Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 26, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
But his position borders on hypocrisy.
That's a card he plays when he wants to silence people and wishes to act as the arbiter of moral theology about what is permissible language in disputes like these - (refusing to hold Bishop Fellay accountable with the hard words he deserves) - I have a feeling he'd have plenty of hard words for saints who used language that upsets his delicate sensibilities. It's similar the standard line the SSPX leadership uses - he's gotten use to being a sede apologist for the SSPX - seems like a tried and true trad tactic when they don't want to engage the topic but wish to appear better than those they disagree with.
-
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.
-
SS, you're very much right about the liberalization among traditionalists.
I wonder how much of it is "pressure from above" and how much is "pressure from below"?
I would say the former is greater than we imagine. We don't know what people are told in confession and what is taught in the seminary, and it's in the seminaries and in the confessional that the hard moral boundaries are set.
-
Has +Tissier's house arrest been confirmed yet? Seems someone close to the situation should have some information.
-
Lane, like other commenters, is hit and miss. He has some good ideas and some off base.
Objectivity and charity can be challenging, especially when our particular ox gets gored.
-
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.
-
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 in all together. Changes in doctrinal direction strongly imply changes in direction in other areas as well.
We cannot understand the historical reasons ("religious liberty" indifferentism, false ecuмenism and subversion) the SSPX exists if we do not understand these lines of Richard Francis Burton:
The first, which may be called the vapid utterance of the so-called Liberal School speaks as follows: “In this century we are battering down the ponderous walls of prejudice which nations and sects have erected in past times, for the separation of themselves from their neighbours, or as a coign of vantage from which to hurl offensive weapons at them. Roman Catholic and Jєωιѕн emancipation have been conceded, though tardily, and we may fairly hope that in the next generation our political, social, and commercial relations with our fellow‑men will be conducted without regard to their religious belief or their ethnological origin.” The trifling objection to this “harmonious and tolerant state of things” is that, though the Christian may give up his faith and race, the Jєω, however readily he may throw overboard the former, will cling to the latter with greater tenacity, as it will be the very root and main foundation of his power.
The second is the Judophobic or Roman Catholic view of the supremacy of Jєωιѕн influence in the governments and the diplomacy of Europe. It openly confesses its dread of Judaic encroachments, and it goes the full length of declaring that, unless the course of events be changed by some quasi‑miraculous agency, the triumph of the Israelite over Christian civilization is inevitable—in fact, that Judaism, the oldest and exclusive form of the great Semitic faith, will at least outlive, if it does not subdue and survive, Christianity, whose triumph has been over an alien race of Aryans. “Gold,” it argues, “is the master of the world, and the Jєωιѕн people are becoming masters of the gold. By means of gold they can spread corruption far and wide, and thus control the destinies of Europe and of the world.” For the last quarter of a century the dominant Church in France seems to have occupied itself in disseminating these ideas, and the number of books published by the alarmists and replied to by Jєωιѕн authors is far from inconsiderable. Witness the names of MM. Tousseuel, Bédarride, Th. Halliz, Rev. P. Ratisbonne, and A. C. de Medelsheim, without specifying the contributors to the Union Israëlite and the Archives Israëlites of Paris—a sufficient proof of the interest which this question has excited, and of the ability with which it has been discussed in France.
Catholics who stick their heads in the sand about political history and who wish to be politically correct are never going to understand the political motivations of the anti-Catholic actions or the point of view of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson. They aren't going to understand the implications of hiring a man like the East German.
It is in part a failure to transmit to the younger generations this very important information that is to a large degree responsible for this fiasco.
-
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 have been hearing this rumour about Bp Tissier being under 'house arrest' but I'm not seeing any evidence proving it. Could an enemy be sowing this disinformation to cause further disunity in the SSPX?
-
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 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.
-
Lane's criticism of Ignis Ardens is rather amusing since he typifies the sort he rubbishes, a classic agent provocateur. Most of his sour grapes are likely on account of the slagging he's endured there, owing to provocation of some rather astute people.
Ascribing untoward personal motives or dispositions to your correspondents as he is wont to do, is beyond the pale IMHO.
In any event the tone improved when he departed...
-
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.
-
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.
Well said. I'm glad SpiritusSanctus brought this topic up. I actually found this quote of JohnLane quite true:
The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course,
I don't think its true in all circuмstances here on CI, however, its mostly true. Think about it- are not some of the members here who post most prolifically on this crisis, regardless of correctness on the position, non-SSPX goers? (ie. "...no dog in the fight...") I'm not saying its wrong, but I agree with what Lane says next:
I suspect partly because they don't realise quite how irreligious some of them truly are.
And its this lack of religiosity that can be most disturbing, and also most revealing about why that is. This is why Seraphim is right. There is a right and wrong way to go about things, without compromising the seriousness and correctness of what you need to say. There is a more Catholic deportment; one that is free of being judgmental. I don't mean judgmental in terms of how Protestants throw around the word; not at all. I mean in determining who is a 'true trad' or not. These people who feel compelled to be the best polemists on this issue, do so because of one reason: pride.
Granted, we're all susceptible to it. And if our own pride is evident to us, its can also be evident when judging the actions of others. This is what John Lane is speaking about, I believe. This is why the development of the interior life is so important. It tempers pride one may have when discussing intellectual topics. Its not that we ought not discuss these topics, but that we should do so with a sense of humility. You can be 'right' on the issue, have the best arguments, and be quick 'on your feet' with a discussion; but if you are prideful- you are only hurting yourself, even if you are 'right'.
