Author Topic: What appears to be the upside of Bishop Fellays recent talk (Read 8436 times)

Skunkwurxsspx · « **on:** October 28, 2013, 02:49:24 PM »

Whatever may have been the intentions of Bishop Fellay in giving the recent talk at the KC conference, I think the immediate effects I'm noticing is that the old-school-minded SSPX priests who have been effectively barred from criticizing Vatican II and Pope Francis now seem to feel at greater liberty to do so.

I agree, this is still not the "ideal" solution--FAR FROM IT--as many of us here would rightly object, but I think it's a good thing that these priests now seem to feel less pressured to just stick to "safe" subjects in their sermons. Time will tell, of course. This may just get them to reconsider/rethink what the resistance priests have been saying all along. At least, that is my hope.

But, as it is said that it is the superior that molds his subjects, no institution-wide change in SSPX policy can or should be expected short of Bishop Fellay's VERY public recantation of his compromise with Rome; the complete, public vindication of the resistance priests, religious, . . . and bishop; the resignation of Bishop Fellay himself; and complete "regime change" in Menzingen.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2013, 05:36:59 AM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

But, as it is said that it is the superior that molds his subjects, no institution-wide change in SSPX policy can or should be expected short of Bishop Fellay's VERY public recantation of his compromise with Rome; the complete, public vindication of the resistance priests, religious, . . . and bishop; the resignation of Bishop Fellay himself; and complete "regime change" in Menzingen.

And pigs can fly, right?

.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:55:42 AM »

The Resistance and the SSPX should re-unite if Bishop Fellay has really repented. We heard what he said. We thank God no deal was made...

Zeitun · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:57:25 AM »

Quote from: LoverOfTradition

The Resistance and the SSPX should re-unite if Bishop Fellay has really repented. We heard what he said. We thank God no deal was made...

What would be the visible sign that he has repented? Even the Archbishop would not take someone's word.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2013, 07:33:13 PM »

LOT:

Quote

The Resistance and the SSPX should re-unite if Bishop Fellay has really repented. We heard what he said. We thank God no deal was made...

Yes, we heard that sspx was perhaps delivered from an "Agreement" because of an extra outpouring of graces from the 3rd Rosary Crusade, (or was it the 4th?). Even though the 3rd RC was over (March, 2010) long before the Preamble and subsequent Declaration (Oct. or Nov. 2011 and April 15, 2012 respectively) were written, a surplus of 'fairy dust' still remained in the air, apparently. I can not imagine that among those 500 people in attendance, a few, at least, would not have gone up to Bp. Fellay afterwards and pursued the matter more in depth. But I'll bet they didn't. I mean, if there was a "deliverance," from what quarter did that deliverance come? Can Bp. Fellay take credit for having backtracked just in the nick of time? No, it was he who told the folks in Sydney in Sept. 2012 that he had been "betrayed" by the pope. Most of us took that to mean that +Fellay and the Holy See were well on the way to a deal, and the pope turned the tables on him. So was the SG saying on Oct. 12, 13 or 2013 that he was now happy that no such agreement had occurred.
BTW, Fellay will really repent when hell freezes over.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** November 01, 2013, 12:44:13 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

LOT:
Quote
The Resistance and the SSPX should re-unite if Bishop Fellay has really repented. We heard what he said. We thank God no deal was made...

Yes, we heard that sspx was perhaps delivered from an "Agreement" because of an extra outpouring of graces from the 3rd Rosary Crusade, (or was it the 4th?). Even though the 3rd RC was over (March, 2010) long before the Preamble and subsequent Declaration (Oct. or Nov. 2011 and April 15, 2012 respectively) were written, a surplus of 'fairy dust' still remained in the air, apparently. I can not imagine that among those 500 people in attendance, a few, at least, would not have gone up to Bp. Fellay afterwards and pursued the matter more in depth. But I'll bet they didn't. I mean, if there was a "deliverance," from what quarter did that deliverance come? Can Bp. Fellay take credit for having backtracked just in the nick of time? No, it was he who told the folks in Sydney in Sept. 2012 that he had been "betrayed" by the pope. Most of us took that to mean that +Fellay and the Holy See were well on the way to a deal, and the pope turned the tables on him. So was the SG saying on Oct. 12, 13 of 2013 that he was now happy that no such agreement had occurred.

