Author Topic: VIDEO: Bp Williamson explicitly calls for Superior Generals deposition (Read 4363 times)

Klaxon · « **on:** July 22, 2012, 08:02:26 PM »

"Get rid of Bishop Fellay"

Seems Bishop Williamson was explicit in stating his desire that Bishop Fellay be deposed at the General Chapter, during a conference attended by lay supporters of the SSPX in England:

link removed

Will Bishop Fellay now take measures against him? And given that the plan failed, what hope/dream can Bishop Williamson entertain realistically now?

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2012, 08:12:00 PM »

I don't know why, but it was playing in 3X speed for me... good thing there were subtitles.

zviadist · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2012, 08:54:07 PM »

Laying down the gauntlet! If all good Catholic men would only join him in battle...

Thursday · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:43:12 PM »

This was taken before the General Chapter meeting, I couldn't really here him say Bishop Felay, I heard we really have got to get rid of ??evil??.
Anyhow we know now, I'm glad I wasn't too far off the money when I started the thread "How can we get rid Bishop Fellay as Superior general."

Thursday · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:14:33 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

This was taken before the General Chapter meeting, I couldn't really here him say Bishop Felay, I heard we really have got to get rid of ??evil??.
Anyhow we know now, I'm glad I wasn't too far off the money when I started the thread "How can we get rid Bishop Fellay as Superior general."

Ok, I cleaned my ears, he definitley said they need to get rid of Bishop Fellay.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:31:29 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

This was taken before the General Chapter meeting, I couldn't really here him say Bishop Felay, I heard we really have got to get rid of ??evil??.
Anyhow we know now, I'm glad I wasn't too far off the money when I started the thread "How can we get rid Bishop Fellay as Superior general."

No, you weren't far off the mark, but you were far off the spelling: "What cane be done...?"

Nor was I far off the mark: "I agree. He should be caned."

But seriously, this is good news................ Now what?

Thursday · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2012, 02:11:30 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Thursday
This was taken before the General Chapter meeting, I couldn't really here him say Bishop Felay, I heard we really have got to get rid of ??evil??.
Anyhow we know now, I'm glad I wasn't too far off the money when I started the thread "How can we get rid Bishop Fellay as Superior general."

No, you weren't far off the mark, but you were far off the spelling: "What cane be done...?"

Nor was I far off the mark: "I agree. He should be caned."

But seriously, this is good news................ Now what?

Not sure, pamphlets, T-shirts (step down Bp Fellay), youtube videos, organized demonstration wherever Bp. fellay shows his face.

As far as withholding donations I sometimes wonder where the SSPX money comes from anyway. I don't see enough money comning in in the Asian district to pay all these priests and their travelling expenses etc.

What are some of the most damning incidents with regard to Fellay?
We really need a top 10 list here.

1. Denying seminarians ordination at the last minute
2. trying to force williamson to fire his lawyer
3. Excluding Williamson from the general chapter
4. telling stories about the pope saying the latin mass in private which were later said to have been false by Rome
5. Continuing to on his ѕυιcιdє mission after being warned by the other three bishops
6. The story bthat Lefebvre never wanted to consecrate him in the first place.
7. His relationship with Krah and krahs relationship with Isreal
8. Keeping Bp. Williamson under house arrest and forbidding him to publish his comments
9. ?
10. ?

We need a "Ten Reasons Why Bishop Fellay Needs to Step Down" . Of course we have to add some more details for each item but what I think we need is a message that will let the average SSPXer know who this guy is and it has to be concise and easy to digest.

1531 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:28:09 AM »

I would add:
1. In denying ordination without a valid reason, +Fellay has acted illegally under the statutes of the SSPX, demanding personal loyalty BEFORE a seminarian could be ordained.
8. That +Fellay has no authority to forbid Mgr Williamson from exercising his right as bishop to publish his traditional sermons/tracts/lessons on-line or in any other way in keeping with his duty to do so.
9. a) Overstepping his authority by excluding Mgr Williamson from the General Chapter, when he, like all 4 bishops are 'permanent members' of the General Chapter.
b) Illegally calling for a vote during the Gen.Ch. on whether to continue the exclusion of Mgr Williamson. Not legal for the Gen Ch. to vote on this. None of this was on the agenda. +Fellay shows he flouts the rules as suits him.
10. Mgr Lefebvre had stated that he did not wish for any of the 4 bishops to be Sup Gen precisely because it would set one of them above the others, when all 4 are of equal standing; and... that it could lead the the situation now existing where one bishop is parading as more superior than the 3 other bishops and that HE knows best.
Maybe we need to add more points, for example:
11. All Superiors, including all 3 bishops, should have full access to ALL the accounts of the Society, and an independent audit should be carried out. :reading:

All these are serious allegations that need to be addressed.

Oh, and watch out for August, when the annual 'transfers' will be taking place. Who will be transferred? Where to? and placed under Who? Whose heads will roll? And, who will be able to resist? Ah, my friends, the battle is on-going!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:55:25 AM »

Quote from: 1531

I would add:
1. In denying ordination without a valid reason, +Fellay has acted illegally under the statutes of the SSPX, demanding personal loyalty BEFORE a seminarian could be ordained.
8. That +Fellay has no authority to forbid Mgr Williamson from exercising his right as bishop to publish his traditional sermons/tracts/lessons on-line or in any other way in keeping with his duty to do so.
9. a) Overstepping his authority by excluding Mgr Williamson from the General Chapter, when he, like all 4 bishops are 'permanent members' of the General Chapter.
b) Illegally calling for a vote during the Gen.Ch. on whether to continue the exclusion of Mgr Williamson. Not legal for the Gen Ch. to vote on this. None of this was on the agenda. +Fellay shows he flouts the rules as suits him.
10. Mgr Lefebvre had stated that he did not wish for any of the 4 bishops to be Sup Gen precisely because it would set one of them above the others, when all 4 are of equal standing; and... that it could lead the the situation now existing where one bishop is parading as more superior than the 3 other bishops and that HE knows best.
Maybe we need to add more points, for example:
11. All Superiors, including all 3 bishops, should have full access to ALL the accounts of the Society, and an independent audit should be carried out. :reading:

All these are serious allegations that need to be addressed.

Oh, and watch out for August, when the annual 'transfers' will be taking place. Who will be transferred? Where to? and placed under Whom? Whose heads will roll? And, who will be able to resist? Ah, my friends, the battle is on-going!

Good thinking!

I would suggest:

9. +Fellay was hiding in Menzingen, not responding to open letters, nor making
any official announcements for several months, and then suddenly came out with
a scripted interview with CNS in which he mentioned a major change in the
doctrinal position of the SSPX. After a worldwide eruption of criticism, including
but not limited to the Internet!, suddenly Fr. Rostand appears to perform damage
control, telling us not to believe what +Fellay had said in the CNS interview.

I don't know how to make that a sound byte, sorry.

10. +Fellay has generally lost the support of the majority of SSPX faithful and has
disgraced his office with self-contradiction and accommodating the enemy: the
unclean spirit of Vatican II.

He should therefore be deposed.

Thursday · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:21:35 AM »

Nice work guys!

magdalena · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2012, 06:04:33 PM »

There must be a really good canon lawyer somewhere, because even though +Fellay and company think that they have all their bases covered, there is always someone smarter who can get around it. :gandalf:

Incredulous · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2012, 06:23:19 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

There must be a really good canon lawyer somewhere, because even though +Fellay and company think that they have all their bases covered, there is always someone smarter who can get around it. :gandalf:

How about legal charges of international money laundering and racketeering by Bp. Fellay's investement company, Dello Sarto AG ? Donations made to the SSPX are now managed by zionist Max Krah and should be audited.

:scratchchin:

Orla Walsh · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2012, 06:50:50 PM »

Not sure can he be deposed of. I was told recently that he is subject to the members of the general chapter but then again they voted 29 for him and 9 against him so that is not an option.

The other point is that I would presume that all Bishops are all on a level footing and that Bishop Fellay was out of his jurisdiction to "ban" Bishop Williamson from the general chapter.

Is there a rule book available, I'm sure there is.

Orla

Thursday · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:03:17 PM »

Quote from: Orla Walsh

Not sure can he be deposed of. I was told recently that he is subject to the members of the general chapter but then again they voted 29 for him and 9 against him so that is not an option. The other point is that I would presume that all Bishops are all on a level footing and that Bishop Fellay was out of his jurisdiction to "ban" Bishop Williamson from the general chapter. Is there a rule book available, I'm sure there is. Orla

Incredulous · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:57:08 PM »

Quote from: 1531

I would add:
1. In denying ordination without a valid reason, +Fellay has acted illegally under the statutes of the SSPX, demanding personal loyalty BEFORE a seminarian could be ordained.
8. That +Fellay has no authority to forbid Mgr Williamson from exercising his right as bishop to publish his traditional sermons/tracts/lessons on-line or in any other way in keeping with his duty to do so.
9. a) Overstepping his authority by excluding Mgr Williamson from the General Chapter, when he, like all 4 bishops are 'permanent members' of the General Chapter.
b) Illegally calling for a vote during the Gen.Ch. on whether to continue the exclusion of Mgr Williamson. Not legal for the Gen Ch. to vote on this. None of this was on the agenda. +Fellay shows he flouts the rules as suits him.
10. Mgr Lefebvre had stated that he did not wish for any of the 4 bishops to be Sup Gen precisely because it would set one of them above the others, when all 4 are of equal standing; and... that it could lead the the situation now existing where one bishop is parading as more superior than the 3 other bishops and that HE knows best.
Maybe we need to add more points, for example:
11. All Superiors, including all 3 bishops, should have full access to ALL the accounts of the Society, and an independent audit should be carried out. :reading:

All these are serious allegations that need to be addressed.

Oh, and watch out for August, when the annual 'transfers' will be taking place. Who will be transferred? Where to? and placed under Who? Whose heads will roll? And, who will be able to resist? Ah, my friends, the battle is on-going!

Here's some more...

8. The hiring of zionist lawyer, Max Krah and sponsoring his eMBA via his reponsibilities at the SSPX investment company, Dello Sarto AG.

9. The failure to disclosure the hiring of Max Krah or the creation of SSPX European investment companies to the SSPX faithful.

10. The removal of standard (classic) traditional Catholic books from the Angelus press. (Peter Lovest thou me?, Abbe LeRoux), Fr. Fahey's Kingship of Christ books. Banning the publication of +ABL's 238 hard-line sermons bythe French publisher friend, who was condoned and encouraged by +ABL's surviving family.

11. Aiding and abetting the hysterical "αnтι-ѕємιтє" media campaign against Msgr. Williamson by refering to his fratre as "uranium" in an interview with the anti-Catholic publication "der Spiegel".

12. Offering no legal defense for Msgr. Williamson (via instructions to his employee Max Krah). In the same time period, referring to the Jєωs as our "Elder Brothers".

12. Intimidating independent Catholic priests as being outside the Church and schismatic if they did not join the SSPX. (Bp. Fellay Homily given in Winona, Feb 2012).

13. The near dictatorial behavior of Bp. Fellay as SG. Secrecy and the general lack of transparency within the SSPX and the rapid expulsion of priests who dare to differ with Msgr. Fellay.

14. Arranging a secular promotional interview of the SSPX by infamous freemason, Dan Rather (An attempt to "mainstream" the Society).