Author Topic: Italy: Meeting of Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X (Read 27983 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #45 on:** November 03, 2011, 04:18:15 PM »

Thank goodness the truth is starting to leak out, despite Bishop Fellay's attempts to suppress it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-fellay-vaticano-vatican-9584/

Lefebvrians: Internal dissent against agreement with Rome

The English Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, has written to Catholics to inform them on the outcome of the meeting with other clerics to decide on the Vatican’s proposal
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city

Still no news from the Society of Saint Pius X, which was called to give a response to and sign the “doctrinal preamble” sent by the Ecclesia Dei commission last 14 September, asking the Lefebvrians to profess the faith, as is required by anyone who assumes an ecclesiastical role.

But something is beginning to trickle through in relation to the meeting of the Society’s Superiors, which was held on 7 and 8 October in Albano Laziale. The Superior of the Lefebvrians in the United Kingdom, Father Paul Morgan, discussed this in a letter published in November’s bulletin, sent out to the faithful yesterday.

Fr. Morgan recounted that during the meeting in Albano, a summary of the contact between the Society and Holy See authorities from 1987 up until today, was presented, along with a summary of the doctrinal talks that took place in recent months. “An oral presentation of the doctrinal preamble was also given.” Morgan said that Mgr. Bernard Fellay, the Society of Saint Pius X’s Superior, did not deliver the written text he had received from the Vatican, but only presented it, evidently to avoid news leaks.

The UK’s Lefebvrian leader went on to say: “In as far as the doctrinal discussions are concerned, it is regrettable that Rome’s commission failed to recognise the rift that exists between traditional and conciliar teachings. Insisting instead on the hermeneutics of continuity... and claiming that new teachings include and develop older ones.”

What really came as a surprise, was Fr. Morgan’s surprise: the hermeneutics of continuity with regards to reform, that is, the Second Vatican Council’s entry into the history of councils and its reading in the light of a former tradition, even in its developments and updates, represent the key suggested by Benedict XVI. It is also difficult to imagine that its closest collaborators in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Card. William Levada, Mgr. William Levada and Mgr. Guido Pozzo, who are engaged in dialogue with Saint Pius X, would have proposed a different one.

The letter sent by the English Superior, read: “It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting (the one which took place in the Vatican, when the Preamble was delivered - Ed.) had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.”

“So it was perhaps not surprising to learn – Morgan wrote - that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements

which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of

the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism.

Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...”

A negative opinion, therefore, emerged in relation to the text that resulted from the talks with Vatican authorities. The Society’s Superior in the UK, added that some participants found the Doctrinal Preamble “clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.” An outright rejection of the Preamble then.

A brief communiqué, sent this afternoon by the Generalate of the Society of Saint Pius X in Rome, seemed to promptly respond to Fr. Morgan’s bulletin. It recalled that after the meeting between Superiors held on 7 October in Albano, various comments appeared in the press. But it also reminded that “only the Generalate was authorised to send an official communiqué or an authorised comment on the matter.” In other words, Fr. Morgan was only speaking in a personal capacity.

There is no doubt, however, that these comments indicate the difficulties and disputes which Mgr. Fellay is currently undergoing. According to some rumours, the other two Lefebvrian bishops present in Albano, Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Gallareta, also expressed the dissent towards the Doctrinal Preamble and towards the agreement proposed by the Holy See. The fourth bishop, Richard Williamson, who has taken an even greater opposing stance towards the text, was not present at the meeting.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #46 on:** November 03, 2011, 04:26:58 PM »

Two things strike me as particularly preposterous:

1) Bishop Fellay calls a secret meeting in Albano to discuss a secret Doctrinal Preamble, and asks the assembled Superiors to vote on the acceptability of a text which remains....secret?

2) All the Superiors appear to reject the unknown, verbally explicated Preamble, but Bishop Fellay doesn't want the world to know that (as evinced by deleting the announcement of Fr. Morgan from the UK SSPX website)?

