Author Topic: SSPX District notice concerning Ignis Ardens (Read 21217 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #15 on:** May 01, 2011, 03:48:56 PM »

Earlier this morning, I tried to open a new topic at Ignis Ardens. That didn't work. Because it had to do with Bishop Fellay and the Krahgate matter, Clare, the site's moderator, scrubbed it immediately. I reprint the contents of my original topic starter below:

Clare posts a notice from a British SSPX District newsletter. Then she immediately locks the thread. Very good, Clare! I'll try to re-open it, but am not expecting much success.

Fr. Morgan writes in part the following:

Whilst this file (Krahgate), which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.

In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.

Father Paul Morgan.

A short open letter to Fr. Morgan.

Fr. Morgan, I'll tell you how you can help arrest the "damage caused" by Krahgate. You can get it all out in the open. Just trot out Krah's ample behind in front of a bank of mikes, along with HE Bishop Fellay, and let the two do some explaining to the SSPX public and others who are interested in learning the facts. You have it within your power to help head off this "propensity for calmny and detraction" by countering with the truth of the matter as you see it. If William of Norwich is a calumniator, as you seem to infer, then prove it, Father!

And, ah yes, we are all well aware of Bp. Fellay's own propensitiy for "having recourse to the judicial process." Where does he get all that money to litigate, from us? You must realize at this point that HE has lost the support of many in the SSPX, including myself. I personally do not care for the way he operates. He is turning more and more from a shepherd of the sheep into a tyrant of the sheep.

Your truly,

Hollingsworth

clare · « **Reply #16 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:00:13 PM »

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with the notice.

And I don't think that going on about it is particularly helpful.

Now I await a ton of "Dislikes".

Nemmersdorf · « **Reply #17 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:01:55 PM »

Another lucrative source of income from the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"

See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:

Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.

Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.

NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:

Sigismund · « **Reply #18 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:20:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Bishop Fellay basically cannot handle the fact that people -even SSPX supporters- are saying that what he did was wrong. I think the Society would be better off with Bishop Williamson as its superior general.

I have said elsewhere that I am not a fan of Bishop Williamson. However, he would certainly provide the Society with a public face more consistent with its founding principles and its founder.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:40:38 PM »

FWIW, authority has to exist BEFORE it can be undermined. The SSPX General House has no authority, in the strict, canonical sense of the term.

Even from their own perspective, they are relying upon ecclesia supplet, etc., to do what they do until they are 'regularized' or whatever. Until then, their 'authority' is more like a mutual agreement involving many persons.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #20 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:55:05 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I suppose it's only a matter of time before CathInfo is anathematised by the Society.

It will just be yet another WRONG move by those in authority, or who pretend to have authority, whether in the Vatican, political circles or Traddieland.

The remedy is to quit screwing around and be honest and transparent. Instead, when they get caught doing something wrong or questionable, they try to turn the tables and suppress all discussion of their own stupidity/wickedness. IMO, the VAST majority of those who now occupy positions of power or pseudo-power will be utterly humiliated, if not literally destroyed, during the coming Chastisement. Almost to a man, they have failed to grasp the most rudimentary elements of the worldwide, ongoing lesson...

I'd love to see it work out differently, but things are not looking too good at the moment...

herbert · « **Reply #21 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:55:36 PM »

Quote from: Nemmersdorf

Another lucrative source of income from the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"

See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:

Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.

Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.

NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:

the last joke i posted was dirty (sorry!)

this one is clean, and TRUE!

Rooster 'owned' 68kg cocaine
From correspondents in Managua
April 23, 2004

A DEFENSE attorney whose client is facing cocaine charges has argued that the narcotics were actually in the possession of the suspect's rooster and two hens.

Prosecutors dismissed the claim as “absurd and impertinent.”

Police found 67.3kg of cocaine and a revolver hidden in a cage housing a fighting rooster and two hens in the parking lot of a cockfighting den controlled by Francisco Armando Rivera.

Rivera was arrested and charged with cocaine possession, but his lawyer, Manuel Urbina, said his client was never in possession of the narcotics.

“The drugs were in the possession of a rooster and two hens and the law is very clear that whoever is in possession of the drugs is the one who should be accused,” Urbina said.

Rivera has remained in prison while Judge Martha Lorena Martinez weighs the case against him. Urbina said that the prosecution must prove that the drugs actually belonged to his client.

