Author Topic: Is the SSPX really gullible? (Read 2914 times)

Machabees · « **on:** June 20, 2013, 09:41:15 PM »

We hear nowadays from the NSSPX that “It was Rome that came to us. It was Rome that started the discussions.”

The fact is, conciliar Rome wants anything that will “stick and sink” the SSPX. They always have in this fight. We have been going through 43-years of their ongoing “abuses and diseases”. Are the present SSPX leaders so gullible to take the bait this time?

If the Doctrinal discussions between the SSPX and Rome of 2009-2011 were a waste of time, as was stated by the SSPX leaders, then what reason (or fantasy) can Bishop Fellay say at the same time for us to believe in early 2012, and with favor, that Rome is “changing to tradition”? Weren’t the DOCTRINAL discussions a “waste of time” just 7-months prior?

If the SSPX will be so stupid and naive to play such a “sloppy” game of chess, then what do they expect if they see the results of their dialectic, that there is now “chaos” disturbing the unity of the SSPX.

If a CEO of a company seen the results of disunity from actions they have taken, he would immediately fix it; less he loose profits. Not Bishop Fellay. Sometimes, the children of this world are smarter than the children of light.

Then what could it be? Our Lord gives us the answer that explains such a “passionate” desire to continue on in a suicidal course. Self love, vain glory, and pride; the tempter from the desert. There is no other reason why a Bishop of the Catholic Church would pervert the course of its foundation with modernism to under mind the unity and salvation of the Church. Vatican II has done it. Thousands of Bishops all over the world have done it. Many Popes have done it. So is Bishop Fellay immune to the “doctrinal disease” of modernism? “Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12).

So what is this pampering of Bishop Fellay for us to go into the “disease” of modernist Rome, when in fact, there is nothing of conversion from them to show us it is “clean”?

There leaves the explanation. It is a tactic called “bait and switch”. In fact, it is such an old game, a game that conciliar Rome, since Vatican II, has used successfully with the other 9-Traditional groups that had entrapped them. So why didn’t the present leaders learn from the others “mistakes”? Did Bishop Fellay know the history? He certainly did. Here are some links of many of his own writings describing the malady of this very dialectic.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9838

And here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Compilation-pre-2012-SSPX-position-against-a-practical-deal

If Bishop Fellay was so “staunch” back then in his writings in warning us about these methods of betrayals, then why the hush game now, to the opposite, that it is “ok”?

I will let the reader discover for themselves about the “disease” of modernism as it was designed in its origin to destroy all souls; regardless of personages, and crosses all boarders of time.

Is this disease of “spiritual cancer” the last battle of the Catholic Church? God knows…

Vatican II was certainly infected with it; its priests and Bishops are infected with it; and have ever since been trying to “prey” on others to apostate in using the same effective tactic -“bait and switch”.

Are the present SSPX leaders infected with this “disease of modernism” revealed in their 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, 2012 General Chapter’s 6-conditions, Bishop Fellay’s April 14, 2012 letter to the three SSPX Bishops, recent interviews, conferences, promoting the Novus Ordo, and in their other external expressions of compromising the Traditional Mass and the Faith? Are they now a “carrier of modernism” with the tactic of “bait and switch” to now infect others?

What is done in the darkness…will always come out in the light.

Be watchful, and pray…says our Lord, in seeking Wisdom, counsel, and discernment.

The SSPX has given to many of us the Faith, lets pray for them, and help them see the “cancerous disease” to be made clean.

Novus Weirdo · « **Reply #1 on:** June 20, 2013, 09:56:04 PM »

Spot on, again, Mach.

But something keeps nagging me about it all. If I apply Occam's Razor to it, the thing that keeps coming around is the thought that +Fellay and his army are simply more interested in doing whatever it takes to have their names live on through history instead of their sense of Catholic duty or deeds living on through history.

+Fellay wants his name in the history books as the man who saved Traditional Catholicism. Plain and simple. And he'll do whatever it takes to see that.

How else can one explain the deal they made with the devil in order to prove how uber-Catholic they are?

Zeitun · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2013, 12:43:50 AM »

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

+Fellay wants his name in the history books as the man who saved Traditional Catholicism.

And the faboosh new wardrobe!