This is very strange.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #47 on:** November 04, 2011, 01:16:13 PM »

Quote

This is very strange.

No it isn't. It's a typical Fellay-type manuever.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #48 on:** November 04, 2011, 03:58:47 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
This is very strange.

No it isn't. It's a typical Fellay-type manuever.

I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #49 on:** November 04, 2011, 04:54:51 PM »

This interesting post appeared over at a certain semi-trad site:

Bishop Fellah has given an interview to an Italian news reporter in response to the information provided by Fr. Paul Morgan. The news report is available on Vatican Insider but is only available in French and Spanish.

I am posting, below my comments, my English translation from the Spanish version posted on Vatican Insider. The link to the Spanish post is:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/

In this article, for the first time as far as I have seen, Bishop Fellay is claiming that the SSPX "requests a direct revision of the Conciliar texts" and yet according to Fr. Morgan, there is nothing in the "Doctrinal Preamble" that address the need for necessary revisions in the Vatican II texts and that it "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council." I am not aware that Bishop Fellay has ever, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, insisted that elements of the Vatican II texts are "contrary to the Magisterium of the Church," that a “wholesale revision of the text” and “noteworthy revisions of docuмents” were necessary. If he is now saying that revisions are necessary, why would he want a reconciliation with modernist Rome before necessary questions of the Faith are resolved?

Fr. Morgan also said, that "all the elements which the society has always rejected" are present in the "Doctrinal Preamble" and that at the meeting at Albano, "those present were in agreement that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and the time of reaching any kind of practical agreement where doctrinal issues have not yet been resolved has not come."

If Bishop Fellay is not calling Fr. Morgan a liar, it is something very close to it. His claim that without a doctrinal resolution he can "lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests" and that, "In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome," indicates that he intends to accept, regardless of internal opposition, the "Doctrinal Preamble" and whatever structural accommodation Rome offers which includes accepting the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the "Reform of the Reform," and the paradigm of the "hermeneutic of continuity." He apparently believes any doctrinal problems are a simple question of cosmetics.

Fr. Alains Lorans, a “spokesman for the SSPX” who knows the content of the "Doctrinal Preamble", said in a recent interview for a SSPX publication in the “Pastor’s Corner”, that “Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.” Fr. Lorans also said, “An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.”

This is nothing more than an offer to be a conservative voice in a pluralistic Church. To “give back to Tradition its right to exist within the Church” sounds like a campaign slogan. It is now and has always been a matter of defending the Faith without which it is “impossible to please God.”

There is no indication that Bishop Fellay understands the implications of "1989 Profession of Faith" with its novel article requiring "submission of the mind and will" to the "authentic magisterium."

Br. Joseph

On the Road to Rome
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
GIACOMO GALEAZZI
THE VATICAN CITY

The Lefebvrists have not rejected the offer of the Vatican, was the word of Bernard Fellay. The superior of the fraternityFellahint Pius X has intervened to stop the leaking of news about a possible break with the Vatican in the negotiations for the return of the schismatic group of ultra traditionalists to the Church. "We have not rejected the text which was presented to us by the Holy See," said Fellay.

If the peace process becFellahreality, the superior of the fraternity of Saint Pius X, says that he would lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of scarcity of vocations, that would not be a small thing. After the meeting of the superiors of the Lefebvrists which took place in Albano at the beginning of October there, "has come to light various comments related to the response Bishop Bernard Fellay would give to the proposals subFellah by Rome on September 14, 2011", when the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre met with the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican. To this day, nothing indicates that the Catholic ultra traditionalists will not re-enter the fold of Rome.

