Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: cosmas on May 11, 2019, 09:15:45 PM

Title: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: cosmas on May 11, 2019, 09:15:45 PM
Virgo-Maria.org
 
Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas hæreses sola interemisti.
(Tractus Missæ Salve Sancta Parens)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
This message can be downloaded in pdf on our website http://www.virgo-maria.org/ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/).
The program book «Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes» (« Benedict XVI and the traditionalists »)(March 12, 2007) of Father Celier (FSSPX), published by and with a foreword of a freemason[1] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftna)of the Grand(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)Lodge(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)of France(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image002.gif)
 
Proof of the Masonic(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png) premeditation of the joining Rome policy imposed on the SSPX by Bishop Fellay
 
An unprecedented Masonic(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png) scandal on top of the sacerdotal work of Archbishop Lefebvre

In view of these appalling FACTS[1] from this moment onwards the question raises itself :
 
 
Could it be that nowadays the SSPX is being led by a freemason(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)?
 
 
If so, since when did he enter the Lodge?
 
 

Bishop Fellay has to choose:
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image004.gif)
 
 
Explanation of the Masonic(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png) intentions and methods of Bishop Fellay’s policy:
 
In the absence of any denial by Bishop Fellay, more than a month after the outbreak of the scandal without any reaction from his side, we cannot but conclude that it is clearly visible that Father Celier has had orders from Bishop Fellay and Father de Cacqueray to traverse France for two years in order to present in all the priories, before all the clergymen and faithfull, this program book of the joining of the SSPX with the Masonic, apostate, globalist Rome – a book published by and with a foreword of a freemason.
 
Late October 2008 Mr. J.L.Maxence, the psychoanalist who edited and wrote the foreword of the program book «Benoît XVI et les Traditionnalistes» published his own book («La Loge et le divan») («The  Lodge and the Couch «), in which he himself[4] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn4) reveals the sham, up to then unknown and revealed later, in the nr. 269 (1 to 15 Feb.) of Emmanuel Ratier’s «Faits & Documents»  magazine.
 
 
Father Celier’s program book, published by and with a foreword from a freemason, was released on March 12, 2007, and was immediately distributed and promoted in the media of the SSPX and in the priories, with the full and active support of the authority of Father de Cacqueray, who sold it himself in Nantes.
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image006.gif)
 
Page 57 of «J’ai été franc-maçon» («I have been a freemason») by André Clodic[5] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn5)
 
The first chapter of part three of  «Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes», devoted to the process of «reconciliation» with modernist Rome, is called «triangulation», a term that makes one invariably think of the «triangulation of speech» which, in Masonic practices, means that the initiated gets permission to speak from the Venerable of the Lodge trough the intermediary of the Surveillant. This symbolizes the indirect procedure.
 
This means that the program book has been drafted in the second half of 2006, from August to December, at the time of the launching of the sacrilegious «bouquet», exactly the period when Father de Cacqueray began his Paris conferences[6] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn6), and was already reading to the public parts of the still unpublished Masonic∴ program book  in his lecture (the childish and ridiculous episode of the tanker changing course, part of the Masonic∴ book released 6 months later) of September 27, 2006[7] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn7), in the hall of the Mutualité, while answering pro-joining questions from Father Lorans.
During this well known lecture, Father de Cacqueray explained to the faithful the idea according to which the SSPX should accept to lower the tone of its criticism, being fully integrated in the bosom of the Conciliar Church.
 
All through his 2007 spring campaign in the priories, Father Celier has not stopped declaring that he acted with the agreement of Bishop Fellay, and that his book expressed the thoughts of Bishop Fellay.
 
At that time, VM had pains to believe it, as it appeared so inconceivable.
However, if we take Father Celier serious now, and accept that he did speak the truth, then this program book, its publication and its foreword by the freemason editor Jean-Luc Maxence had been agreed upon with Bishop Fellay as early as mid 2006, to contribute to the success of politics of joining the SSPX with Rome by way of PSYOPS manipulation of the faithful.
 
Bishop Fellay has therefore chosen to have Father Celier present the lectures on joining that he did not dare himself to present openly at that time, preferring to remain in a chiaroscuro in order to better cheat the clergy and the faithful, while the freemason writer distilled the poison of surrendering in the minds of the priests and laymen of the SSPX.
 
Jean-Luc Maxence was at least a known admirer of the gnosis. Choosing him  as editor, most certainly ratified by Bishop Fellay, reveals a deeper "connivance": Bishop Fellay could not be unaware of the Masonic contacts of the former contributor of the "Monde & Vie" magazine .
 
Did Bishop Fellay choose this editor because of his membership of the G∴L∴F∴  ?
On the other hand, was this choice the fruit of orchestrated action between the G∴L∴F∴ and the superior of the SSPX?
 
 
Likewise, Bishop Fellay, in permanent communication with the Masonic Conciliar authorities of Rome, must have been warned about the coming release[8] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn8)of the Motu Proprio; he must have had information on the planned timetable, and therefore, the "miracle" made from the "bouquet spirituel" was   – as VM has denounced[9] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn9)right away -  destined to cheat the piety of the faithful. The Masonic program book represented the "next step", the one that would encourage the momentum towards the so called "discussions", and then the final integration.
 
 
Bishop Fellay, Father Celier and the Masonic editor of the G∴L∴F∴, have therefore planned to publish a program book that would be propagated by Father Celier in half of the priories of the SSPX in France, in two campaigns that would frame the release of the Motu Proprio as a sandwich.
Evidently, Father Celier benefited from financial support from the side of Father de Cacqueray for the expenses that he made for his subversive operation.
 
Consequently, it is necessary to note that Father Celier has benefited from unlimited support of Father de Cacqueray and of Bishop Fellay, in spite of the multiplying protest articles and actions.
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image008.gif)
"In the first place, pull away form Freemasonry the mask that it covers itself with and make it be seen like it is." Leo XIII
 
In the final annex to this VM message, we do invite our readers – be they clergymen or laymen – to read, reread and meditate on the INFALLIBLE encyclical text Humanum Genus of April 20, 1884, from the Magisterium of Pope Leo XIII, by which this Pontiff infallibly exposes, denounces and condemns the "Sect of the Freemasons", as well as their "misleading" methods and their "infamous and criminal enterprises."
While considering the INFALLIBLE terms chosen by Pope Leo XIII to passionately condemn Freemasonry by his encyclical Humanum Genus, the Catholic readers, clergy or laymen, will be able to measure the ABSOLUTELY MOST SERIOUS character of the public approval from a confirmed, acknowledged, enthusiast Gnostic freemason program book of Father Celier for the joining of the SSPX with the Masonic, globalist, apostate, “ecumenical” Conciliar church.
 
Leo XIII points his finger at the secret methods of the Masonic sect:
 
"Undoubtedly, one can see that they belong to the family of clandestine corporations, and that they behave like them. They have, in fact, kinds of mysteries that their constitution forbids with the greatest care to divulge, not only to people outside, but even to a considerable number of their followers."
 
And what does Bishop Fellay show since the year 2000 in the SSPX? The same Masonic∴ methods of secrecy!
 
 
This cult of the secret keeps on spreading in the government of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay. The so called doctrinarian "discussions” with the Rome of the antichrists, by which the Swiss bishop risks the future of the FSSPX, will unfold themselves in secrecy, behind CLOSED DOORS.
And now, in a new boost of secrecy, even the names of the members of the Commission will remain secret!
Discussions BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, by persons that do not unveil their identity to the public, does that not remind you of something? This is exactly the way that the Masonic Lodge functions.
We cannot but notice that Bishop Fellay imposes on the FSSPX the way of functioning of the Masonic Lodge: this is a FACT.
 
 
Quite the opposite of Bishop Fellay and the Lodge, Bishop Lefebvre applied the Catholic way of behaving: he kept his relations with Rome seen and known by the faithful and did not hesitate to solicit the opinion of laymen.
 
How to explain that, since 2000, the year of the pilgrimage to Rome, the Direction of the SSPX has arrived at adopting the methods of functioning of the Masonic Lodge?
And this in an ever increasing way since the visit of Bishop Fellay to the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005?
 
 
 
 
Ask your priests and your bishops:
 
·    How is it possible that the Direction of the SSPX promotes and sells this Masonic∴ program book without any penalty?
 
·    How is it possible that Bishop Fellay imposes this Masonic∴ policy by terror?
 
·    Do you want our children to finish in the Lodge∴?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chronology of the publication and circulation of the Masonic program book within the District of France of the SSPX for two years with the total support and active participation of Father de Cacqueray
 
Table of contents
 
1. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701557)       The publication on March 12, 2007, of the joining program book by Father Celier, edited by and with a foreword of Jean-Luc Maxence, a not yet acknowledged freemason of the G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701557)... 7
2.       The first publicity campaign (May-June 2007) of Father Celier in 12 priories of the District of France to distribute his program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists", edited and prefaced by the freemason of the G∴L∴F∴... 10 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)
3.       On July 7, 2007, Benedict XVI published the Motu Proprio. Four months before the joining program book of Father Celier has appeared. This release of the Motu is framed by the two campaigns of Father Celier in the priories, for his program book edited by and with a foreword of a follower of the (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701559)G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)... 15 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701559)
4.       On October 5, 2007, Bishop Fellay’s nomination of Father Celier (edited by and with a foreword of a F∴M∴) is revealed in the theological commission responsible for the preparation of the "discussions" with Rome.17 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701560)
5.       The second publicity campaign (October-December 2007) of Father Celier in 9 priories of the District of France to distribute his program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists", edited by and with a foreword of a freemason of the (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701561)G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)... 18 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701561)
6.       On the 1st  of December, 2007, a university circle violently attacks Father Celier’s philosophical work ("the mortal god"), for being an "initiatory guide to apostasy". Erreur ! Signet non défini. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701562)
7.       In March 2008, the hidden, but unmasked campaign of Father Celier to spread a second document about the joining among the clergy of the SSPX   19 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701563)
8.       From June to August 2008, Father Celier, helped by Father Lorans, with insolence, and as if he has nothing to fear, hushes up the rebellion of Bishop Fellay and the bishops of the Fraternity (SSPX) against the ultimatum urged by Rome at the beginning June 2008  19 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701564)
9.       In October 2008, Jean-Luc Maxence, editor of Father Celier, reveals his affiliation "since decades" to the Grande∴ Loge∴ de France∴ (Grand Lodge of France)24 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701565)
10.    On the 1st of February 2009, Emmanuel Ratier passes on the information about Jean-Luc Maxence’s Masonic∴ affiliation in the Faits & Documents magazine. 25 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701566)
11.    In March 2009, the magazine of the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé (Sel de la Terre) tells about the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence  26 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701567)
12.    May 10 2009, in his lecture to the IUSPX on subversion, Father Chautard, first curate of the Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, makes the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence known. 27 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701568)
13.    In June 2009, the parish bulletin of the Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, ("Le Chardonnet") makes the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence known. 27 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701569)
14.    In July 2009, VM establishes the link between the program book of Father Celier and the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence to the  (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701570)G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)... 28 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701570)
15.    By the end of August 2009, although directly incriminated and finding his reputation damaged by the scandal, Bishop Fellay insists on supporting the Fathers Celier and De Cacqueray and the Masonic∴ political exposition in the program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" Erreur ! Signet non défini. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701571)
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image010.gif)
 
1.  The publication on March 12, 2007 of the joining program book by Father Celier, edited by and with a foreword of Jean-Luc Maxence, a not yet acknowledged freemason of the G(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)L(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)F(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)
 
·      January 17, 2007: Announcement by Entrelacs Publishers, directed by Jean-Luc Maxence
o  "Entrelacs Publishers (an affiliate of Albin-Michel) will publish on March, 12, a book by Father Grégoire Celier and Olivier Pichon: Benedict XVI and the traditionalists.
The third part, "Future", the most original one of the book, constitutes a systematic presentation of the links of the Pius X Fraternity (SSPX) with Rome, notably in the matter of the famous "agreements".
The first chapter, entitled "Triangulation[10] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn10)", returns to that which the SSPX has called the two "preconditions", i.e. total liberty for each priest to celebrate the traditional mass (before Vatican II), and the lifting of the Roman excommunications of 1988 regarding the four auxiliary bishops of the SSPX and the two bishops that consecrated them. Replying to the objections of Olivier Pichon, Father Celier explains why and how the SSPX has proposed these two preconditions to Rome before any other discussion.
The title of the second chapter - to be understood while reading - is "Messe pipaule". This chapter primarily treats the "doctrinal discussions”, which must constitute, according to the SSPX, the second step of the process of reconciliation. While replying to the questions of Olivier Pichon, Father Celier tries to show, through some historic examples, that in the eyes of the SSPX it would be possible from this day to advance these discussions with Rome. This chapter - the most original of the work - also proposes future perspectives for the Church, perspectives that are astonishing, indeed, explosive from a “traditionalist” priest.
The third chapter, entitled "Fable du héron", (The Fable of the Heron) wants to reply to the central objection of Olivier Pichon: "Isn’t now the right moment to sign, because the election of Benedict XVI is a historic chance for you? If you do not sign today, might you not risk losing all?" Having explained the history of the previous agreements, Father Celier explains in detail why, in the current circumstances, the SSPX does not envisage signing an agreement with Rome in the short run, even if it considers that the position can brutally and quickly change into its favor, which would then motivate the signature of such a agreement ."
·      February 28, 2007: Father Celier exposes the official policy of the rapports of the SSPX with Rome on Radio Courtoisie:
"Effectively, there is a general position that, on a certain number of items, a reflection is evolving in the heart of the Fraternity that tries to adapt itself to this position (…). The Apostolic See can very well return this favor to the Tradition in any other form (…).We do not say that these two preconditions are absolutely obligatory if in another way, for example, the Apostolic See would show that the love of the Tradition, of the Church, is put back in force (…)"
"Concerning the 'doctrinal debates', I explicitly say that right now this is the formula that Bishop Fellay gave, but he is open to what might happen in various ways (…). In the book I explicitly say, I even remind  that we envisage to make a canonical agreement, even if all problems have not yet been solved, provided that there is a real change of direction" (Father Celier on Radio Courtoisy, February 28, 2007).
 
·      March 11, 2007: VM[11] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn11)exposes the facts and questions Father Celier for his pro-joining book: "The dangerous drifts of Father Celier denounced by a faithful. The growing outcry of the faithful of the SSPX against the network of the modernist infiltrators. "
 
·      March 12 2007: In "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" Father Celier exposes the program of joining the SSPX with the modernistic Rome
 
In the foreword to Father Celier’s work, the then yet concealed freemason Jean-Luc Maxence, declares to welcome the success of the joiningthat he names with a euphemism "rapprochement" – of the SSPX to the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI:
 
Nevertheless, until then - and "for (http://192.168.101.200:5081/?sequence=core&language=French/English&url=http:/www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/009_2009/VM-2009-08-02/VM-2009-09-02-A-00-Question_sur_Mgr_Fellay.html/#_ftn12)decades[12] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn12)"- Mr. Jean-Luc Maxence had never revealed his active and fervent membership of the ‘ateliers’ of the G∴L∴F∴ to the ignorant and credulous traditionalist readers of the weekly Monde & Vie, of which the latter constituted the bulk of its readership, which very well characterizes the habitual method of insinuation and deception denounced for ages by the infallible Magisterium of the Holy Church and of its Pontiffs (cf. for example Leo XIII, 1884, Encyclical Humanum Genus).
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image012.gif)
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image014.gif)
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image016.gif)
 
"I began my activities as a journalist in 1966, a year after the end of the Vatican II council. Being Catholic, I have from this era been fascinated by the different currents of thought that confronted themselves within the Church of Rome. I was having a regular section of "poetry" in the Monde et Vie weekly, and as I was part of the editing team of this publication close to the Catholic "traditionalist", although in no way being "expert" in religious questions, I could talk with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Father François Ducaud Bourget, Michel de Saint Pierre and some other figureheads of this current.
"I was not thirty years old yet, and I was hoping then for a "spring of the Church". I believed the virtues of Vatican II, with the faith of an exalted sixty-eighter. I even ended up being responsible for a polemic work on the subject, a pamphlet that advocated a frank separation from those that the late Jacques Maritain, in his work Le Paysan de la Garonne, baptized those still "Ruminating the Holy Alliance", in other words, the "fundamentalists ".
"Almost thirty years have passed, and still the same questions remain. Vatican II has not at all filled the churches, especially in the West, this is the least one can say.
"I have no intention to get in a certain soft and stupid repentance. However, it seemed to me useful, especially at a time when Pope Benedict XVI courageously wants to mend the torn tunic of the Church, to propose to the journalist Olivier Pichon and to Father Grégoire Celier to talk without using diplomatic language, with absolute liberty, on the question of a rapprochement between the Fraternity of Saint Pius X and Rome.  Is it not just the objective of the Connivences Collection to offer a space for the exchange of ideas beyond habitual ideological divides?
"I do not regret this initiative. Better: it seems to me undeniable that this discussion lights up the points of view of each, and that it can constitute an important brick in the structure of reconciliation that I personally hope to be possible.”
The Director of the “Connivences” Collection (Jean-Luc Maxence, F∴M∴ of the Grande∴ Loge∴ de France∴ according to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite[13] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn13))
 
·      March 13, 2007: while VM[14] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn14)wonders about the Gnostic ideas of Father Celier’s editor, Jean-Luc Maxence: "The thoughts of Bishop Fellay edited by an admirer of the gnosis? The book of Father Celier, claiming to express the thoughts of Bishop Fellay, edited by J. L. Maxence, author of esoteric and Guénon inspired works "
o  The Vehementer magazine (published only on internet) reveals to us that Jean-Luc Maxence is strongly linked to Gnostic circles. It recalls that the latter already has published several works on esoteric subjects and on René Guénon, a highly initiated Gnostic. Vehementer is directed by some Dominican Fathers of Avrillé. It is to be distinguished from Sel de la Terre, a magazine directed by Father Pierre-Marie de Kergorlay."
o  "Father Celier claims, in fact, to speak in the name of Bishop Fellay while expressing exactly the latter’s thought. He even claims that his work was reread and approved by his Superiors. Bishop Fellay therefore, has accepted that, if Father Celier is to be believed – and if this is true, the situation is really very serious -, that his personal thought about the SSPX and its future, like on the very strategic item of the connections with Ratzinger (regions for which he as Superior General of the SSPX is personally responsible, and which he primarily is vested with) is expressed in a discussion with an editor, Mr. Jean-Luc Maxence, who has already published and distributed the following books: Jung and the future of Freemasonry, 2004; L’égrégore; The  collective psychological energy, Dervy, 2003; René Guénon, the invisible philosopher, 2001; Anthology of  contemporary mystical poetry, 1999" VM
 
 
2.  The first publicity campaign (May-June 2007) of Father Celier in 12 priories of the District of France to distribute his program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists", edited by and with a foreword of a mason of the G(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)L(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)F(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)
 