Incredulous · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2013, 01:38:54 AM »

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

Spot on, again, Mach.

But something keeps nagging me about it all. If I apply Occam's Razor to it, the thing that keeps coming around is the thought that +Fellay and his army are simply more interested in doing whatever it takes to have their names live on through history instead of their sense of Catholic duty or deeds living on through history.

+Fellay wants his name in the history books as the man who saved Traditional Catholicism. Plain and simple. And he'll do whatever it takes to see that.

How else can one explain the deal they made with the devil in order to prove how uber-Catholic they are?

What be drivin Bp. Fellay's brain ?

Be it blackmail, fortune or fame ?

Tis strange... for "salvation of souls"... he done gave up his claim.

fidelismaris · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2013, 01:42:02 AM »

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

How else can one explain the deal they made with the devil in order to prove how uber-Catholic they are?

forgive my ignorance, but I'm new to this- what deal are you referring to?

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2013, 02:01:45 AM »

Quote from: fidelismaris

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

How else can one explain the deal they made with the devil in order to prove how uber-Catholic they are?

forgive my ignorance, but I'm new to this- what deal are you referring to?

Fidelismaris,

You might read-up on the multiple compromises made by the Superior General during his "Doctrinal talks" with Rome last year.

Here's a good reference link:

Resistance Writings

Msgr. Fellay's correspondence with the Pope and his frates reveal he accepted VII doctrines for the sake of Conciliar unity.

Unexpectedly, the final deal was rejected by the Pope because +F could not capitulate 100% to the NO Mass and VII.

However, even after the talks failed, Msgr. Fellay
still offered to compromise Catholic doctrine and put it in writing with his "6 Conditions".

It was if he was chasing the Pope down the hallways of the Castel Gondolfo begging for a deal.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2013, 03:37:24 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: fidelismaris
Quote from: Novus Weirdo

How else can one explain the deal they made with the devil in order to prove how uber-Catholic they are?

forgive my ignorance, but I'm new to this- what deal are you referring to?

I'm glad to see you're not afraid to ask a question, fidelismaris, and I do
hope that you came to the right place. I know for a fact that the vast
majority of the world's Catholics don't have the first clue what you're
about to see here on CI. And it shouldn't be that way.

Please take it easy, though, because too much too fast might be rather
depressing to discover. Small doses is probably best.............

Quote

Fidelismaris,

You might read-up on the multiple compromises made by the Superior General during his "Doctrinal talks" with Rome last year.

Here's a good reference link:

Resistance Writings

Msgr. Fellay's correspondence with the Pope and his frates reveal he accepted VII doctrines for the sake of Conciliar unity.

Unexpectedly, the final deal was rejected by the Pope because +F could not capitulate 100% to the NO Mass and VII.

However, even after the talks failed, Msgr. Fellay
still offered to compromise Catholic doctrine and put it in writing with his "6 Conditions".

It was [as] if he was chasing the Pope down the hallways of the Castel Gondolfo begging for a deal.

That's a good starter, for starters.

There's a lot more, of course.

BTW, the "final deal" that "was rejected" was the AFD, or the dialectical
Doctrinal Declaration, a.k.a. "preamble" (an unfortunate term). It's easy
to think that +Fellay rejected it, but that's a mistake. He wrote it up
over a long time (8 months, actually) and signed it, and sent it in to the
apostate Romans, who then rejected it.

AFD means April Fifteenth Declaration (4-15-2012).

But as you say, he didn't give up then, but pursued it further with his
deplorable 6 Condition Capitulation under the cover of "unity" (which was
a lie - it was in fact tyranny). And THEN, he had still kept concealed his
dialectical Doctrinal Declaration from the world, perhaps even concealing
it from the ill-fated Capitulants who capitulated at the GC (even while
he proclaimed loudly and clearly that he had divulged "all docuмents" to
them), and managed to hide the AFD for another 9 months, when a
courageous SSPX priest 'leaked' it to the world, much to +F's chagrin.

We are given to expect that +F would have kept it concealed forever if
he could have done so. Why would he want the world to know he had
made a deal with the devil?

If you'd like to see a video that explains most of it in 24 minutes go here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...d&v=8_1UigZV0xs

magdalena · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2013, 05:34:18 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

What be drivin Bp. Fellay's brain ?

Be it blackmail, fortune or fame ?

Tis strange... for "salvation of souls"... he done gave up his claim.

Methinks you read Shakespeare, Incredulous.

fidelismaris · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2013, 12:12:48 AM »

Thanks. My husband and I started attending a SSPX chapel about 8 months ago and were immediately on board... We've since been purging all of the NO garbage out of our minds and bookcases, but I've heard the Resistance alluded to so much I figured it was time to at least get an overview.

songbird · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2013, 06:49:09 PM »

I have "the Angelus" for May 2002. I read it years ago and decided to reread it. I was shocked! Bishop Fellay had talks with Rome then.

What was mentioned in this article was what Rome had up their sleeve(supposedly, you decide)

First: An agreement to establish an apostolic administration which receives only an auxiliary bishop while the local ordinary retains all Episcopal jurisdiction. So, Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, in 1986 said that the Latin Mass is only temporarily granted, that the general law of the Church is the New Mass, and we will have to go back to it. Campos in under this head.

The Pope will choose the bishop. Bishop Perl stated the the bishop will be bi-ritual. Will say both old and new mass. Bishop Perl stated, "little by little this bishop will bring priests of the apostolic administration to the New Mass and so also the faithful. this administration will have only a temporary existence and the whole will be reintegrated into the dioceses.

Fr. Georges Cottier, the Pope's personal theologian, commented, "little by little we must expect other steps: participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite(New Mass) However, we must not be in a hurry. "Rome expects the entire administration to go over to the New Mass.

Next: the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity under Cardinal Kasper issued a notice regarding the intercommunion between the Chaldeans-an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church and the Assyrians, who have the same rite but are not Catholics. They have a Mass, but it has no words of consecration, no words of the institution. This Mass is called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Cardinal Ratzinger and Kasper came to the conclusion that this Mass is valid! Rome says, "the words of consecration are spread around the whole Mass.

Rome bases itself on the excuse that if you examine the texts of the Assyrian rite, you won't find the words of consecration. But, its says, you don't find words of consecration in many of the early texts of approved Catholic rites either. However, Rome's logic is faulty. Manuscripts from the 1st century for the Latin rite in France and Spain, for the Mozarabic Eastern rite in union with Rome, etc, all are missing words of consecration because the words were considered so holy that they shouldn't be written so they might not be polluted or profaned by contact with pagans. It is the law called the law of the arcane(the law of keeping these words secret). BUT the priests knew them and SAID them. It's not because they weren't written that they weren't said! That is the big error that they introduce now! this fits roman modernism. Now Rome is using the example.

So, we have priest who want to say the Tridentine Mass.

Now, that is the end of that. A question comes to my mind. Is it possible, that this new seminary in VA, will bring this on, the Mass without the words of consecration?

magdalena · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2013, 08:10:03 PM »

Both interesting and frightening, songbird. Thank you for you post.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** June 25, 2013, 08:44:12 AM »

.

It's really great to get a fresh outlook from a newcomer, fidelismaris.

I hope you can return and give some of your impressions. Or, if you have
any questions, I hope you can find answers here....

Quote from: fidelismaris

Thanks. My husband and I started attending a SSPX chapel about 8 months ago and were immediately on board... We've since been purging all of the NO garbage out of our minds and bookcases, but I've heard the Resistance alluded to so much I figured it was time to at least get an overview.

Only 8 months! I can hardly recall what I was thinking after only
8 months. I probably would not have had the courage to go on a
Resistance website and start engaging in conversations with
members. You have a lot of spunk!

The first thing that comes to mind is, what about all these claims
of ulterior motives from Menzingen? Are they based on anything
real, or is it all the overactive imagination of meddlesome
ne'er-do-wells?

I hope you had a chance to see that video linked earlier.

Quote from: songbird

I have "the Angelus" for May 2002. I read it years ago and decided to reread it. I was shocked! Bishop Fellay had talks with Rome then.

If we had only been able to see the forest for the trees at the time!
What's amazing is that this could all have been published in 2002. It's
as though His Eagerness B. Fellay was expecting so much more from
the Roman criminals, that if he only would put out some of the more
blatant and embarrassing items, then, "Rome May Convert!" -Well,
we can all see how well that plan went, can't we? The pertinacity of
the Roman criminals HAS RUBBED OFF ON HIS EAGERNESS HIMSELF!!
For now, H.E. is doing the very same things the Romans do - punishing
the die-hard trads under his thumb, promoting yes-men into positions
of power, denying everything that's inconvenient for his nefarious
agenda, skirting the issues that are embarrassing, remaining vague
and eschewing definition so as to retain irresponsibility in the future.....

Quote

What was mentioned in this article was what Rome had up their sleeve (supposedly - you decide).

First: An agreement to establish an apostolic administration which receives only an auxiliary bishop while the local ordinary retains all Episcopal jurisdiction. So, Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, in 1986 said that the Latin Mass is only temporarily granted, that the general law of the Church is the New Mass, and we will have to go back to it. Campos in under this head.

The Pope will choose the bishop. Bishop Perl stated the the bishop will be bi-ritual. Will say both old and new mass. Bishop Perl stated, "Little by little, this bishop will bring priests of the apostolic administration to the New Mass, and so also the faithful. This administration will have only a temporary existence and the whole will be reintegrated into the dioceses."

Fr. Georges Cottier, the Pope's personal theologian, commented, "Little by little. we must expect other steps: participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite [Newmass]. However, we must not be in a hurry."

Rome expects the entire administration to go over to the New Mass.

Next: the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [Pontifical Council for Pointing Out Christian Disunity] under Cardinal Kasper issued a notice regarding the intercommunion between the Chaldeans - an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church and the Assyrians, who have the same rite but are not Catholics. -- They have a Mass, but it has no words of consecration, no words of the institution. This Mass is called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Cardinal Ratzinger and Kasper came to the conclusion that this Mass is valid! Rome says, "The words of consecration are spread around the whole Mass."

Rome bases itself on the excuse that if you examine the texts of the Assyrian rite, you won't find the words of consecration. But, its says, you don't find words of consecration in many of the early texts of approved Catholic rites either.

However, Rome's logic is faulty. Manuscripts from the 1st century for the Latin rite in France and Spain, for the Mozarabic Eastern rite in union with Rome, etc, all are missing words of consecration because the words were considered so holy that they shouldn't be written so they might not be polluted or profaned by contact with pagans.

It is the law called the law of the arcane (the law of keeping these words secret). BUT the priests knew them and SAID them. It's not because they weren't written that they weren't said! That is the big error that they introduce now! This fits Newroman modernism. Now Rome is using the example.

So, we have priests who want to say the Tridentine Mass [Canonized Traditional Latin Mass].

Now, that is the end of that. A question comes to my mind. Is it possible, that this new seminary in VA, will bring this on, the Mass without the words of consecration?

Excellent question. This ought to be front row center for any
Q&A sessions with the Menzingen-denizens. Get this out in the
open for all the world to see. Let them squirm in their seat!
Put this up where it can be seen and don't give up. Let them
hear it again and again and again and again, until they come
around to answer it. They will NEVER answer it. They might
get really testy and 'upset' about being asked the same question
but that's just tough. They made their bed now they can sleep
in it.

Quote from: magdalena

Both interesting and frightening, songbird. Thank you for you post.

Indeed!

Frances · « **Reply #12 on:** June 25, 2013, 09:41:17 AM »

The powers that be in Menzingen are politicians; it's as simple as that. It is to be feared the Romans will eat them alive. They've had a century to practice.
:ready-to-eat:

Matto · « **Reply #13 on:** June 25, 2013, 04:44:09 PM »

Quote from: Frances

The powers that be in Menzingen are politicians; it's as simple as that. It is to be feared the Romans will eat them alive. They've had a century to practice.
:ready-to-eat:

I fear the Romans will eat them alive too. Why do they not fear and desire not to be eaten. It is like watching a free man walk into slavery, except these leaders are trying to drag many thousands of followers into slavery with them.

:scared2:

Frances · « **Reply #14 on:** June 25, 2013, 04:58:34 PM »

I'm not easily led. Ask my would-be leaders. I ask lots of questions before moving. In some ways, it's good; in others, bad. Matto- The "scared" emoticon is unbecoming. God always provides for His sheep. Be a sheep, not a sheeple!