-
To s2srea and Seraphim:
I don't disagree that we must be charitable and professional in our criticisms, that wasn't where I disagreed with John Lane. I disagree with him because I read a post he made on Ignis where he specifically stated that he would defend Bishop Fellay. I think he's being way too soft on him.
To oppose a deal but get mad at the criticisms of Bishop Fellay on Ignis (I read the criticisms on Ignis, none of them were even that bad): that's where I believe the contradiction lies.
-
Attacking a whole nebulous class of posters as being irreligious - not attacking their ideas - no, attacking them, making insinuations about their observance, condemning websites.
It's very typical of SSPX apologetics: they attack their critics, rather than answering their objections.
-
Having declared himself to be one of the Society's in-house sedevecantists, I suppose it is not quite an incredible thing to give support to Bp. Fellay. Afterall, some SSPX hardliners are very hostile towards the SVs, natural allies against modern Rome. John Lane must be a one-off.
-
I do not find anything "liberal" in acknowledging that reality.
When did I call John Lane a liberal? I was talking about the comment someone posted on FishEaters as being liberal, not Lane's comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
-
Having declared himself to be one of the Society's in-house sedevecantists, I suppose it is not quite an incredible thing to give support to Bp. Fellay. Afterall, some SSPX hardliners are very hostile towards the SVs, natural allies against modern Rome. John Lane must be a one-off.
He's invested a great deal in apologizing for the SSPX. Now the double-minded tendency in the SSPX is yielding very bitter fruit, and those who taste it have some hard words for the SG, as they should.
-
Passive aggressive goading about "pride" and "charity" is the invariable retort to the cold hard truth about Bishop Fellay and what he's been doing. His cynical exploitation of the faithful to move in a way that will ruin the work of the Archbishop should be called out for what it is.
-
I think John Lane's mistake is that he is too caught up in the "greatness" of the SSPX. Matthew quite rightly noted a while back that Bishop Williamson warned never to get caught up in the Society's greatness because they could all go crazy one day. Well, that day has come, only it's Bishop Fellay who has gone crazy, not the other three Bishops.
Yet here you have a sedevacantist who is turned off by criticisms of Fellay and the Society. That's something you don't see too often.
-
Attacking a whole nebulous class of posters as being irreligious - not attacking their ideas - no, attacking them, making insinuations about their observance, condemning websites.
It's very typical of SSPX apologetics: they attack their critics, rather than answering their objections.
Interesting you were bothered by this... :detective:
-
To s2srea and Seraphim:
I don't disagree that we must be charitable and professional in our criticisms, that wasn't where I disagreed with John Lane. I disagree with him because I read a post he made on Ignis where he specifically stated that he would defend Bishop Fellay. I think he's being way too soft on him.
SS- I actually agree with you on this. I was responding more or less to what Seraphim said, and the quote from Lane you gave, which was a part I agreed with. Thats all.
-
Passive aggressive goading about "pride" and "charity" is the invariable retort to the cold hard truth about Bishop Fellay and what he's been doing. His cynical exploitation of the faithful to move in a way that will ruin the work of the Archbishop should be called out for what it is.
Has anyone who'd just spoken about pride agreed or supported Fellay on anything? Nope. Again, your logic is bizzare.
Again.. its very interesting to me that you seem to be so bothered by these general statements on pride and charity.
-
Again.. its very interesting to me that you seem to be so bothered by these general statements on pride and charity.
It is very interesting that some people aren't bothered by John Lane casting aspersions on the critics of Bishop Fellay and on this forum in particular.
The tried and true methods of passive aggressive goading.
Anyone who's ever been in the SSPX orbit knows how the "pride" card and to a lesser extent the "charity" card are used to insult people and try to guilt them into silence.
-
Again.. its very interesting to me that you seem to be so bothered by these general statements on pride and charity.
It is very interesting that people aren't bothered by John Lane casting aspersions on the critics of Bishop Fellay.
Read my above post. I am.
And they do so with the tried and true methods of passive aggressive goading.
Non Sequitur. I've already stated I disagree with his position. That you are so bothered by statements on pride and charity, is your issue, not that of others. But its not surprising.
Anyone who's ever been in the SSPX orbit knows how the "pride" card and to a lesser extent the "charity" card are used to insult people and try to guilt them into silence.
Okay. What does this have to do with anything. People of all stripes, even non-Catholics do this. This has nothing to do with what's being stated here.
-
I don't think its true in all circuмstances here on CI, however, its mostly true. Think about it- are not some of the members here who post most prolifically on this crisis, regardless of correctness on the position, non-SSPX goers? (ie. "...no dog in the fight...")
What influence can SSPX-goers have on the outcome of of a deal with Rome? Answer: ZERO! As Fr. Rostand gleefully says: " zee Society er is er not a democracy". As mere observers they are in the same boat as non-SSPX goers, watching the further deterioration of the traditionalist movement. In fact, the new Society is going to seek a different type of church-goer; one that is reasonably content with the world and does not have any hostility towards Rome. In this regard, the remnant needs to regroup if there is going to be any futher significant campaign against the conciliar church. Meanwhile, John Lane can enjoy his new surroundings; he may get to like them.
-
To s2srea and Seraphim:
I don't disagree that we must be charitable and professional in our criticisms, that wasn't where I disagreed with John Lane. I disagree with him because I read a post he made on Ignis where he specifically stated that he would defend Bishop Fellay. I think he's being way too soft on him.
SS- I actually agree with you on this. I was responding more or less to what Seraphim said, and the quote from Lane you gave, which was a part I agreed with. Thats all.
Ah, ok. Sorry for the confusion.
-
I think John Lane's mistake is that he is too caught up in the "greatness" of the SSPX. Matthew quite rightly noted a while back that Bishop Williamson warned never to get caught up in the Society's greatness because they could all go crazy one day. Well, that day has come, only it's Bishop Fellay who has gone crazy, not the other three Bishops.
Yet here you have a sedevacantist who is turned off by criticisms of Fellay and the Society. That's something you don't see too often.
I agree with you totally on this point, SS. Mr. Lane is very approachable in terms of apologetics and I agree with most of his conclusions, but he sometimes baffles. The one thing that has always mystified me is his assertion of Angelo Roncalli being a valid Roman Pontiff. It was not until I learned of his participation in the SSPX that I understood why; were he not legitimate, it would invalidate the liturgy employed by the whole Society.
-
John Lane can enjoy his new surroundings; he may get to like them.
You would think these developments in the SSPX would be a serving of humble pie for someone whose defended them as strongly as he has.
Quite the contrary seems to be the case.
-
As Fr. Rostand gleefully says: " zee Society er is er not a democracy".
Yes, that is a despicable straw man. As though anyone ever said it was a democracy! As though opposition to the overbearing control of one out of control individual is agitation for "democracy."
As though people who attend SSPX don't attend by their own choice - not because it's their parish under their bishop - but because they choose someone who they thought put doctrinal considerations first.
As mere observers they are in the same boat as non-SSPX goers, watching the further deterioration of the traditionalist movement. In fact, the new Society is going to seek a different type of church-goer; one that is reasonably content with the world and does not have any hostility towards Rome.
Yes, but the manipulative tendencies will likely increase rather than decrease in Opus Fellay.
-
I think John Lane's mistake is that he is too caught up in the "greatness" of the SSPX. Matthew quite rightly noted a while back that Bishop Williamson warned never to get caught up in the Society's greatness because they could all go crazy one day. Well, that day has come, only it's Bishop Fellay who has gone crazy, not the other three Bishops.
Yet here you have a sedevacantist who is turned off by criticisms of Fellay and the Society. That's something you don't see too often.
I agree with you totally on this point, SS. Mr. Lane is very approachable in terms of apologetics and I agree with most of his conclusions, but he sometimes baffles. The one thing that has always mystified me is his assertion of Angelo Roncalli being a valid Roman Pontiff. It was not until I learned of his participation in the SSPX that I understood why; were he not legitimate, it would invalidate the liturgy employed by the whole Society.
From what I have understood, John Lane is located in Australia. It is likely that he takes advantage of the only available Latin mass, the masses of the SSPX likely in Rockdale. I don't think there is an available SV mass in Australia...I am not certain, but there is no presence such as the CMRI.
If this is so, of course he will need to remain somewhat anxious for the sspx to remain unscathed from this affair.
-
One more thing about that "democracy" nonsense.
Yes, decisions about doctrine shouldn't be made based on popular will. Nor should they be based on money. Nor should they be based on political expediency.
The destiny of the SSPX is by necessity in the hands of those who attend its masses because they believe they were receiving the preaching and sacraments of true religion, because true preaching and the true religion are popular among such people, so one should consider why the current decisions are causing such divisions.
The purpose of all the rules governing of the society are directed to that true end of being faithful to Catholic Tradition. If the SSPX should not be governed by what is popular among the mass of the faithful still less it should not be governed by a small clique of individuals who are deviating from its mission.
It is ludicrous, wicked pharisaism to try to guilt opposition to this deal with talk about "democracy" - the same ludicrous pharisaism found in the conciliar sect that defends obedience to the destruction of the religion. And most absurd of all in the SSPX which was founded on resistance to that pharisaism.
-
I don't think there is an available SV mass in Australia...I am not certain, but there is no presence such as the CMRI.
I think you are correct, except if I recall, John Lane said he'd prefer an SSPX chapel anyway.
-
I think John Lane's mistake is that he is too caught up in the "greatness" of the SSPX. Matthew quite rightly noted a while back that Bishop Williamson warned never to get caught up in the Society's greatness because they could all go crazy one day. Well, that day has come, only it's Bishop Fellay who has gone crazy, not the other three Bishops.
Yet here you have a sedevacantist who is turned off by criticisms of Fellay and the Society. That's something you don't see too often.
I agree with you totally on this point, SS. Mr. Lane is very approachable in terms of apologetics and I agree with most of his conclusions, but he sometimes baffles. The one thing that has always mystified me is his assertion of Angelo Roncalli being a valid Roman Pontiff. It was not until I learned of his participation in the SSPX that I understood why; were he not legitimate, it would invalidate the liturgy employed by the whole Society.
From what I have understood, John Lane is located in Australia. It is likely that he takes advantage of the only available Latin mass, the masses of the SSPX likely in Rockdale. I don't think there is an available SV mass in Australia...I am not certain, but there is no presence such as the CMRI.
If this is so, of course he will need to remain somewhat anxious for the sspx to remain unscathed from this affair.
Anything less than a repudiation of the deal with Rome, the deposition of Bernard Fellay as Superior General, and, given the depth of his personal betrayal to the Faith and the principles of the late Archbishop, should he then decide to remain with the Society instead of jumping ship immediately to the conciliar establishment, a formal declaration preventing him from holding any position of authority or formation of priests for the duration of his life, then the Society will not be left unscathed. It will be one more weathered but much-needed organ in the Mystical Body succuмbing to the cancer of modernism.
-
To s2srea and Seraphim:
I don't disagree that we must be charitable and professional in our criticisms, that wasn't where I disagreed with John Lane. I disagree with him because I read a post he made on Ignis where he specifically stated that he would defend Bishop Fellay. I think he's being way too soft on him.
SS- I actually agree with you on this. I was responding more or less to what Seraphim said, and the quote from Lane you gave, which was a part I agreed with. Thats all.
Here's what Mr. Lane himself said on his own forum:
It's interesting that demanding that another prove his allegation that Bishop Fellay lied is now being characterised as simply "defending Bishop Fellay" in an effort to shift the focus from whether a specific allegation can be justified. Try as I might, I was unable to get one particular individual to justify his allegation on this score. Obfuscation of the issue, accompanied by personal attacks, were employed to disguise the issue.
Bishop Fellay's reversal of stance on several things is indefensible, insofar as he is objectively abandoning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. This does not mean that every allegation made against him is true.
If objective morality means anything, it means standing up for the truth and being just to all men, even those with whom we are in conflict. If our side of the conflict is the right one, then we have no need to adopt the tactics of Satan, for by doing so, we would merely be changing sides without admitting that we are doing so.
But since arguments based upon principle have no effect on politicians, perhaps they might consider an argument based on politics. About the most counter-productive thing we can do in the present circuмstances is to abandon true morality. The good men who currently think that Bishop Fellay's flip to the Ecclesia Dei position might be justifiable, are only going to conclude that his opponents are amoral. Does that aid the cause of those who oppose the deal?
Clearly, since they won't justify their words on thre grounds of Catholic morality, some of his opponents are amoral, so the only sensible course of action is to distance ourselves from them.
-
To s2srea and Seraphim:
I don't disagree that we must be charitable and professional in our criticisms, that wasn't where I disagreed with John Lane. I disagree with him because I read a post he made on Ignis where he specifically stated that he would defend Bishop Fellay. I think he's being way too soft on him.
SS- I actually agree with you on this. I was responding more or less to what Seraphim said, and the quote from Lane you gave, which was a part I agreed with. Thats all.
Here's what Mr. Lane himself said on his own forum:
It's interesting that demanding that another prove his allegation that Bishop Fellay lied is now being characterised as simply "defending Bishop Fellay" in an effort to shift the focus from whether a specific allegation can be justified. Try as I might, I was unable to get one particular individual to justify his allegation on this score. Obfuscation of the issue, accompanied by personal attacks, were employed to disguise the issue.
Bishop Fellay's reversal of stance on several things is indefensible, insofar as he is objectively abandoning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. This does not mean that every allegation made against him is true.
If objective morality means anything, it means standing up for the truth and being just to all men, even those with whom we are in conflict. If our side of the conflict is the right one, then we have no need to adopt the tactics of Satan, for by doing so, we would merely be changing sides without admitting that we are doing so.
But since arguments based upon principle have no effect on politicians, perhaps they might consider an argument based on politics. About the most counter-productive thing we can do in the present circuмstances is to abandon true morality. The good men who currently think that Bishop Fellay's flip to the Ecclesia Dei position might be justifiable, are only going to conclude that his opponents are amoral. Does that aid the cause of those who oppose the deal?
Clearly, since they won't justify their words on thre grounds of Catholic morality, some of his opponents are amoral, so the only sensible course of action is to distance ourselves from them.
Said as though Fellay's abandonment of the Archbishop's principles, to say nothing of the traditional Catholic faith upon which His Excellency based those principles, is not sufficient to call for his deposition, censure, and suspension from all duties of authority or teaching.
Justice does require that allegations be laid against a man only when there is sufficient evidence, however, prudence requires that a man's malice must be presumed if:
1.) The public actions of that man, or private actions brought to public scrunity so that error or scandal does not compound, are demonstrably contrary to the faith.
2.) That, especially, when the man in question has gone to great lengths to keep those actions from public knowledge for the obvious purpose of avoid criticism or censure, making any claim of ignorance or good intention a blatant falsehood.
In such an instance, justice demands that, for the good of souls, the man, especially when he holds the authority to rule a significant portion of the faithful as well as to provide sacraments in a time when they are in desperate want, must be presumed to act in malice in all matters germane or tangential to the actions, until such time that the man abjures his error and suffers the loss of his faculties for such a period as deemed prudent by those that have judged him. Anything less is the justice of appearance, that is, the justice of the Pharisees.
-
I think John Lane's mistake is that he is too caught up in the "greatness" of the SSPX. Matthew quite rightly noted a while back that Bishop Williamson warned never to get caught up in the Society's greatness because they could all go crazy one day. Well, that day has come, only it's Bishop Fellay who has gone crazy, not the other three Bishops.
Yet here you have a sedevacantist who is turned off by criticisms of Fellay and the Society. That's something you don't see too often.
I agree with you totally on this point, SS. Mr. Lane is very approachable in terms of apologetics and I agree with most of his conclusions, but he sometimes baffles. The one thing that has always mystified me is his assertion of Angelo Roncalli being a valid Roman Pontiff. It was not until I learned of his participation in the SSPX that I understood why; were he not legitimate, it would invalidate the liturgy employed by the whole Society.
I believe the universal peaceful acceptance of John XXIII by the entire Church is why he may be reluctant to offer an opinion on his pontificate. I don't think it has anything to do with the 1962 missal and the SSPX. Not all SSPX priests use the 62 missal anyway.
-
Yes SJB, John Lane admits that Bishop Fellay's change of position is not defendable. But he is still defending Fellay from accusations of being a liar, among other things. Gregorio Sarto on Ignis Ardens has already proven that Bishop Fellay is, in fact, a liar.
The two parts from Lane's post today that stand out for me:
It's interesting that demanding that another prove his allegation that Bishop Fellay lied is now being characterised as simply "defending Bishop Fellay" in an effort to shift the focus from whether a specific allegation can be justified. Try as I might, I was unable to get one particular individual to justify his allegation on this score. Obfuscation of the issue, accompanied by personal attacks, were employed to disguise the issue.
Clearly, since they won't justify their words on thre grounds of Catholic morality, some of his opponents are amoral, so the only sensible course of action is to distance ourselves from them.
It's also worth pointing out that at first, John Lane didn't even think Fellay had changed.
-
Can you direct me to that proof? I don't read IA daily.
-
The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course,
I don't think its true in all circuмstances here on CI, however, its mostly true. Think about it- are not some of the members here who post most prolifically on this crisis, regardless of correctness on the position, non-SSPX goers? (ie. "...no dog in the fight...")
You'd have to show me proof to believe that is the case here. I'm of the impression that a solid majority of prolific posters within this subforum are either SSPX-goers or perhaps attended SSPX quite recently. (I'm not certain, but I think this may be the case with John Grace.)
This thread is a notably different mix due to the discussion of John Lane's position.
ADD: I don't see anything wrong with non-SSPXers voicing their opinions on this matter as it affects us all to some degree, but I do realize it is helpful in reading posts to know where the individual is coming from. I don't think it's true that the majority of CI posts on this topic are from those with "no skin in the game".
-
Can you direct me to that proof? I don't read IA daily.
I would like to, but I can't remember the thread he posted it on. When I find it, I'll be glad to post it here.
-
The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course,
I don't think its true in all circuмstances here on CI, however, its mostly true. Think about it- are not some of the members here who post most prolifically on this crisis, regardless of correctness on the position, non-SSPX goers? (ie. "...no dog in the fight...")
You'd have to show me proof to believe that is the case here. I'm of the impression that a solid majority of prolific posters within this subforum are either SSPX-goers or perhaps attended SSPX quite recently. (I'm not certain, but I think this may be the case with John Grace.)
This thread is a notably different mix due to the discussion of John Lane's position.
ADD: I don't see anything wrong with non-SSPXers voicing their opinions on this matter as it affects us all to some degree, but I do realize it is helpful in reading posts to know where the individual is coming from. I don't think it's true that the majority of CI posts on this topic are from those with "no skin in the game".
The independents receive confirmation from Society bishops, go to Ignatian retreats and send candidates to the Society's seminaries. Society priests often act as backup for the chapel when the independent priest is unavailable. Soon they will be threatened with excommunication for not joining the new group.They have skin in the game.
-
The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course,
I don't think its true in all circuмstances here on CI, however, its mostly true. Think about it- are not some of the members here who post most prolifically on this crisis, regardless of correctness on the position, non-SSPX goers? (ie. "...no dog in the fight...")
You'd have to show me proof to believe that is the case here. I'm of the impression that a solid majority of prolific posters within this subforum are either SSPX-goers or perhaps attended SSPX quite recently. (I'm not certain, but I think this may be the case with John Grace.)
This thread is a notably different mix due to the discussion of John Lane's position.
ADD: I don't see anything wrong with non-SSPXers voicing their opinions on this matter as it affects us all to some degree, but I do realize it is helpful in reading posts to know where the individual is coming from. I don't think it's true that the majority of CI posts on this topic are from those with "no skin in the game".
The independents receive confirmation from Society bishops, go to Ignatian retreats and send candidates to the Society's seminaries. Society priests often act as backup for the chapel when the independent priest is unavailable. Soon they will be threatened with excommunication for not joining the new group.They have skin in the game.
True! I don't think SSPX-affiliated independent chapel-goers are who they are referring to.
-
Yes SJB, John Lane admits that Bishop Fellay's change of position is not defendable. But he is still defending Fellay from accusations of being a liar, among other things. Gregorio Sarto on Ignis Ardens has already proven that Bishop Fellay is, in fact, a liar.
I don't think it's necessary to call Bp. Fellay a liar and since I haven't seen the evidence for this charge, I would reject it, especially if the person making the charge isn't very, very close to Bp. Fellay. I say it isn't necessary because a strong case can and should be made to remove him as SG of the SSPX. Isn't the goal to stop him in his position of authority?
The two parts from Lane's post today that stand out for me:
It's interesting that demanding that another prove his allegation that Bishop Fellay lied is now being characterised as simply "defending Bishop Fellay" in an effort to shift the focus from whether a specific allegation can be justified. Try as I might, I was unable to get one particular individual to justify his allegation on this score. Obfuscation of the issue, accompanied by personal attacks, were employed to disguise the issue.
Clearly, since they won't justify their words on thre grounds of Catholic morality, some of his opponents are amoral, so the only sensible course of action is to distance ourselves from them.
It's also worth pointing out that at first, John Lane didn't even think Fellay had changed.
Yes, he said Bp. Fellay hadn't changed until it was obvious that he had changed. That may have been frustrating to those who had already reached that conclusion, yet it hardly can be held against Mr. Lane.
The very fact that Bp. Fellay is very weak in his theology and is human leads me to believe he could be thinking he's doing the right thing, but I don't really care if he thinks he's correct, because he isn't. Again, his abandonment of the operating principles of the SSPX is why he should be removed as SG, regardless of his motivations.
-
Yes, he said Bp. Fellay hadn't changed until it was obvious that he had changed. That may have been frustrating to those who had already reached that conclusion, yet it hardly can be held against Mr. Lane.
It can certainly be held against his judgment.
-
Yes, he said Bp. Fellay hadn't changed until it was obvious that he had changed. That may have been frustrating to those who had already reached that conclusion, yet it hardly can be held against Mr. Lane.
It can certainly be held against his judgment.
Possibly, yet wouldn't it be better to wait until one is certain before speaking? Also, is it possible to speak out prematurely, be correct, yet really only be the blind squirrel that finds the nut occasionally?
-
Possibly, yet wouldn't it be better to wait until one is certain before speaking?
There were many signs of what was coming, unfortunately, SSPX apologetics tends to rely on suggesting that obvious facts are not obvious, that pointing them out is "rash judgment"
Also, is it possible to speak out prematurely, be correct, yet really only be the blind squirrel that finds the nut occasionally?
I would say the blind are those who don't know who their friends and enemies are.
-
If John Lane wanted to wait until making judgement about Bishop Fellay changing, I suppose I can understand that. Though really, it became obvious that Fellay had changed in 2009 when he silenced Bishop Williamson and took up for the Jєωs. And it became even more obvious in April after he signed the "doctrinal preamble".
It is because of his apparent hesitation to paint Fellay as the main culprit that I say John Lane is caught up in the greatness of the SSPX. It is somewhat similar to Americans who are so caught up in the so-called "greatness" of America that they aren't convinced this country is going down the tube, and that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr are going to destroy America along with every other country. Here we have the SSPX going down the tube because it has a leader who has become a neo-Trad, and yet some still defend him.
I think the following picture speaks volume, and it's quite sad to look at:
(http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120511cnsbr10452.jpg)
If you wanted a "picture of the year", you might have it with that one. That is all the proof anyone woud need that Fellay has lost it.
-
If John Lane wanted to wait until making judgement about Bishop Fellay changing, I suppose I can understand that. Though really, it became obvious that Fellay had changed in 2009 when he silenced Bishop Williamson and took up for the Jєωs. And it became even more obvious in April after he signed the "doctrinal preamble".
It is because of his apparent hesitation to paint Fellay as the main culprit that I say John Lane is caught up in the greatness of the SSPX. It is somewhat similar to Americans who are so caught up in the so-called "greatness" of America that they aren't convinced this country is going down the tube, and that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr are going to destroy America along with every other country. Here we have the SSPX going down the tube because it has a leader who has become a neo-Trad, and yet some still defend him.
I think the following picture speaks volume, and it's quite sad to look at:
(http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120511cnsbr10452.jpg)
If you wanted a "picture of the year", you might have it with that one. That is all the proof anyone woud need that Fellay has lost it.
Perhaps, but keep in mind, that picture you see on the wall is in every vestibule of each SSPX Chapel. That's the part (to me) that is hilarious!
-
If John Lane wanted to wait until making judgement about Bishop Fellay changing, I suppose I can understand that. Though really, it became obvious that Fellay had changed in 2009 when he silenced Bishop Williamson and took up for the Jєωs. And it became even more obvious in April after he signed the "doctrinal preamble".
It is because of his apparent hesitation to paint Fellay as the main culprit that I say John Lane is caught up in the greatness of the SSPX. It is somewhat similar to Americans who are so caught up in the so-called "greatness" of America that they aren't convinced this country is going down the tube, and that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr are going to destroy America along with every other country. Here we have the SSPX going down the tube because it has a leader who has become a neo-Trad, and yet some still defend him.
I think the following picture speaks volume, and it's quite sad to look at:
(http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120511cnsbr10452.jpg)
If you wanted a "picture of the year", you might have it with that one. That is all the proof anyone woud need that Fellay has lost it.
You've never attended an SSPX chapel (I think), so you might be surprised to find out there's usually a picture of the current pope hanging in each one.
-
You've never attended an SSPX chapel (I think), so you might be surprised to find out there's usually a picture of the current pope hanging in each one.
Ah, I had actually heard that but forgot. Thank you. And you are correct, I've never attended an SSPX chapel.
Still, the picture I posted speaks volume. I couldn't imagine any of the other three Bishops having their picture taken with a picture of Benedict in the background.
-
You've never attended an SSPX chapel (I think), so you might be surprised to find out there's usually a picture of the current pope hanging in each one.
Ah, I had actually heard that but forgot. Thank you. And you are correct, I've never attended an SSPX chapel.
Still, the picture I posted speaks volume. I couldn't imagine any of the other three Bishops having their picture taken with a picture of Benedict in the background.
No problem sir. And I agree with the latter too.
-
Still, I once knew a guy in the Chicago area who used to carry a photo (portrait) of Al Capone in his wallet. He used to pull it out and ask: "Have you ever seen a picture of my dear ol Dad?".....My guess is he thought that would garner a few laughs! :shocked:
-
Who is thumbing us down? Must be another Bishop Fellay supporter.
Care to check, Matthew?
-
If John Lane wanted to wait until making judgement about Bishop Fellay changing, I suppose I can understand that. Though really, it became obvious that Fellay had changed in 2009 when he silenced Bishop Williamson and took up for the Jєωs. And it became even more obvious in April after he signed the "doctrinal preamble".
And certain things were "obvious" to me 15 years ago. These are all private judgments, however, and there will be as many opinions as there are people expressing an opinion.
It is because of his apparent hesitation to paint Fellay as the main culprit that I say John Lane is caught up in the greatness of the SSPX.
It could be that he doesn't know who the "main culprit" might be. He has obviously put quite an effort into making the position of Archbishop Lefebvre well known and has been critical of the obscuring of it.
-
It could be that he doesn't know who the "main culprit" might be. He has obviously put quite an effort into making the position of Archbishop Lefebvre well known and has been critical of the obscuring of it.
Yes, I very much respect him for making the position of Archbishop LeFebvre well known. All I'm saying is he seems too hesitant to criticize Fellay when it's obvious what he's done to the Society.
-
I talked with a friend this evening. Bishop Tissier is NOT under house arrest in Chicago. He is currently at Econe. What happens after that is unknown.
-
I talked with a friend this evening. Bishop Tissier is NOT under house arrest in Chicago. He is currently at Econe. What happens after that is unknown.
Glad to hear that. I checked around and it seems that, that execrable Traditio.com website is spreading this rumour.
-
I talked with a friend this evening. Bishop Tissier is NOT under house arrest in Chicago. He is currently at Econe. What happens after that is unknown.
Glad to hear that. I checked around and it seems that, that execrable Traditio.com website is spreading this rumour.
I first seen the rumour being spread on IA, by "pablo the Mexican".
Nuestra Senora Santa Maria de Guadalupe and her Son have spoken through Padre Hewko.
They also Have spoken through Padre Girouard, Padre Chazal, Padre Pfeiffer, Bishop Tessier.
Padre Hewko has been banished to New Zealand, Bishop Tessier has been ordered to House Arrest in Chicago, Illinois, the other Padres have been ordered not to say Public Mass (no more sermons).
Bishop Tessier will be guarded by the Brown Shirts of the US District Superior Father Rostand.
I spoke with Father Rostand in the tent on his Seminary grounds, in his Camp, face to face and looked for some Charity from him.
Cor Unum had stopped beating long ago as I looked him in the eyes and told him we Cristeros were not with him, us Guadalupanos of Tepeyac Hill could not support the enemies of Our Lord.
Our Lady sent me into that camp to film and video tape those sermons.
We should not be cowards, but stand face to face before our Lord's enemies and demonstrate our Faith in our Divine Master.
May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.
Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.
“ I entrust this whole matter in the hands of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “Mother of the Priest par excellence, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, of all priests in whom she forms her Son”.
Viva Cristo Rey!
*
-
I talked with a friend this evening. Bishop Tissier is NOT under house arrest in Chicago. He is currently at Econe. What happens after that is unknown.
Glad to hear that. I checked around and it seems that, that execrable Traditio.com website is spreading this rumour.
I first seen the rumour being spread on IA, by "pablo the Mexican".
Nuestra Senora Santa Maria de Guadalupe and her Son have spoken through Padre Hewko.
They also Have spoken through Padre Girouard, Padre Chazal, Padre Pfeiffer, Bishop Tessier.
Padre Hewko has been banished to New Zealand, Bishop Tessier has been ordered to House Arrest in Chicago, Illinois, the other Padres have been ordered not to say Public Mass (no more sermons).
Bishop Tessier will be guarded by the Brown Shirts of the US District Superior Father Rostand.
I spoke with Father Rostand in the tent on his Seminary grounds, in his Camp, face to face and looked for some Charity from him.
Cor Unum had stopped beating long ago as I looked him in the eyes and told him we Cristeros were not with him, us Guadalupanos of Tepeyac Hill could not support the enemies of Our Lord.
Our Lady sent me into that camp to film and video tape those sermons.
We should not be cowards, but stand face to face before our Lord's enemies and demonstrate our Faith in our Divine Master.
May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.
Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.
“ I entrust this whole matter in the hands of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “Mother of the Priest par excellence, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, of all priests in whom she forms her Son”.
Viva Cristo Rey!
*
So who is pablo the Mexican? One of "The Fathers" at Traditio with questionable lineage? A 'Cristeros wannabe' but disregarding the spirit of the Cristeros?
-
Yes SJB, John Lane admits that Bishop Fellay's change of position is not defendable. But he is still defending Fellay from accusations of being a liar, among other things. Gregorio Sarto on Ignis Ardens has already proven that Bishop Fellay is, in fact, a liar.
I don't think it's necessary to call Bp. Fellay a liar and since I haven't seen the evidence for this charge, I would reject it, especially if the person making the charge isn't very, very close to Bp. Fellay. I say it isn't necessary because a strong case can and should be made to remove him as SG of the SSPX. Isn't the goal to stop him in his position of authority?
The two parts from Lane's post today that stand out for me:
It's interesting that demanding that another prove his allegation that Bishop Fellay lied is now being characterised as simply "defending Bishop Fellay" in an effort to shift the focus from whether a specific allegation can be justified. Try as I might, I was unable to get one particular individual to justify his allegation on this score. Obfuscation of the issue, accompanied by personal attacks, were employed to disguise the issue.
Clearly, since they won't justify their words on thre grounds of Catholic morality, some of his opponents are amoral, so the only sensible course of action is to distance ourselves from them.
It's also worth pointing out that at first, John Lane didn't even think Fellay had changed.
Yes, he said Bp. Fellay hadn't changed until it was obvious that he had changed. That may have been frustrating to those who had already reached that conclusion, yet it hardly can be held against Mr. Lane.
The very fact that Bp. Fellay is very weak in his theology and is human leads me to believe he could be thinking he's doing the right thing, but I don't really care if he thinks he's correct, because he isn't. Again, his abandonment of the operating principles of the SSPX is why he should be removed as SG, regardless of his motivations.
The DICI interview compared with the CNS interview are grounds to call Bishop Fellay a liar.
On the Maurice Pinay blog, Michael Hoffman asks a very valid question directed towards Bishop Fellay.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6261184205457999912&postID=616009110503127786
Michael Hoffman said...
Excellent investigative reporting of a very worrisome development. Bishop Fellay must repudiate Krah and terminate the SSPX's relationship with him. If not, one must ask whether the hierarchy of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay is a kind of Israeli agency?
June 14, 2012 11:48 AM
The fact that Krah remains in the service of the SSPX is very disturbing.As the SSPX has appeased International Jєωry in such a public manner, would it make a difference if Krah was removed? Instead of a frontal attack on the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, many in the Society bent down to International Jєωry.There is no point denying it as the facts state otherwise. Removing articles from websites etc etc. The Jєωs must be laughing at this so called Catholic Resistance.
Many Trad Caths want their little comfort zones.This has been blatant in the last few years.
The SSPX have become a laughing stock having a Zionist in such a prominent position.
Bishop Fellay must resign or be ousted if the SSPX is to be taken seriously as a Catholic resistance.To have a 'friend of Israel' in such a high place is beyond a joke.
The power of the Jєωs weaken when Christians are strong.
-
I recall 'Adoramus Te' stating Bishop Williamson didn't need me to defend him. I never suggested otherwise so I keep this in mind as I make this post. This from Vincenzo is worth mentioning though
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10034&st=50
I received this commentary today from Michael Hoffman by email. I agree.
QUOTE
Transcript of Father Chazal's June 10 talk, "What Next? "
Posted June 25, 2012
http://www.savesspx.com/
Michael Hoffman's Note: The underlining of the text below (for brevity, not included in this reposting), alleged to be a transcript of Fr. Chazal's recent talk (or sermon), was added by this writer. My apologies in advance if I have drawn attention where it should not be...I do not want to steal Fr. Chazal's thunder, but for now, four comments.
1. For many years under Bishop Fellay a tyranny has been imposed which SSPX priests and esp. laity obeyed as though their orders came from heaven itself. I witnessed consistent, mindless robotic obedience to the SSPX higher-ups as if they were inspired by the Holy Ghost at all times; this craven servility was not Roman Catholic, it was like much of the alleged "traditional" Catholicism today, a hybrid of modern traits and weak mentality. I have never understood why for so many years, SSPX priests and bishops were accorded more servile obedience than the pope himself! How could this be? Here we were, disobeying the pope when we felt he was wrong (and we were correct to do so), while at the same time submitting to virtually anything from the pastor, or the District Superior, or Superior General. This was perverse and bred many of the shortcomings and blindness that allowed Bishop Fellay in 2012 to get as far as he has, as of this late date, with the "reconciliation" with Rome.
2. The treatment by the SSPX priests and laity accorded Bishop Williamson after the worldwide media assassination of his character and added scourging by Rome and Bp. Fellay, were met with great apathy and indifference by SSPX laity and priests. Now Fr. Chazal calls on the priests and laity to have a spine. Where was their spine when Bishop Williamson was challenging h0Ɩ0cαųstianity, the clandestine religion of Judaism for gentiles that masquerades as the secular history of WWII? He was thrown to the wolves, with hardly a peep from nearly anyone in his Society. Some SSPXers told me, WWII history has nothing to do with the Church. But it was not World War II history that was at stake, it was the integrity of our Faith under assault by Judaism, using the vehicle of a false "h0Ɩ0cαųst" history that has become the new "Shoah' theology of post-Vatican II Catholicism. Bishop Fellay surrendered to it completely as did almost all of the SSPX.
3. An SSPX priest in America has consistently informed me of the stupor and obtuseness of his western U.S. parishioners who, after years in the SSPX ,had been trained to say plenty of novenas and rosaries but who cannot or will not think deeply about anything intellectual or substantial -- pietism, as Fr. Chazal himself, comments. How are such people equipped to rise now, after being told, during the past fifteen years mainly to pay, pray and obey the SSPX?
4. Finally, and Fr. Chazal does not touch on this: SSPX separatism has led to pride and an emphasis on everything but the love of Christ. At the local SSPX parish newcomers are greeted with suspicious looks and sour faces. One must be a member of the in-crowd to be treated kindly. This is a symptom of the sinful separatism of Pharisees. It is epidemic in "traditional" Catholicism. Where is the joy,peace and love of Christ? The desire for union with Rome is not entirely misplaced, even if it cannot happen with this current Hegelian pope, because there must be a way to be rid of the separatist mentality, the obsession with external purity, while malicious gossip and mean-spirited cultism hold sway. Today many SSPXers would be shocked to learn of anyone in their parish going to dine with rabbis, harlots and government bureaucrats, as Christ did. They would say that any SSPX person who did so was demon-posseesed, as the Pharisees said of Jesus. How did the Catholic Church convert the millions of pagans if not by engaging them in their public squares, educating their children, feeding their poor? This cannot be done from behind a fortress. Judaics and Freemasons are among the masses, working with optimism as they recruit en masse. We, the children of God, are hiding in our self-made ghettos, bickering among ourselves, imploding and waiting for the end of time. Is this why God put us on earth, to hide -- or to overcome? -M.H.
The "Williamson Affair" showed how spineless those attending the SSPX could be so as this snippet is good as it states "How are such people equipped to rise now, after being told, during the past fifteen years mainly to pay, pray and obey the SSPX?"
I recall even on this forum Elizabeth stating I was тαℓмυdic. I don't wish to dignify this rubbish with a detailed reply.
What interested me in this piece from Hoffman is
"Now Fr. Chazal calls on the priests and laity to have a spine. Where was their spine when Bishop Williamson was challenging h0Ɩ0cαųstianity"
Hoffman is correct here about a mindset within the SSPX. Bishop Williamson was stabbed in the back, and instead of defending him many threw him to the wolves yet when Michele Renouf defended him, many SSPX faithful were angered yet now they shed their crocodile tears about future direction of the Society.
It's remarkable.Hypocrisy of the highest order.