It is an opinion, and so, don't get your feathers ruffled!  Chapter 12 of Daniel does state that the eternal sacrifice will end one day and how we the remnant will suffer tribulation.  

  So millions have been presumably collected for building a new seminary, which may now rest in the decision making authority of the local bishop?

   

Why not?  Is there any reason to doubt Bishop Fellay's intentions at this point?

SaveTheMales,

With all due respect, that is a bunch of rubbish. Completely illogical.

1. Outside Sedevantist-land (which you are obviously a part of), a Bishop-elect doesn't get to shop around and/or choose the Bishop who consecrates him.

2. I wouldn't even say it's "possible" +Lefebvre was a Freemason. I would say there is moral certainty he was not. He didn't exactly take even baby steps in any of the directions the Freemasons would like. Teaching seminarians about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Jews, various modern errors in the Church (including Modernism) is not the recipe for priests receptive to the goals of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ!

3. Padre Pio would never have kissed +Lefebvre's ring if he had been a Freemason. Recall that Padre Pio could read hearts.

4. It doesn't get more "rubber meets the road" when it comes to working for the Kingdom of Christ than working on the ground to convert pagan souls in Africa. The man was a missionary!

5. +Lefebvre left us all these nice quotes, too, which tend to favor sedevacantism, if anything -- not the Novus Ordo. There was 0% move toward the Novus Ordo in his lifetime. "Rome has lost the Faith, my beloved friends..." and so forth.

6. Taking the time to create a "honeypot" or "controlled opposition" that will last 40 years and then BOOM! the trap closes and brings thousands into the Novus Ordo -- this idea is stupid for a multitude of reasons.

Training priests, clerics and Faithful to resist, know and love Tradition, and stand aloof from Rome is NOT the way to form Catholics anxious to re-join the Conciliar Church. Yes, there is also a "grass is always greener on the other side" element to anything, but you can't blame the SSPX for that. That would be like me NOT having a TV, raising several children without TV, and then having several children go worldly and get into TV among other things. How could you blame the father in such a case? The fact is that human nature requires that we wistfully look on that grass on the other side, our eyes being enraptured by its radiant verdure.

More likely, after any "deal" is announced a bunch of members will form a "new SSPX" following the Archbishop's outline, beliefs, etc. The whole ordeal will be a test of sorts, and those with divided hearts will have to choose which way they will go -- the world, or Christ.

7. Haven't countless people complained about all the "worldly SSPXers?" Maybe a bit of a test is just what the Doctor ordered. A separation of the wheat and the chaff; the sheep and the goats. It happened to the Catholic Church in 1969 -- why couldn't the same thing happen to the SSPX? That doesn't mean the Catholic Church -- or the SSPX -- were rotten in their very foundation. Instead, the truth is that men infiltrated them OR were corrupted afterward, and began working to undermine the organizations at some point.
If Protestants broke away and took 1/3 of Europe's Catholics to hell, was the Catholic Church some kind of honeypot created by the Adversary? Of course not.

9. And why would 3 of the 4 bishops be good guys in this controlled opposition as you hypothesize? Couldn't they find men a bit more malleable or at least SOMEWHAT less principled? And maybe less intelligent too? And maybe just a BIT inclined toward their cause? Come on, if there was any deep conspiracy like you describe, Bishop Williamson would have found it a long time ago! He's extremely intelligent and principled, and not exactly shy with the truth -- or afraid to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist"!

10. Recall that +Fellay was +Lefebvre's LAST choice for consecration, not the first. A Swiss benefactor asked the Archbishop to include a Swiss national, as an homage to the SSPX roots in Switzerland. I'd be more suspicious of this benefactor, as Freemasons usually have money.

In short, you're looking too far for an explanation. It's really not that outlandish to place the blame on a few men -- it's really easy to explain ALL of it with one simple word: Ambition.

