I still don't understand why Bishop Fellay wasn't voted out at the last chapter meeting.  Instead, they ostracized Bishop Williamson instead of letting him speak at the meeting.  Isn't a chapter meeting is to get together and discuss issues?   Our Lord said, that the truth shall set us free.

               Lemmee-see ............ this thread is about what won't be told
                     at the local parishes, correct?  Correct.  Therefore....

I have sent a small donation today to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel church. Vote with your wallet.

If ten thousand faithful sent 'small donations' we could crush the iron fist of
the Menzingen-denizens.  

I'm hoping others will join me in prayer and fasting to remove +Fellay, and I
hope that Matthew can step up to the plate and give his authoritative (as forum
owner) blessing to this concept, but we can all do our part by sending 'small
donations' as we can afford to OLMCC or to dinoscopus.org to help the good
bishop, or both.

The conspicuous silence at the parish level is a spill-over from the Communist
tactics of the Menzingen-denizens when they punish anyone they can who breaks
the silence.  That is their key contention against the Eleison Comments, it was
telling the story that +Fellay does not want told, even though it is the same story
that ABL would have told were he still alive (Okay, NeelyAnn -- attack me now!!).

But of what does this 'exclusion' of +W consist, in reality?  According to +W's
OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY ON AN "EXCLUSION," it does not consist of
any real exclusion of +W from being an SSPX bishop, for he has committed no
objective crime in the moral order nor against faith.  All it means is, that the
Menzingen-denizens will no longer send him a check every month!



                                          Say what?



That's right, and please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong.  But +W's message is
not always literally what you see, but what you're SUPPOSED to see when you
read between the lines.  Why do you think he prefaced this Greatest Letter Yet
of his the week before with a mind-boggling EC that nobody could immediately
figure out??  Well, that would be because he was warming us up, as in a
rehearsal, for the real test, the test of being able to interpret the true message
of his OPEN LETTER, so we could understand him without him having to say it,
for what he would have had to say would give +Fellay et. al. even more grist
for their ill will mill of contumely and repression against the Truth of God.  
(Cf. the LETTER, 'kick God upstairs')

But it seems to me that this will not be told at the local parishes.......................



It seems to me that this is true.

It seems to me that Bishop Williamson is still an SSPX bishop.

It seems to me that +Fellay and his office help have no power to 'exclude' him.

It seems to me that this ruse is all window-dressing.

It seems to me that this 'exclusion' is no more valid than the invalid excoms of 1988.

It seems to me that this will not be told in the local parishes.

It seems to me that the only REAL exclusion consists in +Williamson being 'cut off'
of the monthly stipend or whatever it's called, from the Menzingen-denizens and
the crypto-whatever-he-is, M. Krah,  and that is the END of it.

But just as +Fellay et. al. have no power to truthfully 'kick +W out' of the Society,
so too (depending on US, THAT IS) they have no power to exclude him from his
monthly stipend or whatever-you-want-to-call-it.   We have that power, you and I.

You and I have the power to give +W the financial backing he needs and that
for which +Fellay et. al. have MADE THEMSELVES ineligible.  

SAY THAT AGAIN?

That's right, I said:  +Fellay et. al. have made themselves ineligible for our donations.


We have the power, and +Fellay and his office help DO NOT have the power.

So they lie.   They tell you from the pulpit that it is a 'mortal sin' to use the Internet.     :roll-laugh1:   :really-mad2:   :roll-laugh1:  

And nothing makes a tyrant more mad than when he is rightly ridiculed and
laughed at.  Most of them would KILL in retaliation, but hey, we already know that
"not even Joseph Stalin would have engaged the moral crimes that +Fellay has
now engaged," by telling us it is a 'mortal sin to use the Internet' and go on sites
such as Ignis Ardens.  Well, IMHO, that included CI, which see.....  HAHAHAHA

You and I have the power.



Let us use it!  


And thank God for the privilege!!!

