Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on May 26, 2012, 04:04:55 PM
-
Posted on Ignis Ardens:
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.
-
This was taken from a talk "last week" by Bishop Fellay while he was in Austria.
That would be May 21-25?
Anyhow, we shouldn't be surprised that this deal is not a good one. There can be NO "good deal" with Rome while it is still lousy with Modernism.
-
What an absolute sell out if this is accurate. Apparently Fellay was intent to make a deal at ANY cost.
-
Thank you for informing us of this new development, Matthew.
If they do reconcile with Apostate Rome, the damage that it will do to the traditional Catholic determination to restore Catholicism to the Vatican will be huge.
-
3.) ANY BUILDINGS LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD MUST BE CLOSED DOWN. ANY BUILDINGS OLDER THAN 3 YEARS OLD MAY REMAIN UP AND RUNNING.
I wonder how this will play out. For example, I think an Ohio SSPX location was recently moved to KY in favor of a brand new church which was built there. (Someone in the area can correct that information if I'm wrong.) Would that be a "new building" or would it get to remain open?
-
WHAT!?!?
No way this could be true.
-
So millions have been presumably collected for building a new seminary, which may now rest in the decision making authority of the local bishop?
-
Note to forum-
I currently have inquiries in to high ranking SSPX personalities, asking them whether they can confirm or deny the substance of this thread.
As soon as I have a response, presuming it not be given on the condition of confidentiality, I will post it.
-
Note to forum-
I currently have inquiries in to high ranking SSPX personalities, asking them whether they can confirm or deny the substance of this thread.
As soon as I have a response, presuming it not be given on the condition of confidentiality, I will post it.
Thank you. This would be most helpful.
I note that item 1 does not guarantee bishops chosen by Rome would necessarily come from within the ranks of the Society.
-
I note that item 1 does not guarantee bishops chosen by Rome would necessarily come from within the ranks of the Society.
Unfortunately, it would be easy for Rome to agree that bishops would come from within the Society as there are many in high positions within the Society who will follow +Fellay's lead.
-
So millions have been presumably collected for building a new seminary, which may now rest in the decision making authority of the local bishop?
The US seminary was purged a decade ago when +Williamson was removed. So, this project would probably get approved even if the local bishop doesn't like the idea. Whether or not they'll even need a larger seminary a year from now is another question.
-
Yes. Exactly.
Fellay can propose that one of his sycophants is made a Bishop.
Then it will truly be a dark hour.
-
This deal will mean that several hundred thousand traditional Catholics will be led back into the conciliar church.
Let’s hope that somehow this tragedy can be averted.
It would be a massive victory over the traditional Catholic community.
There will be numerically far fewer people left opposed to Vatican II if this scheme succeeds.
These really are Apocalyptic times.
Let’s pray that soon this awful period in the Church’s history comes to an end.
-
Matthew, this is a great idea to have a separate sub forum for this matter of the agreement.
Because it is so important for traditional Catholics. Not just the SSPX, but it will affect other traditional Catholics as well.
We are so outnumbered now.
Imagine if several hundred thousand traditional Catholics head for the conciliar church.
And they probably will. People usually follow the herd.
And they usually follow corrupt leaders.
-
What's the point of closing down buildings with substantial capital investments already in them, thus negating all of the planning that has gone into developing and maintaining the properties?
-
I find this incredibly difficult to believe. To effectively allow the local bishops to obstruct the Society's expansion would indeed "do ѕυιcιdє" to the SSPX. Again, we need verification for this. However, I do not have blinders on and see a different mentality slowly emerging in the ranks of the SSPX.
-
However, I do not have blinders on and see a different mentality slowly emerging in the ranks of the SSPX.
It is a strange to see it, as though decades of articles, publications, warnings, preaching, etc can simply be dispensed with. The reality of what Benedict XVI has taught is simply ignored, brushed aside, etc.
Well, it has been 20 years since the Archbishop died. A whole new generation has been born and has come of age. And the world beckons them. Away from the Faith.
-
However, I do not have blinders on and see a different mentality slowly emerging in the ranks of the SSPX.
It is a strange to see it, as though decades of articles, publications, warnings, preaching, etc can simply be dispensed with. The reality of what Benedict XVI has taught is simply ignored, brushed aside, etc.
Well, it has been 20 years since the Archbishop died. A whole new generation has been born and has come of age. And the world beckons them. Away from the Faith.
Will the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre be edited?
-
If this is true it is bad. REALLY REALLY BAD.
The biggest traditional group will be instantly neutralized and assimilated. There isn't even a pretense of a good deal. It is diabolical.
