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

Author Topic: Letter fo Fr Chazal  (Read 4740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline InDominoSperavi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Reputation: +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • h
Letter fo Fr Chazal
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:50:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Dear Fr Pfeiffer,

     We cannot crumble, being crumbs already, but we can be crushed, as more calls keep on pouring on our little number of priests, six and a half only so far for the Austrasian region, Fathers Nariai (who entertained me very kindly recently), Pancras, Suelo, Hartley, Elijah, Valan Rajkumar and yours truly. The outlook, much improved from a year ago deserves a visit from you without too much delay.

    MICROSEMINARY
     On September 17th, we moved at last to the House of Our Lady of Lourdes in Tanauam, three priests, two seminarians, one famous cook.
     It is a farm, yet 50 minutes away from the airport... if we had a car!
     I am very glad that we have a place where Fr Suelo can truly rest, far from the fawl air of Manila. This place seemed to be at first without mosquitoes, and now in the rainy season, you can sleep with open window and switch off the fan.... therefore no need of buying air conditioning. That is good news because we are so broke, so for instance, todays lunch was cooked on firewood, a little burned, and we had the bananas of the property for desert. The Manila ladies came to the rescue, and the food is now up to resistance standards... but so are the mosquitoes.
     More than a year after the sspx crisis, at last, i do have a place i can call home, following the seminary schedule as well. Our opponents should be glad to learn that we have only two seminarians to begin with, but we are plying our way bravely through the Questions of the Summa. I preached my first marian retreat the week after. We bought a 6 inch brass bell for the regularity of the house. It is small but the range is good enough; it rings 14 times a day; its name is Little Mary! Fitting, isn't it, for a microseminary...

    AUSTRALIA
     Not all Australians like vegemite, to my great astonishment, and i reckon the same thing applies to the SSPX decaf. It was claimed to be a Resistance free zone... like Africa.
     I began with Sydney having around thirty people interested in the resistance and several scattered groups nearby. Brisbane and Melbourne-Tynong are the biggest groups though, numbering kind of fifty people each, with a distinct reaction from the XSPX, leading basically to the same result. The  reaction of Fr Taouk in Brisbane is near hysterical, given the tune on his cell phones, the threats to the faithful, the refusal of absolution and even the slamming of the confessionnal door. Another Brisbane priest made an interesting comment when presented with complaints about the AFD of Bishop Fellay: "and so what? there are good things in Vatican II!". I hope for Brisbane that Fr Hartley will start to do something, he has 25 faithful on his own, doesn't want to be Novus Ordo, got convalidated by a Thuc line bishop, but doesn't want to be a sedevacantist either, nor does he want to join the reconciliar XSPX. Australia needs another Fr cuмmins.

     In the spare weekdays, i did a little foray to the Cairns area, and found five souls, but got homesick in Atherton, a place resembling the central highlands of France.

     So i headed down to Adelaide where the resistance is down to ten brave souls and should not shrink any further because of the sheer bravery of these people who accept totally to be reprimanded, blackmailed and put away for the sake of the truth. They told me how the Ecclesia Dei people were delighted by Bishop Fellay's visit and famed Adelaide conference last year, which does not differ that much from the Lille conference of May 07th of this year, (where, most notably, the bishop maintain his AFD as a misunderstood, subtle text, not to be used only because it divides, not because it is false).
     Just as we must not abandon the Adelaide people, we must take a good care of the Streaky Bay people, because there, the use of the stick has secured the entire group of families for the resistance, to the exception of two or three people. There again the leaders are confirming that they are not getting proper answers from the XSPX priests; it is all about obedience and saying that "these priests are not going to come back, you are not going to have the mass any more... etc." So the whole group is thrown out from the Chapel and we had the Mass in a Shearing shed, quite a beautiflul liturgical surrounding for two first Holy Communions. Led by John Cash, they will hold strong.

     In Tynong the resistance to the resistance is minimal, bearing the same results than the techniques of Fr Taouk. There the confreres are more polite, Fr Delsorte was kind, saluting, and Fr Belisle accepted to see me, his point being that the Society's opposition to Vatican II has never been as black and white as we wish to portray it, pointing the Institutio Generalis that is referred to in our Constitution. There appeared again, the new line of the Society, namely that we can cling to what is acceptable in the conciliar doctrine and in the new "magisterium" to draw near the official Church. In his view we are just exagerating, and the liberal slogans in the online presentation of the school are just there because of legal reasons. My question is "Why not say so?" Take the government money if you will, but don't take the goverment's ideas, or at least say that the government forces you to post these errors... but is that permitted by God? I don't think so.
     So the point remains, ever since the SG letter of April 15th 2012: Vatican 2 is not a super heresy, we must keep what is good in it, interpret what is ambiguous in the LOTrad, and reject what is bad. Forget about the de Malo of St Thomas Aquinas, and the way heresy has ever crept throughout History. Ambiguity is no heresy, it is a place for discussion and interpretation. That new line has triumphed; it has corrupted leading minds, like that of Fr Belisle. He sent me off politely.
    There are two species of liberals, the nasty and the kind one. The second is tougher to deal with, even if the first one tries to inflict pain, tries.

    But just as those Fathers refuse to see the doctrinal change, nay, take part in it, there is always, everywhere, a tiny group of faithful that have kept their eyes opened, so we are expecting maybe seventy people for the Bishop's visit in December. We even used the hall where the Society got started for the Sunday mass. It is a great blessing to have Fr Ortiz visiting them in the meantime. Fr Hartley is not the only one in our hopes for permanent priests for these good people, so that the smoking wick does not die, but thrive (say it in Australian accent).

     INDIA
     Iin Chennai proper the XSPX has been so swept away that it feels that the 2012 crisis never happened, regular masses, incoming babies, a few more people from the novus ordo.
     Then Fathe Valan and I took advantage of the cheapness of the Indian public transportation, something like 15 dollars from New York to Minneapolis and visited a string of families, saying masses at their places. South Tamil Nadu has  some people requiring our assistance, but down the line, you are going to see tiny clumps in the south.
     I think it was very important to see them, and of course we had the extra joy to see our friendly priests in tuticorin..  There is  a candidate for the priesthood, and the old priests are really helpful for Fr Valan.
     Then i flew to Goa where i saw 50 people in two groups, Goa as i never saw it before (it always stagnated in the past ten years). I gave a mini 2 days ignatian retreat, organised by Joseph Vaz, confessions, sacraments, sunday Mass, rock bottom budget. We shall do it again. Most of those people are out of reach of any bruccianic blackmail, because they come straight from the novus ordo, and understand a full condemnation of it, but they need regular visits, so fr Valan will provide in between my twice yearly visits.
     Most of the good people are accounted for in Goa, and it is the same in Bombay, where my ties have stayed very strong. You can t wipe out 7 years of apostolate there, so i wonder why Fr Brucciani had to threaten people, for basically the same result as in Chennai. Not only that, but the pratnala Sisters allowed me to use their church, and i don t recall ever saying the mass in a Church in Bombay.
     Interstingly, we have a clear case of marriage annulment in Bombay, a first in the resistance, if it happens. The novus ordo hesitates, because one of the spouses excluded the procreation of children, and that is not sufficient ground for them. That s typical of the new Code.
     Then i headed back to Chennai for a few days. As the XSPX is claiming the village of RN Kandigai, we decided to unleash one of our most terrifying but yet undisclosed weapon: a picnic! I sang the mass in the Church, nothing has changed, except the saffronized color of the church.

    REST OF ASIA - LIBERAL SLIDE

    Our biggest weakness in the rest of Asia is that we are still overextended, so that the weaker elements of the mission can get picked up while we are away, by the mainstream society, using the full weight of their priestly authority and the full weight of the institution. With our mission rythm of today, i don t think the health of Fr Suelo is going to hold indefinitely. so Providence is sending us another volunteer to man the stations, Fr Elijah ofm. he came at the retreat and is going to stay with us once he obtains his leave of absence for his franciscan community. he is abandonning the novus ordo altogether, and the house of Batangas had a big role to play into his decision.

    I have no numerical progress to report except in Japan. Fr Nariai is expressing renewed friendship, after some time. I will pay him visits when I can. The core people of the diverse centers of Asia are holding strong, especially in Singapore where, even before I broached on the subject, people told me that the XSPX is persistently refusing to inform the faithful about the horrendous behaviour of Pope Francis, demonstrating hereby a clear slide. When the priests of the district are asked specific question, they take evasive action or never mention the issue of the new Rome in their sermons any more. A real doctrinal shift is in progress. The priory of Manila is printing and distributing the conference of Fr Themann that defends the AFD and the doctrinal shift, and those Filipinos that use their minds wonder how can it be, since they are told at the same time that the AFD has been rejected officially. Signs of a liberal slide are now appearing in Asia, the most notorious one being the new indian bulletin of the xspx, called "The flying squirrel"(?) that sports a sermon of pope Francis on page two and three. In it the Pope makes a bad exegesis of Luke chapter nine, praises the arch communist Fr Arrupe sj. who even gave sleepless night to Paul VI. In the past we never published the homilies of John Paul II, even a so called good one. The news section praises the World Youth Day, the Opus Dei volunteers teaching the good news of football, the Jesuit center for human rights, a Pentecostal minister arrested for his Pentecostal faith, the bishop of Cochin for opening a novus ordo radio... so I asked it to be scanned and put on the internet.

    But, again, while the whole world speaks about Pope Francis, the paralysis of the xspx, or the deliberate refusal to address this issue speaks volumes, ahead of me even speaking to these people.

    The opening of the  Batangas House of Our Lady of Lourdes has been a big drain on my finances and that of Julie Cordova, but it is a necessity, especially for the health of Fr Suelo, who has come to rescue us from our financial plight by.... buying a gold detector. Father is specifically looking for the gold left behind precipitously by the Japanese during ww2. In the first attempt he found the underground water pump, then later in the day the instrument pointed straight to the statue of Our Lady... it could not be otherwise, because she has a Heart of gold.

    in the hope that he find something sufficient to prop us all up until Judgement Day, I assure you of all my prayers and devotion.
     In the golden Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
     Francois Chazal, SSPX-MC



    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #1 on: September 30, 2013, 06:09:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting post, but I think what Fr. Chazal doesn't want to see, is that there is also an open attack by the resistance on the SSPX and so I can understand perfectly well that the SSPX priest don't take that well, anymore than he would take well his rejection by the SSPX. I think a little objectivity would be in place.


    Offline InDominoSperavi

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 196
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #2 on: October 01, 2013, 04:12:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course, we fight against Bp Fellay and anybody who supports him because they have bad ideas. And I think that Fr Chazal agrees with that.

    "An open attack by the resistance on the sspx ?" I wouldn't tell things exactly like that. Would you say that Abp Lefebvre fought against the Church ? No, you would precise he fought against the Conciliar church... That is the same for us and for Fr Chazal : we fight against the bad people and the bad docuмents within the Society St Pius X.

    As a consequence, because these bad people are the chiefs and are officially  leading the sspx, people have the feeling we don't like the Society. But it is just the error in the Society which we don't like. If Fr Chazal didn't like the Society, he wouldn't wish to keep the name "sspx" for our new Society (sspx-mc).
    The main thing is not to understand or not the feeling of the priests of the neo-sspx. The main thing is that they are not faithful to Abp Lefebvre and that it is Fr Chazal's duty to tell this truth to everybody : faithful and priests. He does his duty. The neo-sspx priests are not happy with that. That is not our problem. Our problem is to do God's will.
    The real problem is that these priests should study the doctrinal declaration and what Bp Fellay said in the cor unum 104. They should see that not only Bp Fellay wrote something wrong in April 2012 but still after one year,  he doesn't change his mind in the cor unum of Easter 2013... On May, 7th, in France, Bp Fellay told in Lille that the April declaration was too subtle to be well understood... So he is still thinking that the April 15th declaration is good. And so, instead of getting angry, the priests should come to the conclusion that Fr Chazal is right and should be supported.
    Abp Lefebvre wasn't appreciated in the conciliar church either. He didn't try to understand their feelings but he tried to follow God's will...

    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #3 on: October 01, 2013, 06:10:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DS - I see your point.

