Author Topic: Setting the record straight (Read 3172 times)

Sienna629 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:06:03 PM »

Quote

Wessex,

If the majority of SSPX faithful are willing to believe leaders
who tell them that "white is black", then they are doomed.
Let's regroup and move on to the catacombs.

Very well said! The Lord is culling the ranks.

stgobnait · « **Reply #16 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:17:44 PM »

i understand the damage is already done, whether BF signs or not, but i am fearful of a new departure, with unknown entidies, i hope priests we knew, have not turned into 'stepfords', and will recall the trust and high esteem we held them in... and not abandon us, the couragous frs pfeiffer and chazal seem to be the only hope we have, but they cannot be everywhere.... what to do....... perplexed....

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #17 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:22:41 PM »

I'd like to caution against painting everyone with a too-broad brush. How can
you complain that a pastor is demanding everyone believe that black is white
and white is black, and then come into this forum and proclaim that all SSPX
faithful are rich, spoiled, mindless and worldly?

I know several SSPX faithful whom I really would consider possible saints.

And likewise some independent chapel people who are quite holy. And also
some sedevacantists who are models of virtue.

It's not difficult to recall the days when the local parish was a center for everything
Catholic and so many parishoners were such good people. But we do not have
that anymore, do we? And the day may soon come when we don't have that
in the SSPX either, but I really don't think it's quite that bad yet. But it seems
to be moving in that direction..........................

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #18 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:34:06 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

i understand the damage is already done, whether BF signs or not, but i am fearful of a new departure, with unknown entidies, i hope priests we knew, have not turned into 'stepfords', and will recall the trust and high esteem we held them in... and not abandon us, the couragous frs pfeiffer and chazal seem to be the only hope we have, but they cannot be everywhere.... what to do....... perplexed....

There are a lot of good priests around. In the SSPX they are a bit reticent right
now, and understandably so. They would have to all rise up together and form
a united front against +Fellay. What's the chance of that happening? Hmmm......

These are intelligent men and their first concern is their flocks. If they run off
getting tied up in politics, how can they best serve the sacramental needs of
their faithful?? By e-mail??!!

E-faithful? E-gads!

Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal do seem to have a very prominent fighting spirit, and
combined with a willingness to organize and to act on principles. I sense that
they are putting out the word, and so other priests will know that there is a
refuge in Kentucky, and perhaps a beginning of a center for development of
the Faith in the face of devastating doctrinal storms worldwide.

After they gain 12 priests they're going to need a bishop.......... A-hhem............

stgobnait · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:53:03 PM »

i pray more will join them, but their silence does not fill me with hope....im sure there will be more centers of refuge other than kentucky for them, in the meantime, give me names.....

Telesphorus · « **Reply #20 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:57:04 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I'd like to caution against painting everyone with a too-broad brush.

No one is painting everyone with too broad a brush.

There are certain types, who clearly exercise decisive influence. That is the problem.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** September 25, 2012, 06:13:58 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

i pray more will join them, but their silence does not fill me with hope....im sure there will be more centers of refuge other than kentucky for them, in the meantime, give me names.....

I truly hope you don't expect us to supply the names of individuals who are trying
to keep some privacy about their work, for security's sake. In the "great"
chastisements of the Church, any enemy with such a list could make a fast
buck for himself as a headhunter.

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Neil Obstat
I'd like to caution against painting everyone with a too-broad brush.

No one is painting everyone with too broad a brush.

There are certain types, who clearly exercise decisive influence. That is the problem.

Certain types............. let me guess ...........................

Cristera · « **Reply #22 on:** September 25, 2012, 07:26:45 PM »

Some "Did Bishop Fellay really said that?" quotes. The links in AngelQueen don't work anymore.

Quote

These are direct quotes taken from an interview. Do you really think H.E. was misquoted?

QUOTE (Paterfamilias)

I would like to think so. But maybe it's wishful thinking.

