Author Topic: NEW BP. FELLAY SO HORRIBLE INTERVIEW (Read 19789 times)

CWA · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2016, 05:20:48 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

This whole video is shameful beyond words. Specially at the beginning of it, when asked about the Jєωs, Bishop Fellay adopts the attitude of a little boy trying to excuse himself, not even looking at the malicious journalist straight at the eye.

Pathetic. We are in desperate need of men of the caliber of Father Fahey to explain to the world what is it that we exactly mean when we say the Jєωs are the enemies of the Church of Christ.

When the interviewer first asked why he said the Jєωs were enemies of the Church, he could have said, "because they are." Or turn it into a question, "That's a good question. Why have they always hated the Church?" Or laugh at the question and say, "Are you kidding?

" But it occurred to me that he wished he could say, "because at that time I was talking to a Trad audience."

hollingsworth · « **Reply #31 on:** March 02, 2016, 05:56:50 PM »

We should not forget how closely tied to the Jєωs the present day SSPX is Surely Bp. Fellay must have realized how lightly he had to tread in answering Sebastian and how innocuous he had to sound about any question regarding the Jєωs.

Most of you will probably remember an interview given to the Remnant by Max Krah, back in October of 2012. (http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1031-siscoe-krah-interview.htm) Cathinfo has published extensively on it in the past.

Krah, described as the Society’s “assets manager,” admitted that a certain Jaidhofer Foundation, acting on behalf of the Gutman family, was administering a very generous financial gift bequeathed to the SSPX by that family . The Gutmans had close links to the Rothchilds. In fact, this large sum was referred to as “Rothchild-Gutman money.” A good portion of it, apparently, has been used in constructing the new seminary in VA.

Here is a short excerpt from the Remnant/Krah interview:

Siscoe: Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?
Krah: Yes, this is linked with the SSPX ... There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly. They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX. And in every foundation you need some trustees. It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees. I was chosen by the family who established the foundation ... This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia ...

So we can reasonably speculate that Fellay’s slavering, puppy dog demeanor, in the face of uncomfortable questions from the interviewer, can be at least partially explained in the light of a cozy relationship existing between the SSPX and this Jєωιѕн family.

wallflower · « **Reply #32 on:** March 02, 2016, 06:16:24 PM »

Is the family converted? If not, I don't understand the desire to financially support the SSPX. If so, then they should understand the millennia long difficulties between the Church and the Jєωs so there should be no need to pander. Having Jєωιѕн friends doesn't necessarily mean a person has to be blind to reality unless the Jєωιѕн friends are putting pressure on you, in which case are they really friends?

St Ignatius · « **Reply #33 on:** March 02, 2016, 06:17:46 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

We should not forget how closely tied to the Jєωs the present day SSPX is Surely Bp. Fellay must have realized how lightly he had to tread in answering Sebastian and how innocuous he had to sound about any question regarding the Jєωs.

Most of you will probably remember an interview given to the Remnant by Max Krah, back in October of 2012. (http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1031-siscoe-krah-interview.htm) Cathinfo has published extensively on it in the past.

Krah, described as the Society’s “assets manager,” admitted that a certain Jaidhofer Foundation, acting on behalf of the Gutman family, was administering a very generous financial gift bequeathed to the SSPX by that family . The Gutmans had close links to the Rothchilds. In fact, this large sum was referred to as “Rothchild-Gutman money.” A good portion of it, apparently, has been used in constructing the new seminary in VA.

Here is a short excerpt from the Remnant/Krah interview:

Siscoe: Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?
Krah: Yes, this is linked with the SSPX ... There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly. They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX. And in every foundation you need some trustees. It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees. I was chosen by the family who established the foundation ... This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia ...

So we can reasonably speculate that Fellay’s slavering, puppy dog demeanor, in the face of uncomfortable questions from the interviewer, can be at least partially explained in the light of a cozy relationship existing between the SSPX and this Jєωιѕн family.

Thank you Hollingsworth, I knew I could count on you in bringing the past to light!

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #34 on:** March 02, 2016, 08:11:02 PM »

Very weak, uninspiring leadership. No wonder vocations are beginning to shrink. The Jєωs in NY would refer to this as "nebbish" behavior. Perhaps Bp. Fellay can ask his pal Maxie to define the Yiddish terminology. :reporter:

trento · « **Reply #35 on:** March 02, 2016, 08:48:54 PM »

Quote from: AJNC

Quote from: trento
Agreed that Bishop Fellay seems unprepared to be bombarded by this fella with all sorts of politically-correct pointed questions. I truly believe someone like Bishop Tissier or Fr. Laisney would be able to demolish this guy easily. Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay is too much of a diplomat here and that wouldn't do.

I believe this program was put out by Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster. I doubt whether a hard-line attitude would have been productive with the general audience. Sure, its just my opinion, but I feel that Bp Fellay came out on top.

You don't have to go full-blast but there is certainly much better ways to deal with these interviews. I do realize that +Fellay does not want to get bad press the same way +Williamson got into trouble with German law, though.

It all boils to how well one should be prepared when faced with these secular interviewers. In my opinion, +Fellay was commendable on the issues of conciliar authority, Modernism, and the false dichotomy posed between love vs dogma, but fared rather badly on the Jєωιѕн, obedience, and the 'excommunication' topics.

"What are your sins?". My answer would be: "I will confess my sins in the confessional."

wallflower · « **Reply #36 on:** March 02, 2016, 09:01:43 PM »

I made it through and appreciate that in the middle he does attempt to make distinctions and tell the interviewer that he is asking disingenuous questions. It isn't very successful because these are topics that really can't be discussed in 2 minutes but at least the attempt is there and that's better than no attempt I suppose. I am curious about what was edited.

The beginning and the end are by far the most difficult to watch. That +Fellay is allowing persons such as this to drive the wedge between him and +Williamson is devastating to see in action. And at the end it felt wrong to even be watching the interviewer ask such a disrespectful and impertinent question as what are your sins. It was even worse to see +Fellay attempt to answer. That is a trick question.

Besides the passive-aggressive intent to call him a hypocrite (well you talk a lot of sin, what are YOUR sins?) there is a reason confession is between God and the penitent. If you publicly confess serious sins it causes scandal. So you have to stick to something superficial, like talking too much. But that's so obviously superficial that you come across as having something to hide or not taking your own sins seriously. Even if there is nothing objectively serious to confess, you're speaking to people who do not believe a virtuous life is possible so they will think you are lying anyway. There's just no good reason to ask the question and no good way to answer it except with the truth that he is sorry for his sins and answers to God alone on that topic.

Incredulous · « **Reply #37 on:** March 02, 2016, 10:17:00 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

We should not forget how closely tied to the Jєωs the present day SSPX is Surely Bp. Fellay must have realized how lightly he had to tread in answering Sebastian and how innocuous he had to sound about any question regarding the Jєωs.

Most of you will probably remember an interview given to the Remnant by Max Krah, back in October of 2012. (http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1031-siscoe-krah-interview.htm) Cathinfo has published extensively on it in the past.

Krah, described as the Society’s “assets manager,” admitted that a certain Jaidhofer Foundation, acting on behalf of the Gutman family, was administering a very generous financial gift bequeathed to the SSPX by that family . The Gutmans had close links to the Rothchilds. In fact, this large sum was referred to as “Rothchild-Gutman money.” A good portion of it, apparently, has been used in constructing the new seminary in VA.

Here is a short excerpt from the Remnant/Krah interview:

Siscoe: Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?
Krah: Yes, this is linked with the SSPX ... There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly. They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX. And in every foundation you need some trustees. It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees. I was chosen by the family who established the foundation ... This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia ...

So we can reasonably speculate that Fellay’s slavering, puppy dog demeanor, in the face of uncomfortable questions from the interviewer, can be at least partially explained in the light of a cozy relationship existing between the SSPX and this Jєωιѕн family.

Yes, unbelievably, its Masonic (money& power) that are driving Bp. Fellay and company.

Krah claimed to be the fund manager for 80 million Euros earmarked for the SSPX.
It turned out to be Jєωιѕн funds, distributed if the SSPX "played ball".

When I hear people say, "Msgr. Fellay says we must be with Rome", I want to throw-up.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 02, 2016, 10:58:17 PM »

Quote from: Gerard from FE

Weak. Very weak on Fellay's part.

Williamson would have eaten this guy's lunch.

