Author Topic: Setting the record straight (Read 3142 times)

John Grace · « **on:** September 25, 2012, 11:45:21 AM »

I noted the following over on IA. I am starting to understand a mindset or why things were not done.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10913&st=50

Quote

QUOTE (hollingsworth @ Sep 22 2012, 03:56 AM)
Didn't the Superior General tell der Spiegel that if you 'denied the h0Ɩ0cαųst again,' you'd be excluded from the Society?
Remember that 2009 interview? Here's an excerpt from it in order to refresh everyone's memory:
QUOTE
SPIEGEL: So why don't you exclude Williamson from the society?
FELLAY: That will happen if he denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst again. It is probably better for everyone if he stays quiet and stays in a corner somewhere. I want him to disappear from the public eye for a good while.

Do we all remember those famous lines.

OK, is there absolute proof these words were spoken?

Is der Spiegel reliable?

Quote

QUOTE (Elizabeth @ Sep 25 2012, 01:58 PM)
QUOTE (hollingsworth @ Sep 22 2012, 03:56 AM)
Didn't the Superior General tell der Spiegel that if you 'denied the h0Ɩ0cαųst again,' you'd be excluded from the Society?
Remember that 2009 interview? Here's an excerpt from it in order to refresh everyone's memory:
QUOTE
SPIEGEL: So why don't you exclude Williamson from the society?
FELLAY: That will happen if he denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst again. It is probably better for everyone if he stays quiet and stays in a corner somewhere. I want him to disappear from the public eye for a good while.

Do we all remember those famous lines.

OK, is there absolute proof these words were spoken?

Is der Spiegel reliable?

?

If I had a dime for every time the reaction to a quote by +BF is "but did he really say that?" I think I'd be rich.

If +BF didn't say those words, or the numerous others attributed to him where the reaction is, "but did he really say that?", then he at least has never denied them, and continues to give interviews to said media outlets. He gave an interview to Der Spiegel after the words quoted above. See this thread. Why would he give another interview to DS if they misquoted him before?

Some quotes from that thread:

QUOTE (catholicam @ Feb 2 2010, 01:55 AM)
QUOTE

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, told Der Speigel he likens Williamson to uranium.

“It's dangerous when you have it,” Fellay told the German publication, “but you can't simply leave it by the side of the road.”

This can not be true.*

QUOTE (laudamus te @ Feb 3 2010, 05:42 AM)

QUOTE (catholicam @ Feb 2 2010 @ 08:08 PM)

Three things need to be confirmed or denied with docuмentation.

Did these people have Bishop Fellay's support and show up under his authority?

Is it possible that Bishop Fellay would have said such a terrible thing?

The alledged, and also terrible, comment by Fr. Pfluger??

I still do not believe that they happened, but I would be gravely distressed if they did.

JMJ

I would be more than a little dismayed were it true, also.

If Bishop Fellay is continuously misquoted by these media outlets, it is certainly his own fault for talking to them repeatedly then. If a magazine like Der Spiegel misquoted me even once, I would make a very public statement, maybe pinned to the top of the home page of DICI, that I never made such a remark, and I will never give any interviews to Der Spiegel again. (And maybe sick my Dresden lawyer on them with a lawsuit! ) +BF has had several years to retract the statement above and many other remarks that evoked the "did he really say that?" reaction, and he never has, so I think it is a fair assumption that he has made the comments the media attributes to him, unless & until they are denied. It's not like +BF doesn't have his own media outlets to do that.

There was this belief that Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger could do no wrong or were "misquoted". It's far too serious to say I told you so but now the naive have woken.

John Grace · « **Reply #1 on:** September 25, 2012, 11:48:21 AM »

As Berengaria states "+BF has had several years to retract the statement above and many other remarks that evoked the "did he really say that?" reaction, and he never has, so I think it is a fair assumption that he has made the comments the media attributes to him, unless & until they are denied. It's not like +BF doesn't have his own media outlets to do that.

*Incidentally, although the "uranium" comment was in print, the time he likened +BW to a "hand grenade" was a video interview if I remember right, so that one was undeniable."

Now, who are these troublemakers, Clare?

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** September 25, 2012, 11:55:56 AM »

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10913&st=50

Quote

I hope I didn't sound harsh to you, in particular. It's just that I've seen that "did he really say that?" so many times about so many different statements by him over the years that it's become almost a pet-peeve of mine

They are in denial if they cannot accept what Bishop Fellay said and did. I had one SSPX cleric try to convince me, I had read lies.A pet-peeve of mine.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** September 25, 2012, 12:40:12 PM »

Excellent comment here from 'Laboure'. Yes, Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger did say those things. People researched and based on the evidence, the 'misquotes" are statements of fact and truth. Those in denial in SSPX chapels choose to ignore facts. That is their problem.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10913&st=50

Quote

That was my exact reaction to those words as well. Rather than come here and ask "Did he really say that?", I researched it and, yes, he really did say that.