In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome, and only a minority party would remain outside of the return. The step that set in motion the process was the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" in which Benedict XVI demonstrated his willingness not to betray the past, especially in the liturgical field. Because the liturgy is the Church, and the way in which we pray reflects that which we believe. Bernard Fellay since 1994, is (and will remainFellahtil 2018) superior general of the society of St. Pius X. He was consecrated Bishop by Lefebvre in 1988 and was promoted in a few years to the summit of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after being unconscious for a week in a coma. Fellay leads the ranks of the more modFellahthinking Lefebvrists. He is the opposite of Bishop Richard Williamson, which on the other hand, represents the most uncompromising part of the fraternity, in a word, "never again" a compromise with Rome. "Remember – the note that was disseminated today continues saying - that only the general House of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X is allowed to publish an official statement or an approved comment on this subject".

After the meeting in Albano the Lefebvrists reported that the heads would study the "doctrinal preamble" submitted by the Holy See "to submit, within a reasonable time period, a response to the Roman proposals". The content of the "preamble" is reserved. The German, Fr. Nicholas Pfluger, first assistant to Fellay, stated in a recent interview, thFellahe proposed text allows corrections on our part".

During these days, in addition, the superior of the British district of the Lefebvrists, Fr. Paul Morgan, has revealed in a news letter to his faithful some details of the meeting in the Roman Curia, where he said that Rome "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council", and the proposals of the Vatican contain "all the elements which the society has always rejected". With regard to the meeting at Albano, "those present were in agreement that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and the time of reaching any kind of practical agreement where doctrinal issues have not yet been resolved has not come". A leak of news that the superior Fellay has remedied with today’s releaseFellah
If the liturgy is the central nucleus of the dissent of the Lefebvrists with Rome, the differences seem to have a greater force than the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" can resolve on its own. The Lefebvrists request a direct revision of the Conciliar texts and not only denouncing its incorrect hermeneutics, starting with the declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" dedicated to religious freedom. In it, in the view of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the Church is placed in a state of subjection in respect to civil authority which then has to guarantee the right of freedom of expression. For the Lefebvrists, on the other hand, it would have to be the opposite: the State is subject to the Catholic faith and it should recognize it as the State religion.

John Grace · « **Reply #50 on:** November 05, 2011, 06:20:33 AM »

This was posted on another forum.

Quote

Someone is telling a bare-faced lie. But who?

Bishop Fellay?
The journalist?
Fr. Morgan (along with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Fr. Rostand, both of who affirmed at the Angelus Press conference that the preamble had been rejected by the assembled SSPX hierarchy)?

Bishop Fellay quoted by Vatican Insider journalist:

"We have NOT rejected the text of the Statement issued to us by the Holy See", assured Fellay.

«Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homepage.../articolo/9620/

4/11/2011
IN CAMMINO VERSO ROMA?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Citta' del Vaticano

I lefebvriani non hanno rifiutato l’offerta Vaticano, parola di Bernard Fellay. Il superiore della fraternità San Pio X è intervenuto per fermare le fughe di notizie circa una rottura con il Vaticano sulle trattative per il rientro del gruppo scismatico ultra-tradizionalista nella Chiesa. «Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.

Se la rappacificazione avvenisse il superiore della fraternità San Pio X riporterebbe a casa un gruppo di 200 seminaristi e 450 preti. E in un periodo di magra vocazionale, non sarebbe poca roba. Dopo la riunione dei superiori dei lefebvriani che si è svolta ad Albano a inizio ottobre, «sono apparsi diversi commenti sulla stampa sulla risposta che monsignor Bernard Fellay deve dare alle proposte romane del 14 settembre 2011», quando il successore dell’arcivescovo Lefebvre ha avuto in Vaticano un incontro con i vertici della congregazione per la Dottrina della fede. A oggi, dunque, niente la scia pensare che gli ultratradizionalisti cattolici non rientrino in seno a Roma.