    But a point that I have made here before is that most priests and faithful in the SSPX don't give to Bp. Fellay a pope like status and so they don't hold that they are bound to hold what he puts out as though it is some authoritative papal docuмent. Most SSPX priests and faithful would see themselves simply carrying on what they have always done, and would see Fr. Chazal as some disobedience priest doing his own thing. -

    That is what I meant by seeing things more objectively here. I think we have to be honest in grasping things more fairly instead of trying to paint it all as black and white. - = SSPX is evil vs. Resistance can do no wrong. I think we have to avoid the emotional attachment in the present situation.

    Offline Elsa Zardini

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #4 on: October 01, 2013, 02:27:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This topic seems interesting:

    http://lefebvristes.forum-box.com/t2085-Faut-il-quitter-la-FSSPX-Stageirites-prend-position.htm

    Including (but not limited to) the one from Cristera:

    "REPONSE A THOMAS AUDET DE STAGIERITES SUR QUITTER LA FRATERNITE 1ER OCT. 2013

    PAR UN PRÊTRE DE LA RÉSISTANCE

    On ne voit pas de quelle autorité l’auteur de cet article s’érige en juge de la Résistance.

    Qui est-t-il ?

    Si c’est un prêtre, il trahit une sympathie cachée pour l’abbé de Cacqueray, qui a été,par son manque de décisions courageuses, le vrai tueur et le fossoyeur de la Résistance en France.

    On trouve aussi que l’auteur minimise la gravité de la situation de la Fraternité et excuse trop vite Mgr Fellay de ses agissements et de sa pensée profondément tordue.

    Pour reprendre l’exemple de l’abbé Faure, si l’auteur était un passager du Titanic et qu’il avait vu que le bateau avait évité quelques icebergs, il aurait rassuré les passagers en leur disant que puisqu’on avait « évité le pire », le danger n’était que « derrière eux »… alors que le capitaine était un incapable et un irresponsable !

    La situation est bien plus grave dans la FSSPX que l’auteur ne le dit.

    Mgr Fellay n’est pas seulement imprégné d’un esprit libéral, mais aussi du néo-modernisme. Ceci est évident par le contenu de la Déclaration doctrinale, surtout par son acceptation des docuмents de Vatican II avec l’herméneutique de la continuité.

    Et il n’a toujours pas rétracté cette Déclaration, mais il dit seulement l’avoir « retirée » à cause de l’opposition interne à ce docuмent.

    C’est pourquoi il est faux de prétendre que la résistance « à l’intérieur » de la FSSPX est viable. Nous avons vu la même attitude chez les prêtres « conservateurs » après Vatican II, mais ils ont fini par tout accepter, faute de résistance ouverte et d’être cohérents.

    C’est faux aussi qu’il faut attendre un leader afin de joindre la Résistance extérieure… C’est une excuse trop souvent utilisée par les lâches pour ne pas réagir !

    On dirait aussi que l’auteur attend que l’on propose à ceux qui sautent de ce bateau qui coule, le même confort bourgeois qui s’est installé dans la FSSPX.

    Qu’il attend de retrouver un prieuré cinq étoiles et une voiture clé en main… Ne dit-il qu’il faut « sauver les meubles » ? Nous savons que cette attitude tua aussi le clergé après le concile !

    Le temps est venu pour les prêtres de la Résistance de se sacrifier héroïquement pour les âmes, peu importe si l’on apas une structure organisée ou si le matériel manque.

    Notre Seigneur condamnait déjà cette attitude lorsqu’il reprochait aux premiers prêtres enleur disant : « Hommes de peu de foi » !

    Oui, il faut quitter la FSSPX au plus vite.

    C’est de la prudence et de cela dépend le salut de beaucoup d’âmes !"


    Offline InDominoSperavi

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 196
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #5 on: October 01, 2013, 03:40:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    DS - I see your point.

     But a point that I have made here before is that most priests and faithful in the SSPX don't give to Bp. Fellay a pope like status and so they don't hold that they are bound to hold what he puts out as though it is some authoritative papal docuмent. Most SSPX priests and faithful would see themselves simply carrying on what they have always done, and would see Fr. Chazal as some disobedience priest doing his own thing. -

    That is what I meant by seeing things more objectively here. I think we have to be honest in grasping things more fairly instead of trying to paint it all as black and white. - = SSPX is evil vs. Resistance can do no wrong. I think we have to avoid the emotional attachment in the present situation.


    Johnier, I understand what you mean. Perhaps the reading of this letter gave you this impression. But I know Fr Chazal doesn't think black and white. He knows that there are still good priests in the Society and he wishes them to go out.

    In the Resistance, we are sinners like everybody. We are not perfect and Fr Chazal knows that : that is why he didn't wanted us to call ourselves "sspx of strict observance" because he explained that it could mean : "I' m holier than you." That is why he found the name "marian corps" in a prayer of St Louis Marie Grignon of Monfort.

    Yes, we can understand that the neo-sspx priests are angry because of Fr Chazal. But it is necessary that he make this work of preaching the truth, so we have not the choice. And we must not forget that in this story, the first victims are not the neo sspx priests, but the faithful.

    They are 2 kinds of victims : the faithful who are threatened to be deprived of sacrements or school etc. These ones suffer sometimes  very much. There are also an other kind of victims : the ones who believe in what the neo-sspx priests tell them (... that Bp Fellay is a good superior, that nothing has changed etc.). These ones are in danger because they blindly trust  Bp Fellay who has a false doctrine. His April declaration is hermeneutic of continuity.

    You say that some of them don't consider Bp Fellay like the pope and change nothing in their behaviour. Let us hope that these ones will open their eyes before it is too late. It is true that some of them are like that. But we know that in reality, the principles have changed within the Society since the 14th July Declaration and the promulgation of the six conditions... and now, Fr Chazal shows that they have a different speech in their official bulletin... So Fr Chazal tries to awake everybody because the house is burning. He wants to save them. Let 's support his work.

    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #6 on: October 01, 2013, 06:40:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DS,

    Point taken.

    However, I fear that we are starting to see is  that people are starting to blindly believe resistance .

     I think in his letter for example Fr. Chazal himself doesn't make some basic distinctions about Vatican II. Not everything in it is evil. The Archbishop signed most of the texts. There are things in Vatican II, which if we refuse to accept we would cease to be Catholic, namely, those things in the text of the Council which simply re-iteratate the previous Catholic teaching.

    I think that Fr. Chazal seems to accusing anyone who doesn't share his views as being 'liberal'.  This is what some resistance priests are now doing regarding Bp. Williamson simply because he might not be totally on board with regards to all their views on things. I think we need to see beyond the hype and emotions, and be more  objective in grasping the reality behind what is being said and done.

    To me (as far as I know) the great bulk of the SSPX priests are zealous and want the good of souls and the Church as a whole, and as far as they seem to see it, nothing has changed for them, regardless of what Bp. Fellay may think or want.


    Offline MarcelJude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +152/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #7 on: October 02, 2013, 05:43:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They Say Nothing Has Changed…

    So we are told by those in the Neo-SSPX that nothing has changed. They are pushing a talk from one of their priests entitled “Resistance to what?”. Those who support the Neo-SSPX also (ignorantly) believe nothing has changed. I had one particular person comment on one my articles saying that “nothing has changed in the Society since 1974″. The facts, however, prove that this just isn’t true. I will go through the changes one by one.

    New Position on Judaism

    The Neo-SSPX has a new position on Judaism, one that was NOT shared by the Society’s founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. For as he said:

    “Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.

    Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system, which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord. They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, interview, 1978)

    Even Fr. Schmidberger, who is a pro-Fellay priest of the Neo-SSPX, said that we should never refer to the Jєωs as our “elder brothers”. Yet, in 2009, Bishop Fellay felt the desire to state the following:

    “The Jєωs are our elder brothers.” (Bishop Fellay, comment in “The Angelus”, 2009)

    This statement was never retracted.

    Decreasing devotion to Our Lady

    The devotion to Our Lady seems to be decreasing in the Neo-SSPX. Those reading this that are pro-Fellay may be thinking “What a slanderous accusation!”. Really, though, it is not “slanderous”, it is the truth.

    The Resistance mentioned Our Lady in their declaration to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Consecrations at Econe. The Society’s three Bishops did not mention her in their declaration. This is most odd, especially considering that it is obvious from reading his quotes that Archbishop Lefebvre had a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    One also cannot help but wonder how highly the Society thinks of Fatima, given no real protest was raised after Bishop Tissier, in his infamous 2006 interview with Stephen Heiner, said when asked about Fatima the following: “Fatima is a private revelation. Excuse me, but I do not speak of it”. Perhaps there was no criticism of this because his remarks in the interview about Benedict XVI being a heretic overshadowed his comment on Fatima. Nevertheless, it leads one to wonder if Bishop Fellay and other leaders in the Society feel the same way. The Archbishop, however, spoke fondly of the Apparitions at Fatima several times.

    This is why I recommend reading Maurice Pinay’s blog with caution. Though he is right about the Jєωs, he not only is obsessed with slandering Fr. Malachi Martin but also has spoken negatively about Fatima several times, to a much greater extent than Bishop Tissier did.

    As Fr. Pfeiffer states, Fatima is more than just a “private revelation”. The good news is that there is still hope for Bishop Tissier, perhaps, as mistaken about Fatima as he is. The same likely cannot be said for Bishop Fellay, I’m afraid. If the Blessed Virgin Mary being left out of the Society’s declaration is any indication, the Society’s devotion to her is decreasing.

    Vatican II and Religious Liberty

    In a CNS interview in May of 2012, Bishop Fellay said this when asked about religious liberty:

    “Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited. It would, in our talks with Rome they clearly said that, to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one its religious -  religion – is false. “

    That’s not what Vatican II taught. The modernists in Rome lied to Bishop Fellay and he fell for it. As Archbishop Lefebvre taught, religious liberty as taught by Vatican II is a HERESY. It is simply astonishing that Bishop Fellay would attempt to deny this.

    Later in the interview he says:

    “The Pope says that the…, he even said it recently, that the council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely.”

    And how is Vatican II in-line with the tradition of the Church? It isn’t. How can Bishop Fellay try to suggest that it’s possible for Vatican II to be put in-line with Tradition?

    In his disgusting 2012 “doctrinal preamble”, Bishop Fellay made similar remarks, saying that Vatican II “deepens certain aspects of the Church”.

    To those who insist that the SSPX remains dedicated to exposing the errors of Vatican II, I ask you, do the words I quoted sound like criticisms of the council? Is that your definition of opposing the errors of the council?

    GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm

    All three of these things have played a big role in the downfall of the Society, and are all a sign of significant interior corruption.

    GREC (Group For Reflection Among Catholics) was started in 1997. Its goal was to create discussion about serious issues between the SSPX and Rome without any anger or bitterness and eventually pave the way for a “reconciliation”. One of GREC’s four founders, Neo-SSPX priest Fr. Lorans, immediately received permission from Bishop Fellay to participate in GREC. Bishop Fellay has never commented publicly on GREC.

    Maximilian Krah is a lawyer for the Neo-SSPX. It was his responsibility to find a defense lawyer for Bishop Williamson after his denial of the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” led to a trial in Germany. Despite Krah (supposedly) being on +Williamson’s side, he criticized him publicly, saying that he had a “serious disconnect from reality”. No one at the time came to +Williamson’s defense.

    Krah responded to rumors that he is a Jєωιѕн infiltrator in a 2012 interview with “The Remnant”. He denied the rumors, though he did make numerous pro-Jєωιѕн statements, saying that “there’s nothing bad about being Jєωιѕн”, and “I have many Jєωιѕн friends”, and claimed that Jєωs “are people of Jesus and Mary”. Such beliefs were not shared by Archbishop Lefebvre, nor are they in line with what the Church has always taught.

    The secular PR firm was hired by Menzingen to “rebrand” the SSPX. This explains the “new” look of the Society and the changes to their site.

    None of this is something Archbishop Lefebvre would have tolerated in his Society.

    The Novus Ordo

    In his 2012 doctrinal preamble, Bishop Fellay stated that the Novus Ordo was “legitimately promulgated”, and later referred to it as a “legitimate Mass”.

    Once again, Bishop Fellay contradicts Archbishop Lefebvre, who called the New Mass a “bastard mass”. It is neither legitimately promulgated nor legitimate.

    Bishop Fellay also suggested in a January 2013 interview that a “reform of the reform” would be acceptable, whereas the Archbishop said not to attend even a reverent Novus Ordo. The Society’s new position on the Novus Ordo is a departure from the mindset of their founder.

    The New Attitude of Priests

    The behavior of the Society’s priests has changed the past few years or so. There are many instances of Neo-SSPX priests who do not behave as priests, but behave more like liberal hotheads. There are many instances of this.

    A man in Florida was physically harassed by a Neo-SSPX priest for merely attending a Resistance barbecue.

    Several priests – including US District Superior Fr. Rostand – have been spying on internet forums attempting to figure out the identities of pro-Resistance poster. Fr. Rostand reportedly found out the identity of one man whom he had never met and discovered what parish he went to. One Neo-SSPX priest even printed the posts of a pro-Resistance layperson who he knew went to his parish and handed the printings of the posts out to other members of the parish asking them if they knew who the poster was.

    One pro-Resistance layman sent news of a Resistance conference in Idaho to various priests in the area. One particular Neo-SSPX replied: “I’d appreciate it if you kept your crap to yourself and your other disillusioned Williamson leeches”. How can a priest, someone who is supposed to be a man of God, speak this way? It is sickening.

    Another priest stated that the home of Fr. Pfeiffer’s parents was burned down by God as punishment for Fr. Pfeiffer’s “disobedience” and called him “Kentucky Fried Priest”. Again, another instance of a priest who does not speak like a priest and needs to go to Confession for speaking in that manner.

    Several pro-Resistance laymen have even been denied Communion from their Neo-SSPX priests.

    Anyone who could defend these actions cannot possibly call themselves a truly good Catholic.

    Dealings with Rome

    I have shown many quotes from the Archbishop from 1988 onwards, proving that he was against a deal with Rome until after they converted. Here is another quote that I have not yet mentioned:

    “To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness,               would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the               faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6th, 1988)

    So, as Archbishop Lefebvre says, the faithful have a right to know that the priests they support are not in communion with the conciliar church. This quote would certainly justify the pro-Resistance faithful’s reaction to Menzingen’s actions.

    And as many erroneous quotes Bishop Fellay has made, he used to speak differently. In his January 2003 letter to friends and benefactors, Bishop Fellay was critical of Campos for selling out to Rome. In the same letter, he said:

    “For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.”

    Compare that to what he said last year:

    “Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church.” (Bishop Fellay, letter to Benedict XVI, 2012)

    So much for people’s claim that “nothing has changed”.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, there is no truth to the ridiculous claim that “nothing has changed”. The Society has absolutely changed, and there are actually more examples of change that I left out, such as their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism, their new position on Indult Masses, their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes (i.e. remaining silent after Francis making pro-gαy remarks and restricting the TLM), etc.

    Everything, from their new position on Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to their refusal to mention the Blessed Virgin Mary in their June 27th declaration and the new attitude of their priests serves as proof that many things have changed. So please, to any pro-Fellay people who may be reading this, do not leave a comment telling me that still nothing has changed, because that is a lie. It is in no way logical to say nothing has changed.

    As for the Resistance, however, they remain faithful to the true Catholic Faith, to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, and to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.

    God Bless.
    TradCathSermon
    .
    .
    .


    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #8 on: October 02, 2013, 07:07:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Marcel,

    Once more I see a lot of hype and emotion and false presumption. The very thing the resistance are accusing the SSPX of doing is now being done by a number within the resistance.

    Many of the various things you cite are being taken out of context – regarding the Jєωs for example. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself was a Jєω. –
    Bp. Fellay has also said some negative things about the Jєωs, but as Fr. Denis Fahey has pointed out, the Jєωs still have a special place in the heart of Our Lord and for this reason the Sacred Heart at the end of time will bring about a general conversion of the Jєωs. Fr. Denis Fahey will pointing out the great evils committed by the Jєωs also has some favorable things to say about them, putting the issue in it’s proper perspective.

    As for Fr. Themann – It is most reasonable that the SSPX give a response to the faithful about the questions raised by the resistance. – The false presumption by some is that regardless what the SSPX says or does is that it is wrong, and that regardless of what the resistance says or does is good – this is totally sectarian thinking. It isn’t Catholic, especially since the entire resistance isn’t on the same page. Bp. Williamson doesn’t share equal views as many of the other resistance priest on many things. – We can’t make of this a question of personalities.

    Bp. Fellay is quoted by some resistance as though he has the status of Pope. Sorry, regardless of what he, or any resistance priest might think, he isn’t Pope, (well not yet :) )

    Sorry, contrary to what some might think, Fr. Pfieffer isn’t pope either. Fatima, remains a private revelation, and a very special one, but this is basic Catholic teaching (non negotiable). Public revelation ended with death of the last apostle – St. John (De Fide Catholic teaching). Unless Fr. Pfieffer thinks he knows better than the clear teaching of the Church, he needs to retract his statement.

    Can you give a clear citation from the Archbishop that states that the Conciliar text on religious liberty is heresy? (It is false, but does make it automatically heretical? There are various notes of error that the Church attributes to false ideas. Not all errors are heretical, as erroneous as they may be).

    As to the whole question of the Novus Ordo – Even the Archbishop in his may 5th protocol admit as much – the word legitimate here also needs to be taken in it’s proper context, even the Vatican itself had to clarify this point. The word ‘legitimas’ in regards to papal promulgation simply refers to the fact that due proceed was followed and not that what was put out is necessarily orthodox. – For a law to be ‘legitimas’ in the formal sense in needs to be for the common good. The Novus Ordo is not legitimas in the formal sense. The SSPX again clarified this point as she has many of the other various points. For people only want to hear what they want isn’t being honest to say the least. I fear that some while the have a dislike for Bp. Fellay have allowed that to blind them from being more objective in the present situation.

    In the peace of Christ.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #9 on: October 02, 2013, 07:47:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Menzingen apologists from IA have migrated to CI and are preforming the same kind of disruption here as they have done over there.

    Offline InDominoSperavi

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 196
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #10 on: October 03, 2013, 07:04:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • MarcelJude, thank you for your help because for me, it is difficult to write in English. I didn't know Bp Tissier had spoken about Fatima. Can you please give the references ? I would like to know what he told exactly. Thank you in advance.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #11 on: October 03, 2013, 05:26:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    RIGHT OFF THE TOP,
    I'd like to thank you, MarcelJude, for this most informative post.  

    I do wish you could include the name of the author, though.  Unless
    you'd like it to remain, "MarcelJude."  

    I'm going to take the liberty, if you don't mind, of adding underline
    to the various titles you have herein, as well as a few other touches,
    and then summarize them at the end for fast reference.


    This is great stuff!



    Quote from: MarcelJude


    They Say Nothing Has Changed…[/i]


    So we are told by those in the Neo-SSPX that nothing has changed. They are pushing a talk from one of their priests entitled “Resistance to what?”. Those who support the Neo-SSPX also (ignorantly) believe nothing has changed. I had one particular person comment on one my articles saying that “nothing has changed in the Society since 1974.”  

    The facts, however, prove that this just isn’t true. I will go through the changes one by one.


    New Position on Judaism

    The Neo-SSPX has a new position on Judaism, one that was NOT shared by the Society’s founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. For as he said:

    “Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.

    “Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord. They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, interview, 1978)

    Even Fr. Schmidberger, who is a pro-Fellay priest of the Neo-SSPX, said that we should never refer to the Jєωs as our “elder brothers”. Yet, in 2009, Bishop Fellay felt the desire to state the following:

    “The Jєωs are our elder brothers.” (Bishop Fellay, comment in “The Angelus”, 2009)

    This statement was never retracted.



    Come to think of it, it does seem to be the case, that you are correct.
    But it should come as no surprise.  It seems to me that we really, truly
    need a LIST of such statements by The Great One that have never been
    retracted.
     We could really use that.  


    Quote



    Decreasing devotion to Our Lady

    The devotion to Our Lady seems to be decreasing in the Neo-SSPX. Those reading this that are pro-Fellay may be thinking “What a slanderous accusation!”. Really, though, it is not “slanderous”, it is the truth.

    The Resistance mentioned Our Lady in their declaration to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Consecrations at Econe. The Society’s three Bishops did not mention her in their declaration. This is most odd, especially considering that it is obvious from reading his quotes that Archbishop Lefebvre had a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    One also cannot help but wonder how highly the Society thinks of Fatima, given no real protest was raised after Bishop Tissier, in his infamous 2006 interview with Stephen Heiner, said when asked about Fatima the following: “Fatima is a private revelation. Excuse me, but I do not speak of it”. Perhaps there was no criticism of this because his remarks in the interview about Benedict XVI being a heretic overshadowed his comment on Fatima. Nevertheless, it leads one to wonder if Bishop Fellay and other leaders in the Society feel the same way. The Archbishop, however, spoke fondly of the Apparitions at Fatima several times.

    This is why I recommend reading Maurice Pinay’s blog with caution. Though he is right about the Jєωs, he not only is obsessed with slandering Fr. Malachi Martin but also has spoken negatively about Fatima several times, to a much greater extent than Bishop Tissier did.



    Like the formidable InDominoSperavi herself, below, says, this
    aspect of the +TdM interview I had likewise overlooked.  

    Muito obrigado!

    Furthermore, I do appreciate the caution regarding "Maurice Pinay".
    I had several misgivings about that anonymous 'groupe de priestites'.


    Quote
    As Fr. Pfeiffer states, Fatima is more than just a “private revelation”. The good news is that there is still hope for Bishop Tissier, perhaps, as mistaken about Fatima as he is. The same likely cannot be said for Bishop Fellay, I’m afraid. If the Blessed Virgin Mary being left out of the Society’s declaration is any indication, the Society’s devotion to her is decreasing.


    Vatican II and Religious Liberty

    In a CNS interview in May of 2012, Bishop Fellay said this when asked about religious liberty:

    “Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited. It would, in our talks with Rome they clearly said that, to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one its religious -  religion – is false. “

    That’s not what Vatican II taught. The modernists in Rome lied to Bishop Fellay and he fell for it. As Archbishop Lefebvre taught, religious liberty as taught by Vatican II is a HERESY. It is simply astonishing that Bishop Fellay would attempt to deny this.

    Later in the interview he says:

    “The Pope says that the…, he even said it recently, that the council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely.”

    And how is Vatican II in-line with the tradition of the Church? It isn’t. How can Bishop Fellay try to suggest that it’s possible for Vatican II to be put in-line with Tradition?

    In his disgusting 2012 “doctrinal preamble”, Bishop Fellay made similar remarks, saying that Vatican II “deepens certain aspects of the Church”.



    In this abominable AFD, there is much to be regretful for, to be
    sure, but the thing that "gets my goat" is how the Accordistas
    doggedly cling to the false principle that it's really okay now because
    the Vatican didn't accept it, and after all, The Great One has
    "rescinded" this, or he has "retracted" this, this, this..

    ..MINOR FULFILLMENT OF OUR LORD'S PROPHESY in Matthew xxiv. 15.

    ...(LOOK IT UP.)


    Anyone who thinks that such horror and abomination can be swept
    under the rug like so much sleaze and jetsam has no idea what
    the word "doctrine" signifies.  They haven't a clue what it really
    means, therefore, to be Catholic in spirit and in truth.



    Quote
    To those who insist that the SSPX remains dedicated to exposing the errors of Vatican II, I ask you, do the words I quoted sound like criticisms of the council? Is that your definition of opposing the errors of the council?


    GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm

    All three of these things have played a big role in the downfall of the Society, and are all a sign of significant interior corruption.

    GREC (Group For Reflection Among Catholics)* was started in 1997. Its goal was to create discussion about serious issues between the SSPX and Rome without any anger or bitterness and eventually pave the way for a “reconciliation”. One of GREC’s four founders, Neo-SSPX priest Fr. Lorans, immediately received permission from Bishop Fellay to participate in GREC. Bishop Fellay has never commented publicly on GREC.



    *Le Groupe de Reflexion Entre Catholiques for those who
    comprende la Francais lingo.


    Quote
    Maximilian Krah is a lawyer for the Neo-SSPX. It was his responsibility to find a defense lawyer for Bishop Williamson after his denial of the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” led to a trial in Germany. Despite Krah (supposedly) being on +Williamson’s side, he criticized him publicly, saying that he had a “serious disconnect from reality”. No one at the time came to +Williamson’s defense.

    Krah responded to rumors that he is a Jєωιѕн infiltrator in a 2012 interview with “The Remnant”. He denied the rumors, though he did make numerous pro-Jєωιѕн statements, saying that “there’s nothing bad about being Jєωιѕн”, and “I have many Jєωιѕн friends”, and claimed that Jєωs “are people of Jesus and Mary”. Such beliefs were not shared by Archbishop Lefebvre, nor are they in line with what the Church has always taught.

    The secular PR firm was hired by Menzingen to “rebrand” the SSPX. This explains the “new” look of the Society and the changes to their site.

    None of this is something Archbishop Lefebvre would have tolerated in his Society.


    The Novus Ordo

    In his 2012 doctrinal preamble, Bishop Fellay stated that the Novus Ordo was “legitimately promulgated”, and later referred to it as a “legitimate Mass”.

    Once again, Bishop Fellay contradicts Archbishop Lefebvre, who called the New Mass a “bastard mass”. It is neither legitimately promulgated nor legitimate.

    Bishop Fellay also suggested in a January 2013 interview that a “reform of the reform” would be acceptable, whereas the Archbishop said not to attend even a reverent Novus Ordo. The Society’s new position on the Novus Ordo is a departure from the mindset of their founder.


    The New Attitude of Priests

    The behavior of the Society’s priests has changed the past few years or so. There are many instances of Neo-SSPX priests who do not behave as priests, but behave more like liberal hotheads. There are many instances of this.

    A man in Florida was physically harassed by a Neo-SSPX priest for merely attending a Resistance barbecue.



    This goes to prove that Fellayites are not Texan, because nobody ever
    gets in trouble in Texas for having a barbeque or for attending one.  

    In fact, in Texas, ALL barbecues are "Resistance" barbecues!

    Ask Matthew or MaterDominici.  .  .  .  .  .  .   :cowboy:


    Quote
    Several priests – including US District Superior Fr. Rostand – have been spying on internet forums attempting to figure out the identities of pro-Resistance poster. Fr. Rostand reportedly found out the identity of one man whom he had never met and discovered what parish he went to. One Neo-SSPX priest even printed the posts of a pro-Resistance layperson who he knew went to his parish and handed the printings of the posts out to other members of the parish asking them if they knew who the poster was.

    One pro-Resistance layman sent news of a Resistance conference in Idaho to various priests in the area. One particular Neo-SSPX replied: “I’d appreciate it if you kept your crap to yourself and your other disillusioned Williamson leeches”. How can a priest, someone who is supposed to be a man of God, speak this way? It is sickening.

    Another priest stated that the home of Fr. Pfeiffer’s parents was burned down by God as punishment for Fr. Pfeiffer’s “disobedience” and called him “Kentucky Fried Priest”. Again, another instance of a priest who does not speak like a priest and needs to go to Confession for speaking in that manner.

    Several pro-Resistance laymen have even been denied Communion from their Neo-SSPX priests.

    Anyone who could defend these actions cannot possibly call themselves a truly good Catholic.


    Dealings with Rome

    I have shown many quotes from the Archbishop from 1988 onwards, proving that he was against a deal with Rome until after they converted. Here is another quote that I have not yet mentioned:

    “To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness,               would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the               faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6th, 1988)

    So, as Archbishop Lefebvre says, the faithful have a right to know that the priests they support are not in communion with the conciliar church. This quote would certainly justify the pro-Resistance faithful’s reaction to Menzingen’s actions.

    And as many erroneous quotes Bishop Fellay has made, he used to speak differently. In his January 2003 letter to friends and benefactors, Bishop Fellay was critical of Campos for selling out to Rome. In the same letter, he said:

    “For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.”

    Compare that to what he said last year:

    “Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church.” (Bishop Fellay, letter to Benedict XVI, 2012)

    So much for people’s claim that “nothing has changed”.


    Conclusion

    To conclude, there is no truth to the ridiculous claim that “nothing has changed”. The Society has absolutely changed, and there are actually more examples of change that I left out, such as:

    Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism,

    Their new position on Indult Masses,

    Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes (I.e., remaining silent after Francis making pro-gαy remarks and restricting the TLM),

    Etcetera


    Everything, from their new position on Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to their refusal to mention the Blessed Virgin Mary in their June 27th declaration and the new attitude of their priests serves as proof that many things have changed. So please, to any pro-Fellay people who may be reading this, do not leave a comment telling me that still nothing has changed, because that is a lie.

    It is in no way logical to say nothing has changed.

    As for the Resistance, however, they remain faithful to the true Catholic Faith, to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, and to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.

    God Bless.



    In summary:


    New Position on Judaism
    Decreasing devotion to Our Lady
    Vatican II and Religious Liberty
    GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm
    The Novus Ordo
    The New Attitude of Priests
    Dealings with Rome

    Not to mention:
    Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism,

    Their new position on Indult Masses,

    Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes

    Etc.




    So, now after leaving this legacy in pixels of the objective facts
    that prove the falsehood of the lie that "nothing has changed,"

    without one word of emotionalism, hyperbole, or presumption of
    any kind, what do you get but the false accusation of "hype, emotion
    and false presumption," by the longstanding and pertinacious
    mudslinger, O.K.A. Johnnier:


    Quote from: Johnnier
    Marcel,

    Once more I see a lot of hype and emotion and false presumption. The very thing the resistance are accusing the SSPX of doing is now being done by a number within the resistance.

    Many of the various things you cite are being taken out of context – regarding the Jєωs for example. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself was a Jєω. –
    Bp. Fellay has also said some negative things about the Jєωs, but as Fr. Denis Fahey has pointed out, the Jєωs still have a special place in the heart of Our Lord and for this reason the Sacred Heart at the end of time will bring about a general conversion of the Jєωs. Fr. Denis Fahey will pointing out the great evils committed by the Jєωs also has some favorable things to say about them, putting the issue in it’s proper perspective.

    As for Fr. Themann – It is most reasonable that the SSPX give a response to the faithful about the questions raised by the resistance. – The false presumption by some is that regardless what the SSPX says or does is that it is wrong, and that regardless of what the resistance says or does is good – this is totally sectarian thinking. It isn’t Catholic, especially since the entire resistance isn’t on the same page. Bp. Williamson doesn’t share equal views as many of the other resistance priest on many things. – We can’t make of this a question of personalities.

    Bp. Fellay is quoted by some resistance as though he has the status of Pope. Sorry, regardless of what he, or any resistance priest might think, he isn’t Pope, (well not yet :) )

    Sorry, contrary to what some might think, Fr. Pfieffer isn’t pope either. Fatima, remains a private revelation, and a very special one, but this is basic Catholic teaching (non negotiable). Public revelation ended with death of the last apostle – St. John (De Fide Catholic teaching). Unless Fr. Pfieffer thinks he knows better than the clear teaching of the Church, he needs to retract his statement.

    Can you give a clear citation from the Archbishop that states that the Conciliar text on religious liberty is heresy? (It is false, but does make it automatically heretical? There are various notes of error that the Church attributes to false ideas. Not all errors are heretical, as erroneous as they may be).

    As to the whole question of the Novus Ordo – Even the Archbishop in his may 5th protocol admit as much – the word legitimate here also needs to be taken in it’s proper context, even the Vatican itself had to clarify this point. The word ‘legitimas’ in regards to papal promulgation


    Your whole pile of nonsense is exposed for what it is, Johnnier,
    when you realize the FACT that the Newmass was never promulgated
    at all.  It was a big joke on you, and they're laughing at you behind
    your back, for being a dunce.  Unfortunately, ABL was fooled as well,
    but you should know better.  You outlived him.  Now we know.  It's too
    late to still be fooled.  Get over it.  

    Quote
    simply refers to the fact that due proceed was followed and not that what was put out is necessarily orthodox. – For a law to be ‘legitimas’ in the formal sense in needs to be for the common good. The Novus Ordo is not legitimas in the formal sense. The SSPX again clarified this point as she has many of the other various points. For people only want to hear what they want isn’t being honest to say the least. I fear that some while the have a dislike for Bp. Fellay have allowed that to blind them from being more objective in the present situation.

    In the peace of Christ.



    While better Catholics than I am continue to give such members
    as this one, above, the benefit of the doubt, I have to refrain from
    what I want to say, because it would not be something becoming
    for the Resistance.  


    If it's any consolation, there are people like this who mutter things
    to themselves over and over again, in their vain attempt to convince
    God of their doctrine, and they will do so in eternity, because they
    are going to be muttering the same things at the Second Coming
    of Our Lord and at their own particular judgment;  things like,

    ..But.. but revelation ended with the last Apostle!  This can't be
    happening to me!  I didn't have to believe in the Message of Fatima!  
    It was only a 'private revelation'!  Bishop Tissier told me so!  
    And guess who is going to be next in line?  "WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO
    SAY FOR YOURSELF, TELLING THE FAITHFUL THIS LIE?!"


    Quote from: J.Paul
    The Menzingen apologists from IA have migrated to CI and are preforming the same kind of disruption here as they have done over there.


    J.Paul, as usual, is right on the money.  Certain members of CI are
    consistently definitive for what it means to be the Resistance, and
    you, J.Paul are a good example.  Thank you very much.  

    Quote from: InDominoSperavi
    MarcelJude, thank you for your help because for me, it is difficult to write in English. I didn't know Bp Tissier had spoken about Fatima. Can you please give the references ? I would like to know what he told exactly. Thank you in advance.



    Ditto.



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #12 on: October 03, 2013, 08:42:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil,

    Yes, Ab. Lefebvre was fooled, but you are the 'smart' one. Please spare us.

    You fail to answer any of the basic points I make. If you can't answer just say so, no need to hide behind insults.

    While I have been a staunch resistance follower for the greater part, I can say honestly, I can now see that they are not correct in their assessment. I think with time is becoming clearer to me and others. They want to combat what they perceive as an error on Part of the SSPX with another error, namely failing to make some of the basic distinctions which the SSPX has always made.

    To me it seems like a emotional reaction to a real problem. Just look at how certain people here reaction to even basic object errors pointed out to them.

    Fr. Pfieffer is mistaken on trying to claim that Fatima isn't merely a private revelation. This point is basic Catholic teaching. It seems to me, that all people have done is deflect what they persevered as the infallibility of Bp. Fellay to Fr. Pfieffer. I think this is madness to say the least.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #13 on: October 03, 2013, 09:02:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Johnnier
    Neil,

    Yes, Ab. Lefebvre was fooled, but you are the 'smart' one. Please spare us.

    You fail to answer any of the basic points I make. If you can't answer just say so, no need to hide behind insults.

    While I have been a staunch resistance follower for the greater part, I can say honestly, I can now see that they are not correct in their assessment. I think with time is becoming clearer to me and others. They want to combat what they perceive as an error on Part of the SSPX with another error, namely failing to make some of the basic distinctions which the SSPX has always made.

    To me it seems like a emotional reaction to a real problem. Just look at how certain people here reaction to even basic object errors pointed out to them.

    Fr. Pfieffer is mistaken on trying to claim that Fatima isn't merely a private revelation. This point is basic Catholic teaching. It seems to me, that all people have done is deflect what they persevered as the infallibility of Bp. Fellay to Fr. Pfieffer. I think this is madness to say the least.


    Well, to say the least you are a Menzingen apologist and that is the weight which must given to your efforts here. It appears that the only following of the resistance which you have done is to continue to harass their supporters.

    We have no need to perceive the problems of the progressives in the Society, as they have already been docuмented and are undeniable to a reasonable person who is capable of critical thinking.  

    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Letter fo Fr Chazal
    « Reply #14 on: October 03, 2013, 09:25:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • J. Paul,

    Who is harrasing who? - If pointing out the basic facts is harasment - then what case do you have at all?

    Anyone who points out a basic fact is attacked as a 'Menzingen apologist'.

    It appears to me what is docuмent is the selective reading of things. One can also 'docuмent' the various statements and actions of the Archbishop and interpret them in a liberal light as well, as various Sedevacantist groups have done. As Neil himself wanted to claim that somehow, even the Archbishop was 'fooled', reason being is because he doesn't agree with current resistance ideas. - I find this pure madness.

    Even within the resistance itself various priests view things differently, are they for that reason also 'Menzingen apologist'? This is becoming foolish.