 
·      May 5, 2007: VM[15] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn15)is worried and questions the first tour of France in 12 priories of the SSPX by Father Celier to present his book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" :
    "How to explain that Father Celier turns himself this way, without any obstacle to the highest level of the SSPX media in France, even though he prepares his departure (at last!) from the magazine Fideliter (the level of which has become pitiful henceforth) and the Clovis Publishing Firm? Is it not the responsibility of the July 2006 General Chapter (that convenes once every 12 years) to officially decide to dismiss him from this magazine and of this Publishing Firm? Who, therefore, has authority superior to the General Chapter to decide that his decisions must be executed without delay? An authority that seems to exercise an executive power in the SSPX superior to the General Chapter? Is not here that power at work that we already designated by the expression "Schwarze Kapelle (Black Orchestra)," that corresponds to the network of the modernistic infiltrators? (Cf. preceding VM messages).
Did Father de Cacqueray put his signature under the mission of Father Celier’s tour of France?
Do the gifts of the faithful serve to finance these expensive trips and this shameless pro-joining propaganda?
While the families must scrimp and save to pay the studies of their children in the SSPX schools, the faithful can now verify what their money is used for.
About 7500 Kms (calculating the various routes on www.viamichelin.com) and therefore, according to the tax scale: 3500 € (3.134,39 GBP or 5.194,92 USD) for traveling costs (including amortization) + various costs! It takes more than 1000 books to be sold to get back such a sum by the profits obtained by the profit margin." VM
 
·      May 8 2007: VM[16] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn16)passes on a text of the "Sous la bannière" magazine that publicly questions Bishop Fellay on the legitimacy of Father Celier expressing himself by his book:
"Father continually expresses himself in the name of the Fraternity by using the first person plural. We have; we are; we recognize. On page 221, in 14 lines, this method of expression is used 7 times by the Father Celier. And on page 212, we, or it, or the Fraternity, is used 18 times in 24 lines. The average reader can have no doubt! This must be a "historic leader” who expresses himself in the name of the SSPX. It remains to be known if the real persons in command are conscious of this, and accept it themselves." Sous la bannière – n°130 »
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image018.gif)
 
·      May 18, 2007: VM[17] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn17)publishes on the failure of Father Celier’s first lectures in the priories:
o  "According to our information, Father Celier has met 50 faithful at his lecture of May 3, 2007, in the priory of Marseille. Few books have been sold; some faithful had their copies signed. As a matter of fact, owing to the modernist and naturalist theses that he has not stopped promoting since 1995, Father Celier has got himself a sort of contra-clientele that buys his books or magazines containing items from him (published under his name or under one of his pseudonyms) in order to examine which modernist or naturalist ideas these works contain. So, whatever he publishes, he can be sure of a minimum sale by his opponents. After that, on May 10, 2007, in the priory of Lyon, hardly more faithful turned up (about 60). 30 books have been sold. Among these listeners a lot were opponents of Father Celier’s theses that he has spread for years under his own name or under pseudonyms (Father Beaumont or Paul Sernine). The atmosphere at the time of the lecture in Lyon was hostile. Father Lamerand, the prior, even intervened to chase away someone who had come to distribute the article of Sous la bannière that gives implacable criticism on Father Celier’s work. A theological criticism that we discussed in our VM message of May 8, 2007. "
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image020.gif)
 
http://www.laportelatine.org/communication/presse/2007/confcelier/confcelier.php (http://www.laportelatine.org/communication/presse/2007/confcelier/confcelier.php)
 
·      May 23, 2007: VM[18] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn18)makes the opposition known of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais to Father Celier’s program book, that he qualifies a "fantasy":
« Questioned on the subject of Father Celier’s book[1] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2007/005_2007/VM-2007-05-23/VM-2007-05-23-A-00-Abbe-Celier_desavoue_par_un_eveque.htm#_ftn1) at a lecture for the faithful, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais declared: "I have not read Father Celier’s book yet. This is a, well, a, how shall I put it, an eccentric view of the future, an imagination of the future, how a progressive return to the liturgical tradition, to the traditional Mass might happen. Yes, that is what it is, without any doubt. This is a work of fantasy or imagination, but I cannot say some more because I did not read the book, I did not buy it, it does not interest me, I will not read it, it does not interest me at all." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. [2] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2007/005_2007/VM-2007-05-23/VM-2007-05-23-A-00-Abbe-Celier_desavoue_par_un_eveque.htm#_ftn2)
 
·      May 25, 2007:VM[19] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn19)publishes a document of 2004 that makes a theological and philosophical screening of Father Celier’s writings and concludes that he is a nuisance. Father Celier intervenes once more on Radio Courtoisie.
 
"Despite the failure of his campaign in the priories of France, on the radio on May 24, 2007 Father Celier excelled already as a correspondent for the District of France." VM
 
·      May 26, 2007: VM[20] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn20)headlines: "Bishop Tissier disavows Father Celier’s manuscripts. The failure of an isolated and rejected Father Celier" and publishes the audio recording [21] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn21)of the rejection by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of Father Celier’s program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists".
 
·      May 27, 2007: VM[22] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn22)informs on "The rout of Father Celier on campaign: the fiasco of Toulouse".
 
"Hardly 40 persons turned up. Father de la Rocque, prior of the SSPX in Toulouse, had rented a room for 300 persons. 40 persons turned up. We counted 3 priests, some youngsters, and very aged people, all faithful of the priory. Some time before, Michel de Jaeghere had attracted more people to the same place, gathering listeners from all horizons. The lecture began with 20 minutes of delay. Father de la Rocque saw the room almost empty and waited for the crowd to arrive, but the crowd never came. Delivering a rather shallow speech, Father Celier appeared very little at ease. (...) During his lecture he strongly asserted that he spoke in the name of the SSPX and of Bishop Fellay, presenting the latter’s position all the time." VM
 
·      June 3, 2007: Father de Cacqueray goes to the Priory of Saint-Louis in Nantes on Sunday, a week before Father Celier’s arrival, and he sells the Masonic program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" to the faithful himself:
"We have received two testimonies on the "great success" of Nantes. It is necessary to recall that after Paris, Nantes is the second city of France in the fight for the Tradition. The coming of Father Celier was preceded by that of Father de Cacqueray, who came the preceding Sunday with works of Father Celier. However, he failed to sell them, according to a testimony that has reached us." VM[23] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn23)of June 17, 2007
·      June 6, 2007:VM[url=http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-200
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Climacus on May 11, 2019, 11:51:30 PM
After all these years it is pathetic that it takes a booklet for trads to even consider the question.  
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 12, 2019, 10:35:47 AM
I'm not really following this, but I always found it strange that +Lefebvre was pressured to include +Fellay among the consecrandi ... and it was certainly an unusual and suspicious handshake he exchanged with Benedict XVI.  I would definitely not rule it out.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 12, 2019, 11:41:49 AM
I'm not really following this, but I always found it strange that +Lefebvre was pressured to include +Fellay among the consecrandi ... and it was certainly an unusual and suspicious handshake he exchanged with Benedict XVI.  I would definitely not rule it out.
I didn’t know he was pressured to include Fellay. I don’t disbelieve you, but do you have some proof for this?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 12, 2019, 11:45:46 AM
Didn’t Bishop Fellay grow up near the seminary in Econe? I was under the impression that he was a devout Catholic since he was young.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 12, 2019, 12:02:50 PM
Didn’t Bishop Fellay grow up near the seminary in Econe? I was under the impression that he was a devout Catholic since he was young.
I believe you are right.

I agree with Ladislaus -- it's not an INSANE speculation, but it's also not necessary, nor do we have proof.

+Fellay just fell for the siren song of popularity, the idea that "we're going to save the Church" and he is willing to do anything to get all those thousands of "conservative" Catholics packing his pews. You know, the Catholics who, up till now, were scared away from the SSPX by the irregular Canonical status of the SSPX.

It doesn't require a Freemason to do what +Fellay did. And this is a STUPID thread and a distraction, because

The Crisis in the SSPX, and the Resistance, is not about the man +Fellay! About 1/3 of the SSPX priests feel and see things like +Fellay does. Are they all Freemasons?

I understand where the author is coming from, and MAYBE his heart is in the right place, but he's just causing a distraction.

What +Fellay doesn't realize is that this "fear of contradiction" is exactly what kept the SSPX relatively unscathed from the Modernist contagion up till now.
Being hated by the world is a good "filter", as it were. It keeps out the lukewarm and the bad apples. Remove this filter, and in comes the flood.

There are only so many good Trads (a.k.a. "good, serious Catholics") out there.  If you want to increase your numbers fivefold, you're GOING to have to lower your standards, and completely dilute your mission.

I'm not saying every non-Trad should be consigned to Hell -- but until they are ready to be a REAL Trad, they should stay out of the "serious Trad" group. Let the conservative Catholic groups get them started on the path of truth. Then, when they're ready for solid food (baby food), let them graduate to the FSSP. Then, when they are ready to be adult Catholics, let them join the SSPX.

That's how it used to work.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 12, 2019, 12:09:10 PM
Taking the "serious Trad" group and downgrading it to FSSP or conservative Catholic, in order to "meet people where they are", is a huge mistake. It's what the Catholic Church did in the 1960's for crying out loud! We all know how that ended up.

No, what you do is keep your standards high, and some people will join you. The rest are going to be in lesser stages of the journey, and that's what the conservative N.O., FSSP, Indult, etc. is for.

But taking a group that's already at the top of the ladder, and bumping them ALL down to the bottom rung, is a huge act of destruction.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 12, 2019, 12:54:23 PM
Taking the "serious Trad" group and downgrading it to FSSP or conservative Catholic, in order to "meet people where they are", is a huge mistake. It's what the Catholic Church did in the 1960's for crying out loud! We all know how that ended up.

This is absolutely correct.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 12, 2019, 12:55:22 PM
I love a good conspiracy theory but the opening post is a complex, confusing, ridiculous collection of multiple fonts, colors, underlines, etc.  It's unreadable and headache-inducing.  Maybe there's some truth in there somewhere?  I won't spend the time to find out.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 12, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
I didn’t know he was pressured to include Fellay. I don’t disbelieve you, but do you have some proof for this?

It’s a disappointing fact.

I will find the citation; can’t recall if it was confirmed in the Biography or somewhere else.

I remember it slightly hurting my esteem for Archbishop Lefebvre when I learned this (ie., caving in to the desires of Swiss benefactors, which implies he did it for money).

We all make mistakes (and that one came back to destroy his SSPX), but he still deserves to be recognized as the savior of the faith, and because of that as one of the greatest saints of all-time, in my opinion.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 12, 2019, 01:17:16 PM
It’s a disappointing fact.

I will find the citation; can’t recall if it was confirmed in the Biography or somewhere else.

I remember it slightly hurting my esteem for Archbishop Lefebvre when I learned this (ie., caving in to the desires of Swiss benefactors, which implies he did it for money).

We all make mistakes (and that one came back to destroy his SSPX), but he still deserves to be recognized as the savior of the faith, and because of that as one of the greatest saints of all-time, in my opinion.

Agreed.

And let's face it -- as I said above, this isn't about the man +Fellay. I don't hate him personally. I hate the new direction of the new SSPX, and I hate the neo-SSPX as an organization. We are allowed to hate -- even REQUIRED to hate -- error and evil in the abstract.

Therefore I don't hate any individual priests or laity who are part of (or who attend) the SSPX. However, if the SSPX as an organization depended on me for life, it would be shut down. If the SSPX were drowning, I'd throw it a nice, heavy anchor.

Their whole position and strategy (that of the FSSP) repulses me as a man. I hate compromise, I hate lies, I hate ignoring truths. I hate pandering to certain apostate groups which have been fighting the Church since the Acts of the Apostles. And I hate everything the modern world stands for. Every last thing. I do renounce it, and all its pomps, and all its display. Yes, I chose those words on purpose. I renounce the Modern World (a.k.a. "the city of Man") the same way I renounce Satan, because they are interchangeable. That's also why I hate Vatican 2!

Besides the % of priests in the SSPX who are in agreement with the new direction (personified by +Fellay) there are also THE OTHER TWO BISHOPS who have done nothing substantial to put the SSPX back on the straight and narrow. As I asked above, are THEY Freemasons too?

That's why this line of thinking ("Is Bp. Fellay a Freemason?") is rather misguided and even stupid.

As if non-Freemasons can't sin, fall, be deceived, etc.?

It smacks of the error discussed in 1984: "Eurasia is now our enemy. Therefore they are the ultimate evil. But if they are the devil, there's no way we (good guys) were EVER allies with them. Thus we were ALWAYS at war with Eurasia. Get out the old newspapers and history books, and make changes to the historical record if necessary!"

So long story short, +ABL's first choice -- Bp. Williamson -- turned out to be his best choice.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 12, 2019, 01:44:50 PM
Very true.  The other 2 bishops have compromised just as much as +Fellay.  And if you could go back in time and not give +Fellay the election victory 12 years ago, would the sspx be on a different course?  Lots of “what if’s” that could’ve changed for the better, even if +Fellay is a mason. 

Masonry certainly is the catalyst that God allows to lead many to compromise of their Faith.  But even the post-V2 masons have said publically they were surprised that V2 was so “successful”.  This means that free will and God’s graces are always there to totally destroy ANY evil forces at work, if we pray and act accordingly.  Most evils are not due to evil men but, as the old saying goes, they are due to “the good men who do nothing”.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Plenus Venter on May 12, 2019, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: SeanJohnson on Today at 12:58:57 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-he-or-isn't-fellay-a-freemason/msg653796/#msg653796)
Quote
It’s a disappointing fact.

I will find the citation; can’t recall if it was confirmed in the Biography or somewhere else.

I remember it slightly hurting my esteem for Archbishop Lefebvre when I learned this (ie., caving in to the desires of Swiss benefactors, which implies he did it for money).
It's a fact. That is a serious statement that one needs to be sure of before making.
It implies he did it for money. It's a fact. Now that is an extremely grave implication. It casts an aspersion on the character of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Is it not more likely that Archbishop Lefebvre, a man whose whole life gives testimony that he was a man of rare principle, considered that the request had merit and that there was a certain young priest who was eminently suited to such a high calling? Can we not think of other reasons that reflect well on the Archbishop rather than tarnish his reputation with such certainty?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Cera on May 12, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
I love a good conspiracy theory but the opening post is a complex, confusing, ridiculous collection of multiple fonts, colors, underlines, etc.  It's unreadable and headache-inducing.  Maybe there's some truth in there somewhere?  I won't spend the time to find out.
Yes, plus unfounded innuendo and calumny.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 12, 2019, 07:40:04 PM
About 1/3 of the SSPX priests feel and see things like +Fellay does.

Only a third? That means 2/3 oppose the new direction? I would love that to be right, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 12, 2019, 07:54:00 PM

It's hard to determine the influences that +ABL was under and we hope for the best concerning his intentions. 

But who else would have come forth to help save Catholic tradition... Father Wathen?   Prof. Plinio Correa de Oliveira?

They were ahead of +ABL in understanding the nature of the Church's judeo-masonic infiltration.
But they both lacked the clerical stature and European Catholic cache to be thrust into the limelight as movement leaders.

As in the Max Krah/Jaidhoff benefactor connection, it may be fruitful to research the SSPX's older benefactors who could have had questionable intentions.

For example, the "Black Nobility" family of Princess Elvina Pallavicini.
She endorsed +ABL early on... but you always have to ask why and who did she really represent?

Was her endorsement and probable funding a move to make the SSPX the newChurch's controlled opposition?

In 2017, the SSPX, in a self-serving history, honored her help to +ABL in their Catholic Family News magazine.

But here's a video of a Pallavicini family member leading the political promotion of Italian Islam
Note: This is a Soros level operation


Inman Pallavicini (https://youtu.be/jZhdmJiZNFU)



Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 12, 2019, 08:45:33 PM
Only a third? That means 2/3 oppose the new direction? I would love that to be right, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

I agree, This seems awfully optimistic. I would hazard to guess the amount to be closer to half.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2019, 06:34:18 AM
Quote from: SeanJohnson on Today at 12:58:57 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-he-or-isn't-fellay-a-freemason/msg653796/#msg653796)It's a fact. That is a serious statement that one needs to be sure of before making.
It implies he did it for money. It's a fact. Now that is an extremely grave implication. It casts an aspersion on the character of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Is it not more likely that Archbishop Lefebvre, a man whose whole life gives testimony that he was a man of rare principle, considered that the request had merit and that there was a certain young priest who was eminently suited to such a high calling? Can we not think of other reasons that reflect well on the Archbishop rather than tarnish his reputation with such certainty?

That Archbishop Lefebvre only initially intended to consecrate 3 bishops is documented on the SSPX.org website here:

"On February 2nd, the Archbishop announces in Flavigny before television cameras that he will consecrate three bishops on June 30th."

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm)

That Fr. Fellay was not among these initial candidates comes from a personal email from Bishop Williamson here:

"Upon information and belief, it was the Archbishop's friend, Attorney Roger Lovey, who asked on behalf of the Archbishop's Swiss drivers all over Europe, for a fourth priest from Switzerland to be added to the three priests already chosen to be consecrated bishops. The Archbishop agreed out of gratitude to his drivers. Fr Bernard Fellay seemed to be the best suited, and the rest is history."

To do something in gratitude is not the same as doing it for money.  And I suppose you could suspect that I am fraudulently attributing this quote to Bishop Williamson, or made it up myself (but in that case, you could simply write to Bishop Williamson to verify).  Or, you could question the source of Bishop Williamson's information.  But if he is going to tell it to me, it is going to be the truth.  For me, his word suffices.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2019, 07:22:27 AM
That Archbishop Lefebvre only initially intended to consecrate 3 bishops is documented on the SSPX.org website here:

"On February 2nd, the Archbishop announces in Flavigny before television cameras that he will consecrate three bishops on June 30th."

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm)

That Fr. Fellay was not among these initial candidates comes from a personal email from Bishop Williamson here:

"Upon information and belief, it was the Archbishop's friend, Attorney Roger Lovey, who asked on behalf of the Archbishop's Swiss drivers all over Europe, for a fourth priest from Switzerland to be added to the three priests already chosen to be consecrated bishops. The Archbishop agreed out of gratitude to his drivers. Fr Bernard Fellay seemed to be the best suited, and the rest is history."

To do something in gratitude is not the same as doing it for money.  And I suppose you could suspect that I am fraudulently attributing this quote to Bishop Williamson, or made it up myself (but in that case, you could simply write to Bishop Williamson to verify).  Or, you could question the source of Bishop Williamson's information.  But if he is going to tell it to me, it is going to be the truth.  For me, his word suffices.

More related history:

Fr. Laisney, in his book “Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican: 1987-1988,” supplies a reference to a May 3 confidential letter of Archbishop Lefebvre in which the latter supplies the names of 4 candidates to be considered for the consecration of a single bishop.

Interestingly, Fr. Laisney reveals that of the four names submitted on May 3, only two ended up being among those consecrated in June.

https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-03.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-03.htm)

This definitely implies that two new candidates emerged between February and May.

Who were the two new names?

And what was the reason for their inclusion?

It is mentioned elsewhere that Archbishop Lefebvre initially chose Fr. Faure, but when he declined, the Archbishop deferred to Fr. de Galarreta.  

Is this the explanation for one of the two new names?  Not sure.
And is the email of Bishop Williamson above the explanation for the other?

Not sure.

Note also the good will implicit in Archbishop Lefebvre’s negotiations with Rome on this point:

As mentioned elsewhere in Fr. Laisney’s book, it is decided that Archbishop Lefebvre will settle for a single bishop if one should be granted, but otherwise he will consecrate several bishops (“If you’re going to die for a dime, you might as well die for a dollar”).
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 13, 2019, 07:36:06 AM
That Archbishop Lefebvre only initially intended to consecrate 3 bishops is documented on the SSPX.org website here:

"On February 2nd, the Archbishop announces in Flavigny before television cameras that he will consecrate three bishops on June 30th."

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm)

That Fr. Fellay was not among these initial candidates comes from a personal email from Bishop Williamson here:

"Upon information and belief, it was the Archbishop's friend, Attorney Roger Lovey, who asked on behalf of the Archbishop's Swiss drivers all over Europe, for a fourth priest from Switzerland to be added to the three priests already chosen to be consecrated bishops. The Archbishop agreed out of gratitude to his drivers. Fr Bernard Fellay seemed to be the best suited, and the rest is history."

To do something in gratitude is not the same as doing it for money.  And I suppose you could suspect that I am fraudulently attributing this quote to Bishop Williamson, or made it up myself (but in that case, you could simply write to Bishop Williamson to verify).  Or, you could question the source of Bishop Williamson's information.  But if he is going to tell it to me, it is going to be the truth.  For me, his word suffices.
We need to learn who the lawyer Roger Lovey really was and who he was connected to?

The Resistance collectively figured-out in 2009, that the SSPX sponsored the attorney, financier and politician Max Krah, for an eMBA.  When caught, Menzingen tried to spin that Maxie was a just nice Catholic lawyer, hired by Fr. Schmidberger's recommendation, (we assume) and listed on all their EU corporate documents. 
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmauricepinayblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fkrahorenheiman1.jpg&f=1)

But, it is very clear now that "Max-babe" is a Zionist operative.

So the common sense questions on Bp. Fellay's qualifications are: 

1. Did the young Father Fellay even have pastoral assignments or experience?
2. We know unlike +W, he was without a college education.

Even +W has acknowledged +ABL's seminary managerial misjudgements.

We know now, it was a "bad decision".

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsspx.ca%2Fsites%2Fsspx%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fnews_big%2Fpublic%2Fnews%2F1988_episcopal_consecrations_anointing500.jpg%3Fitok%3D3zNVdHps&f=1)

It would seem, (through smiling judeo-masonic eyes), that Fr. Fellay's best Apostolic qualification was that of being the SSPX "money handler".
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2019, 08:12:38 AM
Of course I wouldn’t know, but I don’t think there’s much behind Mr. Lovey.  According to all accounts, he was an honorable man, and the fact of his friendship with Archbishop Lefebvre speaks to that.

Interestingly, it seems he died in the same hour that his son (Fr. Lovey) was ordained a priest.  Equally interesting is that this was the only priestly ordination performed by Archbishop Lefebvre after the 1988 consecrations.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 13, 2019, 08:34:33 AM
I agree, This seems awfully optimistic. I would hazard to guess the amount to be closer to half.

NO! You're totally missing an important point:
1/2 of them don't care, and will go whichever way the wind blows.

Another 1/3 is positively leaning in the new direction. Probably less than 1/6th is conservative or has any kind of strong feelings for sticking with +ABL's old SSPX.

It's even more complicated -- because many are conservative and want to stick with +ABL, but they are ignorant about what that means!

I don't think more than 1/3 is actively desiring a change towards Modern Rome.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2019, 09:35:03 AM
Most things in life are the 80/20 rule.  20% are highly engaged in a movement, organization, philosophy, etc (i.e. leaders).  The rest of the 80% are followers and will listen to the arguments on both sides but aren't able to fully and independently think for themselves.  (This is not a knock against them; God just designed most people to be followers.  Not everyone can be a leader.  Each has specific duties and responsibilities.  An organization will die for lack of leadership or a lack of good followers.  Both are essential.)
.
In the case of the sspx, when +ABL was alive, you had a clear leader of a small organization and he was, de facto, the full 20% of leadership.  Their organization ran pretty smoothly because the vision was clear, the rule of the organization was simple, and with few exceptions (i.e. "the nine" or the priests who left for the fssp), there was no challenge to +ABL's leadership or purpose.
.
Once +Fellay was elected a 2nd time as SG, I think that's when he and his buddies decided to make some changes.  I guess we'll never know why +Fellay decided to sell his soul to new-rome (until we're in heaven), but putting aside the reasons, it is clear that he has embarked on a path of change.  +Williamson was going to be the obvious roadblock in all of this, so he was exiled from Winona and then kicked out all together.  It's suprising that the other 2 bishops were won over so easily to +Fellay's side, yet Frenchmen and South Americans have never been known to have a lot of backbone or leadership qualities, ha ha.
.
(It could be that +Fellay is also a patsy who is following a hidden leadership group within the new-sspx.  Much like the president of a country is told what to do by unelected cabinet members who really run things decade after decade.  This is probably the most likely scenario.  The idea that +Fellay could navigate the cunning, slow, progressive liberalization of the sspx over the past 10 years, in which priest after priest has been slowly trained to spit out the same message from the pulpits across the whole world, is naive.  Certainly there are multiple people involved in this operation of liberalization.  To change an organization from within is a hallmark of communism/freemasonry; this expertise is not learned overnight.  There are experts involved, for sure.  +Fellay does not strike me as an expert on much of anything, ha ha, except that of lying and political double-speak.  Again, where did he learn these skills?  He wasn't always like this.)
.
So we have now the former 20% of +ABL's leadership split between +Fellay and +Williamson.  The rest of the 80% of priests and laity are left to decide whom to follow, with many changing their minds constantly, based on the day, the newest sermon, the weather or any other sentimental reason.  As far as numbers go, certainly the new-sspx is winning and the resistance seems to have reached a high point (as far as growth from new-sspx'ers, not a high-point in future growth).  If the new-sspx keeps their slow, steady walk towards new-rome, they won't lose too many more priests/people.  Only if there is a scandal or some turbulence will *some* wake up and see that the resistance is correct.  (Just like in our own spiritual lives...unless God sends us stress and misery, we will not change).
.
But, the resistance is quality over quantity!  It is full of good, passionate, engaged people who care about the Faith!  This is what God wants!  The new-sspx is full of lukewarmness and compromise.  These types of people will never accomplish anything; they are too asleep and lethargic to act.
.
Let us all pray for a scandal, some turbulence, some pain for the new-sspx, that those who are of good-will can be woken up from their slumber.  The resistance (and the rest of Trad-dom) does not need numbers but we do need quality people.  Let us pray that God will wrestle out the last few souls from the new-sspx's rotting apple, before it's too late!
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Mega-fin on May 13, 2019, 09:40:22 AM
NO! You're totally missing an important point:
1/2 of them don't care, and will go whichever way the wind blows.

Another 1/3 is positively leaning in the new direction. Probably less than 1/6th is conservative or has any kind of strong feelings for sticking with +ABL's old SSPX.

It's even more complicated -- because many are conservative and want to stick with +ABL, but they are ignorant about what that means!

I don't think more than 1/3 is actively desiring a change towards Modern Rome.
I would say this is even high. A lot of people I know personally don’t “like it” but the same people have told me that they would go to the FSSP but it’s further away, or the Indult, but there’s not enough community, etc. From what I’ve seen, people at the SSPX parishes I know are more interested in coffee after Mass and beer at so and so’s house, and the hockey game then what is going on with Tradition. So much for the Church Militant. More like the church passive. 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 13, 2019, 09:45:07 AM
I agree, the percentages are up for debate, and we'll never know for sure. It's hard to nail that down.

However, the point (which can't be disputed) is this: when calculating the % pro- classic SSPX position, and the % pro-Modernist Rome, you have to take into account the large % of SSPX Faithful who are followers, apathetic, who will go along with whatever the SSPX leadership does.

This large % is anywhere from 50% up to 90%. One can debate the specifics, but not the general principle.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Mega-fin on May 13, 2019, 11:00:49 AM
I agree, the percentages are up for debate, and we'll never know for sure. It's hard to nail that down.

However, the point (which can't be disputed) is this: when calculating the % pro- classic SSPX position, and the % pro-Modernist Rome, you have to take into account the large % of SSPX Faithful who are followers, apathetic, who will go along with whatever the SSPX leadership does.

This large % is anywhere from 50% up to 90%. One can debate the specifics, but not the general principle.
Absolutely. But how many people these days in SSPX parishes know what the position of the Archbishop was?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Meg on May 13, 2019, 11:09:00 AM
It's hard to determine the influences that +ABL was under and we hope for the best concerning his intentions.  

What is it exactly that's hard to determine regarding the influence that +ABL was under? Why would you question his intentions? 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 13, 2019, 11:37:25 AM
Absolutely. But how many people these days in SSPX parishes know what the position of the Archbishop was?
That's the problem. Most don't care to do any kind of reading/research to find out -- they just gobble up whatever seeds and acorns the SSPX priests thrown at them. 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 13, 2019, 11:46:56 AM
NO! You're totally missing an important point:
1/2 of them don't care, and will go whichever way the wind blows.

Another 1/3 is positively leaning in the new direction. Probably less than 1/6th is conservative or has any kind of strong feelings for sticking with +ABL's old SSPX.

It's even more complicated -- because many are conservative and want to stick with +ABL, but they are ignorant about what that means!

I don't think more than 1/3 is actively desiring a change towards Modern Rome.

You're right, I'm sorry, I had completely forgotten all the in-betweens. It's hard to imagine that anyone could possibly be lukewarm about it, but it's true that if 1/3 are actively for the changes, then the remaining 2/3 would be split up in a bunch of other boxes. The: 

"I don't know", 
"I don't care", 
"I'm not paying attention", 
"I'm confused", 
"I waver back and forth", 
"This is over my head", 
"This is above my pay grade", 

and finally a small portion would be actively against. That is beside the point that those who positively want the new direction are not all freemasons, I was just struck by the number, completely forgetting there are any positions beyond for or against.   
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 01:23:55 PM
Very true.  The other 2 bishops have compromised just as much as +Fellay.

I'm not sure I agree.  +Tissier had been against the reunification efforts, but then caved.  Left to his own devices, he would not have gone down +Fellay's path.  +Galaretta I barely hear a peep out of.  It almost sounds like he doesn't care one way or the other, and hasn't cared since his consecration.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 13, 2019, 01:28:22 PM
I'm not sure I agree.  +Tissier had been against the reunification efforts, but then caved.  Left to his own devices, he would not have gone down +Fellay's path.  +Galaretta I barely hear a peep out of.  It almost sounds like he doesn't care one way or the other, and hasn't cared since his consecration.

All it takes for the triumph of evil is for "good" men to do nothing.
If you let evil run unchecked, and do nothing to stop it, I don't consider you a good man (maybe a poor, miserable or weak man, worthy of pity) -- but I digress.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 01:29:47 PM
That Archbishop Lefebvre only initially intended to consecrate 3 bishops is documented on the SSPX.org website here:

"On February 2nd, the Archbishop announces in Flavigny before television cameras that he will consecrate three bishops on June 30th."

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm)

That Fr. Fellay was not among these initial candidates comes from a personal email from Bishop Williamson here:

"Upon information and belief, it was the Archbishop's friend, Attorney Roger Lovey, who asked on behalf of the Archbishop's Swiss drivers all over Europe, for a fourth priest from Switzerland to be added to the three priests already chosen to be consecrated bishops. The Archbishop agreed out of gratitude to his drivers. Fr Bernard Fellay seemed to be the best suited, and the rest is history."

To do something in gratitude is not the same as doing it for money.  And I suppose you could suspect that I am fraudulently attributing this quote to Bishop Williamson, or made it up myself (but in that case, you could simply write to Bishop Williamson to verify).  Or, you could question the source of Bishop Williamson's information.  But if he is going to tell it to me, it is going to be the truth.  For me, his word suffices.

I'm not sure why the whole Swiss thing was even an issue.  Language/culture were the key, and it's not like Switzerland has its own unique culture.  They mostly use German and French.  So +Lefebvre chose a native English speaker, a native Spanish speaker, and a native French speaker.  If anything he might have added a German speaker, but I believe that there are few Germans in SSPX.  +Schmidberger would have been a logical choice (even though I don't like him, and never have).  Does +Fellay even speak German well?

In any case, the other choices were about language/culture and not so much nationality.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2019, 02:17:40 PM
Quote
+Tissier had been against the reunification efforts, but then caved.  Left to his own devices, he would not have gone down +Fellay's path. 
+Fellay said he was against reunification too, at first.  +Tissier was banished to the lowly chicago chapel for a while.  Maybe he was given an ultimatum?  I agree he's not as complicit at +Fellay, but in the end, he's still a compromiser.  The degree of compromise will never be known.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 02:29:43 PM
All it takes for the triumph of evil is for "good" men to do nothing.
If you let evil run unchecked, and do nothing to stop it, I don't consider you a good man (maybe a poor, miserable or weak man, worthy of pity) -- but I digress.

I don't disagree with that.  My point was only that it seems that +Fellay is more positively pro-reunification than the other two bishops.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 02:31:38 PM
+Tissier was banished to the lowly chicago chapel for a while.  Maybe he was given an ultimatum?

Yes, wasn't that interesting?  Actually, a couple years ago he came to our podunk little Independent chapel in Akron to offer Mass on Christmas Day ... when our elderly priest was out for a hip surgery.  I recall that Father Carley complained to the SSPX bitterly that they couldn't find a fill-in for him ... after he had left all his (substantial) property to the SSPX in his will.  I had warned him not to do that, by the way.  In fact, I had been on the board of trustees there, but I resigned after Father asked me to sign the document.  I wouldn't sign it, and I resigned instead.  Very politely, and without hard feelings.  I'll always be grateful to Father for his many years of service to my extended family.  But I just couldn't put my name on it in good conscience.  In any case, I suspect he may have threatened to remove them from his will if they didn't send a replacement, and then none other than +Tissier showed up unannounced to offer Mass on Christmas Day.

Does anyone have information about why +Tissier was marginalized like that?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: cosmas on May 13, 2019, 04:25:51 PM
Ladislaus, its my understanding that it happened after the 2012 Chapter. at the chapter things got heated,Bishop Tissier stood up to Bishop Fellay, also the fact that at the beginning the three Bishops went against Bishop Fellay. He evidently threatened Bishop de Gallerreta and Bishop Tissier. Not long after they were sent away from their countries they were in. They both had a large following in those countries. Haven't heard much of a fight from either of them,now its go along to get along with Rome.
We know what happened to Bishop Williamson,for speaking the Truth.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2019, 04:36:35 PM
I know it's difficult for older people to change, but man, they should just leave and join the resistance.  They could go back to their countries, semi-retire, write against Modernism and they'd be taken care of materially and all of that.  Easier said than done, I suppose.  They'd have to cut ties with all their fraternity friends and such.  But, then again, life isn't easy!  Have to make sacrifices for the Faith!  I pray they can make this decision one day.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 13, 2019, 10:50:09 PM
What is it exactly that's hard to determine regarding the influence that +ABL was under? Why would you question his intentions?


Have you ever heard the supposition that SSPX was purposefully formed to be the "controlled opposition" to the Conciliar church?
(The judeo-masonic metric is to instigate the revolution, but always control the opposition to the revolution).

+ABL came in contact with many different groups during the early days of the SSPX.

Please read my previous posts on the benefactors, Princess Pallavicini and Mr. Lovey.

This was before the internet and much of their written history has been scrubbed clean.
What's left of that history is being "re-written" by SSPX propaganda outlets, like Catholic Family News.
You can investigate them and do your own research.

Suffice to say, if we took Bp. Fellay's word that Max Krah, "... is a good Catholic man", the Resistance movement would have been retarded by a few years and Bp. Williamson would probably still be living in the priory attic at Wimbledon.


Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Meg on May 14, 2019, 07:46:17 AM

Have you ever heard the supposition that SSPX was purposefully formed to be the "controlled opposition" to the Conciliar church?
(The judeo-masonic metric is to instigate the revolution, but always control the opposition to the revolution).

+ABL came in contact with many different groups during the early days of the SSPX.

Please read my previous posts on the benefactors, Princess Pallavicini and Mr. Lovey.

This was before the internet and much of their written history has been scrubbed clean.
What's left of that history is being "re-written" by SSPX propaganda outlets, like Catholic Family News.
You can investigate them and do your own research.

Suffice to say, if we took Bp. Fellay's word that Max Krah, "... is a good Catholic man", the Resistance movement would have been retarded by a few years and Bp. Williamson would probably still be living in the priory attic at Wimbledon.

I'm not going to do research on your accusation of whom influenced +ABL. Obviously you don't want to substantiate your accusation here, though evidently, no one here except me cares that you are anti-Archbishop Lefebvre.

You seem to think that +ABL was under control of Freemasons. Well, that's probably not an unusual belief for a follower of Plinio de Oliveira and Atila Guimaraes. Guimaraes has always been very anti-SSPX from the beginning, and I assume that de Oliveira had also been anti-SSPX. But of course those two held/hold belief that de Oliveira was the true prophet sent by God to restore the Church, and that the SSPX from the beginning was a distraction away from this. Would that be right?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 08:22:09 AM
Ladislaus, its my understanding that it happened after the 2012 Chapter. at the chapter things got heated,Bishop Tissier stood up to Bishop Fellay, also the fact that at the beginning the three Bishops went against Bishop Fellay. He evidently threatened Bishop de Gallerreta and Bishop Tissier. Not long after they were sent away from their countries they were in. They both had a large following in those countries. Haven't heard much of a fight from either of them,now its go along to get along with Rome.
We know what happened to Bishop Williamson,for speaking the Truth.

Thank you.  I wonder what he used to "threaten" the bishops, explusion?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 08:24:57 AM
I don't believe that the SSPX was FOUNDED as "controlled opposition", but I do believe that the enemies of Tradition immediately saw an opportunity to take it over and turn it into controlled opposition, most likely by sending in infiltrators.

Could they have sent in men like Father Schmidberger and +Fellay?  Of course they could have.

What else is the neo-SSPX besides controlled opposition?

https://novusordowatch.org/tag/franz-schmidberger/ (https://novusordowatch.org/tag/franz-schmidberger/)
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: B from A on May 14, 2019, 09:40:09 AM
I don't believe that the SSPX was FOUNDED as "controlled opposition", but I do believe that the enemies of Tradition immediately saw an opportunity to take it over and turn it into controlled opposition, most likely by sending in infiltrators.
.
This. 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 14, 2019, 09:52:40 AM
I don't believe that the SSPX was FOUNDED as "controlled opposition", but I do believe that the enemies of Tradition immediately saw an opportunity to take it over and turn it into controlled opposition, most likely by sending in infiltrators.