“I'm going to order an inspection of this rooster and the two hens,” Rivera said.

In comments to reporters later, Attorney General Julio Centeno called the defense's case “an absurd joke.”

“I'm not going to comment further because we all know the only ones who can posses things are human beings,” he said.

The Associated Press

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #22 on:** May 01, 2011, 05:58:18 PM »

Quote from: herbert

the last joke i posted was dirty (sorry!)

It was vulgar, not dirty. There is a difference. Don't sweat it.

herbert · « **Reply #23 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:00:13 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: herbert
the last joke i posted was dirty (sorry!)

It was vulgar, not dirty. There is a difference. Don't sweat it.

muchos gracias! :)

Nemmersdorf · « **Reply #24 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:02:17 PM »

Re:Posting from Hollingsworth:

"Clare posts a notice from a British SSPX District newsletter. Then she immediately locks the thread. Very good, Clare! I'll try to re-open it, but am not expecting much success."

"Fr. Morgan writes in part the following:
Whilst this file (Krahgate), which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.

In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.

Father Paul Morgan. "

Edited!
Another lucrative source of income FOR the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"

See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:

Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.

Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.

NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #25 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:15:17 PM »

Quote from: clare

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with the notice.

No biggie. It is your forum and your decision, etc.

Quote

I don't think that going on about it is particularly helpful.

That is okay -- others disagree :)

FWIW, the notice looks like mere chest thumping, meant to induce fear. I have not read ALL of the material, but I do not see anything slanderous. Embarrassing? Yes.

Quote

I await a ton of "Dislikes".

I doubt anyone will dislike you simply saying how you feel about the matter. For my part, I respect your opinion and your decision. Would I have done the same thing? Probably (well, definitely) not, but that is irrelevant.

I hope you are enjoying a wonderful Easter-tide, my dear :)

Emerentiana · « **Reply #26 on:** May 01, 2011, 07:12:30 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I am curious how is it considered slander to say that someone who attends Jєωιѕн fundraisers is used by Bishop Fellay to represent the Society in the Williamson case, or slander to reveal that someone who publicly remarks that he is a fan of Madonna, 007, and the skin flick 9 1/2 weeks is on the board of SSPX girls schools.

These are simply facts. They are simply the truth, and the truth will set the SSPX free.

Certainly in a legal sense, there is no possible way this can be called slander or libel.

These are simply facts, and the any scandal or detraction that occurs because of the revelation of these facts is not a sin because the welfare and mission of the society depends on its leaders being held accountable for their actions.

Couldnt be more right, Tele! I found out in a very cruel way that there is NO freedom of speach in the Society.
Today is the one year anniversery of my "booting " from their chapel here.
Mostly because I rolled my eyes in displeasure during the THIRD scathing sermon against sedevacantism.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2011, 07:37:26 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: Telesphorus
I am curious how is it considered slander to say that someone who attends Jєωιѕн fundraisers is used by Bishop Fellay to represent the Society in the Williamson case, or slander to reveal that someone who publicly remarks that he is a fan of Madonna, 007, and the skin flick 9 1/2 weeks is on the board of SSPX girls schools.

These are simply facts. They are simply the truth, and the truth will set the SSPX free.

Certainly in a legal sense, there is no possible way this can be called slander or libel.

These are simply facts, and the any scandal or detraction that occurs because of the revelation of these facts is not a sin because the welfare and mission of the society depends on its leaders being held accountable for their actions.

Couldnt be more right, Tele! I found out in a very cruel way that there is NO freedom of speach in the Society.
Today is the one year anniversery of my "booting " from their chapel here.
Mostly because I rolled my eyes in displeasure during the THIRD scathing sermon against sedevacantism.

I never heard such a sermon at the chapel here, then again, the primary benefactors of the chapel are sedes.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #28 on:** May 01, 2011, 08:25:19 PM »

Quote from: clare

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with the notice.

And I don't think that going on about it is particularly helpful.

Now I await a ton of "Dislikes".

You're happy at the way he slammed Ignis Ardens forum?

That almost sounds like Stockholm syndrome.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #29 on:** May 01, 2011, 11:36:29 PM »

Clare was never comfortable about the Krahgate thread; she mentioned that her conscience was sensitive about it from its beginning.

I would say more surrender to Divine Providence than Stockholm syndrome.