Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 22

Author Topic: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON  (Read 34308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Incredulous

Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
« Reply #15 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 ʝʊdɛօ-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






Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2019, 08:45:33 PM »
Quote from: homeschoolmom on May 12, 2019, 07:40:04 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.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2019, 06:34:18 AM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 12, 2019, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: SeanJohnson on Today at 12:58:57 PMIt'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 docuмented 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

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.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2019, 07:22:27 AM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2019, 06:34:18 AM
That Archbishop Lefebvre only initially intended to consecrate 3 bishops is docuмented 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

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/Docuмents/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”).
Logged

Offline Incredulous

Re: IS HE OR ISN'T FELLAY A FREEMASON
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2019, 07:36:06 AM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2019, 06:34:18 AM
That Archbishop Lefebvre only initially intended to consecrate 3 bishops is docuмented 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

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 docuмents. 


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".



It would seem, (through smiling ʝʊdɛօ-masonic eyes), that Fr. Fellay's best Apostolic qualification was that of being the SSPX "money handler".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 22
« previous next »