Fellay is learning that you can't always treat people with honey.

Not one supporting statement from Fellay citing St. Thomas Aquinas, no reference

to St. Paul resisting St. Peter.

"No. I don't think so" about repenting from the excommunications.

This is the fallout from that lie about the excommunications being "lifted" and not

"nullified"

If he can't handle an ignorant horse's ass, how can he handle Rome?

Weak and inept.

Years of having absolute authority to suppress dissent, Bp. Fellay has never developed the power of persuasion or skill in disputation. He has surrounded himself with sycophants and Zionists. The sycophants never challenge his double-mindedness and the Zionists use hs double-mindedness to their purposes.

Bp. Fellay deserved every humiliation he suffered at the hands of the bully. He is clearly ill-prepared to handle the Vatican's ʝʊdɛօ-Luciferians, including the one "subsisting in the Chair of Peter.

chrstnoel1 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2016, 01:45:46 AM »

Quote from: AJNC

Quote from: trento
Agreed that Bishop Fellay seems unprepared to be bombarded by this fella with all sorts of politically-correct pointed questions. I truly believe someone like Bishop Tissier or Fr. Laisney would be able to demolish this guy easily. Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay is too much of a diplomat here and that wouldn't do.

I believe this program was put out by Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster. I doubt whether a hard-line attitude would have been productive with the general audience. Sure, its just my opinion, but I feel that Bp Fellay came out on top.

:roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1:

stgobnait · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2016, 02:25:23 AM »

Public 'confession' of sins/faults is part of group desensitisation, 'we are all the same'! BF had an opportunity to mention the Seal of Confession that protects us all, TG,... but he didn't.

Wessex · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2016, 06:41:22 AM »

Quote from: AJNC

I believe this program was put out by Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster. I doubt whether a hard-line attitude would have been productive with the general audience. Sure, its just my opinion, but I feel that Bp Fellay came out on top.

Controlling a large organisation ...... and yet playing the naughty little boy full of excuses, there must be a hidden agenda to all this.

In the German context with her continuing nauseating guilt-trip policies, the bishop may indeed be pandering to the establishment there and its obedient audience. In the face of engineered hostility against true Catholics, he may have decided that coming across as someone confused, apathetic and naive would becalm his obvious belligerents. But it does nothing for the Church other than reprimand her further. The bishop it seems continues to appease the world and chase after that 'safe' place within the conciliar fold. Meanwhile, he must surely know that he is on a hiding to nothing if he things such gestures will reduce the pressure on him. Already weakened, the enemy is intent on going for the throat!

Mark 79 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2016, 02:00:21 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

Public 'confession' of sins/faults is part of group desensitisation, 'we are all the same'! BF had an opportunity to mention the Seal of Confession that protects us all, TG,... but he didn't.

It is reminiscent of the public confessions forced by Mao's (and later the Gang of Four's) Red Guards.

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2016, 03:25:38 PM »

Have any of the "trad" news outlets haven't even mentioned this embarrassing video?

Raphaela · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2016, 03:58:37 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

The Gutmans had close links to the Rothchilds. In fact, this large sum was referred to as “Rothchild-Gutman money.” A good portion of it, apparently, has been used in constructing the new seminary in VA.

This story about the Gutmann family is a real distortion of the facts. It was spread about by some people in Argentina at the start of the Resistance and has led a life of its own ever since.

A branch of the Jєωιѕн Gutmann family of Vienna converted to the Catholic faith in about 1890. One member, an architect, built for the Church in Austria after that, and a descendant, Rosa von Gutmann was a stauch supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX until her death about ten years ago. She gave the SSPX her castle, Schloss Jaidhof, in Austria in 1993 (when Krah was still a boy!) and it was used as the base for the Society's missions to Eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Then she left them a large amount in her will, which is the money in question.

The Rothschild connection is remote. They’re not related, but in the 1860s two Gutmann brothers, with a Rothschild and a Habsburg Archduke, went into partnership to run the first ironworks in Moravia (Czechoslovakia). This was confiscated by Goering in 1938 and then by the Czech Communists after WW2, but there was no connection with the Catholic Gutmanns.

It’s a pity to see a generous supporter of the old SSPX being blamed for the sins of the new!