Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: For Greater Glory on August 18, 2013, 06:22:57 PM
-
Three or four of us spoke with the visiting priest after Mass , today. He's very nice, conservative, young-looking, (don't know how young he is).
I'm simplifying and putting this in my own words because I don't remember everything he said. We talked for one to two hours. 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.
He said Bishop Fellay did talk to the priests about his mistakes, but that it hasn't gotten out to the parishes.
Father also said he is sympathetic to Bishop Williamson, but believes the bishop should have been obedient and shut down E. C. I told Father that when it's a matter of the faith, we must obey God first and doesn't the bishop have the duty to defend the faith? Father looked at me like he was thinking.
I also told father that the resistance priests (the barking dogs) exemplified heroic virtue by warning the flock about an impending deal with the modernist Pope and cardinals. He didn't come out and say it in so many words, but I got the feeling he would expect the resistance priests to come back on their own, because of the agreement in July.
Anyway, I told him Bishop Fellay needs either to step down or make things right with everybody and that we no longer trust or have faith in him, maybe the people who still want to shake hands with modernism.
It was a very enjoyable day!
P. S. Do y'all find it strange when one good priest like Father Morel says you can go to SSPX masses until they mix the novus ordo with the latin and Father Pfeiffer says don't go because they're changing the faith? Like the coordinator said today. Even before Vat. II, priests did not all agree! Amen.
-
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.
Ha. And even supposing it's true they made a deal, what's going to stop him? The other two bishops are more marginalized than before.
The SSPX has its official policy - in favor of a deal.
And they don't need a deal to turn liberal and muzzle and tie the hands of the priests who remain trad.
As for Bishop Williamson, they were going to try to keep him virtually incommunicado for the rest of his life.
You'd have to be rather naive to believe in the good faith of these liberals.
-
I was told that +Fellay demanded that after Fr. Hewko gave his sermon at the ordinations in 2012, that for his act of public rebellion against the SSPX that he needs to give a public apology and then spend a month or two in a monastery in reparation for his "sin".
I think his Excellency would do well to follow his own advice.
MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MAXIMA CULLPA!
-
PS : More secret deals. More negotiations done in the shadows. And once again, in contradiction to the Archbishop, we the faithful do not have a right to know.
-
Even if such a deal was made, would it be kept? Bishop Fellay has been called a liar and a deceiver due to his propensity for politics. Could the two bishops really rely on his word? That would seem imprudent.
-
P. S. Do y'all find it strange when one good priest like Father Morel says you can go to SSPX masses until they mix the novus ordo with the latin and Father Pfeiffer says don't go because they're changing the faith? Like the coordinator said today. Even before Vat. II, priests did not all agree! Amen.
I also spoke to a priest today who is part of the novus ordo church, he is very old, I had told him previously that I wanted to do something religious, but when he asked about it I told him that I don't like the way the main church has gone against what it stands for, he more or less said to me that people respect you when you state your opinion, and interestingly he said that I was "not the only one who has opinions". I got the impression that he was a traditionally minded priest who is forced into novus ordo practice. I made a confession before this and he was saying pray only if you feel like it. It took a bit of digging to get to the fact that he was a traditionally minded person who was forced to hide tradition and act this way. I suspect there are many priests like him who are in the novus ordo who are forced into silence by the atmosphere "spirit" of Vatican 2.
Point is if the SSPX think they can join the conciliar church they are dead wrong, they will be suppressed and silenced by the spirit of the council, and this will dissolve their tradition because continuing it wont be possible. They wont be an oasis of truth, they will be a spring corrupted by the modernists who will then have influence over them. I hope the SSPX doesn't make an agreement, I still look forward to one day going to their TLM.
-
He said Bishop Fellay did talk to the priests about his mistakes, but that it hasn't gotten out to the parishes.
.
If this is what was said, then he sees the doubt, and he is just just loosening the line a little before he yanks it harder. Bishop Fellay actions and letters were public, it requires a public retraction. This isn't a case where a man mistreated a wife, he tells his priest but hasn't spoken to her yet.
-
No doubt the priest was "nice" "conservative" "young-looking." Good for him. The "nithe" can turn "nasty as nαzιs." (Read that last sentence with cultured British accent.) The conservative coin is flipped to reveal the liberal side. The young looking belies naivete and will give way to sag and wrinkles. I do not judge or deny the sincerity of this visiting priest. Look instead at his formation. Who are his superiors? That is who he will likely become barring special graces being granted him.
Pray for him, yes. Pray for SSPX, yes. Rely on them for salvation? Hardly! That's why God gave us the Faith. That which does not align with the Faith is not of God. THINK AND ACT FOR YOURSELF, IF YOU HAVE THE FAITH. The days of "pray, pay, obey" are OVER. They are not coming back until the Church reigns once more triumphant. They will close the Gate of Heaven and prop open wide the Gates of Hell.
How EASILY the resisting backbone turns to mush!
IMO, Bp. W. will not, cannot, assume leadership for the "Resistance" because the vast majority of the resistors are sheeple at heart. H.E. knows that upon his death, the wolves will leap the fence to devour. And God will charge him with the loss of souls.
-
My own view is that we need to really cool our jets. Keep vigilant - yes. But this constant eyeballing the priests waiting for something heretical to happen will just tire us out. We'll be so worn out that if something truly heretical happens (not likely at all) that we'll either be catching up on our sleep or think we're seeing things from lack of sleep.
I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.
-
I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.
Did you leave out a word?
-
The SSPX has said goodbye to the past; there is no going back. No more 'nasty nαzιs' in its ranks and no more hardliners evoking the Church as something other than what now passes for her in Rome. The policy is there is only the post-V2 church and ultimate integration with her is the only game in town.
With or without a deal short-term, the Society is reforming itself. Trendy PR exercises will showcase handsome young priests pouring out of branded seminaries keen to befriend the world instead of condemning it. Lefebvre's war against modernism has been abandoned: it now has to be accommodated.
I am sure there will be many older priests praying for their retirement to come soon. Along with countless laymen, they will say it is too late for them to return to those early pioneering days and endure another round of discomfort. Instead they will rely on what is familiar and filter out the new. As one old lady said to me outside a church recently: "I only come here for the Latin Mass"!
-
P. S. Do y'all find it strange when one good priest like Father Morel says you can go to SSPX masses until they mix the novus ordo with the latin and Father Pfeiffer says don't go because they're changing the faith? Like the coordinator said today. Even before Vat. II, priests did not all agree! Amen.
What do you mean, 'mix the NO with the Latin?' Do you mean start performing the NO in the chapel? The line has to be drawn before then, because the amount of compromises required to get to the point where a NO could be performed in an SSPX chapel without a riot is expansive. I don't even think the accordistas are ready for the NO service to invade their chapel.
-
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.
No deal was made - this is good.
Bishop Fellay has, according to the OP, apoligized and come to an agreement with the other two bishops - this is good.
The SSPX is standing firm for the Traditional Catholic faith - this is good.
The sermons, even from Fr. Scott (he visited our parish) are rock solid in the Catholic faith - this is good.
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. Why the SSPX engages in these conversations with Rome is probably one for the psychotherapists to figure out.
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.
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.
-
For Greater Glory said:
P. S. Do y'all find it strange when one good priest like Father Morel says you can go to SSPX masses until they mix the novus ordo with the latin and Father Pfeiffer says don't go because they're changing the faith? Like the coordinator said today. Even before Vat. II, priests did not all agree! Amen.
Mithrandylan said:
What do you mean, 'mix the NO with the Latin?' Do you mean start performing the NO in the chapel? The line has to be drawn before then, because the amount of compromises required to get to the point where a NO could be performed in an SSPX chapel without a riot is expansive. I don't even think the accordistas are ready for the NO service to invade their chapel.
This is what the coordinator told me yesterday. I think your response is very good. I agree!
-
Moved from another thread:
Correction: Not a New Development in the SSPX, Talk with Fr. Pfeiffer
In the other thread, I told about my talk with the SSPX priest yesterday. I just got off the phone with Fr. Pfeiffer. He knows this priest. Father says he wants to believe that everything is o.k., that the priest is actually referring to the
June 27th declaration ......
I told Father how hard it is to make it to chapels elsewhere. He said don't think about it, just go and from what happened yesterday, you can see that it's a real danger to your soul and how long would you be able to resist these things. I think it was Father Girouard who said we must do more for God! Please say 3 Hail Marys for me! Kyrie Eleison
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I think everything is fine in the SSPX but I do understand the concern others have.
Wow, take off the rose-colored glasses!
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.