-
I'm not going to take anomynous sources as credible info. Last weeks Homily Fr. quoted Bishop Williams extensively, and simply asked for prayers and to remain calm about the talks with Rome. Even if Bishop Fellay enters into Communion with Rome, there's 3 of the 4 Bishops opposing it, therefore my belief right now is that Bishop Fellay might leave the SSPX, but Traditional Catholics won't be flocking en masse back to Rome. Fr. talked about in the beginning holding masses in basements of members etc... before the Society gained ground. I don't see it ending. Traditional Catholics are too wary of the power Rome holds and the abuse of it.
-
What's the point of closing down buildings with substantial capital investments already in them, thus negating all of the planning that has gone into developing and maintaining the properties?
To destroy us.
-
Will the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre be edited?
Did they have to edit the saints, Councils and Encyclicals to pull off Vatican II?
One thing is for sure. You will hear less and less of the particulars of his message. The process of de-emphasis already began some time ago.
-
Augustine Baker posted this in its own thread:
(kreuz.net) Pope Benedict XVI. will only take care of the dossier "Society of St. Pius" in summer vacation -- therefore after the High Feast of St. Peter and Paul.
This is what Europe's largest Catholic internet site 'kreuz.net' has learned from Vatican circles.
Because of the current difficult inner-Church situation that is involved with the reconciliation with the SSPX must be immediately managed before there can be a unification.
Till now observers originally thought that the Vatican would have made known the reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X on Pentecost
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/05/sspx-unification-postponed.html
-
Posted on Ignis Ardens:
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.
If the above is true let's call it for what it is. It's not an agreement, it's a ѕυιcιdє pact.
-
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.
-
The irony is the Society was once big on conspiracy theory. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the French Revolution, financial control, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr ..... and the faithful were fed this regular diet. Did the leadership really believe it ..... or was it a useful acquired reactionary mindset to set trads apart from the rest of the world, in particular, the emerging Novus Ordo culture?
If Bp. Fellay did not believe in all this stuff and all along had ambitions for a Society free of certain 'old Catholic' baggage, having seen the popularity of the purely nostalgic market, then a management coup d'etat would not be such a risky venture while Rome were still friendly. If however opposition to such a plan were to be quite substantial, depending of course on a unified effort on the part of the Three Bishops and hardline membership, then a messy split would be on the cards. Both Menzingen and Rome want to avoid this by detaching the bishops from the Society.
-
The irony is the Society was once big on conspiracy theory. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the French Revolution, financial control, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr ..... and the faithful were fed this regular diet. Did the leadership really believe it ..... or was it a useful acquired reactionary mindset to set trads apart from the rest of the world, in particular, the emerging Novus Ordo culture?
Of course they believed it. Maybe what they stopped believing is the religion? Ever consider the possibility some people switch sides? There are a lot of "rewards" for selling out.
If Bp. Fellay did not believe in all this stuff and all along had ambitions for a Society free of certain 'old Catholic' baggage, having seen the popularity of the purely nostalgic market, then a management coup d'etat would not be such a risky venture while Rome were still friendly. If however opposition to such a plan were to be quite substantial, depending of course on a unified effort on the part of the Three Bishops and hardline membership, then a messy split would be on the cards. Both Menzingen and Rome want to avoid this by detaching the bishops from the Society.
It is very sad to think the priests would go along with the expulsion of the bishops of the society. If it were all three bishops it would cause the new Fellay prelature to lose a lot of legitimacy. Let's pray God gives them great courage.
-
I haven't posted in a long time, but I used to post a few years ago. Has anyone else noticed the timing in the media? Both times the Society has been in the news, it has coincided with bombshells from the Legion of Christ with its thoroughly corrupt leadership. The first was in early 2009, when the h0Ɩ0cαųst affair made headlines. This is also when news from the Legion hit the fans.
Now we see more Legion dirty laundry aired, when there is also talk of an SSPX reconciliation with Rome. I can't help but wonder if one is being used to take the heat and attention off of the other.
Anonymouse
-
I am of the opinion that +Fellay is a Freemason and is an infiltrator. I don't know if +Lefebvre was a Freemason but I know he was given orders and consecrated by a Freemason Cardinal Liénart. It is possible that the FSSPX was set up from the beginning as a controlled opposition to gather traditionalists and eventually bring them to the Novus Ordo Church.
I don't think it is probable that +Fellay could be a Freemason and stage a coup d'état of the FSSPX, so it most probable that it was planned and was Freemasonic-controlled from the beginning.
I don't believe +Williamson, +Galarreta, or +Mallerais are Freemasons. I am of the opinion that they are victims and unaware of what is going on and could not believe that the FSSPX was set up by Freemasons to control them. They should get out of the FSSPX and leave +Fellay.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/SYIe4SOiopI/AAAAAAAACYw/VgZ8Th-Zz_o/s400/BenoitXVIetMgrFellay_20050829.jpg)
How dare you make allegations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ against the great Archbishop Lefebvre, and his life's great work, the SSPX!