Yes, I am hoping the same thing. Although the more these things happen, the harder it is getting...

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6565&view=findpost&p=9645184

hmmm... Apparently +BF has been using the erroneous "reenter the Church" lingo for a while now. Just saw this (N.B. from 2007):

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lef...ot_interpreted/

QUOTE

Lefebrivists demand Council be “corrected,” not interpreted

Rome, Italy, Oct 30, 2007 / 01:05 pm (CNA).- In an interview with Italian journalist Paolo Luigi Rodari, the author of the blog “Palazzo Apostolico,” Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, said the schismatic movement demands not only a “correct interpretation” of Vatican II, but that the Council docuмents actually be changed.

Fellay defended his fellow excommunicated bishop, Ricard Williamson, identified by some in the media as leader of the “intransigent wing” of the fraternity. Fellay said, “Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to the Church as it currently is.”

“The reasons are simple,” Fellay said, because “Benedict XVI has liberalized the ancient rite,” yet he has been criticized “by the majority of the bishops.” “What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?” he said.

“In addition to the ancient rite,” he continued, “the problem for us is the words Pope Benedict has dedicated to Vatican II,” because “the rupture with the past is directly related, unfortunately, to some texts of Vatican II and these texts, in some way, should be revised.”

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation),” Fellay went on. He cited as an example the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. According to Fellay, the docuмent subjects the Church to the authority of the State. “In my opinion it should be the opposite: the State should submit to the Catholic faith and recognize that it is the religion of the State.”

Fellay said he has maintained ongoing correspondence with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, “but no common working docuмent exists yet.” “I remain confident, however, because all of our contact up to this point has been excellent,” he said.

Although there is some good in this interview (at least back then he said he was in agreement with +W), there sure is a lot of ... let's say, imprecision... The "In my opinion" is unnecessary in the sentence about the State submitting to the Catholic Faith. And of course the reason to not make a deal with Rome is not to avoid being insulted.

Plus, I saw a thread on AQ where this lingo had people wondering:
http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic....34cd2ee5e4fd8f8
"It is a good question, though; why exactly is it that they would want to refer to themselves as ones who would contemplate re-entering the Church? Unless there is a problem in the translation or a missing context, this is a pretty heavy statement with a very heavy presumption behind it."
"If not a poor translation, then at least an unfortunate choice of words by Bishop Fellay, who in a recent Angelus interview said that a passage from the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificuм indicates that the Pope considers them to be inside the Church. There are also the materials offered on the SSPX website defending the Society as not being in schism, hardly a position to take for people who consider themselves outside the Church.

Now, some of the Ecuмaniacs infected with the "spirit of Vatican II" seem to be able to consider people to be both inside and outside the Church at the same time, but this requires a type of mental deficiency that I don't think Bishop Fellay has. If the translation was not in error, I can only assume that by "re-entering", he meant re-establishing a regularized canonical status. "
"There is absolutely no way on God's green Earth that Bishop Fellay thinks he is outside the Church, and in need of re-entry, in any way. A reading of any of his bona fide statements or writings will demonstrate that abundantly."
"Do we have positive evidence that his words were mistranslated or is this simply an assumption we draw from what we know of the context of Bishop Fellay's teaching and beliefs on the subject? I might be wrong, but it's difficult for me to imagine that the problem is translational.

I rather think Fellay was just using a figure of speech when he spoke of "reentering the Church." He was really talking about rectifying the canonical scandal that has existed since 1988. Neither the Vatican nor the Society speaks of the other as "being in schism," so it can't really be a question of either side "reentering the Church." We can't reenter what we have not left. It's a question of making all appearances reflect this reality so that you don't have goof-ball ultramontanists like Fr. Z using every opportunity to hurl invectives at the society, but before this can be accomplished there are events that need to occur and matters that need to be discussed. "Reentering the Church"? It's just a figure of speech."
and more...

Ignis Ardens

An Italian social democratic newspaper, Il Riformista, carried a purported interview with Bishop Fellay last October. The "interview" was obviously a poor misrepresentation of whatever His Lordship stated but, nevertheless, an alleged direct quote had His Lordship indicating that FSSPX admits it is outside the Church which caused a bit of a flutter with some people. Could you just confirm for the public record that the Il Riformista interview severely misrepresented His Lordship?

His Lordship

Of this particular interview between Bishop Fellay and the newspaper Il Riformista, I have no knowledge whatsoever. However, it would not be the first time that the bishop's comments to the press have given rise to misunderstandings.

On the one hand the worldly media are always looking for signs of an end to the SSPX's unworldly resistance to the worldly nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr of the globalists etc. On the other hand Bishop Fellay is constantly aiming to defend that resistance by presenting it in terms the most acceptable possible to worldly people, in the media or in the Newchurch. The aim, or purpose, is admirable, but the means he chooses to achieve it can give rise to misunderstandings.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=1675

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35358

http://www.lnc.nc/pays/186-interview/231117-l-nous-ne-sommes-pas-des-martiens-r.html

One can only hope that +BF is misquoted or it's a bad translation, the part in red.
"Besides, the pope said there is only a problem of canonical order."
False, as +BF has said many times in the past. It is most certainly NOT only a canonical problem.
"Just a note from Rome to say that it's over" What is over?
"and we enter the Church." I didn't know you were out of it.
"It will come. I am very optimistic" Well, he doesn't say "soon" but this also doesn't jive with what he said in Kansas City in October. So let's hope and pray he is misquoted here.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3435233.20;wap2

""Re-enter the Church"?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. "

None of that squares with Bishop Fellay's recent comments reported in the Remnant.

--- :

Just look what has happened since Bishop Fellay abandoned the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, and began negotiating for a practical solution with Rome, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved:

1) SSPX.org: Regularly features mundane and irrelevent articles on Novus Ordo happenings; quotes from modernist Nocus Ordo clergy; even when it quotes good old-fashioned SSPX stuff like the 1974 declaration, it uses the Rome-friendly excerpts on the homepage (e.g., "We cling to eternal Rome....")

2) Angelus Press: Publishes the revised/modern Michael Davies trilogy containing defenses of the heretical Dominus Iesus, and the absurd/heretical claim that "the Orthodox bishops possess formal apostolicity" (as opposed to mere material apostolicity, meaning episcopal continuity); publishes articles on Jєωιѕн Rabbis; defends the doubtful new rite of episcopal consecration;re etc

3) Communiques from Menzingen/DICI: Rome-friendly exhortations to whip the clergy and laity into line to accept a deal; total abandonement of the well-publicized "no deal until the doctrinal issues are resolved position

4) Nauseating blather coddling the "gracious gestures from Rome" r. Schmidberger

5) Claiming Archbishop Lefebvre would have signed!!! (Fr. Pfluger)

6) Claiming we cannot be 1988ers (Fr. Simmoulin)

7) The exile of Bishop Williamson

8) Schism within the SSPX for the 1st time ("3 oppose 1")

9) Banishment of those who hold to the principles of ABL

Prediction: After Bishop Fellay signs, he will call those of us who hold fast "schismatics" just like he condemned Campos for, after they signed.

Every SSPXer should paste Bishop Fellay's "Letter of the Superior General #63" to their wall and read it daily; you are heading down that road right now.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3395&view=findpost&p=9540725

Paterfamilias

Posted: Feb 2 2009, 02:02 PM

Yes, but did Bishop Fellay really say this?
I would be extremely surprised....

--------------------

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3395&view=findpost&p=9541014

However, I still maintain that we should not give so much credence to all the rumours and unconfirmed reports which circulate in the blogosphere. Maybe they are true, but then again maybe they are not. Is there not a fair possibility that the father of lies is at work here?

Let's wait and see.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3395&view=findpost&p=9554484

I still have a tendency to try to put Bishop Fellay's words a good spin as far as I can, but at times like this one it doesn't work!

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3395&view=findpost&p=9554520

Catholicam:

QUOTE

I still have a tendency to try to put Bishop Fellay's words a good spin as far as I can, but at times like this one it doesn't work!

I do as you do as well, however certain statements which evoke an automatic flutter in my stomach trouble me.

Bishop Fellay has shown himself to be quite adept at diplomatic speech and manuevering. I do not see why he did not refuse such a baited question by simply saying something such as "Well, if that is true then it is so much in the abstract as to be a meaningless concept."
I wait to see if he will declare such conciliar proposition as erroneous in the future rather than to parse them, which leaves the wayward idea partially intact.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3395&view=findpost&p=9554717

Clare,
I tried to find out a bit more about this post claiming to be an answer from Fr. Peter Scott. There was no signature of Father Scott, so how can we be certain that indeed it was written by Father Scott?
Father Peter Scott, from my knowledge has always signed his name at the end of any answer in a Q and A column or presentation. Now, I am not saying that it isn't Father Scott's answer, I am saying that it should be positively shown to be his actual words.
There was no direct link to it either, so I am doubtful. I tried to find the post but found that one must become a member of Roman Catholics yahoo group and I am not certain I wish to join. I would like to know if that answer can be proven to be from Father Scott, not just hearsay. Because this is how rumors or misconceptions are started.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3395&view=findpost&p=9554850

Fr. Scott may have written the text in question; only he can say. I certainly wouldn't take the word of those people for it, or anything else.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #23 on:** September 26, 2012, 01:11:13 AM »

Cristera -- thanks for putting forward an initial effort in this.

Note for links: You said "The links in AQ don't work anymore..."

When you post a link like this, when you apparently copied a post as displayed
on a forum webpage, rather than as it appears in a post-quote-window (like the
one I'm presently typing is for this message) when you press the "Quote" feature
to evoke the post-quote-window, there is a common difference in what the
computer sees compared to what you see on your screen.

In this example,

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lef...ot_interpreted/

you will notice an ellipsis, or three periods (...) near the end after the letters "lef" --
this ellipsis indicates that there are characters missing in the address as shown.
This link would not work if this is the address that actually goes into your browser
URL window, because it is not a complete address.

You can correct that, however, by going to your source page and pointing your
mouse at the link (this is for PCs, I don't know how Macs do this) and RIGHT click
on the working link. A pop-up window appears with a list of options, and you
should select (that means LEFT click) on the option, Copy Link Location.

Then come back here to the post-quote-window and insert the working address
(which is invisibly contained in your clipboard memory because you selected
Copy...). You do this by highlighting the word you want to make into a link (such
as www.catholicnewsagency) then select the "URL" box above the window (to the
right of the "Quote" box) and paste the working address in the popup field that
appears, and click on OK. This system will automatically format your link to
include the proper, working address as embedded in your link. The format will be
starting with "url=" followed by the working address, etc.

Then the link will work. If you do this for all your links, then all the links will work.

It might sound like a lot of trouble, but it's not bad once you get the hang of it.
Try it once or twice and see, before passing judgment. The satisfaction of getting
a post made that has good links in it is pretty good, IMHO.

Now, in this example, I have used Google Search to find the linked article you
refer to, but with a broken link. Here is the correct, working link:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lefebrivists_demand_council_be_corrected_not_interpreted/

Therefore, you can now see that the missing characters, replaced by ellipsis, are
exactly as follows:

ebrivists_demand_council_be_corrected_n

Those are all the characters that are replaced by ellipsis in the broken link you
provided:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lef...ot_interpreted/

Now, to demonstrate what happens when you follow my direction above, I can
translate this broken link into a working link, and the result is as follows:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lef...ot_interpreted/

Note: for this to work properly be sure there are no spaces in the address.

This may APPEAR to you right now as the same thing as the broken link, but you
can immediately see that it is not, by hovering your mouse over it, and WITHOUT
CLICKING ON IT, merely observe in the bottom-left corner of your viewscreen (if
you're using Firefox, that is) where you will see the working address appear, but
if you hover your mouse over the PREVIOUS, broken address, you will see
the broken address with the ellipsis appear in the bottom left corner of your
viewscreen.

The difference is, when a broken link is showing up in the bottom-left corner, your
computer will be trying to go to a broken link if you select it, and it will not be
able to connect, because the link is broken. When a working link is showing up in
the bottom-left corner, your computer WILL be able to connect when you select it.
Provided, of course, that your system is working otherwise.

If you like, I can go through your post and fix all the links to the best of my
ability, and post a repaired copy. Let me know if you would like this, okay?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #24 on:** September 26, 2012, 01:26:16 AM »

After all that, I just noticed that they misspelled ABL's name in the address
to the linked article! So in order to get the page to show up, you have to use a
misspelled address! How many people have been unable to find it because of
that?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lefebrivists_demand_council_be_corrected_not_interpreted/

They spell the word, lefebvreists incorrectly, as lefebrivists.

His name is Lefebvre, not "Lefebriv."

Follow the link and see, the article is titled,

Dialogue with SSPX?
Lefebrivists demand Council be “corrected,” not interpreted

They misspelled Lefebvreists.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #25 on:** September 26, 2012, 02:50:12 AM »

Since we're on the subject, the article itself is a farse. It quotes +Fellay as having
made some serious mistakes in his sentences.

I'm not saying they quoted him wrong, but if +Fellay really said these things,
in 2007, it goes a long way to showing how he was already on a trajectory of
error and capitulation with Modernism.

BTW before a tunnel-vision Fellayite chimes in that, "This is a 5-year old article,
hellooooo," or whatever, guess what? I know it's an article from 2007, and yes,
I know that 12 - 7 = 5. So you'll have to look for another mistake somewhere
that you can whine about. And with McFreeland gone, you might have to actually
do some creative thinking.

Here is the article:

13 Comments

Rome, Italy, Oct 30, 2007 / 01:05 pm (CNA).- In an interview with Italian journalist Paolo Luigi Rodari, the author of the blog “Palazzo Apostolico,” Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, said the schismatic movement demands not only a “correct interpretation” of Vatican II, but that the Council docuмents actually be changed.

Fellay defended his fellow excommunicated bishop, Ricard Williamson, identified by some in the media as leader of the “intransigent wing” of the fraternity. Fellay said, “Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to the Church as it currently is.”

“The reasons are simple,” Fellay said, because “Benedict XVI has liberalized the ancient rite,” yet he has been criticized “by the majority of the bishops.” “What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?” he said.

“In addition to the ancient rite,” he continued, “the problem for us is the words Pope Benedict has dedicated to Vatican II,” because “the rupture with the past is directly related, unfortunately, to some texts of Vatican II and these texts, in some way, should be revised.”

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation),” Fellay went on. He cited as an example the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. According to Fellay, the docuмent subjects the Church to the authority of the State. “In my opinion it should be the opposite: the State should submit to the Catholic faith and recognize that it is the religion of the State.”

Fellay said he has maintained ongoing correspondence with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, “but no common working docuмent exists yet.” “I remain confident, however, because all of our contact up to this point has been excellent,” he said.

I'll ignore the errors in the article except for the errors in the words they quote as
coming from +Fellay...

Fellay said, “Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to the Church as it currently is.”

I highly doubt that +Williamson would agree to saying that "...it would be difficult
to re-enter ... the Church as it currently is." No. +Williamson would say that the
Society does not have to "re-enter the Church," because the Society has never
left the Church. It is NewRome that needs to re-enter the Church by abandoning
the Modernist heresies which NewRome (not the Church!) has been following since
about the time of Vatican II. Actually it was sometime during the papacy of John
XXIII before Vatican II, at least at the Opening Speech of October 11th, 1962, and
perhaps as early as the 1958 election itself, of John XXIII!!!

“What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?”

Once again, it isn't a question of the Society "re-entering the Church," as I already
explained -- but, wondering whether the Society would then be "insulted by these
people" is a rather shallow observation. Who cares if heretics insult you for
holding fast to the truth? That's their problem, not yours! In fact, it might just be
the best thing to do, to walk right in and let them howl their profane demonic
groans like in an exorcism, for all the world to hear. That would be quite a show!
But the Society cannot do any good by making an accord with Belial. NewRome
must first convert and become Catholic, then the Society would be welcomed with
open arms, and the howls of the demons would be their own cries of banishment
when they get kicked out, as justice demands.

“In addition to the ancient rite,” he continued, “the problem for us is the words Pope Benedict has dedicated to Vatican II,” because “the rupture with the past is directly related, unfortunately, to some texts of Vatican II and these texts, in some way, should be revised.”

The words the Pope has dedicated to Vat. II? How does anyone dedicate words to
a council? This must be a translational blunder, and such is not uncommon when
journalists attempt to handle something they don't understand. But beyond that,
for +Fellay to even suggest that parts of Vat. II should be "revised" is utter
foolishness. Such a project could go on for decades, and the end result would be
a silk purse made from a sow's ear. IOW gibberish. Now, he may have been
speaking rhetorically, by which I mean that he's inviting them to go down a road
that would inevitably lead to failure, but if so, he's foolishly wasting everyone's
time to go there. All it could serve is as a blathering discussion in which no real
objective is in mind except to wear out the opposition on a fruitless wild goose
chase. What needs to be done is to take the entire package, lock it in a barrel and
drop it off the bridge. "London bridge is falling down, my fair lady..."

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation),” Fellay went on.

No, what "Ratzinger" should do is set "the Council" aside and say, "Okay, let's see
what we get when we don't have all that problematic nonsense to cope with." Then
we could have some real progress. Sure, Vat. II happened. But it does not nave to
be observed as having been legitimate, because it was not legitimate, and this is
quite simple to prove. So, waste not time on "a direct revision of the Council," but
rather, simply set it aside, and see what we can actually get DONE.

“In my opinion it should be the opposite: the State should submit to the Catholic faith and recognize that it is the religion of the State.”

Yet another obvious BLUNDER! Is this article a laundry list of faux-pas? It seems
so. It is NOT merely a matter of "my opinion," your opinion, his opinion, or anyone
else's opinion, that the State should submit to the Catholic faith and recognize that
it is the religion of the State. It is a matter of Catholic doctrine that this is true. The
fact that they are still di-ckering around with this canard is a great example of why
B16 has not committed to any real doctrinal discussion. This is one of the doctrines
on the list of them. And it's in direct conflict with false ecuмenism and religious
liberty.

Fellay said he has maintained ongoing correspondence with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, “but no common working docuмent exists yet.” “I remain confident, however, because all of our contact up to this point has been excellent,” he said.

As for this last paragraph, it's a moot point, for Hoyos is gone and we're starting
from "scratch" with a new PCED head, DiNoia. Also, consider the new CDF prefect
Mueller, who hates the Society even more than DiNoia does! So +Fellay can
continue with his Pollyanna rose-colored glasses view of the situation if he likes,
but it won't get the job done. What would really help is if he were to throw in the
towel, step down, and let a good priest assume the office for everyone's benefit,
especially the Society's.

PAT317 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 26, 2012, 04:41:25 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Cristera -- thanks for putting forward an initial effort in this.

Note for links: You said "The links in AQ don't work anymore..."

When you post a link like this, ....

The Angelqueen links seem to be complete, for example:

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35358

I assumed the reason the links won't work is they're from the "old" angelqueen; they changed the whole forum, didn't they? Will links to Angelqueen from before the change ever work anymore?