawyer!


The same kind of thing can happen in a taxi.  I was in Rome with two friends and a taxi driver drove us all around town before he dropped us off two blocks from where we got on the taxi.  Slight exaggeration.  He was laughing all the way too; and it cost us a pretty penny!

 :laugh1:

Neil,
I think you were very kind to NeelyAnn.  She should have thanked you.  
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 24, 2012, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: magdalena
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    

Warning: off topic ahead!!

It's only been a day. Give him a break. How would you like to catch buses and trains
without using the schedules? Then there's those guys that like to play games with
you. I knew some in Malibu, when an out-of-towner asked for directions on PCH,
they would tell them "Go out to the highway here and turn right, then go about 3
miles, and turn right on Highway 23, Decker Canyon Road. That'll take you right to
Thousand Oaks!"  

Locals know what I'm talking about. They would watch the people tootle on up the
highway and then laugh their heads off for hours. Fun, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w)

(Video shows going the easy way, south -- starting at PCH and going north is a lot
more challenging, uphill and sharp turns.) Canyon down below on the left (on the
right in this video) is strewn with rusted hulks of crashed cars -- they didn't make it!
This could be a theme park ride but too many would get carsick!

Minute 4:50 -- crossing the double yellow line to pass a vehicle, $1200 and possible
jail time, if you're caught. It's actually cheaper to hire a lawyer!


The same kind of thing can happen in a taxi.  I was in Rome with two friends and a taxi driver drove us all around town before he dropped us off two blocks from where we got on the taxi.  Slight exaggeration.  He was laughing all the way too; and it cost us a pretty penny!

 :laugh1:

Neil,
I think you were very kind to NeelyAnn.  She should have thanked you.  


Well, I'll thank YOU, magdalena!



When and if she does return, she's got a lot of explaining to do.

For example, here is a post where NeelyAnn makes two glaring mistakes, and
she has not returned here to apologize for her errors:

Quote from: NeelyAnn
Quote from: Magna opera Domini
I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    



I always stated from the beginning, WHEN MY HUSBAND GETS BACK.  My husband is not home and when he returns, I will ask him very specifically about all said.  So save your rash judging and snide remarks.  

It will not matter what he says because you will continue to insist that Miseremini's report is correct, even though it is not.  I previously noted 2 instances where my husband had already contradicted what Miseremini reported on the 'SOS' website and you seem to ignore those.


The first error is that Miseremini did not report ANYTHING on the sossaveoursspx
website. She only reported it here on CI, by way of linking to the 'sos' site that
she FOUND on the Internet. It's not her site.



Quote
As for this:

Quote
"It would be a very grave matter if a SSPX priest withheld Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from a faithful on account of public disagreement with the decisions of the Society leadership."



I have not yet been able to verify this, but if Communion was withheld, I am sure it was not for public disagreement but because the priest knows that person to be in state of unrepentent [sic] sin.  That is a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to withhold Communion.


Second mistake: no, that is not "a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to
withhold Communion"; already explained above. NeelyAnn is "sure it was not for
public disagreement," etc., but this subjective confidence is nothing more than
delusion, based on fantasy. NeelyAnn should own up to her own "public
disagreement" and ask for mercy from the Forum! But she won't because she's
too proud. Another "sin." Maybe NeelyAnn should be "refused Communion!"
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



Quote from: Magna opera Domini
Has he returned yet?


Maybe he got stuck on a long-tour taxi ride (since he can't read the street signs):
Quote

I was in Rome with two friends and a taxi driver drove us all around town before he dropped us off two blocks from where we got on the taxi.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on September 24, 2012, 04:36:29 PM
At a minimum Neely Ann owes the editor of sossaveoursspx.com the public correction of her earlier insinuations, assuming her husband’s testimony contradicted them.  It’s a simple matter of justice.  What would it cost Neely Ann to do so?  Cognitive dissonance?  A peek into Pandora’s Box?      
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: stgobnait on September 24, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
oh, let it go....  why demand your pound of flesh.....
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 25, 2012, 01:54:22 AM
This whole turmoil in the SSPX is starting to make some people a little crazy. But I
think this is just the beginning. Too many really, really want to believe EGBOK, and
they're not going to give it up without at least a tantrum.

You'll know that +Fellay is preparing to "sign" when the hired security at
Menzingen takes a quantum leap forward................

Too many SSPXers and otherwise independent Trads are trying to breathe easy
now that the accord issue seems to be "off the table." They're taking that as a
sign of stability and peace. But the controversy smolders, nonetheless. Wishing
it to go away is not effective. This isn't a NewAge groupthink activity.

NeelyAnn and her ilk are a microcosm of the world out there, appearing to some
as wearing blinders, choosing not to know. Why? because of human weakness:
the truth is not easy to accept. They can't believe that this is happening. Ask the
survivors of Heroshima and Nagasaki what it was like to believe that was
happening. Remember: those were the two most Catholic cities in Japan.

The contents of sossaveoursspx and truetrad and Fr. Chazal's open letters are not
for the faint of heart. But those of us who are able to stomach them are called
upon to do so. It has taken me a long time to get up the courage. But it seems
like we might be almost out of time, somehow. If you don't read them before
it's "too late," you won't be able to blame anyone but yourself.

B16's Golden Jubilee "Year of Faith" begins in just over two weeks, and curiously,
that's the same day that +Fellay has chosen to backpedal with the canceled
ordinations he now promises to "make up." We'll just have to wait and see how
that plan pans out.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on September 26, 2012, 12:41:53 AM
Neil Obstat, I agree with you.   A critical problem for the defense of the faith is that we live in an era of the primacy of feelings over intellect, and the best-intentioned traditional Catholics are not immune to this pervasive cultural weakness.  Data points that contradict what we believe, when they accumulate, ought to precipitate a change in our understanding, no matter how unsettling it is to our feelings. Neely Ann’s silence is important if it demonstrates an instance of the triumph of feelings over intellect, desire over reality.

What is most disheartening is to see not just women but men subject to this intellectual and emotional weakness.  In another thread it was suggested that the Society suffers from a growing effeminacy.  A poster took vehement exception to the charge and offered as proof of its falsity the strapping size and muscularity of a particular Society priest.  Wrong criteria for masculinity, but it perfectly mirrors the world’s distorted mindset.

We need traditional Catholic men and women, but particularly men, to order their faculties according to a correct primacy, the mind over the heart and the heart over the belly, and courage to combat an all too real threat.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 01, 2012, 08:10:30 AM
Good post, Magna.

I just came here from a new thread started by a member who knows the man
who's the editor of sossaveoursspx.com and he says this veteran firefighter was
indeed denied Communion because he runs that website.

Quote from: Zorayda (from the other thread)
... Our friend, father of 8, longtime supporter of SSPX and parishioner of Christ the King Church in Ridgefield, CT was denied Holy Communion by his pastor for having a website about the current SSPX/Rome crisis (only a few months old). This good man, a veteran firefighter, sacrifices his vacation time in order to attend Mass on Sundays & this is how he is treated by his pastor?


http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Denial-of-Sacraments



Meanwhile, NeelyAnn is still on the lam.



Meanwhile, it's now only 10 days to go before October 11th, which will be the
50th anniversary of the infamous Opening Speech of Vatican II, when John XXIII
of infalicitous memory
abandoned the power of the Keys of St. Peter in public, for
all with eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Was that the arrival of the grey horse of the Apocalypse?
Or, is the 50th anniversary, the "Golden Jubilee" rather its arrival?

They seem to be capable of scheduling things to happen at the same time, all
right: the Golden Jubilee ritual and +Fellay's promised ordinations of the
candidates who should not have been postponed in June in the first place. When
will they get it together and have the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, on the
same day, at the same time (within reasonable limits)?

They seem to be quite capable of getting all the world's religions to show up at
Assisi for a display of nonsense. How about getting all the bishops to take 5
minutes to get something really worthwhile accomplished?




Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: John Grace on October 01, 2012, 10:15:03 AM
My advice would be to continue the website and not be bullied. It seems to be more a case of them not liking what they read and see than a case of calumny written here and there.Like 'Krahgate' where is the calumny? It is the same regarding the document on the Menzingen lawyer. This attack on the editor of sossaveoursspx.com shows how malicious and desperate Bishop Fellay and his gang are.Look at Fr Rostand and the 'Against the Rumours' series of video.What/Who is Fr Rostand afraid of?
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: John Grace on October 01, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: stgobnait
oh, let it go....  why demand your pound of flesh.....


Naturally, one shouldn't just let it go.
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: John Grace on October 01, 2012, 10:42:41 AM
Quote
oh, let it go....  why demand your pound of flesh....


Perhaps I am "feeding the trolls" but it would be interesting to establish as to why we should "let it go"? Let what go? I'm not particularly clear what you mean.

My conclusion drawn is the SSPX are now denying the sacraments to those who seek and promote truth.

I had 'Patricius' state I personally wouldn't know truth if it "kicked me up the backside".

Are you suggesting we sit back and place ourselves under "holy obedience" and not protest the injustice that the editor has experienced or are we 'delusional'?

I think it's disgusting he has been denied the sacraments. It's rather annoying when it is suggested to "let it go".
Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on October 01, 2012, 11:40:33 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Good post, Magna.

I just came here from a new thread started by a member who knows the man
who's the editor of sossaveoursspx.com and he says this veteran firefighter was
indeed denied Communion because he runs that website.

Quote from: Zorayda (from the other thread)
... Our friend, father of 8, longtime supporter of SSPX and parishioner of Christ the King Church in Ridgefield, CT was denied Holy Communion by his pastor for having a website about the current SSPX/Rome crisis (only a few months old). This good man, a veteran firefighter, sacrifices his vacation time in order to attend Mass on Sundays & this is how he is treated by his pastor?


http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Denial-of-Sacraments



Meanwhile, NeelyAnn is still on the lam.



Meanwhile, it's now only 10 days to go before October 11th, which will be the
50th anniversary of the infamous Opening Speech of Vatican II, when John XXIII
of infalicitous memory
abandoned the power of the Keys of St. Peter in public, for
all with eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Was that the arrival of the grey horse of the Apocalypse?
Or, is the 50th anniversary, the "Golden Jubilee" rather its arrival?

They seem to be capable of scheduling things to happen at the same time, all
right: the Golden Jubilee ritual and +Fellay's promised ordinations of the
candidates who should not have been postponed in June in the first place. When
will they get it together and have the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, on the
same day, at the same time (within reasonable limits)?

They seem to be quite capable of getting all the world's religions to show up at
Assisi for a display of nonsense. How about getting all the bishops to take 5
minutes to get something really worthwhile accomplished?









I thought on October 11, 1962 John XXIII on his death bed cried out "stop the council!!! Stop the council!!  Then september 20th 1963 Pope Paul Vi reopened it letting non catholics make chhages to our Mass and sacraments...  

Paul Vi dies on august 6 1978 and he admits that Satan was now in the sanctuary.

Divide and conquer  priest against priest and lay person against lay person.  This what vatican II promotes.

Please make sure the things I stated above are facts.  I'm going to write a letter to editors.  

Title: http:www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post by: Magna opera Domini on October 02, 2012, 01:45:13 AM
The “pound of flesh” analogy is not apt in the least.  To persevere in asking Neely Ann for the promised report – a report we can assume would have been received quickly if it had been advantageous to her position – is hardly akin to Shakespeare’s villainous Jewish usurer.

If any person is in danger of being cut “closest to the heart” it is the poor fellow who has been denied Our Lord in Holy Communion for the offense of publicly shaming certain persons in position of power.   What could be more grave then for a priest to wield the sacraments as a weapon of his displeasure?  I would tremble to be in such shoes.