The only priest I ever heard address the issue from the pulpit (within the SSPX) was Father Brendan Dardis.  He noted that Bishop Williamson was someone he had very high esteem for, that his own views on event in question changed several times, and that Bishop Williamson couldn't travel because of the harassment and press attention he was receiving.  That was back in 2009, several weeks after the lifting of the excommunications.

Of course, now they will try to blot him out by ignoring him.  But we will not ignore him.  I don't think there is any need for the good bishop to try and draw undue attention to himself.

Catholic Tradition needs the help of the other bishops now, in support of Bishop Williamson.  It would be best that there be at least two bishops when they have episcopal consecrations.

Pretty sure directions were given throughout the world not to address the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the pulpit.

I spoke with an SSPX priest ho told me hey have been forbidden to view Cathinfo and Ignis Arden's.

He also told me that they were directed not to preach on anything touching upon the crisis in the SSPX, nd instead focus their sermons (like the FSSP) on the virtues.

So no surprise there was no mention of the expulsion anywhere in the universe.

Just as Rome tried to combat ABL with silence in the media, Menzingen appears to have been well coached by its new Roman friends in the use of the same tactic against Bishop Williamson.

It's very disturbing to read this. Hopefully more people speak to the priest next Sunday and ask what is going on? Bishop Williamson has been expelled and the discussions have not ended. There is only so much the faithful will take. Menzingen are treating people like complete fools.

When a real persecution comes and it will, I wouldn't like to be dependant on Bishop Fellay and his gang.


Bishop Williamson
"Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, Modernism and Rome

Conference 3"

It’s sweetie-pie but it’s not good enough. Catholics have got to stand for the rights of God.

“We must not waver. Well,” says the Archbishop in 1990, “we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight.”

Since 1990 to 2012, that’s another 22 years of the fight getting heavier and heavier. It’s not getting easier.

“We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of popes. Hence we should have no hesitation or fear.”

In other words, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome? Why not join the Pope, especially if the Pope says he wants us to do stuff for him? The Pope is nice and we’re nice and everybody’s nice, and we’ll all have a nice party together, and everything will be nice in the garden. Why not?”

Little Red Riding Hood - “Oh, Mr Wolf, what nice, big teeth you have.” “All the better to gobble you up with, my dear.”

Rome is crammed with Freemasons. They’re wolves. These Romans of today are wolves, just as much as ever. They hate the Church. They hate Our Lord.

Why not join Rome? Why not join the Pope? Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition. If Rome was back in line, no problem at all, but Rome is way out of line. If they were carrying on the work of the great popes of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, of course, but they themselves admit that they’ve set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. You’d better believe it. The great mass of the Church swung off track. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church’s life based on new principles. You’d better believe it. We don’t need to argue the point. They say it themselves. It’s clear.

“I think that we must drive this point home with our people in such a way that they realise that if they stay on line they’re in line with the whole history of the Church, going well back beyond the Revolution, of course. It’s the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God clearly, so we don’t have to worry. We must, after all, trust in the grace of God.

“Another question that the laity ask – ‘Well, how is it all going to end?’”

The Archbishop says, “Look, I don't know.” Even the Archbishop didn’t know the answer to that question. “It’s God’s problem. It’s not our problem. It’s His Church. What’s He going to do with His Church? I don't know. I’m not God. But I do know that here and now this is the line we have to stay in.”

We cannot go tiptoeing through the tulips.

“‘What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?’ That is God’s secret,” says the Archbishop. “A mystery, but we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome, coming from the Pope’s own mouth, Cardinal Ratzinger’s mouth, Cardinal Casaroli’s mouth. It’s clear, because all they do is repeat the opposite of what the popes have said and solemnly stated for 150 years. We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI, ‘We have to choose between you and the Council on the one side and all your predecessors on the other side. The one is a straight line and the other is bent all out of shape - either with your predecessors who stated the Church’s teaching or with the novelties of Vatican II.’ Reply of Paul VI – ‘Ah, this is not the moment to get into theology. We are not getting into theology now.’”

These liberals do not think. They don’t want to get into doctrine. They don’t want to study the real questions. It’s just feeling.

“Hence we must not waver for one moment, either,” and this is an interesting section, “in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbour’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side.”

After all, we must be charitable! We must be kind! We must not be divisive! After all, St Peter’s and the Institute of Christ the King and the Institute of the Good Shepherd, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass! They’re not as bad as everyone says because they’ve got the Tridentine Mass!

“They are betraying us,” says the Archbishop. Yes, Institute of Christ the King, which didn’t exist then, Institute of the Good Shepherd, St Peter’s - they are betraying us. For goodness sake, don’t flirt with people who have abandoned the fight. They are not our real friends. They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. What about all the SSPXers currently going down to Rome, and I’ll bet you every time they meet the Pope or the Cardinal or whoever it is, they’re shaking hands with them. They’re shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. Stop and think. What the Archbishop is saying makes sense. They are shaking hands with people holding Modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. St Peter’s, the Institute of Christ the King, and so on, God knows their intentions, I don’t have to judge, but objectively they’re doing the Devil’s work because they’ve compromised. They’re agents of compromise, and you can’t lovey-dovey with agents of compromise. You may like them personally, but the Faith is on the line. The Faith is at stake.

“Thus, those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ But we’re seeing how it works out. They’re in an impossible situation.”

That’s true today for the Institute of the Good Shepherd and St Peter’s. They’re trying to defend Tradition when their bosses are telling them, “You can’t defend Tradition.” They’re between a rock and a hard place. The Archbishop never wanted to get into that situation, and he refused to get into that situation, and now these leaders of the SSPX are wanting to get into that situation. It doesn’t make sense. They’ve lost the plot. Listen to the other side. Make up your own minds.

“Stay in touch with them to bring them back to Tradition, yes, if you like. That’s the right kind of ecuмenism, but give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them – no way. These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists.”

They are living, they’re getting with Rome, they’re with the times, they’re acceptable, they’re drinkable, and they’re OK! We are, oh dear, we’re retrograde and we’re backwards! They condescend to shake hands with us, but they don’t deserve it, says the Archbishop.

“They say ours is not a living Tradition; we are glum-faced; ours is a glum Tradition.”

Unbelievable, unimaginable. What kind of relations can you have with people like that, with these softies who compromise, who are proud of having put themselves under Rome, but who, since they’ve put themselves under Rome, are no longer capable of defending Tradition, of attacking Vatican II, for instance? That’s the key point. “Oh, it’s all right if you preach spirituality, if you say that God is good and God is nice and we must all behave ourselves” - no problem, but if you say that Vatican II was a bunch of doo-doo, then, of course, the Romans, they’ll come down. If you start behaving like a man and attacking the errors then they come out all guns blazing.

“This is what causes the problem with certain lay folk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the consecrations but who have a kind of deep-down regret they’re no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the consecrations, who are now against us. ‘It’s a pity we’re divided,’ they say. ‘Why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together. Let’s reach out a hand to them.’” Archbishop’s comment – “That’s a betrayal. Those saying this give the impression at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us.”

You’ve got to make up your mind, says the Archbishop, you’ve got to choose. It’s one or the other.

“That is what killed Christendom in all of Europe, not just the Church in France but the Church in Germany, in Switzerland. That is what enabled the Revolution to get established. Catholics being soft on the revolutionaries, Catholics going out of their way to please the revolutionaries - the revolutionaries used that in order to advance the Revolution. It was the liberals, it was those who reached out a hand to people who did not share their Catholic principles. We’ve got to make up our minds if we, too, want to collaborate in the destruction of the Church and in the ruin of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, or are we resolved to continue working for the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? All those who wish to join us and work with us, Deo gratias, we welcome them wherever they come from. That’s not a problem, but let them come with us. Let them not say that they’re going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them.”