Ask Raoul76 about looking for cօռspιʀαcιҽs under every bush and behind every tree. You will end up paranoid, or outright insane. (I'm serious -- Ask him. PM him on here, he still visits the site on occasion)

Regarding your assertion, I would say the exact opposite -- that it's easy to imagine Bishop Fellay staging a Coup D'Etat in the SSPX. He has placed all his men into positions of power, exerted all kinds of strict controls, etc. You don't think +Fellay is physically capable of this? He's plenty intelligent, and a shrewd and capable administrator. I see no evidence whatsoever that a Coup would be beyond him. Please explain your gratuitous assertion to the contrary.

Thank you for your critique, you mad some good points, but others not so much.

Your point #2: +Lefebvre selected +Fellay. It has always been clear to me (even before the last 10=15 years) that +Fellay was "liberal" and the other three bishops were "more Catholic". Why would +Lefebvre desire the most "liberal" of the bunch to lead his society?

Your point #3: Just because a saint is given the gift of being able to read some hearts does not mean he can know all.

Your point #5: Even though +Lefebvre did sometimes favour Sedevacantism, it is undeniable that he silenced +Guérard des Lauriers fpr preaching the truth just as +Fellay silenced +Williamson.

Your point #6 (paragraph 1): I don't think it is stupid. I don't think it is really "all of a sudden" either. Many people saw it coming years ago.

Your point #9: I don't think it is too important who the bishops are/were, but more important who the leader is. Even though +Lefebvre did not "name his successor", isn't it true that he wanted +Fellay to lead and groomed him for that role? It is more conceivable to me that the group was set up from the beginning, rather than +Fellay infiltrating and managing to get himself appointed to the leadership. But it's possible that is what happened.

What a stupid post. Whoever thumbed you up should be banned along with you (unless they thumbed you up by accident).

I should be banned for stating my non-heretical opinion? Why does that sound familiar? You should calm down like the other user said.

I've never heard of +des Lauriers.

Greatest prelate? I think not. That would be +Lefebvre.

Bishop des Lauriers was the real writer with Cardinal Ottavianai of the Critical Study on the New Order of Mass. He spoke for the FSSPX until +Lefebvre silenced him in the 1970's. You should thank him because without him there would be no +Williamson, +Galarreta, or +de Mallerais. Bishop de Lauriers showed +Lefebvre that the New Rites were probably invalid and that there would be no bishops left.

Actually I take back part of what I said, I don't think it is ipso facto.

I said it was possible +Lefebvre was a Freemason and it is possible.

No, it is not possible. You have no idea what you're talking about.

A few little lights on what the agreement entails according to what His Excellency Bishop Fellay told the priests while he was in Austria. No it wasn't an interview so I can't put a link, it was simply a discussion. Take this bit of news or leave it. I can't give the priests name so I can't necessarily back up what I've just posted, but it was relayed by Father none the less.


1.) THE POPE WILL DECIDE ON WHO WILL BE BISHOPS OF THE SSPX. WHO WILL REPLACE THOSE WHO LEAVE OR WHO DO NOT CHOSE TO GO ALONG WITH THE AGREEMENT. THOSE BISHOPS WILL BE FREE TO LEAVE, AND THEY WILL BE REPLACED.

2.) NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED TO BE ERECTED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIOCESAN BISHOPS

3.) ANY BUILDINGS LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD MUST BE CLOSED DOWN. ANY BUILDINGS OLDER THAN 3 YEARS OLD MAY REMAIN UP AND RUNNING.


According to His Excellency the General Chapter will not be meeting to discuss an acceptance of the agreement but simply to learn what the new statutes will be under the new agreement with Rome.

I just spoke to a priest who was at that meeting and this information is seriously flawed. Obviously, if the agreement involves a personal prelature then the pope will choose the superior general and any future superiors general. That, then , means that sooner or later when the four bishops die (or leave) that they will be replaced by the pope's men. There would obviously be a real danger that future popes could impose future modernists as superior. There is also a risk that sooner or later with Rome in charge of the bishop(s) of the Society that the episcopal tap will be turned off. At the moment the odd bishop will do ordinations for fsspeter, good shepherd. I don't believe they do confirmations though. The Society at the moment confirms sub con because the new rite (and new bishops) are so doubtful I don't know if this would be allowed in the future.

The stuff about the buildings and expansion, however, is pure rumour and exagerration. The danger of forums, I suppose... :boxer: