Why is this McFarland still here on Cathinfo and staining the truth, the resistance priests and the last resistance bishop? Is this sellout troll enjoying the privilege of fools here? But why?
Isn't Cathinfo the last well organised English-speaking Internet bastion of the resistance? Why do we allow the enemy to spill his lies inside the fort? Don't we have enough enemies outside the fort already, and with them enough lies?
Are we in need of more ecuмenical dialogues to mix truth with error? I am not.
God bless Bishop Williamson, Fr. Chazal, Fr. J. Pfeiffer and all the other resistance clerics.
I too would enjoy seeing him bite the dust.
He is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in human form.
Careful: you are suggesting a grave insult to the venerable Second Law.
This is a supplement to what Fr Chazal is saying taken from an article posted elsewhere on the Forum:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Roratre-Caeli-is-a-Kosher-Catholic-containment-operation
Williamson's latest remarks on the Society conflict are searingly logical. His words are like a surgical knife, cutting through all the b.s. emanating--or flowing, as b.s. might do in the metaphor--from Society moderates.
Two facts have been covered up as much as possible by the semi-trads……. The first is that Bishop Fellay publicly asserted on several occasions in the past that Rome would never succeed in dividing the Society bishops, since those bishops would always negotiate as a team.
Then he entered into secret negotiations and cut out the other three bishops. This has resulted in the very division he swore to avoid.
Secondly, +Fellay said on several occasions that there would be no practical agreement before there was general agreement on the main doctrinal issues. The two parties sat for two years and failed to resolve even one of those issues.
Then +Fellay attempted to reach an agreement on the "principles and criteria" of doctrinal interpretation--which is not the same thing as agreement on doctrine itself--and he tried to consider a canonical structure, one that would have harmed the S.S.P.X's mission very much, the hated personal prelature.
Even to consider the personal prelature structure, in which the lay supporters of the Society become subjects of the local bishops and those local bishops gain a veto over the foundation of future Society apostolates--makes him a traitor to Archbishop Lefebvre.
So Bishop Fellay has turned out to be a liar and a deceiver and a traitor.
Either that or circuмstances changed his commitments but, in that case, he OWES us an explanation. None has been forthcoming.
This is a very helpful summary.
I'd say probably 80% of Society regulars do not know these things have taken
place, and that everyone I know who is not a society regular and who defends
+Fellay does not know these things have taken place.
I'll go further. When I tell them these things, they are going to say to me, "You
must be paying attention to Internet rumors to believe these things."
Therefore, I need to attach dates, and sources for each of these items, so as
to be prepared to substantiate each of them as facts of history, and not as a
summary that I obtained from the Internet. IOW I need to "make it my own."
I cannot just say I picked it up here. This has to come from me. I need to be
the authority they have to contend with, and as such, I need all the answers.
Can anyone help me with that?
Bishop Fellay publicly asserted on several occasions in the past that Rome would never succeed in dividing the Society bishops, since those bishops would always negotiate as a team. -- When did he make such a statement? I need dates and sources.
Then he entered into secret negotiations and cut out the other three bishops. This has resulted in the very division he swore to avoid. -- I need to be able to back up the assertion that he "cut out the other three bishops.
How did he cut out +Williamson? How did he cut out +de Mallerais? How did he
cut out +de Galarreta? For example, is not the latter who headed the "secret
negotiations" themselves? If so, how was he "cut out" when he headed them?
+Fellay said on several occasions that there would be no practical agreement before there was general agreement on the main doctrinal issues. The two parties sat for two years and failed to resolve even one of those issues. -- I need at least one date for these "several occasions," and preferably three,
along with location, occasion, and source. As for "the two parties sat for two years," I need to be able to answer, "Who were the parties?" I think each party
was two or three people, no? I need specifics.
Then +Fellay attempted to reach an agreement on the "principles and criteria" of doctrinal interpretation--which is not the same thing as agreement on doctrine itself--and he tried to consider a canonical structure, one that would have harmed the S.S.P.X's mission very much, the hated personal prelature. -- I need a source and date for this "principles and criteria" accusation. I am going
to be facing questions like, "How do you know he attempted to reach an
agreement on the principles and criteria of doctrinal interpretation?" So I need to
be prepared to answer that. I can handle the observation that it's not the same
thing as an agreement on doctrine. I do appreciate this observation, though.
-- Also, I need to be able to back up the statement that he tried to consider the
canonical structure of "personal prelature." I need to explain why it is "hated" -
hated by whom? If it's only hated by someone who is apposed to an accord with
Rome, that will be a point of contention.
-- Also, I need to be able to prove that a personal prelature would have harmed
the SSPX's mission very much. Is that because the Society would be under the
authority of diocesan bishops worldwide?
Even to consider the personal prelature structure, in which the lay supporters of the Society become subjects of the local bishops and those local bishops gain a veto over the foundation of future Society apostolates--makes him a traitor to Archbishop Lefebvre.-- But aren't lay supporters of the Society already subjects of the local bishops?
How would a personal prelature change the present situation in regards to the
laity's subjection to local bishops? I don't understand this.
-- I need to prove that the local bishops would "gain a veto over the foundation of
future Society apostolates. If I can do that, then I can handle making the
assertion that that makes him a traitor to Archbishop Lefebvre.