Author Topic: New Development with the SSPX (Read 4596 times)

resistanceman · « **Reply #15 on:** August 19, 2013, 04:19:11 PM »

Add Capt McQuigg to your buddy list Send an email to Capt McQuigg Send a personal messsage to Capt McQuigg Ignore all posts by Capt McQuigg Click to Like this post by Capt McQuigg0 Click to Dislike this post by Capt McQuigg0 Reply with a quote from this post Delete this single post by Capt McQuigg Go to the top of the page
Frances said:
Capt McQuigg said:

I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.

Did you leave out a word?

I didn't. You are a fool.

No deal was made - this is good. No deal was not for the want of trying on Bishop Fellay's part. He went to Rome, dressed in his finest, looking to consummate his love and was rejected. How could anyone , apart from fools, think that Fellay came out of these talks with anything other than a red face is beyond comprehension. No deal. He was jilted. It will only make him try harder. Indeed he has told Rome that he will.

Bishop Fellay has, according to the OP, apoligized and come to an agreement with the other two bishops - this is good. For whom? Not for the souls of the Faithful. Perhaps it eases the minds of the 2 Bishops and that they won't feel such abject cowards. Fellay is a politician, he has mastered the art of being all things to all people.

The SSPX is standing firm for the Traditional Catholic faith - this is good. Not if Father Theeman's response to "Resistance to What" is anything to go by.

The sermons, even from Fr. Scott (he visited our parish) are rock solid in the Catholic faith - this is good. Hmm, rock solid, in Spirituality?. Did he preach fire and Brimstone did he mention Hell or the perfidy of Jєωs?

The above is all relational and would be null and void if the SSPX turned around and made a deal with Rome. They have not done this. Give Fellay time, He has not stopped trying. He wants the "plum" that is Rome. Why the SSPX engages in these conversations with Rome is probably one for the psychotherapists to figure out. Psychotherapists? A time in a Monastery with a penitent heart is all Bishop Fellay needs.

One thing to consider. The novus ordo is very adept at psy ops. They can plant stories in the mainstream media to make it look like the SSPX is willing to make a deal and that soon a deal with be made. They can even plant stories making it look like Bishop Fellay is engaging in duplicitious activities - which he isn't.

The novus ordo has NOTHING to lose by engaging in these tactics. The last session cost the SSPX one (1) bishop and up to 43 or so priests (all validly ordained). So the New Vatican should consider that a big win. I don't discuss NO. I don't deal with devils.

Bishop Fellay should announce a moratorium on any agreement for the foreseeable future and reach out to the priests of the resistance in an act of reconciliation of some sort. He won't. You can take that to the Bank. Ditch all these years of how to do it talks with GREC, not on your nelly.

hugeman · « **Reply #16 on:** August 19, 2013, 05:38:23 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuin:

I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.

[/quote

Capt, please tellmr dome one hacked your account; or someone put a gun to your head
Smd told you to type; or you mistakenly picked up the jug labeled " SSPX Kool Aid" Sunday after Mass. Just please don't tell me, that after all these months, you have fallen for the lies.

Sienna629 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 19, 2013, 05:44:16 PM »

Quote from: For Greater Glory

We discussed the SSPX-Rome issue. Father said in July the two bishops made an agreement with Bishop Fellay, whether it's oral or written I don't know, that Bishop Fellay will not be able to do something like this on his own in the future.

July of what year? 2012? 2013?

The reason I ask is that I thought there was something to that effect (about +Fellay not being to act single-handedly on any new agreement, but rather, having to call another General Chapter to vote on it) in the General Chapter notes from July 2012.

So is this some new agreement, or just a re-hash of the 2012 statement?

Sienna629 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 19, 2013, 05:51:52 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.

Wow, take off the rose-colored glasses!

Sienna629 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2013, 05:58:08 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

What do you mean, 'mix the NO with the Latin?' Do you mean start performing the NO in the chapel?

No, I think he meant little things borrowed from the Novus Ordo and gradually mixed in, like maybe holding hands at the Our Father or something, not a full-blown Novus Ordo service ILO the TLM.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2013, 06:00:14 PM »

Quote from: resistanceman

No deal was made - this is good. No deal was not for the want of trying on Bishop Fellay's part. He went to Rome, dressed in his finest, looking to consummate his love and was rejected. How could anyone , apart from fools, think that Fellay came out of these talks with anything other than a red face is beyond comprehension. No deal. He was jilted. It will only make him try harder. Indeed he has told Rome that he will.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and the fact that you referenced the novus ordo apparatus as "devil's" is always a plus in my book but, how do you know what Bishop Fellay's actions and interior response was in this case? Unless you were assisting him in preparing for his meetings with Rome, you would not be privy to what was actually happening.

In either this thread or another one, I mentioned the fact that the Vatican can easily engage in psy-ops. Being a large internationalist organization, and being friendly with masonic groups, the Vatican can easily plant false stories in newspapers. These stories will have some truths mingled in but the purpose of these news stories is to demoralize or to trip up the SSPX or any traditionalist group.

From the SSPX point of view, perhaps Bishop Fellay does have some ulterior motives but are we sure these are to the detriment of the SSPX? Not being pollyanna-ish here but by engaging in these negotiations and getting the press that accompanies it could lead novus ordites who are at least moderately curious into an SSPX chapel just to visit only to decide to stay.

The deal is off. Let's celebrate that.

I wish the Resistance all the luck in the world. If they would form a solid Traditional Catholic Organization, I would would be happy.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2013, 06:03:21 PM »

Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Capt McQuin:

I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.

[/quote

Capt, please tellmr dome one hacked your account; or someone put a gun to your head
Smd told you to type; or you mistakenly picked up the jug labeled " SSPX Kool Aid" Sunday after Mass. Just please don't tell me, that after all these months, you have fallen for the lies.

Fortunately my account wasn't hacked but please don't assume I'm merely drinking the Kool Aid.

I don't disagree with the resistance guys.

Since I'm not privy to the insider information, I could be wildly inaccurate in my assessments.

resistanceman · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2013, 06:57:05 PM »

Add Capt McQuigg to your buddy list Send an email to Capt McQuigg Send a personal messsage to Capt McQuigg Ignore all posts by Capt McQuigg Click to Like this post by Capt McQuigg0 Click to Dislike this post by Capt McQuigg0 Reply with a quote from this post Delete this single post by Capt McQuigg Go to the top of the page
resistanceman said:
No deal was made - this is good. No deal was not for the want of trying on Bishop Fellay's part. He went to Rome, dressed in his finest, looking to consummate his love and was rejected. How could anyone , apart from fools, think that Fellay came out of these talks with anything other than a red face is beyond comprehension. No deal. He was jilted. It will only make him try harder. Indeed he has told Rome that he will.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and the fact that you referenced the novus ordo apparatus as "devil's" is always a plus in my book but, how do you know what Bishop Fellay's actions and interior response was in this case? Unless you were assisting him in preparing for his meetings with Rome, you would not be privy to what was actually happening. Cap'n, nor do you. However if one reads and listens to what has been said and done one can make a reasonable assumption provided one is not a fool. Bishop Fellay changes his tune more often than a banjo player. He wanted the deal. Fellay is a proven liar, all I want to hear from him is "I'm sorry, I'm off to a monastery and taking my henchmen with me. I can't speak for Max but I am sure he has something fixed up. He has the contacts."

In either this thread or another one, I mentioned the fact that the Vatican can easily engage in psy-ops. Being a large internationalist organization, and being friendly with masonic groups, the Vatican can easily plant false stories in newspapers. These stories will have some truths mingled in but the purpose of these news stories is to demoralize or to trip up the SSPX or any traditionalist group. Don't try tell a Scotsman about the Masons we revived them from the Templars.

From the SSPX point of view, perhaps Bishop Fellay does have some ulterior motives but are we sure these are to the detriment of the SSPX? YES Not being pollyanna-ish here but by engaging in these negotiations and getting the press that accompanies it could lead novus ordites who are at least moderately curious into an SSPX chapel just to visit only to decide to stay.

The deal is off. Let's celebrate that. Bishop Fellay isn't. He is doing his best to get it back on.

I wish the Resistance all the luck in the world. If they would form a solid Traditional Catholic Organization, They will, we are in the best hands of Bishop W, Father P et al. I would would be happy.Bite the bullet, open your eyes and ears.

hugeman · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2013, 07:41:55 PM »

Quote from: Sienna629

Quote from: For Greater Glory

We discussed the SSPX-Rome issue. Father said in July the two bishops made an agreement with Bishop Fellay, whether it's oral or written I don't know, that Bishop Fellay will not be able to do something like this on his own in the future.

July of what year? 2012? 2013?

The reason I ask is that I thought there was something to that effect (about +Fellay not being to act single-handedly on any new agreement, but rather, having to call another General Chapter to vote on it) in the General Chapter notes from July 2012.

So is this some new agreement, or just a re-hash of the 2012 statement?

Sorry, dear people--
It really makes no difference when any agreement was struck with +TdM and +AdG, as it
Is now firmly established SSPX doctrine that those two are
Only work mules for Fellay, because , of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre
And Bishop deMeyerZ, only Fellay received the. " grace
of state" to make decisions regarding the SSPX and Rome.
In fact, deMallerais, certainly no general himself, admonished
Fr. Chazal to 'just do your work, obey, follow orders, and let the
Generals ( Fellay, Krah and Co.) run thr Society.'

So, any reputed agreement with those bishops is meaningless, even before
You consider the SSPX management's constant lies
and double-talking the past ten years.
If Fellay believes, as he publicly stated, that the Archbishop only opposed
the Vatican II docuмents" because he never read them", them, and that
"religious liberty can be tolerated( which is objectively a mortal sin)", then there is hardly
any deal or agreement that Fellay won't make to pursue his goals-- even knowing before hand he will break it.

As Rostand, Fellay and LeRoux have amply demonstrated these past several years, they have adopted the principles of liberalism-- the end justifies the means. With this principle painted up as. " prudence," we can pursue an agreement with heretics, sodomites, and anti-Catholics, as long as they give us the respectability we so urgently crave-- and the other three bishops have no grace of state to opine on the matter.

hugeman · « **Reply #24 on:** August 19, 2013, 08:37:17 PM »

Quote from: Sienna629

Quote from: For Greater Glory

We discussed the SSPX-Rome issue. Father said in July the two bishops made an agreement with Bishop Fellay, whether it's oral or written I don't know, that Bishop Fellay will not be able to do something like this on his own in the future.

July of what year? 2012? 2013?

The reason I ask is that I thought there was something to that effect (about +Fellay not being to act single-handedly on any new agreement, but rather, having to call another General Chapter to vote on it) in the General Chapter notes from July 2012.

So is this some new agreement, or just a re-hash of the 2012 statement?

Sorry, dear people--
It really makes no difference when any agreement was struck with +TdM and +AdG, as it
Is now firmly established SSPX doctrine that those two are
Only work mules for Fellay, because , of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre
And Bishop deMeyerZ, only Fellay received the. " grace
of state" to make decisions regarding the SSPX and Rome.
In fact, deMallerais, certainly no general himself, admonished
Fr. Chazal to 'just do your work, obey, follow orders, and let the
Generals ( Fellay, Krah and Co.) run thr Society.'

So, any reputed agreement with those bishops is meaningless, even before
You consider the SSPX management's constant lies
and double-talking the past ten years.
If Fellay believes, as he publicly stated, that the Archbishop only opposed
the Vatican II docuмents" because he never read them", them, and that
"religious liberty can be tolerated( which is objectively a mortal sin)", then there is hardly
any deal or agreement that Fellay won't make to pursue his goals-- even knowing before hand he will break it.

As Rostand, Fellay and LeRoux have amply demonstrated these past several years, they have adopted the principles of liberalism-- the end justifies the means. With this principle painted up as. " prudence," we can pursue an agreement with heretics, sodomites, and anti-Catholics, as long as they give us the respectability we so urgently crave-- and the other three bishops have no grace of state to opine on the matter.

For Greater Glory · « **Reply #25 on:** August 19, 2013, 08:47:39 PM »

I was afraid this would happen. Everyone, please see my correction on page 3. Spoke with Fr. Pfeiffer today. He said the priest is referring to the June 27th declaration that Bishop de Mallerais and Bishop de Galerreta went along with. He said the priest just wants to believe that everything is o. k.
Sorry about all this, but I guess this is one of the dangers to which Fr. Pfeiffer is referring.

For Greater Glory · « **Reply #26 on:** August 19, 2013, 08:55:05 PM »

For Greater Glory said:

We discussed the SSPX-Rome issue. Father said in July the two bishops made an agreement with Bishop Fellay, whether it's oral or written I don't know, that Bishop Fellay will not be able to do something like this on his own in the future.

Sienna 629 said:
July of what year? 2012? 2013?

The reason I ask is that I thought there was something to that effect (about +Fellay not being to act single-handedly on any new agreement, but rather, having to call another General Chapter to vote on it) in the General Chapter notes from July 2012.

So is this some new agreement, or just a re-hash of the 2012 statement?

Sienna, Father Pfeiffer told me that the priest is referring to the June 27th declaration, even though the priest mentioned July and no year. Sorry about all this.