Cristera · « **Reply #4 on:** September 25, 2012, 12:41:51 PM »

We should make a full list of "did +Fellay really say that?" ...

John Grace · « **Reply #5 on:** September 25, 2012, 12:52:34 PM »

Quote from: Cristera

We should make a full list of "did +Fellay really say that?" ...

There is no point as SSPX laity and priests are waiting until Bishop Fellay signs an agreement. They will be forced to act either way then.
Few paid heed to 'Krahgate' and even 'Oblationem' stated on a Youtube video what a shame people didn't protest about Bishop Fellay earlier. What could they do about 'Krahgate' is another matter.Simply many just didn't want to do anything and we see where the blind obedience has brought the neo-SSPX today. The purse controlled by Zionism and very few doing anything.

You will still have people state "Did Bishop Fellay really say that"?Whilst I commend Cristera, I feel it a waste of time.

We have a weakened SSPX and it is their own fault.

John Grace · « **Reply #6 on:** September 25, 2012, 01:21:17 PM »

I'm afraid Bishop Fellay has not put "Catholic minds everywhere at rest". He could easily of done so but has chosen not to.

Wessex · « **Reply #7 on:** September 25, 2012, 01:57:14 PM »

In spite of the outcome of the talks with Rome, Bp. Fellay emerges from the Chapter stronger and has beaten off the Three Bishops with Bp. Tissier reacting in a most extraordiary way! There is the incredible notion now being voiced by Society clergy that the laity must believe black is white when told so. Such blind obedience will deliver the Society eventually into Roman hands .... or at least draw it much closer into the conciliar fold. The passage of time will do the rest.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:02:40 PM »

The problem, really, is that there are way too many rich brats (with spoiled children of their own) in traditionalism, and they want liberalization and official recognition.

The whole point of Archbishop Lefebvre's mission is totally lost on them, they just want a nostalgia club.

stgobnait · « **Reply #9 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:08:02 PM »

Bishop Fellay has not done anything to put people's minds at rest.... and he has plenty of willing helpers, most minds here have 'do not disturb ' signs...

Wessex · « **Reply #10 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:29:09 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

The problem, really, is that there are way too many rich brats (with spoiled children of their own) in traditionalism, and they want liberalization and official recognition.

The whole point of Archbishop Lefebvre's mission is totally lost on them, they just want a nostalgia club.

1)The SSPX as an elitist club wearing the clothes of tradition but inside very much part of this world if not leading it? Very feasible!
2) Producing the right kind of priest; half brain dead, the other half confined to liturgy? Very feasible!
3) Needing a laity with no brain since shepherds need sheep? Feasible!

Or am I getting carried away?? I feel to understand the current situation, one must be creative with one's explanations!

stgobnait · « **Reply #11 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:37:08 PM »

i dont want to be creative..... i just want the old sspx back..... :furtive:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:37:42 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

1)The SSPX as an elitist club wearing the clothes of tradition but inside very much part of this world if not leading it? Very feasible!

Leading it? No. Wanting to maintain and enhance social status while keeping the trappings of religion (without too much inconvenience?) Yes.

Wanting to have a higher degree of control over their children, without having to really live in contradiction to modern social customs (and their implicit antagonism to Christian values?) Yes.

Wanting to make the best of this social club that developed because of the sifting of serious Catholics? Wanting to be big fish in the social pond that was created, without really caring too much for the purity of the water that attracted the fish to begin with? Yes.

It's parasitism.

Incredulous · « **Reply #13 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:37:55 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: Telesphorus
The problem, really, is that there are way too many rich brats (with spoiled children of their own) in traditionalism, and they want liberalization and official recognition.

The whole point of Archbishop Lefebvre's mission is totally lost on them, they just want a nostalgia club.

1)The SSPX as an elitist club wearing the clothes of tradition but inside very much part of this world if not leading it? Very feasible!
2) Producing the right kind of priest; half brain dead, the other half confined to liturgy? Very feasible!
3) Needing a laity with no brain since shepherds need sheep? Feasible!

Or am I getting carried away?? I feel to understand the current situation, one must be creative with one's explanations!

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.

Sienna629 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:53:40 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

i dont want to be creative..... i just want the old sspx back..... :furtive:

Sadly, because of the Modernist infiltration, I don't think we'll ever see that again, even if +Fellay does not sign with Rome.