Not possible. It’s absolutely logical. It doesn’t mean to say obviously treat the compromisers like dirt. No, obviously not, but it does say you don’t behave with them as though they’re still the friends that they once were, as though there’s no danger mixing with them, as though they’re just as good as they were before. No.

Catholics right down the 19th century were torn apart, literally torn apart, over the Syllabus, for, against, for, against. Remember in particular what happened to the Count of Chambord. He was criticised for not accepting to be made of King of France after the 1870 revolution in France on the grounds of changing the French flag. In 1871 the French lost the Franco-Prussian War. The loss was a very sobering experience for the French, and there was a movement back to saner ideas, away from liberalism, back towards the monarchy, back towards the Church. That’s when they built the great Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Montmartre. That basilica was built as an act of reparation after the French got a really bloody nose from the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Then the French offered the lawful heir to the French throne, they offered him back the throne, but the Freemasons made sure that there’d be conditions attached, that he’d have to take the nationalist, Masonic flag. He said no. It was not much a question of the flag. Rather, he refused to submit to the principles of the Revolution, because the bad guys succeeded in having the offer of the throne back to the lawful monarch so dressed up that he’d have to make a compromise in order to take the throne back. He said, “No compromise. I’d rather not be king than a compromised king,” and the Archbishop said he was quite right. You can’t fool around with principles. He said, “I shall never consent to being the lawful king of the Revolution.” He was right. He would have been voted in by the country, voted in by the French parliament, but on condition that he accepted to be a parliamentary king and so accept the principles of the Revolution. The Count of Chambord said, “If I am to be king, I shall be king like my ancestors were before the Revolution.” He was right. One has to choose. He chose to stay with the Pope and with the pre-revolutionary principles. He refused to compromise.

“We, too,” says the Archbishop, “have chosen to be counter-revolutionary, to stay with the Syllabus, to be against the modern errors, to stay with Catholic Truth, to defend Catholic Truth. We are right, not because we are the SSPX.”

Look at what the SSPX is now doing. The SSPX is perfectly capable of going crazy.

“It’s not because we’re the SSPX that we’re right. We’re right because we’re in line with the Church of twenty centuries.”

That’s why we’re right, in that straight line, and we’re not wanting to swing over to the left.

If the Bristol conference could be given to half a dozen more people here and there it would help. Bishop Fellay and his gang are worried for certain. They might want to dance through the tulips towards the wolves but others in their wisdom do not.

More and more people at parish level will say enough is enough. Majority of people are against the agreement. Bishop Fellay has wrecked the SSPX.

I agree with Bishop Williamson when he stated he (Bishop Fellay) has betrayed the heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre.

The traditional consecration prayer for this feast was also not said.

Do you mean the prayer after the procession?

I recall the part about the Jews not being read aloud in 2010 by the French priest.

the silence shows the contempt for the laity.... all is served on a need to know basis.... they dont need (us) and we dont need to know.... and even if we know..... what are we going to do about it...

Quote from: stgobnait

the silence shows the contempt for the laity.... all is served on a need to know basis.... they dont need (us) and we dont need to know.... and even if we know..... what are we going to do about it...

Father Rostand said the doctrinal preamble was none of the laity's business.  I suppose the expulsion of one of Archbishop Lefebvre's four chosen bishops isn't their business either.

So what is their business?

Isn't the justification for the lawful disobedience of the SSPX and the laity who attend its masses without the authorization of their ordinary its resistance to modernist Rome?

I would think the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and its current orientation relative to that of its founder would be THEIR BUSINESS.

Almost all the SSPX chapels were independent at one time, and they invited in the SSPX to take them over in exchange for a priest to fly in once a week. Now, what happens from there is as Fr. Rostand said "none of the laity's business"? I see the Neo-SSPX as THIEVES! The are trying to steal our chapels.