Author Topic: SSPXs Bishop Fellay: Little By Little Rome Is Giving Us All We Need for Re (Read 6681 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #15 on:** May 19, 2016, 10:58:20 AM »

Quote from: Peccator Marison

The Lord Bishop's thinking is not Catholic: as I understand it, the thrust of this article is that New Rome are prepared to admit the SSPX without immediately forcing them to abandon the Faith. They might run a little while on a short leash without any ''open'' or 'humiliating'' compromise.

To have anything to do with Pope Francis, save in humble prayer for the conversion of that sinful and deluded man, is a humiliating compromise. New Rome have lost the Faith, it is as simple as that. No fellowship with apostates, who allow pagans to defile the Roman basilicas, who all but permit child-murder and fornication, who profane the Sacrament and make the Holy Church a whore with the Enlightenment (Lucifer the light-bringer) Revolution, the forces of Satan, to bear bastard Masses and bastard Sacraments and lead millions to Hell.

I note with disgust that the British District now has the usual cold, commercial, Modernist website. With Fr Brucciani (he of the Flying Squirrel) as Superior it is inevitable. As so many have said, the Society is changing to fit the requirements of New Rome.

I believe the German arch-heretic and Pantheist Hegel proposed the notion of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis, a blueprint for the Revolution's attempts to subvert the few bold sons of Mary who resist it: The SSPX will grow nearer to New Rome, and New Rome, without really changing, but mouthing fraternal platitudes, to the SSPX, till the two merge in a hideous conglomeration of Catholicism and Modernism: then slowly or not the SSPX, which is no longer the true SSPX, will be dissolved.

Edit: as so many have said ''dialogue'' is the means by which the SSPX is slowly twisted into New Rome: does a saintly monk or hermit dialogue with the Devil, whispering sweet temptations and putting vile images in his face, o, starting with marriage, yes (which is still a great fall from celibacy -- I use it as an analogy for the outwardly Catholic-seeming union that might see Bishop Fellay given an audience in the halls of Catholic glory now occupied by a generation of vipers, as when the Novus Ordo bishop Hugh Gilbert went to Stronsay) , but then fornication, when he is tempted to break his vow of celibacy? No, he gives the Fiend a hard blow in the face! So must we New Rome, the Abomination of Desolation.

My goodness!

Once again, our UK fratres come onto this forum and "show-off" their command of the English language.

This is a great post!

Please, give us more Peccator Marison :ready-to-eat:

Incredulous · « **Reply #16 on:** May 19, 2016, 11:04:22 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, told the Register May 13 that he is “persuaded, at least in part, by a different approach,” in which, he believes, Pope Francis is placing less weight on the Council and more emphasis on “saving souls and finding a way to do it.”

That's because Francis doesn't think that doctrine actually matters. What matters are your subjective dispositions only and not grounding in objective truth.

At least Francis seems like a sincere indifferentist.

Francis interested in saving souls? It is an odd statement to make, when from all appearances, he does not seem to believe that anyone needs to be saved, but just be nice and go to Heaven with your Jєωιѕн and Mohametan brothers.

Bishop Fellay strains credulity. He now speaks as does any average New Order curial functionary. The weight of the council is as burdensome and oppressive as ever, as long as the Novus Ordo remains in the Church.

Sorry to be so blunt.

But the reality is, Bishop Fellay is a liar.

Is he on drugs, under a spell or hypnotized?

His excuse doesn't matter. He lies.

And worse yet, as to the prognosis of his condition, he believes his own lies.

Meg · « **Reply #17 on:** May 19, 2016, 05:36:47 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, told the Register May 13 that he is “persuaded, at least in part, by a different approach,” in which, he believes, Pope Francis is placing less weight on the Council and more emphasis on “saving souls and finding a way to do it.”

That's because Francis doesn't think that doctrine actually matters. What matters are your subjective dispositions only and not grounding in objective truth.

At least Francis seems like a sincere indifferentist.

Francis interested in saving souls? It is an odd statement to make, when from all appearances, he does not seem to believe that anyone needs to be saved, but just be nice and go to Heaven with your Jєωιѕн and Mohametan brothers.

Bishop Fellay strains credulity. He now speaks as does any average New Order curial functionary. The weight of the council is as burdensome and oppressive as ever, as long as the Novus Ordo remains in the Church.

I was wondering the same thing. I've never seen any indication from any of Pope Francis' writings or speeches where he has any concern about saving souls. It would seem that Pope Francis believes that everyone is going to Heaven, except maybe for those traditonal "Pharisees." Where does Bp. Fellay get this idea from? It doesn't make sense.

Bp. Fellay also said that the Pope has no ideological strategy. But isn't Modernism an ideology?

Incredulous · « **Reply #18 on:** May 19, 2016, 05:57:28 PM »

Is there any record of Pope Francis saying the word "Soul" ?

Its obvious he's unable to articulate's the Church's business of saving souls.

But, as Bp. Fellay has emphasized, ".. he does care about people".

Meg · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2016, 06:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Is there any record of Pope Francis saying the word "Soul" ?

Its obvious he's unable to articulate's the Church's business of saving souls.

But, as Bp. Fellay has emphasized, ".. he does care about people".

I agree. It is indeed obvious that Pope Francis is unable to articulate the Church's business of saving souls. That's where the disconnect between Bp. Fellay and reality seems to be. It isn't enough to "care about" people. I know atheists who "care about" people. If the Pope really cared about people in the manner that God does - then the Pope would also care about Truth as revealed by God through His Holy Catholic Church.

Does Bp. Fellay really believe that Pope Francis cares so much about people that the Pope is going to (at best) look the other way if the SSPX decides to stand up for Church teaching? Bp. Fellay said in the interview that others in the church are beginning to speak out. Who are these people who are speaking out? I think that they can be counted on one hand, and a few of them are probably journalists.

Will the Pope really allow the SSPX to trample on the much beloved Council, New Mass, ecuмenism, religious liberty, Holy Eucharist for the divorced and remarried, etc.? Bp. Fellay said in the interview that Pope Francis contradicts himself. How then can he trust the Pope? Maybe the Pope has charmed Bp. Fellay into trusting him.

perhaps Bp. Fellay is not planning on standing up for Church teaching. Who knows. But Bp. Fellay owes it to the SSPX faithful, and the priests still in the SSPX to explain this in a forthright manner.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #20 on:** May 20, 2016, 07:01:34 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Sorry to be so blunt.

But the reality is, Bishop Fellay is a liar.

Is he on drugs, under a spell or hypnotized?

His excuse doesn't matter. He lies.

And worse yet, as to the prognosis of his condition, he believes his own lies.

Once any person lies like that to me a few times, I no longer bother listening to them. I have not read or listened to one word by Bishop Fellay in quite a long time. If anything, I come here to cathinfo to get the bottom line. I don't lose 1 minute on anything he says.

I also don't lose one minute on the day to day talk of when the SSPX is going to join Rome. It does not matter to me anymore, and actually I'd prefer to see them finally join Rome, so that their priestly members decide which side of the fence they are going to go to. A pope like Francis is the ideal pope to have in place to show the change in the SSPX to anyone THAT WANTS TO SEE.

wallflower · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2016, 07:36:00 AM »

I think Pope Francis is very interested in "saving souls".

Quote from: Last Tradhican

and actually I'd prefer to see them finally join Rome, so that their priestly members decide which side of the fence they are going to go to.

I am getting there too. I held out hope for a long time that God would intervene and somehow change the course of +Fellay. Now I am tending more and more to wanting it over with so the priests and faithful can have the clarity they need to act either way.

I have been mildly heartened lately at the more open criticism of +Fellay's interviews by the faithful. Still many cheerleaders but others aren't going along quite as easily and there is no longer ANY denying that he is angling for a deal. Those who were hiding behind the "rumors" excuses can no longer do so and it's making them a bit more vocal, thankfully.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #22 on:** May 20, 2016, 11:25:58 AM »

AJNC:

Quote

As an aside, some of the bureaucrats in the Ecclesia Dei Commission need this SSPX saga to run indefinitely so as to keep their well paid Roman jobs going.

Yeah, but alternately, don't +Fellay and the SSPX "bureaucrats" need the same thing? Fellay needs the "saga to run indefinitely," as well. If the conditions are removed, which produced SSPX in the beginning, then wherein lies the justification for that organization's continued existence? Short of re-inventing itself, SSPX raison detre vanishes, and +Fellay finds himself at the head of a apostolate whose mission is about as difficult to justify as NATO's.

Incredulous · « **Reply #23 on:** May 20, 2016, 11:35:49 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

AJNC:
Quote
As an aside, some of the bureaucrats in the Ecclesia Dei Commission need this SSPX saga to run indefinitely so as to keep their well paid Roman jobs going.