You should make an immediate apology for slandering the greatest prelate of the 20th Century.
-
I am of the opinion that +Fellay is a Freemason and is an infiltrator. I don't know if +Lefebvre was a Freemason but I know he was given orders and consecrated by a Freemason Cardinal Liénart. It is possible that the FSSPX was set up from the beginning as a controlled opposition to gather traditionalists and eventually bring them to the Novus Ordo Church.
I don't think it is probable that +Fellay could be a Freemason and stage a coup d'état of the FSSPX, so it most probable that it was planned and was Freemasonic-controlled from the beginning.
I don't believe +Williamson, +Galarreta, or +Mallerais are Freemasons. I am of the opinion that they are victims and unaware of what is going on and could not believe that the FSSPX was set up by Freemasons to control them. They should get out of the FSSPX and leave +Fellay.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/SYIe4SOiopI/AAAAAAAACYw/VgZ8Th-Zz_o/s400/BenoitXVIetMgrFellay_20050829.jpg)
What a stupid post. Whoever thumbed you up should be banned along with you (unless they thumbed you up by accident).
-
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.
-
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.
No, I will be offended when someone takes stupid cheap shots at Archbishop LeFebvre.
-
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?
-
Folks come on!!! Those Vatican perverts will take SSPX and rip it apart, piece by piece like how they brutally murdered The English martyrs. They will defile & repackage the SSPX as professional Satanists do so as to make the SSPX pleasing to Anti-Christ.
-
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.
-
How dare you make allegations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ against the great Archbishop Lefebvre, and his life's great work, the SSPX!
You should make an immediate apology for slandering the greatest prelate of the 20th Century.
I said it was possible +Lefebvre was a Freemason and it is possible. It seems he was surrounded by them! But somehow never knew... It is anecdotal, and I never said it was a fact. I said I didn't know. I only said it was my belief that +Fellay was a Freemason.
As for greatest prelate of the 20th century, +Guérard des Lauriers is more deserving of that than +Lefebvre. It is a fact that without +des Lauriers the FSSPX would have many Novus Ordo priests and no bishops.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How dare you make allegations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ against the great Archbishop Lefebvre, and his life's great work, the SSPX!
You should make an immediate apology for slandering the greatest prelate of the 20th Century.
I said it was possible +Lefebvre was a Freemason and it is possible. It seems he was surrounded by them! But somehow never knew... It is anecdotal, and I never said it was a fact. I said I didn't know. I only said it was my belief that +Fellay was a Freemason.
As for greatest prelate of the 20th century, +Guérard des Lauriers is more deserving of that than +Lefebvre. It is a fact that without +des Lauriers the FSSPX would have many Novus Ordo priests and no bishops.
Are you not aware that under the 1917 code of Canon law if you make an allegation like this in public about a Bishop and cannot provide two eyewitnesses who can prove it, who are of good standing in the church then you become ipso facto excommunicated?
Matthew we have some people recently praising nαzι's, accusing +Lefebre of being a Mason and other non-catholic beliefs, they are trying to discredit the traditional movement. It is entirely possible THEY are masons! Perhaps a spring cleaning would be in order.
-
Actually I take back part of what I said, I don't think it is ipso facto.
-
Yep.
Lots of dubious new members lately.
-
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.
-
Are you not aware that under the 1917 code of Canon law if you make an allegation like this in public about a Bishop and cannot provide two eyewitnesses who can prove it, who are of good standing in the church then you become ipso facto excommunicated?
Even if it does not result in excommunication, such a baseless accusation is still sinful.
-
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:
-
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:
"You just spoke to a priest who was there" -- says you, who joined this forum 4 days ago. It is very likely that your job is to muddy the waters, confusing us and buying Menzingen some more time.
And that was a nice little dig about forums being hives of rumor and exaggeration...
-
No, not muddying waters; only separating what is certain and what only may be. I think the whole situation is very dangerous at the moment particularly the idea of a personal prelature which locks the Society in a submission to Rome for the whole future. bp Fellay thinks this pope has great good will towards us (I don't, incidentally) but who knows what a pope in the future would do.
Sorry about the dig! If I seriously thought forums were bad I wouldn't be in one! :sign-surrender: :sign-surrender:
-
Are you not aware that under the 1917 code of Canon law if you make an allegation like this in public about a Bishop and cannot provide two eyewitnesses who can prove it, who are of good standing in the church then you become ipso facto excommunicated?
Half of this forum must be under excommunication then. :laugh1:
We've all accused a bishop of being a Freemason at one point or another. Some people on ths forum even say that John XXIII, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI are Freemasons. Have you never accused a bishop or a pope of being a Freemason? Maybe you have been excommunicated too? Speaking of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, what does it say about clerics who publicly defect from the faith?