Could they have sent in men like Father Schmidberger and +Fellay?  Of course they could have.

What else is the neo-SSPX besides controlled opposition?

https://novusordowatch.org/tag/franz-schmidberger/ (https://novusordowatch.org/tag/franz-schmidberger/)

I agree. And I would add: any "approved by Rome" group is inherently, and automatically, "controlled opposition". This now includes the neo-SSPX.

Remember that much bigger fish -- ahem, an organization called THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- were infiltrated by Communists and Freemasons in the last century. What kind of naive IDIOT would believe that Freemasons and others would be prevented from infiltrating a MERE BRANCH of the tree like the SSPX?

AA-1025. Those men knew how to infiltrate the Church. They have to walk the walk, be of good reputation, be very pious, etc. or they'd never get ordained as priests!

What, did Christ not protect the Church Herself from infiltration, but He protects the SSPX like the apple of His eye? Wouldn't it be vain and proud to actually believe that? What kind of insanity, what kind of SSPX Exceptionalism, would it take to believe such ludicrous nonsense?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 14, 2019, 09:55:45 AM
I don't disagree with that.  My point was only that it seems that +Fellay is more positively pro-reunification than the other two bishops.

Yes indeed.

Bishop Fellay is on a different level than the other two.
The other two bishops are just weak, naive, imprudent, etc.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Cera on May 14, 2019, 12:58:15 PM
You seem to think that +ABL was under control of Freemasons. Well, that's probably not an unusual belief for a follower of Plinio de Oliveira and Atila Guimaraes. Guimaraes has always been very anti-SSPX from the beginning, and I assume that de Oliveira had also been anti-SSPX. But of course those two held/hold belief that de Oliveira was the true prophet sent by God to restore the Church, and that the SSPX from the beginning was a distraction away from this. Would that be right?
Meg, you nailed it. Only a Plinio-worshipping, member of what Bishop Mayer called an "anti-Catholic, anti-clerical . .heretical sect" could come up with such a ludicrous attack on the good Bishop (without whom, none of us would have access to the TLM).
How bizarre that a member of the TFP/TIA cult would attempt to charge another group with being the "controlled opposition." Think about it. Who ACTUALLY is the controlled opposition? TFP and its splinter groups, TIA, America Needs Fatima and many more.
The ONLY counter-revolution to the freemasonic, illuminist, communist, satanic revolution is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ as a HIERARCHY, with St. Peter as its head. Jesus said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
TFP/TIA and other Plinio- worshiping groups are NOT the counter-revolution; they are the controlled opposition. They elevate the laity over the hierarchy founded by Jesus Christ.
They are a cult which appeals to pride by telling their recruits that they are "special" and part of the "elite" and others "just don't want to understand." They are a cult who worships their founder Plinio. They make a mockery of Catholic prayer when they change the words of the Ave Maria to make it a prayer to Plinio. They make a mockery of Catholic tradition, when they take Louis de Montfort's consecration to Our Lady and twist it instead, into a consecration to Plinio, as Atila did when he laid face down before Plinio, with Plinio's foot on his neck, and Atila then made himself a slave to Plinio, taking his slave name in this mockery of a "consecration".
The Plinio- worshiping cults are the controlled opposition. They accuse others of being what they themselves are. (Just like Clinton colluding with Russia and then accusing  Trump of doing what she actually did.)
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Meg on May 14, 2019, 02:00:37 PM
Meg, you nailed it. Only a Plinio-worshipping, member of what Bishop Mayer called an "anti-Catholic, anti-clerical . .heretical sect" could come up with such a ludicrous attack on the good Bishop (without whom, none of us would have access to the TLM).
How bizarre that a member of the TFP/TIA cult would attempt to charge another group with being the "controlled opposition." Think about it. Who ACTUALLY is the controlled opposition? TFP and its splinter groups, TIA, America Needs Fatima and many more.
The ONLY counter-revolution to the freemasonic, illuminist, communist, satanic revolution is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ as a HIERARCHY, with St. Peter as its head. Jesus said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
TFP/TIA and other Plinio- worshiping groups are NOT the counter-revolution; they are the controlled opposition. They elevate the laity over the hierarchy founded by Jesus Christ.
They are a cult which appeals to pride by telling their recruits that they are "special" and part of the "elite" and others "just don't want to understand." They are a cult who worships their founder Plinio. They make a mockery of Catholic prayer when they change the words of the Ave Maria to make it a prayer to Plinio. They make a mockery of Catholic tradition, when they take Louis de Montfort's consecration to Our Lady and twist it instead, into a consecration to Plinio, as Atila did when he laid face down before Plinio, with Plinio's foot on his neck, and Atila then made himself a slave to Plinio, taking his slave name in this mockery of a "consecration".
The Plinio- worshiping cults are the controlled opposition. They accuse others of being what they themselves are. (Just like Clinton colluding with Russia and then accusing  Trump of doing what she actually did.)

I agree. Unfortunately, few traditional Catholics see that TIA/TFP is a problem. But it's not only the TIA/TFP people who pretend to have some sympathy with the Resistance, when in fact they do not. There are others, too. Such pretense is dishonest. I believe that the Resistance has been infiltrated, but that's inevitable, I suppose.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 14, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
I'm not going to do research on your accusation of whom influenced +ABL. Obviously you don't want to substantiate your accusation here, though evidently, no one here except me cares that you are anti-Archbishop Lefebvre.

You seem to think that +ABL was under control of Freemasons. Well, that's probably not an unusual belief for a follower of Plinio de Oliveira and Atila Guimaraes. Guimaraes has always been very anti-SSPX from the beginning, and I assume that de Oliveira had also been anti-SSPX. But of course those two held/hold belief that de Oliveira was the true prophet sent by God to restore the Church, and that the SSPX from the beginning was a distraction away from this. Would that be right?
Meg,

Since you've demonstrated on this forum that you're an SSPX troll and Fr. Purdy groupie... why would we give you the time of day ?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 14, 2019, 10:10:59 PM
Meg, you nailed it. Only a Plinio-worshipping, member of what Bishop Mayer called an "anti-Catholic, anti-clerical . .heretical sect" could come up with such a ludicrous attack on the good Bishop (without whom, none of us would have access to the TLM).
How bizarre that a member of the TFP/TIA cult would attempt to charge another group with being the "controlled opposition." Think about it. Who ACTUALLY is the controlled opposition? TFP and its splinter groups, TIA, America Needs Fatima and many more.
The ONLY counter-revolution to the freemasonic, illuminist, communist, satanic revolution is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ as a HIERARCHY, with St. Peter as its head. Jesus said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
TFP/TIA and other Plinio- worshiping groups are NOT the counter-revolution; they are the controlled opposition. They elevate the laity over the hierarchy founded by Jesus Christ.
They are a cult which appeals to pride by telling their recruits that they are "special" and part of the "elite" and others "just don't want to understand." They are a cult who worships their founder Plinio. They make a mockery of Catholic prayer when they change the words of the Ave Maria to make it a prayer to Plinio. They make a mockery of Catholic tradition, when they take Louis de Montfort's consecration to Our Lady and twist it instead, into a consecration to Plinio, as Atila did when he laid face down before Plinio, with Plinio's foot on his neck, and Atila then made himself a slave to Plinio, taking his slave name in this mockery of a "consecration".
The Plinio- worshiping cults are the controlled opposition. They accuse others of being what they themselves are. (Just like Clinton colluding with Russia and then accusing  Trump of doing what she actually did.)

Oh man, Fr. Purdy's trad groupies never give up attempting to derail an incriminating SSPX topic  :facepalm:

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58b8b17c1b631b726b682df5/5aea84d38a922d7249d1a475/5aea855a2b6a283a9f8c514f/1525319042184/DJR_0158.JPG)

They tried so hard to divert attention from the discovery of Fr. Purdy's change agent groupie, Jade Liboro and her infiltration into the Quito convent.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 14, 2019, 10:29:29 PM



So, it seems clear, Bp. Fellay is a freemason.

We can say this because of his documented lies and MO for secret meetings, his associations with jews and his acceptance of
large sums of their monies, as attested to by the SSPX zionist attorney, Max Krah.

But exactly when did he join the lodge? 

Was it before he was enrolled as an SSPX seminarian?

This is the question.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: RoughAshlar on May 15, 2019, 08:03:48 AM
Lol, he may be many things, but he definitely not a Freemason. 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 15, 2019, 08:07:17 AM
Meg, you nailed it. Only a Plinio-worshipping ...

All of your comments regarding TFP are to be summarily ignored until you come clean and explain why you have such a big ax to grind against them.

It's one thing to say that +Lefebvre was a Freemason and another to suggest that he made some decisions based on pressure from people who were themselves Freemasons ... e.g., the benefactors of +Fellay or, say, from Father Schmidberger (and others).
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 15, 2019, 08:08:30 AM
Lol, he may be many things, but he definitely not a Freemason.

You'll excuse us if we don't put a lot of stock in a gratuitous assertion made by someone with a Masonic screen name.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 15, 2019, 08:10:14 AM
So, it seems clear, Bp. Fellay is a freemason.

We can say this because of his documented lies and MO for secret meetings, his associations with jews and his acceptance of
large sums of their monies, as attested to by the SSPX zionist attorney, Max Krah.

Well, he could be under Masonic control without actually being a Mason himself.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: RoughAshlar on May 15, 2019, 09:27:42 AM
You'll excuse us if we don't put a lot of stock in a gratuitous assertion made by someone with a Masonic screen name.
I've never denied being one when asked.  Heck, I think I openly admitted it during the flat earth debates a year or two ago. I'm just stating that admonishing a man for his faults is one thing, but connecting imaginary dots and declaring him to be not Catholic anymore is something else entirely.  The Church has made it quite clear.  If you are a mason, then you are excommunicated.  You are outside the Church.  I free acknowledge this. 
This is the question.

The accusers take things way to far.  Its not enough to condemn Bishop Fellay's actions.  There must be a plot behind it so devious that it would invalidate all of his sacraments. In this thread we have seen not only Bishop Fellay being maligned and accused of being a freemason, but also the Archbishop's character, intentions and influence in creating the SSPX were maligned.  You are so concerned about freemasons destroying what's left of Church that you are actively tearing yourselves apart.
When someone joins a lodge, they sign the bi-law of the lodge.  None of these records are secret.  It would be rather difficult to attend the meetings anonymously.  It would be noticed if the bishop was always somewhere on the first and third Tuesdays at 7pm.  There would be a money trail with his dues card that shows he is in good standing with that lodge.  Even if none of that matters, his values are not masonic.  I personally don't believe he would be accepted because of who he is, let alone his beliefs.
Fr. Hewko years ago accused the SSPX of being masonic for having closed door meetings.  Equally ridiculous, I've even seen that Bishop Williamson was accused of being a Rosicrucianism on some website years ago.  Now it's bishop Fellay and the questioning of the Archbishop's intentions.  I just find it nonsense.  Its a zero sum game when you play it this way.  Someone does something wrong (the bishop actively compromising with the conciliar Church) and people cast doubt on his sacraments?  Example, A convert to the old SSPX gets conditionally reconfirmed by Bishop Fellay years ago...are you going to recommend that anyone who receive confirmation again through Bishop Williamson?  I actually wonder what Bishop Williamson would say if someone approached him with that concern.  I just wanted to say that Bishop Fellay is not a freemason.  I'm done.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 15, 2019, 09:37:07 AM
Incred,

You never rebutted my slam-dunk argument.

What evidence do you have that +Fellay is a Freemason at all? Because he welcomed/formed/supports Max Krah, destroyed the SSPX, etc.? The long list of problems with Bishop Fellay does make you wonder. UNTIL YOU CONSIDER that those problems apply equally to about 1/3 of the priests in the SSPX.

Remember, in Catholic morality there are 9 ways to commit a sin. Committing an act personally is only one of the ways.

The other two bishops bear almost as much responsibility as +Fellay for anything he has done -- due to their silence, consent, assistance, etc.

When a crew robs a bank, the ringleader isn't the only one who goes to jail! Those who conspired with him, worked with him, helped him, etc. will also go to jail. And for good reason!

Explaining +Fellay's actions away as "well, he's a card-carrying Freemason!" causes more problems than it solves. So what about his two accomplice Bishops who did little/nothing -- at least nothing effective -- despite their stature and fame? Just look at what +Williamson did meanwhile. Compare their actions to +W's actions.

If it takes "being a Freemason" to do what +Fellay did, then about 1/3 of the SSPX priests and all 3 bishops must be secret, card-carrying members of the Freemasonic cult. And considering that not even ONE SSPX priest has been exposed as being a secret Freemason thus far, I would say it's impossible for dozens (up to 240) SSPX priests to do this.

I understand where you're coming from, but the facts just don't require it.

Besides, what does it matter if +Fellay is a Freemason, or just totally duped into taking the SSPX in a horrible direction? What difference does it make, really? The Modern World is a freemasonic one. Vatican II is all about opening up to the Modern World. The SSPX, led by +Fellay, has certainly become more friendly to the modern world/Conciliar Church/Vatican II in the past several years. That much is indisputable. Freemason or dupe, it's equally tragic.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 15, 2019, 11:45:23 PM


The topic simply asks is Fellay a Freemason?

The problem plaguing the Church for the past 200 years has been systematic, covert Freemasonic infiltration... correct?
I haven't actually counted, but have heard there are more Church encyclical warnings on Freemasonry than any other papal topic.

Roncalli and Bugnini were only outed decades after they died?   But they were crypto-masons.

The idea that Bp. Fellay is a Freemasonic plant is tenable, when you consider his inexplicable actions fit with all the other plants within the Church (Rampolla, Roncalli, Montini and the many other lists of exposed clerics).

The end effect of invalid SSPX Sacraments never crossed my mind, but it too, would fit nicely into the Freemasonic agenda.

We've been overly charitable by thinking Bp. Fellay is just a confused dupe, when the end result of his actions reveal a sly fox implementing a premeditated plan.


Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 16, 2019, 05:59:36 AM
The end effect of invalid SSPX Sacraments never crossed my mind, but it too, would fit nicely into the Freemasonic agenda.

Freemasonry invalidates sacraments? I thought that the sacraments are the sacraments and whatever nefarious things a clergyman may be involved in only serves to condemn himself. How is freemasonry different?

We've been overly charitable by thinking Bp. Fellay is just a confused dupe, when the end result of his actions reveal a sly fox implementing a premeditated plan.

This is what I was thinking. The conservatives do this endlessly for the VII Popes. I'm personally not interested in doing that for +Fellay. Having said that, I also agree it isn't necessary that he be a freemason. There are certainly some in the SSPX, but who they are is not something many of us are in a position to know.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 16, 2019, 08:17:25 AM
I've never denied being one when asked.  Heck, I think I openly admitted it during the flat earth debates a year or two ago. I'm just stating that admonishing a man for his faults is one thing, but connecting imaginary dots and declaring him to be not Catholic anymore is something else entirely.  The Church has made it quite clear.  If you are a mason, then you are excommunicated.  You are outside the Church.  I free acknowledge this.
The accusers take things way to far.  Its not enough to condemn Bishop Fellay's actions.  There must be a plot behind it so devious that it would invalidate all of his sacraments. In this thread we have seen not only Bishop Fellay being maligned and accused of being a freemason, but also the Archbishop's character, intentions and influence in creating the SSPX were maligned.  You are so concerned about freemasons destroying what's left of Church that you are actively tearing yourselves apart.
When someone joins a lodge, they sign the bi-law of the lodge.  None of these records are secret.  It would be rather difficult to attend the meetings anonymously.  It would be noticed if the bishop was always somewhere on the first and third Tuesdays at 7pm.  There would be a money trail with his dues card that shows he is in good standing with that lodge.  Even if none of that matters, his values are not masonic.  I personally don't believe he would be accepted because of who he is, let alone his beliefs.
Fr. Hewko years ago accused the SSPX of being masonic for having closed door meetings.  Equally ridiculous, I've even seen that Bishop Williamson was accused of being a Rosicrucianism on some website years ago.  Now it's bishop Fellay and the questioning of the Archbishop's intentions.  I just find it nonsense.  Its a zero sum game when you play it this way.  Someone does something wrong (the bishop actively compromising with the conciliar Church) and people cast doubt on his sacraments?  Example, A convert to the old SSPX gets conditionally reconfirmed by Bishop Fellay years ago...are you going to recommend that anyone who receive confirmation again through Bishop Williamson?  I actually wonder what Bishop Williamson would say if someone approached him with that concern.  I just wanted to say that Bishop Fellay is not a freemason.  I'm done.


Freemasonry's position on Catholics joining the Fraternity

Masonic bodies do not ban Catholics from joining if they wish to do so.[127] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry#cite_note-FOOTNOTEUGLE2002-148) There has never been a Masonic prohibition against Catholics joining the fraternity, and some Freemasons are Catholics, despite the Catholic Church's prohibition of joining the Freemasons.  Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry)

Seems...  you may still need a little more bake time.... :jester:
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 16, 2019, 08:37:10 AM
"The idea that Bp. Fellay is a Freemasonic plant is tenable" BUT NOT LEFEBVRE!  lol

I won't argue the point... and thumbs up to you!

About two years ago, Matthew beat me about the head and shoulders on the topic of +ABL's priestly ordination in 1929 by then, Bishop Lienart... who was later found to be a high-level, masonic infiltrator.  I believe Lienart revealed it at his deathbed?

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.CxxsI8ExlEi-pWtB8MxdUAHaFk%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
          Card. Lienart

Matthew and others pointed out that the Sacrament of Holy Orders was automatically conferred at +ABL's Consecration to Bishop. 

So, I won't argue against this fact, but many sedes attack the validity of SSPX Holy Orders based on the Lienart problem.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 16, 2019, 09:09:13 AM


Quote from: Incredulous on Yesterday at 11:45:23 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-he-or-isn't-fellay-a-freemason/msg654250/#msg654250)
Quote
The end effect of invalid SSPX Sacraments never crossed my mind, but it too, would fit nicely into the Freemasonic agenda.

Freemasonry invalidates sacraments? I thought that the sacraments are the sacraments and whatever nefarious things a clergyman may be involved in only serves to condemn himself. How is freemasonry different?

We've been overly charitable by thinking Bp. Fellay is just a confused dupe, when the end result of his actions reveal a sly fox implementing a premeditated plan.

This is what I was thinking. The conservatives do this endlessly for the VII Popes. I'm personally not interested in doing that for +Fellay. Having said that, I also agree it isn't necessary that he be a freemason. There are certainly some in the SSPX, but who they are is not something many of us are in a position to know.

Thanks for the feedback HMS.

Pardon the Wiki source, but it was the quickest click. Papal bans on Freemasonry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry)

The Church has been very adamant in it's excommunication of Freemasons.  
So if Msgr. Fellay is crypto-masonic it would present some big problems for the Society.

Canon Law from 1917 details it and even the modern "jew-popes" had trouble erasing the penalties.
Although they tried their best to undermine and/or dilute them.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 16, 2019, 09:28:25 AM

For judeo-masonics... it's just a "naturally" comfortable way to shake hands  :jumping2:


(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fhenrymakow.com%2Fupload_images%2Fgorby-schuller.png&f=1) 
                   The Gorby shake

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhenrymakow.com%2Fupload_images%2Fsharon-pope.png&f=1)
                  The good jew & bad jew shake

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millennialnorthstar.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2FHandshakes-2008-06-06-11.jpg&f=1)
                         B16 & Brit a-hole shake

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_FRNDa9lFKRM%2FSYZlDQSK6oI%2FAAAAAAAAAHI%2FaqHEJ56Ugdw%2Fw1200-h630-p-k-no-nu%2FBenoitXVIetMgrFellay.jpg&f=1)
                      The Bursar & B16 shake
                                 

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fperes1.jpg&f=1)
                   The two-jew, "I know you" shake.


(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-DGe1WxZw2V4%2FWh1rZuy_qjI%2FAAAAAAABWkU%2FNk0qB4Om7Mk8vC-MbR5SUJC-t1jdBWiXACLcBGAs%2Fs1600%2F1.jpg&f=1)
    The "Destroyer clown" who shakes em all down... shake.


Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2019, 09:42:46 AM
Well, +Fellay's handshake picture is slightly different than the others, since his thumb is not actually making contact and pressing into the back for the hand.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 16, 2019, 09:56:26 AM

Quote from: Incredulous on Yesterday at 11:45:23 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-he-or-isn't-fellay-a-freemason/msg654250/#msg654250)
Thanks for the feedback HMS.

Pardon the Wiki source, but it was the quickest click. Papal bans on Freemasonry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry)

The Church has been very adamant in it's excommunication of Freemasons.  
So if Msgr. Fellay is crypto-masonic it would present some big problems for the Society.

Canon Law from 1917 details it and even the modern "jew-popes" had trouble erasing the penalties.
Although they tried their best to undermine and/or dilute them.

Thank you! I'm sorry I must still be missing something though. Excommunicated sacraments are illicit but still valid, no?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2019, 09:57:27 AM
"The idea that Bp. Fellay is a Freemasonic plant is tenable" BUT NOT LEFEBVRE!  lol

We have absolutely no indication of +Lefebvre being a Freemason.  Even with +Fellay, it's little more than pure speculation also, except with the latter there's the little problem of what is motivating him to effectively destroy the SSPX.  +Lefebvre could have, in collaboration with the Vatican Modernists, taken the SSPX lock-stock-and-barrell right back into the Novus Ordo.  Before +Lefebvre came onto the scene, the Traditional movement was just a scattered number of rogue independent priests most of whom would have simply died out.  There would have been very little to "control" in said "controlled opposition".  +Lefebvre largely ramped up said opposition in the first place.  I doubt that there would be more than a couple thousand Traditional Catholics scattered around the world had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre.  So I'm failing to see how speculation that he was a Freemason is even remotely plausible.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 16, 2019, 10:00:16 AM
Well, +Fellay's handshake picture is slightly different than the others, since his thumb is not actually making contact and pressing into the back for the hand.

I noticed that too. It's uncomfortably close, but it doesn't show the same pressure on the knuckle. And +Fellay's thumb is making no contact at all. Unless this was snapped just as they were letting go. 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2019, 10:04:59 AM
Thank you! I'm sorry I must still be missing something though. Excommunicated sacraments are illicit but still valid, no?

Correct.  Excommunication has no effect on the validity of the Sacraments.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2019, 10:06:59 AM
I noticed that too. It's uncomfortably close, but it doesn't show the same pressure on the knuckle. And +Fellay's thumb is making no contact at all. Unless this was snapped just as they were letting go.

Right.  Perhaps Benedict XVI was applying the handshake (as a test?) and that's how +Fellay's hand ended up in response.  Or else it was just an awkward limp-wristed handshake by one or both men  :laugh1:.

What strikes me more about the picture is the giddy smile on +Fellay's face ... as if he's star-struck, like a teenage girl shaking hands with one of The Beatles back in the day.  It suggests a significant degree of human respect ... and not merely reverence for the Office he believes that Benedict held.  And that actually suggests that the two are NOT in fact Masonic co-conspirators.  I get the impression that +Fellay's giddy about finally having "hit the big time" ... no doubt fantasizing about wearing that white cassock some day.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 16, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
http://www.ourladyisgod.com/images/eBooks/Alta-Vendita.pdf (http://www.ourladyisgod.com/images/eBooks/Alta-Vendita.pdf)

It's not necessary to prove that +Fellay is or isn't a freemason.  Just like those who wrote the "Alta Vendita" said, they do not necessarily want a pope who is a freemason, but only a pope who believes the "revolutionary and humanitarian" principles; "a pope according to our needs".  So it is with +Fellay.  He is a leader in the new-sspx who fits the freemasonic bill.
.
p.s.  That was one handshake in the list of many.  What about all the other times they met?  Maybe +Fellay knew the cameras were present and didn't want to make it obvious?  He has to worry because many Trads are aware of this stuff, while +Benedict and everyone else knows that the sheeple have no idea, so they can be more relaxed.  Either way, it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2019, 12:49:53 PM
http://www.ourladyisgod.com/images/eBooks/Alta-Vendita.pdf (http://www.ourladyisgod.com/images/eBooks/Alta-Vendita.pdf)

It's not necessary to prove that +Fellay is or isn't a freemason.  Just like those who wrote the "Alta Vendita" said, they do not necessarily want a pope who is a freemason, but only a pope who believes the "revolutionary and humanitarian" principles; "a pope according to our needs".  So it is with +Fellay.  He is a leader in the new-sspx who fits the freemasonic bill.
.
p.s.  That was one handshake in the list of many.  What about all the other times they met?  Maybe +Fellay knew the cameras were present and didn't want to make it obvious?  He has to worry because many Trads are aware of this stuff, while +Benedict and everyone else knows that the sheeple have no idea, so they can be more relaxed.  Either way, it doesn't matter.

Right.  Either way he appears to be doing their bidding, and that's what counts.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 01:00:44 PM
What strikes me more about the picture is the giddy smile on +Fellay's face ... as if he's star-struck, like a teenage girl shaking hands with one of The Beatles back in the day.  It suggests a significant degree of human respect ... and not merely reverence for the Office he believes that Benedict held.  And that actually suggests that the two are NOT in fact Masonic co-conspirators.  I get the impression that +Fellay's giddy about finally having "hit the big time" ... no doubt fantasizing about wearing that white cassock some day.

You're absolutely right. He's proud and excited about what he is "going to accomplish" by bringing the SSPX into the Conciliar fold. He is delusional and FULL of vainglory. He's all about fame, numbers, accomplishments.

You know how they say "God's ways are not our ways?" Well, the poster child for "our ways" is the human prudence and "wisdom" shown constantly by +Fellay. Other men of God have their projects and ideas too -- which might turn out to be unsuccessful. But at least the latter is thinking along the same lines as God -- using His means, using the science of the Saints -- they are at least in the same ballpark. Bishop Fellay's projects, ideas, and ways are 100% worldly-minded and have no chance of being blessed or approved by God. Compromise? Ignoring/suppressing the truth? Smearing one's enemies? Propaganda and lies? Branding agencies? Hollywood marketing? Sorry, that's about as far from God's ways as you can get!

+Fellay thinks he's so much greater than the Archbishop, and he couldn't be more wrong! He isn't 1/1000th the man +ABL was.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 01:09:17 PM
We have absolutely no indication of +Lefebvre being a Freemason.  +Lefebvre could have, in collaboration with the Vatican Modernists, taken the SSPX lock-stock-and-barrel right back into the Novus Ordo.  Before +Lefebvre came onto the scene, the Traditional movement was just a scattered number of rogue independent priests most of whom would have simply died out.  There would have been very little to "control" in said "controlled opposition".  +Lefebvre largely ramped up said opposition in the first place.  I doubt that there would be more than a couple thousand Traditional Catholics scattered around the world had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre.  So I'm failing to see how speculation that he was a Freemason is even remotely plausible.

This bears repeating.

Even his enemies only suggest he was invalidly consecrated by a Freemason (of course, they ignore the fact of the TWO OTHER CO-CONSECRATORS, but I digress).

I've never heard even the wildest, left-field sedevacantist ever suggest that +Lefebvre himself was a Freemason. And that's saying something, because I've seen and heard just about everything from lunatics on the Internet.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 16, 2019, 01:17:23 PM
http://www.ourladyisgod.com/ (http://www.ourladyisgod.com/images/eBooks/Alta-Vendita.pdf)
Our Lady is God? Can you explain the link? 
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 16, 2019, 01:30:19 PM
My bad.  I just posted the link to the site that had the book for free.  Notice to all - I wouldn't browse around that site.  Have no idea what is on it.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matto on May 16, 2019, 01:36:40 PM
I've never heard even the wildest, left-field sedevacantist ever suggest that +Lefebvre himself was a Freemason. And that's saying something, because I've seen and heard just about everything from lunatics on the Internet.
I have heard it claimed that Lefebvre was indeed a Freemason like his Bishop Lienart. They go further and say the SSPX from the beginning was controlled opposition set up by the Freemasons to take over opposition to Vatican II and neutralize it and make sure it came to nothing so in their mind Fellay was the true successor of Lefebvre and is just doing what he was supposed to do, submit to Vatican II after enough time had passed that it was acceptable to most of the priests and laity who go to SSPX Masses. I believe some more extreme sedevacantists (like home-aloner types) believe this. Don't have any links but I have heard it before (One can hear anything on the internet, though I think the numbers who believe this are small).
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 02:53:46 PM
I have heard it claimed that Lefebvre was indeed a Freemason like his Bishop Lienart. They go further and say the SSPX from the beginning was controlled opposition set up by the Freemasons to take over opposition to Vatican II and neutralize it and make sure it came to nothing so in their mind Fellay was the true successor of Lefebvre and is just doing what he was supposed to do, submit to Vatican II after enough time had passed that it was acceptable to most of the priests and laity who go to SSPX Masses. I believe some more extreme sedevacantists (like home-aloner types) believe this. Don't have any links but I have heard it before (One can hear anything on the internet, though I think the numbers who believe this are small).

Just thinking of an idea doesn't make it a good idea. Forget about likely or unlikely; it has to actually MAKE SENSE. It has to ADD UP.

Ladislaus made the best point above. Why would the bad guys found an organization which does TONS of good, saves TONS of souls, creates 10000X the opposition they started out with, just to "control the opposition"?

But where would that leave the REAL controlled opposition? -- FSSP, ICK, Indult groups, etc.  None of them would have had to exist if it weren't for their desire to control the Faithful's desire for Tradition in a "controlled opposition" kind of setting. These groups were created to compete with, and redirect Catholics into, away from the SSPX.

Keep in mind that most sedevacantists and Indulters today also owe their Catholic Faith to +ABL and his work. Think of the widespread example and presence of the SSPX, even up to the present day. How many Indulters and Sedes did the SSPX help generate as well? More people come INTO Tradition than go OUT OF it, thanks to the SSPX. The number of scattered independent chapels in 1970 is so small, it's not even worth mentioning. Even most independent chapels and sede chapels owe "what they have" to +ABL, his work, his consecrations, his ordinations, his seminaries, etc.

If the SSPX was designed as a vehicle to destroy Tradition, then that was the stupidest plan, and the most epic fail EVER.

If every Catholic going UP a step towards pure, uncompromised practice/knowledge of Catholic Tradition earned 1 point
And every Catholic stepping down towards apathy and attendance at the Novus Ordo subtracted 1 point

+ABL would be net positive IN THE MILLIONS.

Yes, the SSPX took over many independent chapels, but guess what? The priests saying Mass at those chapels DIED and the parishioners got continued weekly Mass instead of being Home Alone, joining the Indult, or going back to the Novus Ordo. How does that help the Conciliar "cause"? In almost every case, the Boards of those independent chapels brought in the SSPX because they had no other choice.

It's not like legions of "true" (Sedevacantist, for purposes of this argument) priests were put out of work or put on the sidelines while the SSPX took over everything. No, the SSPX usually replaced "nothing" with SSPX, or "Conciliar" with SSPX. They changed lead into gold, never the other way around.

The SSPV owes EVERYTHING to the SSPX -- its Orders, its training, most of its initial chapels and real estate, etc. The Nine were trained and ordained by +ABL's organization.

But the hypothesis you describe above? Only a bitter, angry, emotional sore loser Sedevacantist could actually believe that. Because even from a Sede perspective ("anything less than sedevacantism is controlled opposition"), +ABL left the Church WAY better off than when he arrived on the scene. If he were a Freemason, why would he work against the Freemasons so vigorously, and bear so much fruit?

But you see, the Pharisees were equally emotional and stupid. Logic didn't stop them from accusing Our Lord from being possessed -- even though He was casting out devils and destroying the devil's kingdom left and right. So I shouldn't be surprised, I guess.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matto on May 16, 2019, 03:09:03 PM
But the hypothesis you describe above? Only a bitter, angry, sore loser Sedevacantist could actually believe that.
Yes, I guess that would be a way to describe them. The more extreme kind. I was searching for information about Hutton Gibson to see if he believed something similar but I cannot find much about him right now. I don't know why it isn't coming up on google or duck duck go (is that a good search engine?) for me. I thought he used to have a website where he expressed doubts about Lefebvre but I can not find it right now.

But I do think it is an interesting conspiracy with legs if you are paranoid and learned about the rumors of Lefebvre's Bishop being a Freemason. One could think Lefebvre was chosen to be the false savior of traditionalists because his orders were not valid instead of Thuc who had valid untainted orders.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 03:26:29 PM
But I do think it is an interesting conspiracy with legs if you are paranoid and learned about the rumors of Lefebvre's Bishop being a Freemason. One could think Lefebvre was chosen to be the false savior of traditionalists because his orders were not valid instead of Thuc who had valid untainted orders.

You have admitted many times that you enjoy hearing different points of view, even from those you describe in a negative manner.
You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you? I don't know if it's excessive curiosity or what.

You give WAY too much thought, credence, and credit to idiots. That's the biggest fault I've seen in you, and I've read your posts on CI for years.

If you want to end up holding the truth in your hands, you have to learn how to boldly throw GARBAGE in the incinerator (causing irrevocable destruction to said garbage). If you eat garbage (or even lick it or handle it too much) you're going to end up sick.

I'm "extreme" in the eyes of the world. To bring the world back to the truth, back to God, back to sanity, things would have to be done that would be considered radical, extreme, etc.

But you need to learn the difference between "an extreme position" and "insanity".

There are few man that did more for God, more for Tradition, and did more damage to the Conciliar cause than +ABL. Actions speak louder than words or speculation. There is ZERO CHANCE that he was secretly a God-hating Freemason trying to do his part to destroy the Church.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matto on May 16, 2019, 04:26:00 PM
Moderator: Apologies for trashing your post -- I clicked "modify" instead of "quote". It happens sometimes, and I apologize.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Those positions, although unpopular, at least have rational reasons behind them and pass the "smell test".

You can't say that "Trads are fringe. Believing in aliens is fringe. Therefore they're kind of the same." Yes, both are unpopular and counter-culture, but being Traditional Catholic is sane and rational, whereas we know that God didn't create any aliens. Our Lady of Fatima said that UFOs are devils.

Withholding judgment and looking into something is praiseworthy. But once you find insanity, you need to be able to "let it go" and completely reject it. Only by being completely detached from the consequences can you ever hope to find the truth in a sea of lies.

Our Lord gave us some pointers on how to sort out the truth from lies. "Judge a tree by its fruits." He elaborated, "Do men gather figs from thistles?" He invites us to use our brains.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 04:43:53 PM
Matto,

Please give me the argument why supporting Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko in the early Resistance from 2012 to mid-2014 would constitute "idiocy".

Keeping in mind that supporters/followers aren't privy to every secret of the heart, or every thing that happens behind closed doors. How could a non-idiot have "known better" and not supported Fr. Pfeiffer back then?

Be careful. This time period was before Ambrose, before Tetherow, before Pablo doxxed all Fr. Pfeiffer's coordinators, before the infamous "The Devil and Mr. Hernandez" article was known to those outside Phoenix AZ, before any of the OLMC scandals, and before Fr. Pfeiffer broke with +Williamson and committed his "seminary" to operating without a bishop.

I deny that supporting the early Resistance constitutes ANY MEASURE of "idiocy". Especially in light of the fact that the Resistance turned out to be 100% correct! Just look at the SSPX today. Go read the CCCC thread if you doubt the Resistance was right.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matto on May 16, 2019, 04:59:14 PM
Please give me the argument why supporting Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko in the early Resistance from 2012 to mid-2014 would constitute "idiocy".
You followed, defended, and supported a priest as a good shepherd for two years who turned out to be an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock (according to current Cathinfo thought). I am sure there were numerous red flags which you ignored because you were blinded by your disillusion with the SSPX and were willing to trust those priests who opposed them. So you followed and trusted a man who is apparently more of an "idiot" than Hutton Gibson or Gerry Matatics. I do not blame you at all. I am just saying it is dangerous out there and very hard to know who to trust (I do not believe all the crazy things I read but I read and consider things from various viewpoints). For all we know the CMRI is the true path and not the resistance. I don't have the answers. I just try.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 16, 2019, 05:07:59 PM
You followed, defended, and supported a priest as a good shepherd for two years who turned out to be an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock (according to current Cathinfo thought). I am sure there were numerous red flags which you ignored because you were blinded by your disillusion with the SSPX and were willing to trust those priests who opposed them. So you followed and trusted a man who is surely more of an "idiot" than Hutton Gibson or Gerry Matatics. I do not blame you at all. I am just saying it is dangerous out there and very hard to know who to trust (I do not believe all the crazy things I read but I read and consider things). For all we know the CMRI is the true path and not the resistance.

You're not giving any example.

You can't just speculate and assume there were red flags. Red flags aren't just "always there" by default. That's why they are called RED FLAGS. I'm here to say there weren't any. Fr. Pfeiffer showed no signs of evil or being controlled by an evil one.

"who turned out to be an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock"
remember, it is equally or more likely that "he eventually TURNED INTO an insane cult-leader mind-controlled by a warlock"

Isolation and lack of any higher authority has driven a lot more priests than just Fr. Pfeiffer insane over the last 50 years. The problem is, they don't go insane on Day One.

You can't say that just because someone went bad or fell, that he was ALWAYS bad. That's the mistake some people make about Bishop Fellay! They can't believe a current bad guy wasn't always a bad guy from his very conception.

It's that comic book mentality. Good guys and bad guys -- and never the twain shall meet! Your opponent is the devil, but the devil was always evil since Man was created, so...
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 16, 2019, 06:28:00 PM
Those positions, although unpopular, at least have rational reasons behind them and pass the "smell test".

You can't say that "Trads are fringe. Believing in aliens is fringe. Therefore they're kind of the same." Yes, both are unpopular and counter-culture, but being Traditional Catholic is sane and rational, whereas we know that God didn't create any aliens. Our Lady of Fatima said that UFOs are devils.

Withholding judgment and looking into something is praiseworthy. But once you find insanity, you need to be able to "let it go" and completely reject it. Only by being completely detached from the consequences can you ever hope to find the truth in a sea of lies.

Our Lord gave us some pointers on how to sort out the truth from lies. "Judge a tree by its fruits." He elaborated, "Do men gather figs from thistles?" He invites us to use our brains.
Just wondering, how do we know aliens don't exist?  Maybe there's some theological principle I'm unaware of?

Even if UFOs are devils that doesn't necessarily mean aliens don't exist.

And to be clear, I don't really believe in them, I'm just kind of indifferent unless there's some theological principle I'm unaware of.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matto on May 16, 2019, 06:30:23 PM
You must know Father Pfeiffer better than me. Are you suggesting he was normal and holy until 2014 and then fell? I think the presence of Pablo from before then is evidence that there were problems with Pfeiffer from the beginning. But I can't say you are wrong. This is a silly argument anyway so I am sorry for wasting your time though I do like talking to you. You are right about me that examining crazy ideas from different perspectives (including idiotic ideas) is one of my weaknesses. I guess you have paid attention to my posts over the years as I own up to that fault. I have heard about many crazy things (and some of them I believe) and try to understand those who believe those things and not dismiss them as idiots. So the idea that Lefebvre was a part of some conspiracy and not a saint is something I can understand a paranoid isolated traditional Catholic believing (especially if one was a sedevacantist whose orders do not derive from Lefebvre) so while I disagree I do not dismiss it as mere idiocy. It comes from growing up in a liberal household and then rejecting everything I was ever taught to believe by my parents and in schools to become a conservative right wing traditional Catholic who has trouble trusting people. And the apparent fall of the SSPX makes trusting even more difficult.

Aliens are a problem because of original sin and redemption. I think aliens with free will who are not children of Adam causes difficulty because it means there are creatures who were not subject to original sin because they were not children of Adam and who were not redeemed by Christ. So if there were aliens with free will either they did not fall and needed no redeemer and were not redeemed by Christ, or there were other Adams who fell and there were other Christs who redeemed them. So the idea of creatures with free will who were not children of Adam and were not redeemed by Christ causes difficulties.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 16, 2019, 06:39:28 PM

Aliens are a problem because of original sin and redemption. I think aliens with free will who are not children of Adam causes difficulty because it means there are creatures who were not subject to original sin because they were not children of Adam and who were not redeemed by Christ. So if there were aliens with free will either they did not fall and needed no redeemer and were not redeemed by Christ, or there fell and there was another Christ who redeemed them. So the idea of creatures with free will who were not children of Adam and were not redeemed by Christ causes difficulties.
I'll agree with ruling out the "Another Christ" explanation.  But what if aliens were in a comparable position to the angels?  (either unfallen, or else, in a "no second chances" type of paradigm?)

Again, to be clear, I don't see why this isn't a possibility, but that doesn't mean I actually affirm it.  
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matto on May 16, 2019, 06:42:14 PM
I'll agree with ruling out the "Another Christ" explanation.  But what if aliens were in a comparable position to the angels?  (either unfallen, or else, in a "no second chances" type of paradigm?)

Again, to be clear, I don't see why this isn't a possibility, but that doesn't mean I actually affirm it.  
I believe C.S. Lewis thought about this before we did and wrote about aliens who never fell visiting us in one of his stories which I never read.

But the fact that they were never mentioned in the Bible may cause problems, but one can theorize. I don't think the Church ever declared that there were no aliens infallibly.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 16, 2019, 08:24:02 PM
I believe C.S. Lewis thought about this before we did and wrote about aliens who never fell visiting us in one of his stories which I never read.

But the fact that they were never mentioned in the Bible may cause problems, but one can theorize. I don't think the Church ever declared that there were no aliens infallibly.
I don't see why it would be theologically problematic if Lewis' speculation was right.  Of course he was writing a fiction novel, but I'm not aware of anything in that novel that would contradict a Christian worldview.  I'd see the existence of aliens as speculative rather than demonstrably theologically right or wrong unless some point the Church teaches was denied.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 17, 2019, 09:45:02 AM
1. The Bible doesn't mention aliens, even though it mentions everything else in the visible world.

2. We haven't found any aliens yet. Not even microbes.

3. (true) Science has discovered that the earth is actually the center of the universe. Everything rotates around the earth. Google "axis of evil". Geocentrism is true. Carl Sagan was wrong that we are in a backwoods "nothing special" far-out corner of a galaxy.

4. #3 actually makes sense, because Earth is the planet on which God took HUMAN FLESH and died on the cross. The second Person of the Holy Trinity has a human nature now in Heaven. He can't take on any other additional alien nature(s). He can't have a glorified human body AND a glorified green alien body with 15 tentacles at the same time. That would be metaphysically impossible; an actual contradiction like a square circle.

5. And no, the other two Persons in the Holy Trinity aren't standing around in some kind of waiting room "still available" to do what the Second Person of the Holy Trinity did on Earth to save mankind in 33 AD. Jesus created the world, He is the LOGOS, the Word. It's difficult to comprehend the Trinity to any degree, but let's just say that it wasn't a coincidence that the LOGOS, the Second Person became man and died for our sins. Jesus didn't lose a divine "coin toss", nor did He draw the "short straw".

The Trinity is kind of like a fire: you have light, heat, and consuming action. Those 3 things go together. Where you have "fire", you have all 3. The light isn't the heat, and the heat isn't the consuming action. But there is only 1 fire. You can't say, "Well, last time the HEAT of the fire warmed my food; this time let's have the LIGHT of the fire warm my food." It doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2019, 11:15:12 AM

Quote
 We haven't found any aliens yet. Not even microbes.
What?

Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Ladislaus on May 17, 2019, 11:48:10 AM
Just wondering, how do we know aliens don't exist?  

Indeed, what if +Fellay/+Lefebvre are/were aliens?

NOW we have come full circle on this thread.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 17, 2019, 11:57:38 AM
You must know Father Pfeiffer better than me. Are you suggesting he was normal and holy until 2014 and then fell? I think the presence of Pablo from before then is evidence that there were problems with Pfeiffer from the beginning. But I can't say you are wrong.

1. Yes I'm saying he was normal before 2014. There was no public knowledge of anything to the contrary. Holy? Sure, I guess -- he was heroically standing up against the changes in the SSPX, at a time when no one else was. As for Pablo, we all know the deal with him today, and it's hard to remember when he was an unknown. But for most of the country, he was a huge unknown back in 2013. He was colorful, eccentric, and maybe a bit rash/imprudent -- that's all anyone knew about him back then. As soon as word got out about his "hobby" of fist-fighting the devil, he was immediately banned from CathInfo. Pablo didn't even follow Fr. Pfeiffer to every chapel he said Mass at. He certainly never set foot here.

2. Saying I supported Fr. Pfeiffer until 2014 is being a bit generous. I had Fr. Pfeiffer here twice, Fr. Hewko here twice (for the first visit, they were here together) for a total of 3 times -- Between Feb 2013 and Sept. 2013. That was the extent of my "support" for them. Monetarily, I only donated the use of a large 1000 SF warehouse building and the use of a lot of chapel equipment. I publicized and organized the event and the potluck which followed. I also did the airport runs to/from. That was my contribution. If you ask me, that is more important than tossing $50 or $100 in the collection. Anyone can do that. Who has a location for Mass? Who can talk to countless individuals one-on-one to drum up support for a brand-new chapel? Serving the Mass, arranging music/hymns during the Mass, being the coordinator (which is a huge job in itself) -- all of that takes a lot of work.

To be more accurate, I didn't have anything to publicly criticize Fr. Pfeiffer about until Nov. 2014 when he started attacking +Williamson and then-Fr. Zendejas. Nov 1, 2014 was also the date of Fr. Pfeiffer's infamous sermon during which he glorified a woman for sleeping with a Rosary under her pillow. Not praying the Rosary, mind you, just sleeping with it under her pillow like a talisman, which is superstition because it assumes an object has power *outside of* one's actual devotion.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 17, 2019, 01:40:08 PM

Quote
1. The Bible doesn't mention aliens, even though it mentions everything else in the visible world.

In what way does the Bible mention everything else in the visible world?  I have serious doubts about this unless you're classifying in very general terms.


Quote
2. We haven't found any aliens yet. Not even microbes.
[size]
Sure.  And they very likely don't exist.  I was just asking why they couldn't, from a theological standpoint.  Not why someone doesn't believe in them (I don't either.) 

[/size]
Quote
3. (true) Science has discovered that the earth is actually the center of the universe. Everything rotates around the earth. Google "axis of evil". Geocentrism is true. Carl Sagan was wrong that we are in a backwoods "nothing special" far-out corner of a galaxy.
[size]
I haven't researched this enough to really be able to comment on it.  But say that's true.  So what?  I can see how that might make alien existence improbable.  But I don't see how it makes it theologically impossible.

[/size]
Quote
4. #3 actually makes sense, because Earth is the planet on which God took HUMAN FLESH and died on the cross. The second Person of the Holy Trinity has a human nature now in Heaven. He can't take on any other additional alien nature(s). He can't have a glorified human body AND a glorified green alien body with 15 tentacles at the same time. That would be metaphysically impossible; an actual contradiction like a square circle.
[size]
I agree with this.  This is the first relevant theological point that I can make sense of (the other points, even if true, are really probabilistic claims rather than definitive theological ones as far as I can see it.)  However, this doesn't rule out the existence of alien life, only its redeemability.  Angels couldn't be redeemed either, but they certainly exist, despite clearly having souls and eternal destinies.
[/size]
Quote
5. And no, the other two Persons in the Holy Trinity aren't standing around in some kind of waiting room "still available" to do what the Second Person of the Holy Trinity did on Earth to save mankind in 33 AD. Jesus created the world, He is the LOGOS, the Word. It's difficult to comprehend the Trinity to any degree, but let's just say that it wasn't a coincidence that the LOGOS, the Second Person became man and died for our sins. Jesus didn't lose a divine "coin toss", nor did He draw the "short straw".

The Trinity is kind of like a fire: you have light, heat, and consuming action. Those 3 things go together. Where you have "fire", you have all 3. The light isn't the heat, and the heat isn't the consuming action. But there is only 1 fire. You can't say, "Well, last time the HEAT of the fire warmed my food; this time let's have the LIGHT of the fire warm my food." It doesn't work that way.

I agree here as well, but again, this only suggests that it is certainly a theological impossibility that aliens could be redeemed, if they did in fact exist.  So where I'm at right now, barring any further argument to the contrary, is that aliens very likely don't exist, I don't see any reason to believe they exist, but if it turned out that they did, in fact, exist, it wouldn't challenge my Catholic faith, because I see no contradiction. I'll grant that something like geocentrism, and the belief that the earth is the center of the universe, does seem to decrease the probability that aliens exist, but even if that's affirmed, aliens still *could* exist, and it would still make sense that the planet humans live on was the center since that was the place to which God sent a redeemer.

But I agree that an "alien Christ" wouldn't be possible.  And trying to posit that possibility would lead to all sorts of heresies.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 17, 2019, 01:41:40 PM
Indeed, what if +Fellay/+Lefebvre are/were aliens?

NOW we have come full circle on this thread.
Well since we all know Freemasons are aliens, the question on this thread seems to be whether Fellay is a freemason/alien  ;D
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: nctradcath on May 17, 2019, 01:49:06 PM

Where did you get the above? I have never read that.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: nctradcath on May 17, 2019, 01:49:50 PM
I mean where Our Lady of Fatima said aliens were devils.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Matthew on May 17, 2019, 08:10:13 PM

In what way does the Bible mention everything else in the visible world?  I have serious doubts about this unless you're classifying in very general terms.

Yes, in a general way.

But under which heading would rational aliens fit under? Made in the image and likeness of God and all?

You can't classify them with "everything that creepeth and moveth upon the earth" because they wouldn't be on earth.

So even in general terms, the Bible conspicuously leaves out any mention of any other rational creatures like Man.

In fact, the Bible might even deny it. Adam didn't find any other one like himself (rational). And don't tell me he didn't know about the other planets and who dwelt thereon. Adam wasn't a caveman, AND he had infused knowledge. He would have asked God for a spaceship, or asked for leave to go build one (he was capable, I might add).

On the other hand, if Adam focused on finding a creature EXACTLY like himself, not just reason/free will but also biology, then another rational alien wouldn't do.

But on the third hand (speaking of aliens!) who says that aliens would be tentacled monsters with 5 eyes? Hollywood Sci-fi, that's who!
Wouldn't God use the same design somewhere else?
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Stanley N on May 17, 2019, 09:04:07 PM
[size={defaultattr}]I was just asking why they couldn't, from a theological standpoint.
[/size]
I don't see a good reason why space aliens couldn't exist.

Revelation does not tell us everything. In the natural realm, for example, it doesn't mention every species of animal on earth. Yet those species that are not mentioned in the Scripture still exist.

Anything we might speculate about the redemption of rational space aliens is just that - speculation. Perhaps they don't fall? Perhaps they get redeemed in some other way? Perhaps earthlings have a missionary role to spread the news of the Redemption to space aliens?

Centuries ago, people used to consider whether anyone could be living at the "antipodes" (opposite side of the earth, that is, not europe-asia-africa). Some thought it impossible because if there were humans there, those humans couldn't receive the Gospel. And yet humans were living there, and the Gospel was brought to them.

What we can be sure of, if space aliens do exist, is that God's providence has accounted for them in some way.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 17, 2019, 09:06:54 PM
Yes, in a general way.

But under which heading would rational aliens fit under? Made in the image and likeness of God and all?

You can't classify them with "everything that creepeth and moveth upon the earth" because they wouldn't be on earth.

So even in general terms, the Bible conspicuously leaves out any mention of any other rational creatures like Man.

In fact, the Bible might even deny it. Adam didn't find any other one like himself (rational). And don't tell me he didn't know about the other planets and who dwelt thereon. Adam wasn't a caveman, AND he had infused knowledge. He would have asked God for a spaceship, or asked for leave to go build one (he was capable, I might add).

On the other hand, if Adam focused on finding a creature EXACTLY like himself, not just reason/free will but also biology, then another rational alien wouldn't do.

But on the third hand (speaking of aliens!) who says that aliens would be tentacled monsters with 5 eyes? Hollywood Sci-fi, that's who!
Wouldn't God use the same design somewhere else?
How do we know that aliens (even if they were rational) would be a suitable partner for Adam, being a completely different species?  And how do we know Adam would've known who dwelt on other planets?  I'm not saying Adam was a caveman, but God could simply have given him this knowledge.  

"Wouldn't God use the same design somewhere else?"

Why would he need to?  

I mean, again, I'm not arguing that aliens exist.  I'm not arguing that belief in them is more rational than not believing in them.  I don't happen to believe in them.  But my lack of belief in them is an agnostic lack of belief, because I'm not aware of any theological principle that would say they can't exist.

Is there something in Sacred Tradition that teaches, as a point of theology, that everything that exists must have been mentioned in the creation narrative in a general way?  If something like that exists in Sacred Tradition, I could see that as being a strong argument.  As far as I know, there's nothing in the Bible that teaches the necessity of this.  

But again, it might be the case.  I just don't claim certainty.  I don't think I have a basis for it.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 17, 2019, 09:11:03 PM
I don't see a good reason why space aliens couldn't exist.
Revelation does not tell us everything. In the natural realm, for example, it doesn't mention every species of animal on earth. Yet those species that are not mentioned in the Scripture still exist.
Anything we might speculate about the redemption of rational space aliens is just that - speculation. Perhaps they don't fall? Perhaps they get redeemed in some other way? Perhaps earthlings have a missionary role to spread the news of the Redemption to space aliens?
Centuries ago, people used to consider whether anyone could be living at the "antipodes" (opposite side of the earth, that is, not europe-asia-africa). Some thought it impossible because if there were humans there, those humans couldn't receive the Gospel. And yet humans were living there, and the Gospel was brought to them.

What we can be sure of, if space aliens do exist, is that God's providence has accounted for them in some way.
I had the possible thought of "perhaps they could be redeeemed in some other way" but I refrained from stating so on the grounds that I wondered if *perhaps* speculation in that direction could lead to some type of heresy, and I wanted my argument to be as "safe" as possible.  Aliens who either aren't rational in the same way we are, or who haven't fallen (like the angels), or who have fallen but can't be redeemed (like the demons) seem absolutely safe from a theological standpoint (even if their existence is improbable.) 

That said I'd question "perhaps Earthlings have a missionary role to spread the news of the Redemption to space aliens" as a possibility.  I don't see how (though perhaps I'm wrong), such a mandate wouldn't constitute new divine Revelation, which is condemned in Pascendi.  *perhaps* this could be explained as a development of "making disciples of all nations" but that seems sketch to me, and I might be more liberal than anyone on this particular forum not named Poche ;D, and I still  think that's a stretch.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Markus on May 19, 2019, 10:32:03 PM
I was hoping this thread would be about whether Bishop Fellay is a Freemason, as opposed to the Pfunny Pfarm or aliens...
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 20, 2019, 08:38:11 AM
Virgo-Maria.org

Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas hæreses sola interemisti.
(Tractus Missæ Salve Sancta Parens)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
This message can be downloaded in pdf on our website http://www.virgo-maria.org/ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/).
The program book «Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes» (« Benedict XVI and the traditionalists »)(March 12, 2007) of Father Celier (FSSPX), published by and with a foreword of a freemason[1] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftna)of the Grand(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)Lodge(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)of France(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image002.gif)

Proof of the Masonic(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png) premeditation of the joining Rome policy imposed on the SSPX by Bishop Fellay

An unprecedented Masonic(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png) scandal on top of the sacerdotal work of Archbishop Lefebvre

In view of these appalling FACTS[1] from this moment onwards the question raises itself :

 
Could it be that nowadays the SSPX is being led by a freemason(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3pointsR.png)?

 
If so, since when did he enter the Lodge?

 

Bishop Fellay has to choose:
  • ·       either betray Bishop Lefebvre and continue his Masonic∴ policy described in the program book published by and with a foreword of a free∴mason∴, publicly showing his submission to the Lodge by doing so,
  • ·       or he expells Father Celier[2] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftnb) from the FSSPX and removes Father de Cacqueray because of incompetence, having covered this Masonic∴ book with his authority and sold[3] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn3) it himself. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn2)

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image004.gif)

 
Explanation of the Masonic(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png) intentions and methods of Bishop Fellay’s policy:

In the absence of any denial by Bishop Fellay, more than a month after the outbreak of the scandal without any reaction from his side, we cannot but conclude that it is clearly visible that Father Celier has had orders from Bishop Fellay and Father de Cacqueray to traverse France for two years in order to present in all the priories, before all the clergymen and faithfull, this program book of the joining of the SSPX with the Masonic, apostate, globalist Rome – a book published by and with a foreword of a freemason.