Anche perché nella peggiore delle ipotesi sarebbe soltanto una piccola parte dei lefebvriani a non accettare le proposte di Roma, una parte minoritaria che resterebbe dunque staccata dal rientro. Il passo d’avvio è stato il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» il biglietto da visita col quale Benedetto XVI ha messo nero su bianco la volontà di non tradire il passato, soprattutto in campo liturgico. Perché la liturgia è la Chiesa, e da come essa prega traspare ciò in cui crede. Bernard Fellay è dal 1994 (e lo sarà ancora fino al 2018) superiore generale della Fraternità San Pio X. Consacrato vescovo da Lefebvre nel 1988, ascese in pochi anni ai vertici della Fraternità. Lui, Lefebvre, lo ha visto morire dopo una settimana di coma incosciente. Fellay è il capofila dell’anima più moderata dei lefebvriani. Il contrario di monsignor Richard Williamson che invece, della Fraternità, rappresa l’ala più intransigente, quella insomma del “mai e poi mai” un compromesso con Roma. «Si ricorda - continua la nota diffusa oggi - che soltanto la casa generalizia della fraternità San Pio X è abilitata a pubblicare un comunicato ufficiale o un commento autorizzato su questo tema».

Dopo la riunione di Albano i lefebvriani avevano comunicato che i vertici avrebbero studiato il «preambolo dottrinale» presentato dalla Santa Sede per «presentare, in un lasso di tempo ragionevole, una risposta alle proposte romane». Il contenuto del «preambolo» rimane riservato. Il tedesco don Niklaus Pfluger, primo assistente di Fellay, aveva precisato, in una recente intervista, che «il testo proposto ammette delle correzioni da parte nostra».

In questi giorni, inoltre, il superiore del distretto britannico dei lefebvriani, Paul Morgan, come riportato da Vatican Insider, ha rivelato in una lettera ai suoi fedeli alcuni dettagli dell’incontro nella Curia romana, accusando Roma di «non riconoscere la rottura tra gli insegnamenti della tradizione e quelli del Concilio Vaticano II» e le proposte vaticane di contenere «tutti gli elementi che la società ha sempre respinto». Quanto alla riunione di Albano, «i presenti sono stati d’accordo nel considerare chiaramente inaccettabile il preambolo dottrinale e che non è certo arrivato il tempo di raggiungere un qualche accordo pratico nella misura in cui le questioni dottrinali rimangono irrisolte». Una fuga di notizie alla quale il superiore Fellay ha voluto mettere un argine con il comunicato odierno.

Se la liturgia è il cuore del dissenso dei lefebvriani nei confronti di Roma, le divergenze sembrano avere un respiro più ampio che il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» non può da solo risolvere. I lefebvriani sollecitano una revisione diretta dei testi conciliari e non soltanto per denunciare una loro scorretta ermeneutica, a partire dalla dichiarazione «Dignitatis Humanae» dedicata alla libertà religiosa. In essa, a giudizio della fraternità San Pio X, la Chiesa si pone in uno stato di sudditanza rispetto a un’autorità civile che le deve garantire il diritto della libera espressione. A parere dei lefebvriani, invece, dovrebbe essere il contrario: è lo Stato che deve sottomettersi alla fede cattolica e riconoscerla come religione di Stato.

Francisco · « **Reply #51 on:** November 05, 2011, 06:33:12 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Two things strike me as particularly preposterous:

1) Bishop Fellay calls a secret meeting in Albano to discuss a secret Doctrinal Preamble, and asks the assembled Superiors to vote on the acceptability of a text which remains....secret?

2) All the Superiors appear to reject the unknown, verbally explicated Preamble, but Bishop Fellay doesn't want the world to know that (as evinced by deleting the announcement of Fr. Morgan from the UK SSPX website)?

This is very strange.

Perhaps this is what " diabolical disorientation " means. All this for canonical recognition from the Novus Ordo organization, 99,99% of whose clergy say the New Mass, and 99.99% of whose faithful attend this very same Mass.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #52 on:** November 05, 2011, 09:27:07 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: hollingsworth
Quote
This is very strange.

No it isn't. It's a typical Fellay-type manuever.

I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.

Could it be because his colleagues elected him to do just that?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #53 on:** November 05, 2011, 09:36:33 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

This was posted on another forum.

Quote
Someone is telling a bare-faced lie. But who?