Yeah, but alternately, don't +Fellay and the SSPX "bureaucrats" need the same thing? Fellay needs the "saga to run indefinitely," as well. If the conditions are removed, which produced SSPX in the beginning, then wherein lies the justification for that organization's continued existence? Short of re-inventing itself, SSPX raison detre vanishes, and +Fellay finds himself at the head of a apostolate whose mission is about as difficult to justify as NATO's.

Bp. Fellay should be acknowledged as a leading "B+ rated" actor, in the longest running, ʝʊdɛօ-Vatican sponsored, religious soap opera in the world.

What will he do when his acting career comes to its inevitable end?

AJNC · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2016, 08:32:24 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

AJNC:
Quote
As an aside, some of the bureaucrats in the Ecclesia Dei Commission need this SSPX saga to run indefinitely so as to keep their well paid Roman jobs going.

Yeah, but alternately, don't +Fellay and the SSPX "bureaucrats" need the same thing? Fellay needs the "saga to run indefinitely," as well. If the conditions are removed, which produced SSPX in the beginning, then wherein lies the justification for that organization's continued existence? Short of re-inventing itself, SSPX raison detre vanishes, and +Fellay finds himself at the head of a apostolate whose mission is about as difficult to justify as NATO's.

You are absolutely right. Bishop Fellay seems to be saying that there is nothing wrong with either Vatican II or the New Mass. So where are the conditions to justify the existence of the SSPX or the Latin Mass?. Is there more to it or am I being too simplistic?

magdalena · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2016, 11:03:31 PM »

Quote from: curioustrad

Bishop Williamson used to use the image of the sinking of the Titanic and the various lifeboats around. We should never mistake the lifeboats for the Church - but if the Church is the Titanic would it be wise to get on board and sing with the band "Nearer my God to Thee ?"

But I read that the Titanic was really the Olympic. What then?

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/embed/fPuPew5SnEI[/youtube]

magdalena · « **Reply #26 on:** May 20, 2016, 11:20:27 PM »

For some reason I was unable to embed this. Fun visual.

Incredulous · « **Reply #27 on:** May 20, 2016, 11:25:16 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: curioustrad
Bishop Williamson used to use the image of the sinking of the Titanic and the various lifeboats around. We should never mistake the lifeboats for the Church - but if the Church is the Titanic would it be wise to get on board and sing with the band "Nearer my God to Thee ?"

But I read that the Titanic was really the Olympic. What then?

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/embed/fPuPew5SnEI[/youtube]

It seems your analogy comparing the "switched ships" with the "switched Churches" is closer to the truth than most realize. :detective:

magdalena · « **Reply #28 on:** May 20, 2016, 11:41:53 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: magdalena
Quote from: curioustrad
Bishop Williamson used to use the image of the sinking of the Titanic and the various lifeboats around. We should never mistake the lifeboats for the Church - but if the Church is the Titanic would it be wise to get on board and sing with the band "Nearer my God to Thee ?"

But I read that the Titanic was really the Olympic. What then?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/fPuPew5SnEI[/youtube]

It seems your analogy comparing the "switched ships" with the "switched Churches" is closer to the truth than most realize. :detective:

Indeed!

curioustrad · « **Reply #29 on:** May 22, 2016, 01:18:16 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: curioustrad
Bishop Williamson used to use the image of the sinking of the Titanic and the various lifeboats around. We should never mistake the lifeboats for the Church - but if the Church is the Titanic would it be wise to get on board and sing with the band "Nearer my God to Thee ?"

But I read that the Titanic was really the Olympic. What then?

INCORRIGIBLE !

This reminds me of 3 events I had long forgotten:

1: At Winona (decades ago but during the time Fr. P. was a seminarian) the debate was raging over geocentricism and heliocentricism - sick and tired of all the nonsense I said one day: "I've been working on the theory of lunacentricism".

2: on another occasion (to a table filled with those who loathed slushy sentimental hymns and pushed Gregorian Chant or Polyphony I asked: "How about we replace the "Te Lucis ante Terminum" at Compline tonight with "Good night Sweet Jesus" instead ?

3: Finally, I rushed into a classroom one morning and said to a classmate: "Mike, what's the difference between this place and the local asylum ?" "What ?" He retorted. "There they have them locked up but here they're roaming the corridors !" :wink: