I don't know quite why I am writing this, but I guess I feel "fired up" after reading Bishop Fellay's latest actions against +Williamson and +Tissier. I just have a lot of thoughts going through my head right now but am not sure what thread to post them in, so I figured I'd start my own thread (discussion here was been below-average the last few days anyway, so perhaps this will get some discussion going).

So, Fellay has expelled +Williamson from the General Chapter meeting, and +Tissier is reportedly under house arrest. So now we see the once strongly united SSPX becoming extremely divided. At this point, it appears that even if a deal is not struck, the Society will never be the same again due to its division, and the best course of action is to remove Fellay from the picture. But it appears he's doing everything in his power to remove the other three Bishops from the picture. And thus the SSPX continues to become liberalized, thanks to people who, like Fellay, have neo-Traditional ideas about Rome, thinking they know everything and how to fix this crisis.

It's very interesting to watch all the SSPXers out there - and even the sedevacantists - argue about this. John Lane recently wrote something on his forum that I found most interesting. After about two months of posting of Ignis Ardens, it appears the increasing attacks on Fellay and the SSPX over there were too much for him to handle. He stated this:

A few thoughts about the current situation within SSPX circles (i.e. the laity, not the priests), arising from a period on Ignis Ardens. For those not familiar with it, it's a forum run by British and Irish SSPX people, and used to be very informative and good-humoured. Unfortunately the "deal" has led to its effective takeover by non-SSPX people and it now resembles Cathinfo, although still with a little more intelligence and less direct name-calling and other ugliness. The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course, but for example one of them is audacious enough to claim that she is motivated by overweening love for her SSPX brethren. The older members have fallen silent, and some of them have posted that they no longer feel comfortable there. The mods are clearly disturbed, but they have no idea how to handle these new people, I suspect partly because they don't realise quite how irreligious some of them truly are. We tend to think of traditional Catholics as people who escaped the New Mass and the heresies and horrors of the Conciliar church and who are grateful to have the goods of the true Church. These types are of an entirely different stamp. We all know the syndrome. No gratitude, a judgemental attitude towards priests particularly, and a fanatical view of the pope question, so that everything ends up hanging off that, rather than being focussed on Our Lord and His divine revelation. This becomes crystal clear when they spout some heresy or error of their own - all attempts to correct it fail. No love for sacred truths, just a political attitude to religion. Likewise Christian moral doctrine is trashed and no correction is possible. All this is covered in some cases by a kind of extroverted piosity (it isn't piety!), which only compounds the ugliness of the impression.

I don't mean this as any disrespect towards John Lane, as I am quite fond of him and like that he is so fond of Archbishop LeFebvre and the other three Bishops. But his position borders on hypocrisy. He opposes a deal but he still defends Bishop Fellay. He is pointing the finger at sedevacantists rather than pointing it at the real culprit: the tyrant. Yes, I call Bishop Fellay a tyrant. Because he is. It's tyranical to think that he alone, being the Superior General, gets to make all the decisions and that anyone who so much as questions him has to get the boot. Yet John Lane admitted on Ignis Ardens that he would still defend Bishop Fellay. Again, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Lane, but I side with the folks on Ignis on this one. I read the comments Lane is refering to, and there was nothing "home alone" about any of them.

Then we come to the liberal part of the SSPX I am refering to. John Lane may have a confusing position, but he's no liberal. The following comment from FishEaters, however, is an example of the liberalism I am talking about. Read what this person had to say about Bishop Williamson:

Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

People such as this, however, call foul not only if anyone criticizes Fellay and his ilk, but also if anyone criticizes Benedict!

My point is that liberalism has taken over the SSPX. This isn't news for anyone here, either. This became evident several years ago. Look at the beliefs of Bishop Fellay supporters, and you're almost certain to find some neo-Traditionalism embedded in their minds. Whether they are feminists, are fond of Benedict, have a mistaken concept of obedience, don't think Vatican II was that bad, or whatever, their minds, just like Fellay's, are off their hinges.

And what did Bishop Williamson say about people who's minds are unhinged?

How can you reason with someone who's mind is unhinged? You can't! What can you do? You can pray for them, you can love them... that's about it. -Bishop Williamson

Now if only the other three Bishops would create a gameplan of some sort to stop this whole mess. +Williamson has certainly not been holding back in his Eleison Comments blog, but what the three Bishops need to do is be more aggressive.

So as I write this, again not exactly sure why I'm even writing it to begin with, the Society is crumbling right before us. I think I've been a bit too passive in my remarks about Fellay. I'm going to start being more truthful (while making sure I don't go too far) in my comments, on this forum, Ignis, my forum, and elsewhere, regardless of what Fellay's supporters think of me, because the truth needs to be known. Hugh Atkins, in his book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising", criticized the idea of "sit back and pray" Catholicism, stating that Traditional Catholics need to tell the truth. And the truth is, the Society's SG has gotten too big for his britches. Let's just hope and pray that the other three Bishops remain firm and united.

God Bless.

I thought John Lane was a sedevacantist. I suppose I really don't know anything about him at all, though, and that is probably why I found his statement a bit confusing.

He is. Sorry, what I wrote wasn't clear. I meant that he is pointing the finger at sedevacantists who criticize Bishop Fellay and the Society, accusing them of being "home aloners". As I said, I didn't see anyone on IA who was a home aloner. I'm pretty sure the particular person he was refering to attended a CMRI chapel.

I thought John Lane was a sedevacantist. I suppose I really don't know anything about him at all, though, and that is probably why I found his statement a bit confusing.  He opposes a deal but he still defends Bishop Fellay.  I wish I could do that. It would be a comfortable place to be, but the list of excuses I'd have to make for +Fellay's actions gets longer and longer all the time.

We're not supposed to judge choosing a Zionist who hangs out at Israel special forces camp to hire Bishop Williamson's lawyer.  Don't be rash.  Don't spread rumors.  It's a special brand of sanctimony that those who are self-important commenters in Trad-dom tend to embrace.

Has +Tissier's house arrest been confirmed yet?  Seems someone close to the situation should have some information.

I think Mr. Lane raises some good points in his post, but I think he is missing the big picture and this might explain his defense of Bishop Fellay. I do not think he is familiar with the whole Krah/Menzingen situation or how the SSPX in many of its locations no longer believes in the Social Reign of Christ the King or Integral Catholicism.

Most of John's comments on Ignis from what I have read tend to focus on the change in doctrinal direction from the SSPX. This is helpful, but I don't think he is putting it all together. Changes in doctrinal direction strongly imply changes in direction in other areas as well.

Ignis Ardens has had a number of people turn up who saturate the 'general discussion' page with ther presence, pushing aside regular contributers and then suddenly disappear maligning the members. They have no humility as newbies and tend to be Bp. Fellay supporters and one wonders whether there is in fact a group of such people out there visiting trad sites in relay with one purpose in mind.

Anyway, the current speculation among trads seems to be either the General Chapter is a foregone conclusion with the actions taken against the bishops and religious  ...... or Menzingen gets a shock when voting members turn up in a hostile mood. I am inclined towards the first scenario ..... but it may depend on what is in any agreement that could infuriate neutral members and even some of Fellay's supporters. As Fr. Cekada said there is whole lot of issues to fight over when it comes down to the practical aspects of integration. Any remaining unity could well be tested in the detail but by then Rome's plan would have succeeded.

I don't know quite why I am writing this, but I guess I feel "fired up" after reading Bishop Fellay's latest actions against +Williamson and +Tissier. I just have a lot of thoughts going through my head right now but am not sure what thread to post them in, so I figured I'd start my own thread (discussion here was been below-average the last few days anyway, so perhaps this will get some discussion going).

So, Fellay has expelled +Williamson from the General Chapter meeting, and +Tissier is reportedly under house arrest. So now we see the once strongly united SSPX becoming extremely divided. At this point, it appears that even if a deal is not struck, the Society will never be the same again due to its division, and the best course of action is to remove Fellay from the picture. But it appears he's doing everything in his power to remove the other three Bishops from the picture. And thus the SSPX continues to become liberalized, thanks to people who, like Fellay, have neo-Traditional ideas about Rome, thinking they know everything and how to fix this crisis.

It's very interesting to watch all the SSPXers out there - and even the sedevacantists - argue about this. John Lane recently wrote something on his forum that I found most interesting. After about two months of posting of Ignis Ardens, it appears the increasing attacks on Fellay and the SSPX over there were too much for him to handle. He stated this:

Quote

A few thoughts about the current situation within SSPX circles (i.e. the laity, not the priests), arising from a period on Ignis Ardens. For those not familiar with it, it's a forum run by British and Irish SSPX people, and used to be very informative and good-humoured. Unfortunately the "deal" has led to its effective takeover by non-SSPX people and it now resembles Cathinfo, although still with a little more intelligence and less direct name-calling and other ugliness. The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course, but for example one of them is audacious enough to claim that she is motivated by overweening love for her SSPX brethren. The older members have fallen silent, and some of them have posted that they no longer feel comfortable there. The mods are clearly disturbed, but they have no idea how to handle these new people, I suspect partly because they don't realise quite how irreligious some of them truly are. We tend to think of traditional Catholics as people who escaped the New Mass and the heresies and horrors of the Conciliar church and who are grateful to have the goods of the true Church. These types are of an entirely different stamp. We all know the syndrome. No gratitude, a judgemental attitude towards priests particularly, and a fanatical view of the pope question, so that everything ends up hanging off that, rather than being focussed on Our Lord and His divine revelation. This becomes crystal clear when they spout some heresy or error of their own - all attempts to correct it fail. No love for sacred truths, just a political attitude to religion. Likewise Christian moral doctrine is trashed and no correction is possible. All this is covered in some cases by a kind of extroverted piosity (it isn't piety!), which only compounds the ugliness of the impression.

I don't mean this as any disrespect towards John Lane, as I am quite fond of him and like that he is so fond of Archbishop LeFebvre and the other three Bishops. But his position borders on hypocrisy. He opposes a deal but he still defends Bishop Fellay. He is pointing the finger at sedevacantists rather than pointing it at the real culprit: the tyrant. Yes, I call Bishop Fellay a tyrant. Because he is. It's tyranical to think that he alone, being the Superior General, gets to make all the decisions and that anyone who so much as questions him has to get the boot. Yet John Lane admitted on Ignis Ardens that he would still defend Bishop Fellay. Again, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Lane, but I side with the folks on Ignis on this one. I read the comments Lane is refering to, and there was nothing "home alone" about any of them.

Then we come to the liberal part of the SSPX I am refering to. John Lane may have a confusing position, but he's no liberal. The following comment from FishEaters, however, is an example of the liberalism I am talking about. Read what this person had to say about Bishop Williamson:

Quote

Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

People such as this, however, call foul not only if anyone criticizes Fellay and his ilk, but also if anyone criticizes Benedict!

My point is that liberalism has taken over the SSPX. This isn't news for anyone here, either. This became evident several years ago. Look at the beliefs of Bishop Fellay supporters, and you're almost certain to find some neo-Traditionalism embedded in their minds. Whether they are feminists, are fond of Benedict, have a mistaken concept of obedience, don't think Vatican II was that bad, or whatever, their minds, just like Fellay's, are off their hinges.

And what did Bishop Williamson say about people who's minds are unhinged?

Quote

How can you reason with someone who's mind is unhinged? You can't! What can you do? You can pray for them, you can love them... that's about it. -Bishop Williamson

Now if only the other three Bishops would create a gameplan of some sort to stop this whole mess. +Williamson has certainly not been holding back in his Eleison Comments blog, but what the three Bishops need to do is be more aggressive.

So as I write this, again not exactly sure why I'm even writing it to begin with, the Society is crumbling right before us. I think I've been a bit too passive in my remarks about Fellay. I'm going to start being more truthful (while making sure I don't go too far) in my comments, on this forum, Ignis, my forum, and elsewhere, regardless of what Fellay's supporters think of me, because the truth needs to be known. Hugh Atkins, in his book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising", criticized the idea of "sit back and pray" Catholicism, stating that Traditional Catholics need to tell the truth. And the truth is, the Society's SG has gotten too big for his britches. Let's just hope and pray that the other three Bishops remain firm and united.

God Bless.

   I do not think there is any contradiction in Mr. Lane's position.

   He is merely pointing out that it is not the act of criticizing Bishop Fellay that has turned him off, but the manner and spirit of the criticism itself.

   There is a Catholic way to make a point: Respectfully; respect does not limit the vigor of your opposition, but does temper it with charity.

   There is an uncatholic way to make a point: Disrespectfully; disrespect does not enhance the vigor of your argumentation, but does remove the temper of charity.

   When I have previously stated that I found John Lane the most eloquest of the sedevacantist authors -a position all know I oppose- it was primarily this factor that impressed me: Focus completely centered on doctrine, and the total absence of ad hominem.  

   I think he is correct in noticing -and how could anyone not- that anger is trumping reason in many of the posts on IA and Cathinfo.

   I suppose anger is natural enough, given the circuмstances (I am pretty angry myself), but the restraint which comprises the virtue of temperment is often missing.

   I do not find anything "liberal" in acknowledging that reality.

   

I'm rather amused by this snippet from 'Vincenzo' posted on Ignis Ardens. Given how the SSPX has appeased International Jєωry, it is no surprise a priest might take this position.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9891&st=0

One SSPX priest analyzed the public K rah evidence and commented that there might be an innocent reason for K rah's positions, for example that K rah might need to take such public positions for professional reasons, that his job demanded it.

An SSPX priest thinks an SSPX financier needs to be a Zionist in public??? This is the thinker who will help guide me to Heaven?

What perfidious schizophrenia +Fellay's aggiornamento brings!

How can Society priests take the moral high ground when the Society has appeased Jєωs.It's well docuмented.

Being honest there is little point in getting annoyed. I won't be relying on this type of cleric to get me to heaven.

Whilst we don't know who the cleric is, it suggests he is one of the weaker in relation to International Jєωry.

On a positive though, the comments which accompany the snippet from 'Vincenzo' shows people see the wood from the trees and not taken in by pathetic attempts to explain away a very embarrassing episode for the SSPX.