Bishop Fellay?
The journalist?
Fr. Morgan (along with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Fr. Rostand, both of who affirmed at the Angelus Press conference that the preamble had been rejected by the assembled SSPX hierarchy)?

Bishop Fellay quoted by Vatican Insider journalist:

"We have NOT rejected the text of the Statement issued to us by the Holy See", assured Fellay.

«Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homepage.../articolo/9620/

4/11/2011
IN CAMMINO VERSO ROMA?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Citta' del Vaticano

I lefebvriani non hanno rifiutato l’offerta Vaticano, parola di Bernard Fellay. Il superiore della fraternità San Pio X è intervenuto per fermare le fughe di notizie circa una rottura con il Vaticano sulle trattative per il rientro del gruppo scismatico ultra-tradizionalista nella Chiesa. «Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.

Se la rappacificazione avvenisse il superiore della fraternità San Pio X riporterebbe a casa un gruppo di 200 seminaristi e 450 preti. E in un periodo di magra vocazionale, non sarebbe poca roba. Dopo la riunione dei superiori dei lefebvriani che si è svolta ad Albano a inizio ottobre, «sono apparsi diversi commenti sulla stampa sulla risposta che monsignor Bernard Fellay deve dare alle proposte romane del 14 settembre 2011», quando il successore dell’arcivescovo Lefebvre ha avuto in Vaticano un incontro con i vertici della congregazione per la Dottrina della fede. A oggi, dunque, niente la scia pensare che gli ultratradizionalisti cattolici non rientrino in seno a Roma.

Anche perché nella peggiore delle ipotesi sarebbe soltanto una piccola parte dei lefebvriani a non accettare le proposte di Roma, una parte minoritaria che resterebbe dunque staccata dal rientro. Il passo d’avvio è stato il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» il biglietto da visita col quale Benedetto XVI ha messo nero su bianco la volontà di non tradire il passato, soprattutto in campo liturgico. Perché la liturgia è la Chiesa, e da come essa prega traspare ciò in cui crede. Bernard Fellay è dal 1994 (e lo sarà ancora fino al 2018) superiore generale della Fraternità San Pio X. Consacrato vescovo da Lefebvre nel 1988, ascese in pochi anni ai vertici della Fraternità. Lui, Lefebvre, lo ha visto morire dopo una settimana di coma incosciente. Fellay è il capofila dell’anima più moderata dei lefebvriani. Il contrario di monsignor Richard Williamson che invece, della Fraternità, rappresa l’ala più intransigente, quella insomma del “mai e poi mai” un compromesso con Roma. «Si ricorda - continua la nota diffusa oggi - che soltanto la casa generalizia della fraternità San Pio X è abilitata a pubblicare un comunicato ufficiale o un commento autorizzato su questo tema».

Dopo la riunione di Albano i lefebvriani avevano comunicato che i vertici avrebbero studiato il «preambolo dottrinale» presentato dalla Santa Sede per «presentare, in un lasso di tempo ragionevole, una risposta alle proposte romane». Il contenuto del «preambolo» rimane riservato. Il tedesco don Niklaus Pfluger, primo assistente di Fellay, aveva precisato, in una recente intervista, che «il testo proposto ammette delle correzioni da parte nostra».

In questi giorni, inoltre, il superiore del distretto britannico dei lefebvriani, Paul Morgan, come riportato da Vatican Insider, ha rivelato in una lettera ai suoi fedeli alcuni dettagli dell’incontro nella Curia romana, accusando Roma di «non riconoscere la rottura tra gli insegnamenti della tradizione e quelli del Concilio Vaticano II» e le proposte vaticane di contenere «tutti gli elementi che la società ha sempre respinto». Quanto alla riunione di Albano, «i presenti sono stati d’accordo nel considerare chiaramente inaccettabile il preambolo dottrinale e che non è certo arrivato il tempo di raggiungere un qualche accordo pratico nella misura in cui le questioni dottrinali rimangono irrisolte». Una fuga di notizie alla quale il superiore Fellay ha voluto mettere un argine con il comunicato odierno.

Se la liturgia è il cuore del dissenso dei lefebvriani nei confronti di Roma, le divergenze sembrano avere un respiro più ampio che il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» non può da solo risolvere. I lefebvriani sollecitano una revisione diretta dei testi conciliari e non soltanto per denunciare una loro scorretta ermeneutica, a partire dalla dichiarazione «Dignitatis Humanae» dedicata alla libertà religiosa. In essa, a giudizio della fraternità San Pio X, la Chiesa si pone in uno stato di sudditanza rispetto a un’autorità civile che le deve garantire il diritto della libera espressione. A parere dei lefebvriani, invece, dovrebbe essere il contrario: è lo Stato che deve sottomettersi alla fede cattolica e riconoscerla come religione di Stato.

While I agree this smells fishy, I suppose it is possible that what was relayed at the Angelus conference was a rejection of the Preamble as it presently stands, whereas Bishop Fellay can truthfully say that only the Preamble in its present form has been rejected, not the signing of a future revision of the Preamble.

Of course, even if this were the case, it would still be bad news, insofar as it would imply Bishop Fellay's determination to sign an agreement with modernist Rome, not to help convert them and the Church back to sound doctrine, but merely "to give tradition its rights in the Church" (which would mean that the SSPX agrees to be but another conservative flavor in the pluralist Church as "Br. Joseph" says.

It is hard for me to see a good outcome from any of this, except and unless Bishop Fellay announces this whole process is dead and finished until Rome comes back to their (Catholic) senses.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #54 on:** November 05, 2011, 07:17:15 PM »

Quote

I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.

I doubt that the pages of history will reveal a petty tyrant who didn't think he was the best thing that ever happened to the people whom he ruled. When such a ruler is finally revealed for what he really is, his iron-fistedness only increases. He never steps down voluntarily so that a more worthy ruler may take his place. That's just not the way it works.

John Grace · « **Reply #55 on:** November 07, 2011, 12:11:17 PM »

Cristera has posted this also.

Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16641#p0

Quote

I have just heard from a very well connected laywoman that not only have Padres Schmidberger, Rostand and Morgan, and Excellency Tissier, spoken on the question of “No Deal” with Rome. This friend says that Padre Bouchacourt, the Superior for South America, issued a letter to all his priests on 12 October saying what all the above clerics have said. I wonder why Padre Morgan is in crosshairs of Excellency Fellay?

John Grace · « **Reply #56 on:** November 07, 2011, 12:16:06 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.

I doubt that the pages of history will reveal a petty tyrant who didn't think he was the best thing that ever happened to the people whom he ruled. When such a ruler is finally revealed for what he really is, his iron-fistedness only increases. He never steps down voluntarily so that a more worthy ruler may take his place. That's just not the way it works.

The post by 'Dumb Ox' came to mind when reading your post, hollingsworth.

Quote

The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.

The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.

When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.

Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.

Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.

On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.

So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?

It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.

Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.

Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".

"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.

For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.

It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.

It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #57 on:** November 07, 2011, 05:02:31 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Could it be because his colleages elected him to do just that?

Define colleagues. Certainly not the order as a whole.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #58 on:** November 07, 2011, 05:31:23 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Seraphim
Could it be because his colleages elected him to do just that?

Define colleagues. Certainly not the order as a whole.

I am not aware of anyone having disputed the legitimacy of his election to Superior General.

Which is another way of saying that it is a bit crazy to pretend to expect a Superior General to think someone else ought to be running the show while he was elected to do that very thing.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #59 on:** November 07, 2011, 06:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: Seraphim
Could it be because his colleages elected him to do just that?

Define colleagues. Certainly not the order as a whole.

I am not aware of anyone having disputed the legitimacy of his election to Superior General.

Which is another way of saying that it is a bit crazy to pretend to expect a Superior General to think someone else ought to be running the show while he was elected to do that very thing.

What one can justly dispute is whether or not he represents the majority of the priests in the SSPX, because most priests have no say.