Late October 2008 Mr. J.L.Maxence, the psychoanalist who edited and wrote the foreword of the program book «Benoît XVI et les Traditionnalistes» published his own book («La Loge et le divan») («The  Lodge and the Couch «), in which he himself[4] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn4) reveals the sham, up to then unknown and revealed later, in the nr. 269 (1 to 15 Feb.) of Emmanuel Ratier’s «Faits & Documents»  magazine.

 
Father Celier’s program book, published by and with a foreword from a freemason, was released on March 12, 2007, and was immediately distributed and promoted in the media of the SSPX and in the priories, with the full and active support of the authority of Father de Cacqueray, who sold it himself in Nantes.

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image006.gif)

Page 57 of «J’ai été franc-maçon» («I have been a freemason») by André Clodic[5] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn5)

The first chapter of part three of  «Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes», devoted to the process of «reconciliation» with modernist Rome, is called «triangulation», a term that makes one invariably think of the «triangulation of speech» which, in Masonic practices, means that the initiated gets permission to speak from the Venerable of the Lodge trough the intermediary of the Surveillant. This symbolizes the indirect procedure.

This means that the program book has been drafted in the second half of 2006, from August to December, at the time of the launching of the sacrilegious «bouquet», exactly the period when Father de Cacqueray began his Paris conferences[6] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn6), and was already reading to the public parts of the still unpublished Masonic∴ program book  in his lecture (the childish and ridiculous episode of the tanker changing course, part of the Masonic∴ book released 6 months later) of September 27, 2006[7] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn7), in the hall of the Mutualité, while answering pro-joining questions from Father Lorans.
During this well known lecture, Father de Cacqueray explained to the faithful the idea according to which the SSPX should accept to lower the tone of its criticism, being fully integrated in the bosom of the Conciliar Church.

All through his 2007 spring campaign in the priories, Father Celier has not stopped declaring that he acted with the agreement of Bishop Fellay, and that his book expressed the thoughts of Bishop Fellay.

At that time, VM had pains to believe it, as it appeared so inconceivable.
However, if we take Father Celier serious now, and accept that he did speak the truth, then this program book, its publication and its foreword by the freemason editor Jean-Luc Maxence had been agreed upon with Bishop Fellay as early as mid 2006, to contribute to the success of politics of joining the SSPX with Rome by way of PSYOPS manipulation of the faithful.

Bishop Fellay has therefore chosen to have Father Celier present the lectures on joining that he did not dare himself to present openly at that time, preferring to remain in a chiaroscuro in order to better cheat the clergy and the faithful, while the freemason writer distilled the poison of surrendering in the minds of the priests and laymen of the SSPX.

Jean-Luc Maxence was at least a known admirer of the gnosis. Choosing him  as editor, most certainly ratified by Bishop Fellay, reveals a deeper "connivance": Bishop Fellay could not be unaware of the Masonic contacts of the former contributor of the "Monde & Vie" magazine .

Did Bishop Fellay choose this editor because of his membership of the G∴L∴F∴ ?
On the other hand, was this choice the fruit of orchestrated action between the G∴L∴F∴ and the superior of the SSPX?

 
Likewise, Bishop Fellay, in permanent communication with the Masonic Conciliar authorities of Rome, must have been warned about the coming release[8] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn8)of the Motu Proprio; he must have had information on the planned timetable, and therefore, the "miracle" made from the "bouquet spirituel" was   – as VM has denounced[9] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn9)right away -  destined to cheat the piety of the faithful. The Masonic program book represented the "next step", the one that would encourage the momentum towards the so called "discussions", and then the final integration.

 
Bishop Fellay, Father Celier and the Masonic editor of the G∴L∴F∴, have therefore planned to publish a program book that would be propagated by Father Celier in half of the priories of the SSPX in France, in two campaigns that would frame the release of the Motu Proprio as a sandwich.
Evidently, Father Celier benefited from financial support from the side of Father de Cacqueray for the expenses that he made for his subversive operation.

Consequently, it is necessary to note that Father Celier has benefited from unlimited support of Father de Cacqueray and of Bishop Fellay, in spite of the multiplying protest articles and actions.

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image008.gif)
"In the first place, pull away form Freemasonry the mask that it covers itself with and make it be seen like it is." Leo XIII

In the final annex to this VM message, we do invite our readers – be they clergymen or laymen – to read, reread and meditate on the INFALLIBLE encyclical text Humanum Genus of April 20, 1884, from the Magisterium of Pope Leo XIII, by which this Pontiff infallibly exposes, denounces and condemns the "Sect of the Freemasons", as well as their "misleading" methods and their "infamous and criminal enterprises."
While considering the INFALLIBLE terms chosen by Pope Leo XIII to passionately condemn Freemasonry by his encyclical Humanum Genus, the Catholic readers, clergy or laymen, will be able to measure the ABSOLUTELY MOST SERIOUS character of the public approval from a confirmed, acknowledged, enthusiast Gnostic freemason program book of Father Celier for the joining of the SSPX with the Masonic, globalist, apostate, “ecumenical” Conciliar church.

Leo XIII points his finger at the secret methods of the Masonic sect:

"Undoubtedly, one can see that they belong to the family of clandestine corporations, and that they behave like them. They have, in fact, kinds of mysteries that their constitution forbids with the greatest care to divulge, not only to people outside, but even to a considerable number of their followers."

And what does Bishop Fellay show since the year 2000 in the SSPX? The same Masonic∴ methods of secrecy!

 
This cult of the secret keeps on spreading in the government of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay. The so called doctrinarian "discussions” with the Rome of the antichrists, by which the Swiss bishop risks the future of the FSSPX, will unfold themselves in secrecy, behind CLOSED DOORS.
And now, in a new boost of secrecy, even the names of the members of the Commission will remain secret!
Discussions BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, by persons that do not unveil their identity to the public, does that not remind you of something? This is exactly the way that the Masonic Lodge functions.
We cannot but notice that Bishop Fellay imposes on the FSSPX the way of functioning of the Masonic Lodge: this is a FACT.

 
Quite the opposite of Bishop Fellay and the Lodge, Bishop Lefebvre applied the Catholic way of behaving: he kept his relations with Rome seen and known by the faithful and did not hesitate to solicit the opinion of laymen.

How to explain that, since 2000, the year of the pilgrimage to Rome, the Direction of the SSPX has arrived at adopting the methods of functioning of the Masonic Lodge?
And this in an ever increasing way since the visit of Bishop Fellay to the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005?

 
 
 
Ask your priests and your bishops:

·    How is it possible that the Direction of the SSPX promotes and sells this Masonic∴ program book without any penalty?

·    How is it possible that Bishop Fellay imposes this Masonic∴ policy by terror?

·    Do you want our children to finish in the Lodge∴?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chronology of the publication and circulation of the Masonic program book within the District of France of the SSPX for two years with the total support and active participation of Father de Cacqueray

Table of contents

1. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701557)       The publication on March 12, 2007, of the joining program book by Father Celier, edited by and with a foreword of Jean-Luc Maxence, a not yet acknowledged freemason of the G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701557)... 7
2.       The first publicity campaign (May-June 2007) of Father Celier in 12 priories of the District of France to distribute his program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists", edited and prefaced by the freemason of the G∴L∴F∴... 10 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)
3.       On July 7, 2007, Benedict XVI published the Motu Proprio. Four months before the joining program book of Father Celier has appeared. This release of the Motu is framed by the two campaigns of Father Celier in the priories, for his program book edited by and with a foreword of a follower of the (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701559)G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)... 15 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701559)
4.       On October 5, 2007, Bishop Fellay’s nomination of Father Celier (edited by and with a foreword of a F∴M∴) is revealed in the theological commission responsible for the preparation of the "discussions" with Rome.17 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701560)
5.       The second publicity campaign (October-December 2007) of Father Celier in 9 priories of the District of France to distribute his program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists", edited by and with a foreword of a freemason of the (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701561)G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)... 18 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701561)
6.       On the 1st  of December, 2007, a university circle violently attacks Father Celier’s philosophical work ("the mortal god"), for being an "initiatory guide to apostasy". Erreur ! Signet non défini. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701562)
7.       In March 2008, the hidden, but unmasked campaign of Father Celier to spread a second document about the joining among the clergy of the SSPX   19 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701563)
8.       From June to August 2008, Father Celier, helped by Father Lorans, with insolence, and as if he has nothing to fear, hushes up the rebellion of Bishop Fellay and the bishops of the Fraternity (SSPX) against the ultimatum urged by Rome at the beginning June 2008  19 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701564)
9.       In October 2008, Jean-Luc Maxence, editor of Father Celier, reveals his affiliation "since decades" to the Grande∴ Loge∴ de France∴ (Grand Lodge of France)24 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701565)
10.    On the 1st of February 2009, Emmanuel Ratier passes on the information about Jean-Luc Maxence’s Masonic∴ affiliation in the Faits & Documents magazine. 25 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701566)
11.    In March 2009, the magazine of the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé (Sel de la Terre) tells about the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence  26 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701567)
12.    May 10 2009, in his lecture to the IUSPX on subversion, Father Chautard, first curate of the Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, makes the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence known. 27 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701568)
13.    In June 2009, the parish bulletin of the Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, ("Le Chardonnet") makes the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence known. 27 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701569)
14.    In July 2009, VM establishes the link between the program book of Father Celier and the Masonic∴ affiliation of Jean-Luc Maxence to the  (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701570)G∴L∴F∴ (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701558)... 28 (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701570)
15.    By the end of August 2009, although directly incriminated and finding his reputation damaged by the scandal, Bishop Fellay insists on supporting the Fathers Celier and De Cacqueray and the Masonic∴ political exposition in the program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" Erreur ! Signet non défini. (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_Toc239701571)
 
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image010.gif)

1.  The publication on March 12, 2007 of the joining program book by Father Celier, edited by and with a foreword of Jean-Luc Maxence, a not yet acknowledged freemason of the G(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)L(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)F(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)

·      January 17, 2007: Announcement by Entrelacs Publishers, directed by Jean-Luc Maxence
o  "Entrelacs Publishers (an affiliate of Albin-Michel) will publish on March, 12, a book by Father Grégoire Celier and Olivier Pichon: Benedict XVI and the traditionalists.
The third part, "Future", the most original one of the book, constitutes a systematic presentation of the links of the Pius X Fraternity (SSPX) with Rome, notably in the matter of the famous "agreements".
The first chapter, entitled "Triangulation[10] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn10)", returns to that which the SSPX has called the two "preconditions", i.e. total liberty for each priest to celebrate the traditional mass (before Vatican II), and the lifting of the Roman excommunications of 1988 regarding the four auxiliary bishops of the SSPX and the two bishops that consecrated them. Replying to the objections of Olivier Pichon, Father Celier explains why and how the SSPX has proposed these two preconditions to Rome before any other discussion.
The title of the second chapter - to be understood while reading - is "Messe pipaule". This chapter primarily treats the "doctrinal discussions”, which must constitute, according to the SSPX, the second step of the process of reconciliation. While replying to the questions of Olivier Pichon, Father Celier tries to show, through some historic examples, that in the eyes of the SSPX it would be possible from this day to advance these discussions with Rome. This chapter - the most original of the work - also proposes future perspectives for the Church, perspectives that are astonishing, indeed, explosive from a “traditionalist” priest.
The third chapter, entitled "Fable du héron", (The Fable of the Heron) wants to reply to the central objection of Olivier Pichon: "Isn’t now the right moment to sign, because the election of Benedict XVI is a historic chance for you? If you do not sign today, might you not risk losing all?" Having explained the history of the previous agreements, Father Celier explains in detail why, in the current circumstances, the SSPX does not envisage signing an agreement with Rome in the short run, even if it considers that the position can brutally and quickly change into its favor, which would then motivate the signature of such a agreement ."
·      February 28, 2007: Father Celier exposes the official policy of the rapports of the SSPX with Rome on Radio Courtoisie:
"Effectively, there is a general position that, on a certain number of items, a reflection is evolving in the heart of the Fraternity that tries to adapt itself to this position (…). The Apostolic See can very well return this favor to the Tradition in any other form (…).We do not say that these two preconditions are absolutely obligatory if in another way, for example, the Apostolic See would show that the love of the Tradition, of the Church, is put back in force (…)"
"Concerning the 'doctrinal debates', I explicitly say that right now this is the formula that Bishop Fellay gave, but he is open to what might happen in various ways (…). In the book I explicitly say, I even remind  that we envisage to make a canonical agreement, even if all problems have not yet been solved, provided that there is a real change of direction" (Father Celier on Radio Courtoisy, February 28, 2007).

·      March 11, 2007: VM[11] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn11)exposes the facts and questions Father Celier for his pro-joining book: "The dangerous drifts of Father Celier denounced by a faithful. The growing outcry of the faithful of the SSPX against the network of the modernist infiltrators. "

·      March 12 2007: In "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" Father Celier exposes the program of joining the SSPX with the modernistic Rome

In the foreword to Father Celier’s work, the then yet concealed freemason Jean-Luc Maxence, declares to welcome the success of the joiningthat he names with a euphemism "rapprochement" – of the SSPX to the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI:

Nevertheless, until then - and "for (http://192.168.101.200:5081/?sequence=core&language=French/English&url=http:/www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/009_2009/VM-2009-08-02/VM-2009-09-02-A-00-Question_sur_Mgr_Fellay.html/#_ftn12)decades[12] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn12)"- Mr. Jean-Luc Maxence had never revealed his active and fervent membership of the ‘ateliers’ of the G∴L∴F∴ to the ignorant and credulous traditionalist readers of the weekly Monde & Vie, of which the latter constituted the bulk of its readership, which very well characterizes the habitual method of insinuation and deception denounced for ages by the infallible Magisterium of the Holy Church and of its Pontiffs (cf. for example Leo XIII, 1884, Encyclical Humanum Genus).
(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image012.gif)

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image014.gif)

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image016.gif)

"I began my activities as a journalist in 1966, a year after the end of the Vatican II council. Being Catholic, I have from this era been fascinated by the different currents of thought that confronted themselves within the Church of Rome. I was having a regular section of "poetry" in the Monde et Vie weekly, and as I was part of the editing team of this publication close to the Catholic "traditionalist", although in no way being "expert" in religious questions, I could talk with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Father François Ducaud Bourget, Michel de Saint Pierre and some other figureheads of this current.
"I was not thirty years old yet, and I was hoping then for a "spring of the Church". I believed the virtues of Vatican II, with the faith of an exalted sixty-eighter. I even ended up being responsible for a polemic work on the subject, a pamphlet that advocated a frank separation from those that the late Jacques Maritain, in his work Le Paysan de la Garonne, baptized those still "Ruminating the Holy Alliance", in other words, the "fundamentalists ".
"Almost thirty years have passed, and still the same questions remain. Vatican II has not at all filled the churches, especially in the West, this is the least one can say.
"I have no intention to get in a certain soft and stupid repentance. However, it seemed to me useful, especially at a time when Pope Benedict XVI courageously wants to mend the torn tunic of the Church, to propose to the journalist Olivier Pichon and to Father Grégoire Celier to talk without using diplomatic language, with absolute liberty, on the question of a rapprochement between the Fraternity of Saint Pius X and Rome.  Is it not just the objective of the Connivences Collection to offer a space for the exchange of ideas beyond habitual ideological divides?
"I do not regret this initiative. Better: it seems to me undeniable that this discussion lights up the points of view of each, and that it can constitute an important brick in the structure of reconciliation that I personally hope to be possible.”
The Director of the “Connivences” Collection (Jean-Luc Maxence, F∴M∴ of the Grande∴ Loge∴ de France∴ according to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite[13] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn13))

·      March 13, 2007: while VM[14] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn14)wonders about the Gnostic ideas of Father Celier’s editor, Jean-Luc Maxence: "The thoughts of Bishop Fellay edited by an admirer of the gnosis? The book of Father Celier, claiming to express the thoughts of Bishop Fellay, edited by J. L. Maxence, author of esoteric and Guénon inspired works "
o  The Vehementer magazine (published only on internet) reveals to us that Jean-Luc Maxence is strongly linked to Gnostic circles. It recalls that the latter already has published several works on esoteric subjects and on René Guénon, a highly initiated Gnostic. Vehementer is directed by some Dominican Fathers of Avrillé. It is to be distinguished from Sel de la Terre, a magazine directed by Father Pierre-Marie de Kergorlay."
o  "Father Celier claims, in fact, to speak in the name of Bishop Fellay while expressing exactly the latter’s thought. He even claims that his work was reread and approved by his Superiors. Bishop Fellay therefore, has accepted that, if Father Celier is to be believed – and if this is true, the situation is really very serious -, that his personal thought about the SSPX and its future, like on the very strategic item of the connections with Ratzinger (regions for which he as Superior General of the SSPX is personally responsible, and which he primarily is vested with) is expressed in a discussion with an editor, Mr. Jean-Luc Maxence, who has already published and distributed the following books: Jung and the future of Freemasonry, 2004; L’égrégore; The  collective psychological energy, Dervy, 2003; René Guénon, the invisible philosopher, 2001; Anthology of contemporary mystical poetry, 1999" VM

 
2.  The first publicity campaign (May-June 2007) of Father Celier in 12 priories of the District of France to distribute his program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists", edited by and with a foreword of a mason of the G(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)L(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)F(http://www.virgo-maria.org/images/3points.png)

 
·      May 5, 2007: VM[15] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn15)is worried and questions the first tour of France in 12 priories of the SSPX by Father Celier to present his book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" :
◦    "How to explain that Father Celier turns himself this way, without any obstacle to the highest level of the SSPX media in France, even though he prepares his departure (at last!) from the magazine Fideliter (the level of which has become pitiful henceforth) and the Clovis Publishing Firm? Is it not the responsibility of the July 2006 General Chapter (that convenes once every 12 years) to officially decide to dismiss him from this magazine and of this Publishing Firm? Who, therefore, has authority superior to the General Chapter to decide that his decisions must be executed without delay? An authority that seems to exercise an executive power in the SSPX superior to the General Chapter? Is not here that power at work that we already designated by the expression "Schwarze Kapelle (Black Orchestra)," that corresponds to the network of the modernistic infiltrators? (Cf. preceding VM messages).
Did Father de Cacqueray put his signature under the mission of Father Celier’s tour of France?
Do the gifts of the faithful serve to finance these expensive trips and this shameless pro-joining propaganda?
While the families must scrimp and save to pay the studies of their children in the SSPX schools, the faithful can now verify what their money is used for.
About 7500 Kms (calculating the various routes on www.viamichelin.com) and therefore, according to the tax scale: 3500 € (3.134,39 GBP or 5.194,92 USD) for traveling costs (including amortization) + various costs! It takes more than 1000 books to be sold to get back such a sum by the profits obtained by the profit margin." VM

·      May 8 2007: VM[16] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn16)passes on a text of the "Sous la bannière" magazine that publicly questions Bishop Fellay on the legitimacy of Father Celier expressing himself by his book:
"Father continually expresses himself in the name of the Fraternity by using the first person plural. We have; we are; we recognize. On page 221, in 14 lines, this method of expression is used 7 times by the Father Celier. And on page 212, we, or it, or the Fraternity, is used 18 times in 24 lines. The average reader can have no doubt! This must be a "historic leader” who expresses himself in the name of the SSPX. It remains to be known if the real persons in command are conscious of this, and accept it themselves." Sous la bannière – n°130 »

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image018.gif)

·      May 18, 2007: VM[17] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn17)publishes on the failure of Father Celier’s first lectures in the priories:
o  "According to our information, Father Celier has met 50 faithful at his lecture of May 3, 2007, in the priory of Marseille. Few books have been sold; some faithful had their copies signed. As a matter of fact, owing to the modernist and naturalist theses that he has not stopped promoting since 1995, Father Celier has got himself a sort of contra-clientele that buys his books or magazines containing items from him (published under his name or under one of his pseudonyms) in order to examine which modernist or naturalist ideas these works contain. So, whatever he publishes, he can be sure of a minimum sale by his opponents. After that, on May 10, 2007, in the priory of Lyon, hardly more faithful turned up (about 60). 30 books have been sold. Among these listeners a lot were opponents of Father Celier’s theses that he has spread for years under his own name or under pseudonyms (Father Beaumont or Paul Sernine). The atmosphere at the time of the lecture in Lyon was hostile. Father Lamerand, the prior, even intervened to chase away someone who had come to distribute the article of Sous la bannière that gives implacable criticism on Father Celier’s work. A theological criticism that we discussed in our VM message of May 8, 2007. "

(http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay_fichiers/image020.gif)

http://www.laportelatine.org/communication/presse/2007/confcelier/confcelier.php (http://www.laportelatine.org/communication/presse/2007/confcelier/confcelier.php)

·      May 23, 2007: VM[18] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn18)makes the opposition known of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais to Father Celier’s program book, that he qualifies a "fantasy":
« Questioned on the subject of Father Celier’s book[1] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2007/005_2007/VM-2007-05-23/VM-2007-05-23-A-00-Abbe-Celier_desavoue_par_un_eveque.htm#_ftn1) at a lecture for the faithful, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais declared: "I have not read Father Celier’s book yet. This is a, well, a, how shall I put it, an eccentric view of the future, an imagination of the future, how a progressive return to the liturgical tradition, to the traditional Mass might happen. Yes, that is what it is, without any doubt. This is a work of fantasy or imagination, but I cannot say some more because I did not read the book, I did not buy it, it does not interest me, I will not read it, it does not interest me at all." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. [2] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2007/005_2007/VM-2007-05-23/VM-2007-05-23-A-00-Abbe-Celier_desavoue_par_un_eveque.htm#_ftn2)

·      May 25, 2007:VM[19] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn19)publishes a document of 2004 that makes a theological and philosophical screening of Father Celier’s writings and concludes that he is a nuisance. Father Celier intervenes once more on Radio Courtoisie.

"Despite the failure of his campaign in the priories of France, on the radio on May 24, 2007 Father Celier excelled already as a correspondent for the District of France." VM

·      May 26, 2007: VM[20] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn20)headlines: "Bishop Tissier disavows Father Celier’s manuscripts. The failure of an isolated and rejected Father Celier" and publishes the audio recording [21] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn21)of the rejection by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of Father Celier’s program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists".

·      May 27, 2007: VM[22] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn22)informs on "The rout of Father Celier on campaign: the fiasco of Toulouse".

"Hardly 40 persons turned up. Father de la Rocque, prior of the SSPX in Toulouse, had rented a room for 300 persons. 40 persons turned up. We counted 3 priests, some youngsters, and very aged people, all faithful of the priory. Some time before, Michel de Jaeghere had attracted more people to the same place, gathering listeners from all horizons. The lecture began with 20 minutes of delay. Father de la Rocque saw the room almost empty and waited for the crowd to arrive, but the crowd never came. Delivering a rather shallow speech, Father Celier appeared very little at ease. (...) During his lecture he strongly asserted that he spoke in the name of the SSPX and of Bishop Fellay, presenting the latter’s position all the time." VM

·      June 3, 2007: Father de Cacqueray goes to the Priory of Saint-Louis in Nantes on Sunday, a week before Father Celier’s arrival, and he sells the Masonic program book "Benedict XVI and the traditionalists" to the faithful himself:
"We have received two testimonies on the "great success" of Nantes. It is necessary to recall that after Paris, Nantes is the second city of France in the fight for the Tradition. The coming of Father Celier was preceded by that of Father de Cacqueray, who came the preceding Sunday with works of Father Celier. However, he failed to sell them, according to a testimony that has reached us." VM[23] (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.htm#_ftn23)of June 17, 2007
·      June 6, 2007:VM
WTH is this??
English please? (http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2009/011-2009/VM-2009-11-11/VM-200
[/quote)
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Incredulous on May 21, 2019, 11:25:07 AM
I was hoping this thread would be about whether Bishop Fellay is a Freemason, as opposed to the Pfunny Pfarm or aliens...

Here's one from the Cathinfo archives to "light-up" the trolls on this forum
and get us back on track with Bp. Fellay's SSPX masonic-ness: :jester:

It involves Father Schoonbroodt who promoted +ABL's sermons, Bp. Fellay and Max Krah.

Even more intriguing... it may even include Schoonbroodt's  masonic assassination.

(http://wordpress.catholicapedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PaulSchoonbroodt_Montmartre.jpg)

Background on Father Schoonbroodt:  

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=18264&min=10&num=10 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=18264&min=10&num=10)


Translation:

Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger directly deposit a criminal complaint against Father Schoonbroodt before the Public Prosecutor of the Belgians.

Since June 21, 2011, the Superior of the SSPX and Father Schmidberger filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Belgium, against Father Paul Schoonbroodt, the last "excommunicated" living of holy 1988.

Taking the example of the former "bishop" Conciliar de Liège, the present and former successors of Archbishop Lefebvre hysterically persecute the priest who founded the Caramel of Quiévrain with the help of Archbishop Lefebvre and received the support of Archbishop to build his church, despite the persecution he suffered in the civil part of the Conciliar Church.
And it is as indicated verbally that he has provided the policeman who questioned the abbot Schoonbroodt that:

It shows three charges, provided that the abbot Schoonbroodt could learn about it in the absence of the possibility of access to the written complaint made ??to him:

The association of St. Pius X Suresnes accused the abbot Schoonbroodt theft of intellectual property owned by the SSPX on public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah accuse the abbot Schoonbroodt libel for referring to the association’s financial Bishop and business lawyer in the joint management of several investment companies.

Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah also accuse the abbot Schoonbroodt of racism and xenophobia.

Faced with these startling accusations from the two successors of Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Schoonbroodt made ??a statement in which he strongly rejects these accusations.

This unprecedented action of Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger, justified by their common will to block the release of the full sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre they keep hidden for 20 years, sets out in broad daylight that Bishop Fellay and the Father Schmidberger run now for the Conciliar Church maçonnisée globalized and the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI.

And they show publicly their ulterior motives: Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger behave in real enemies determined the abbot Schoonbroodt while in the same direction, they seek to curry favor and friendship of Father Ratzinger apostate Benedict XVI.

The bishop and the Swiss German priest, his guru, have clearly chosen their side: that of the Conciliar Church globalized Freemasonry and rejection of the battle of Archbishop Lefebvre against this apostate church Conciliar to preserve the Catholic priesthood sacrificial VALID sacramentally.


http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15187&f=4&min=60&num=10 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15187&f=4&min=60&num=10)



Well, that’s nearly unbelievable. So to sum up the three "charges" in own words :

(1) Fr. Schoonbroodt publishes sermons of the good Archbishop Lefebvre and because of this he’s now persecuted by the "digital content industry" in Menzingen.

(2) Fr. Schoonbroodt published the French translation of the famous Krahgate, which unmasks the Zionist Krah and his helpers, and is persecuted because of this.

(3) Fr. Schoonbroodt is persecuted because of an alleged "racism" and "xenophobia". Well, there’s the usual Jewish globalist agenda again which brainwashes the west since decades. This one’s not worth one single comment.

So Bp. Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger and their Zionist bloodhound Krah now use the anti-christian, communist EU states in order to persecute the old Fr. Schoonbroodt.

The official SSPX leadership persecutes the propagation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words. What we heard as theoretical talking so far we’ve got now in cold print  because of the "case Schoonbroodt".

How many souls converted to the holy roman-catholic Church because of the intense word of Archbishop Lefebvre? I personally know several of them and they’re the most faithful catholics I know. The pseudo followers of the Archbishop however dare to choke off his important words which are just a tool of Good.

I think it’s just to say that they’re out of their little minds because they do so and because they think they could ally with the anti-christian European states in order to reach their ignoble goals.

It’s an act against God to hinder the free publication of the important words of the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. There’s no "copyright" for these words — God alone owns them! So it’s a treachery against God and his servant Archbishop Lefebvre. For sure this won’t go unpunished.
Obviously as a punishment for their unfaithfulness they’ve already lost all judgement. We see it now and we already saw it when Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger and Fr. Schmidberger publicly defamed Bishop Williamson beginning with January 2009.

This will soon drop back on them because the very same anti-christian states which they allied and now again ally with will persecute any christian and in particular any cleric. So will they join Bishop Williamson’s exile? Hardly, because what my local SSPX priests who know that Menzingen, Jaidhof and Stuttgart are living in a dreamland, tell me: "When the soon to come persecution of Christians starts we priest will be killed first…"

Whilst I don’t overall agree with www.virgo-maria.org (http://www.virgo-maria.org) , I can repeat what a trustfully SSPX priest knowing him told me: Fr. Schoonbroodt is a devout catholic priest who follows Archbishop Lefebvre. The legal actions against him by Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger, executed by their Zionist Krah, are unjust.

Concerning the famous Krahgate:

The English version is still online: krahgatefile.blogspot.com
Also the German translation still is: krahgate.blogspot.com
Better save them locally before they’re being shot down. As Kreuznet proves, Krah observes any Krahgate publications and also this forum. :-)
P.S. an Krah: Auch Sie und Ihre Freunde sind bald fällig. Ihr verherrlichter Euro ist bereits mausetot und der restliche Wahnsinn, auf den Sie Ihre Sandburgen bauen, ebenfalls. Merken Sie sich: Gott läßt Seiner nicht spotten.

Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Struthio on July 14, 2019, 11:42:13 PM
We have absolutely no indication of +Lefebvre being a Freemason.

We have no proof of Lefebvre being a freemason (at least I don't and obviously neither do you).
Indications? We do have indications. I will explain some, but not without permission of Matthew.

On previous pages of this thread I read

Quote from: Matthew
Only a bitter, angry, sore loser Sedevacantist could actually believe that.
Quote from: Matto
Yes, I guess that would be a way to describe them. The more extreme kind.

Well, folks, you mustn't put your heads in the sand. God gave you reason to use it, so please use it. You have to admit that there is a possibility that you and I have been fooled, just like you and I assume that conciliar folks and neo-SSPXers have been fooled. Why would the devil be content with fooling fools and leave more wise and more faithful folks like you alone?

I ask permission to discuss the topic whether Lefebvre might have been a freemason. I'd like to talk about it, because that is the best way I know to straight out assessments.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: forlorn on July 15, 2019, 10:48:01 AM
I'll agree with ruling out the "Another Christ" explanation.  But what if aliens were in a comparable position to the angels?  (either unfallen, or else, in a "no second chances" type of paradigm?)

Again, to be clear, I don't see why this isn't a possibility, but that doesn't mean I actually affirm it.  
I believe the Church condemned this proposition. Around about the time of Galileo et al. some Renaissance thinker proposed that other planets had their own Gardens of Edens and Adams and Eves, some of which committed Original Sin and some of which didn't, and that Christ incarnated on those other planets too. The Church condemned it. Now one can theorise that maybe they wouldn't have condemned it without the last bit, but it's best to avoid the whole proposition altogether. We can discuss the theological implications of aliens when we actually have indication they exist.
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: cassini on July 15, 2019, 12:14:18 PM
I believe the Church condemned this proposition. Around about the time of Galileo et al. some Renaissance thinker proposed that other planets had their own Gardens of Edens and Adams and Eves, some of which committed Original Sin and some of which didn't, and that Christ incarnated on those other planets too. The Church condemned it. Now one can theorise that maybe they wouldn't have condemned it without the last bit, but it's best to avoid the whole proposition altogether. We can discuss the theological implications of aliens when we actually have indication they exist.

Long forgotten now are the other Pythagorean heresies condemned by the Fathers over the first three centuries of the Catholic Church; an era recalled in a new book researched and written by Professor Alberto A. Martinez. In this incredibly detailed and referenced book, Martinez tells us ‘Hippolytus (170-235AD) [a martyred Christian theologian] ridiculed the doctrine of infinitely many suns, moons and worlds, some inhabited.’ He tells us around 260 AD Pope Dionysus of Alexandria wrote a tract against the Epicureans mainly to criticize their theory that all things were composed of atoms without divine Providence. Martinez explains this was directed against the theory that atoms clash and combine by chance ‘and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it; and more, that they construct infinite worlds.’ He also shows us there were many others including Fathers of the Church who condemned the claim that there are many worlds like ours. He records that in 384 AD Philaster, Bishop of Bresica wrote it was ‘another heresy to say worlds are infinite and innumerable… whereas Scripture says that the world is one and that it teaches us that it is one.’ In 402 St Jerome complained that one of the most heretical claims of all was that ‘worlds are innumerable.’ St. Augustine even composed a list of 88 such heresies; the 77th claimed that ‘worlds are innumerable.’

‘Other theologians too cited this heresy for centuries. They explained the problem: “we cannot assert that there exist two or many worlds, since neither do we assert two or many Christs [the only begotten son]”’ --- A. Martinez: Burned Alive, Rerakon Books, london, 2018, p612..

In 748 AD Pope Zachary declared the belief that outside the Earth there was another world and other men, and that stars were similar worlds to ours was heretical. Rejections of these antipodean heresies are to be found in early medieval writings. In 1459 AD Pope Pius II also condemned the doctrine that God created another world than this one.’

Pope Francis, during Mass at the Vatican, talking about alien life forms, used the analogy that even Martians, should they ever visit Earth, would be welcome to be baptised. Baptism of course is a sacrament that frees man from Original Sin inherited by all the descendants of Adam and Eve. Why then would one offer to baptise a Martian? To subject this sacrament to science-fiction heresy shows us the decline of Catholic belief.

‘It is just over 380 years since the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for arguing that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. But it seems the Vatican has relaxed its view of mankind’s place in the cosmos and even believes there may be intelligent alien life out there. Astronomers at the Vatican Observatory, which has been studying the heavens since 1582, have said discoveries of new Earth like planets have strengthened their belief that there could be life on other planets.’ ---Mailonline, 8th Feb, 2018

Maybe Fr Robinson SSPX could add to this heretical belief. After all Bishop Fellay never complained about his book, did he?      
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Cera on July 16, 2019, 02:18:37 PM
I was hoping this thread would be about whether Bishop Fellay is a Freemason, as opposed to the Pfunny Pfarm or aliens...
Markus, I agree with you. :jumping2:
Title: Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
Post by: Cera on July 16, 2019, 02:32:31 PM
Long forgotten now are the other Pythagorean heresies condemned by the Fathers over the first three centuries of the Catholic Church; an era recalled in a new book researched and written by Professor Alberto A. Martinez. In this incredibly detailed and referenced book, Martinez tells us ‘Hippolytus (170-235AD) [a martyred Christian theologian] ridiculed the doctrine of infinitely many suns, moons and worlds, some inhabited.’ He tells us around 260 AD Pope Dionysus of Alexandria wrote a tract against the Epicureans mainly to criticize their theory that all things were composed of atoms without divine Providence. Martinez explains this was directed against the theory that atoms clash and combine by chance ‘and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it; and more, that they construct infinite worlds.’ He also shows us there were many others including Fathers of the Church who condemned the claim that there are many worlds like ours. He records that in 384 AD Philaster, Bishop of Bresica wrote it was ‘another heresy to say worlds are infinite and innumerable… whereas Scripture says that the world is one and that it teaches us that it is one.’ In 402 St Jerome complained that one of the most heretical claims of all was that ‘worlds are innumerable.’ St. Augustine even composed a list of 88 such heresies; the 77th claimed that ‘worlds are innumerable.’

‘Other theologians too cited this heresy for centuries. They explained the problem: “we cannot assert that there exist two or many worlds, since neither do we assert two or many Christs [the only begotten son]”’ --- A. Martinez: Burned Alive, Rerakon Books, london, 2018, p612..

In 748 AD Pope Zachary declared the belief that outside the Earth there was another world and other men, and that stars were similar worlds to ours was heretical. Rejections of these antipodean heresies are to be found in early medieval writings. In 1459 AD Pope Pius II also condemned the doctrine that God created another world than this one.’

Pope Francis, during Mass at the Vatican, talking about alien life forms, used the analogy that even Martians, should they ever visit Earth, would be welcome to be baptised. Baptism of course is a sacrament that frees man from Original Sin inherited by all the descendants of Adam and Eve. Why then would one offer to baptise a Martian? To subject this sacrament to science-fiction heresy shows us the decline of Catholic belief.

‘It is just over 380 years since the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for arguing that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. But it seems the Vatican has relaxed its view of mankind’s place in the cosmos and even believes there may be intelligent alien life out there. Astronomers at the Vatican Observatory, which has been studying the heavens since 1582, have said discoveries of new Earth like planets have strengthened their belief that there could be life on other planets.’ ---Mailonline, 8th Feb, 2018

Maybe Fr Robinson SSPX could add to this heretical belief. After all Bishop Fellay never complained about his book, did he?      
Well said. If Catholics had not become brainwashed by:


the Freemasonic and sun-worshiping Heliocentric (unproven) theory,


evolutionary (unproven) theory,


billions of years old earth (unproven) theory (based on faulty carbon-14 dating),


NASA's admittedly phony (photo-shopped) "blue marble" "photo" of earth,


Stanley Kubrick's fake moon landing,


and much more theater from the Freemasonic NASA,


Catholics would not buy into the nonsense about "aliens."
"Aliens" (except illegal aliens) do not exist.
Demons do exist.


What a great cover story for demons to delude mankind -- as in the old movie 2001 -- in which "aliens" planted human life on earth.


Therefore "science" will prove that God does not exist, while begging the question of who created the "aliens".


Look around and see the people ruled by the emotional manipulations of the controlled "education" and "media" systems. They will buy into this satanic lie hook, line and sinker.