You have an interesting outlook on the way things went down in those
years, hollingsworth. I thought it was a bit odd that suddenly the Rosary
Crusades seemed to fizzle out without any explanation -- as though there
had been a "word" put in by one of those curious special messages, like
maybe an e-mail from a cardinal in the Vatican or whatever. Something
like "If you know what's good for you, just knock off those 'crusades'!"

But the "fairy dust settling" is an apt analogy. Any one of the 500 in
attendance going up to pursue the matter would have received the typical
COLD SHOULDER treatment. I'm a Roger Cardinal Mahony questioner,
and I can assure you, these kind do not answer questions they don't want
to answer. They turn on their heel and walk away from you. They'll even
do that when it means leaving a line of people who are waiting to speak
to them, to go chew the fat with a circle of cronies while the queue gawks
in disbelief. They have no shame. And +Fellay is in the same category,
IMHO: without shame.

Quote

BTW, Fellay will really repent when hell freezes over.

. "WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER"

.

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** November 01, 2013, 07:31:16 AM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Whatever may have been the intentions of Bishop Fellay in giving the recent talk at the KC conference, I think the immediate effects I'm noticing is that the old-school-minded SSPX priests who have been effectively barred from criticizing Vatican II and Pope Francis now seem to feel at greater liberty to do so.

I agree, this is still not the "ideal" solution--FAR FROM IT--as many of us here would rightly object, but I think it's a good thing that these priests now seem to feel less pressured to just stick to "safe" subjects in their sermons. Time will tell, of course. This may just get them to reconsider/rethink what the resistance priests have been saying all along. At least, that is my hope.

But, as it is said that it is the superior that molds his subjects, no institution-wide change in SSPX policy can or should be expected short of Bishop Fellay's VERY public recantation of his compromise with Rome; the complete, public vindication of the resistance priests, religious, . . . and bishop; the resignation of Bishop Fellay himself; and complete "regime change" in Menzingen.

This Superior has molded far to many subjects to accomodationist ideas for an administration change to make any difference. The old SSPX cannot be reclaimed. There are far too many progressive minded priests in it now.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2013, 10:09:20 AM »

Neil Obstat:

Quote

I thought it was a bit odd that suddenly the Rosary
Crusades seemed to fizzle out without any explanation

I'm not so sure they have fizzled out, Neil. Didn't the SG talk about launching a new RC during one of his talks in KC ,Oct. 12,13. I'm not going to go trough the unpleasantness of re-listening to his diatribes, but I am almost certain that he mentioned a new RC on the horizon.

B from A · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2013, 10:46:37 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Neil Obstat:
Quote
I thought it was a bit odd that suddenly the Rosary
Crusades seemed to fizzle out without any explanation

I'm not so sure they have fizzled out, Neil. Didn't the SG talk about launching a new RC during one of his talks in KC ,Oct. 12,13. I'm not going to go trough the unpleasantness of re-listening to his diatribes, but I am almost certain that he mentioned a new RC on the horizon.

Yes, I seem to recall something along those lines. It didn't sound definite, but something like "don't be surprised if we do another" - at least, that's how I remember it.

Quote from: hollingsworth

... Yes, we heard that sspx was perhaps delivered from an "Agreement" because of an extra outpouring of graces from the 3rd Rosary Crusade, (or was it the 4th?).

Hard to say for sure, but I think it was the 4th. My recollection is the 1st (late 2006-early 2007?) was for 3 intentions written down initially, but in hindsight they seemed to regard it as being for the the so-called "freeing the Mass." (1/3 of the original intentions)
#2 (very late 2008) for the admission by the conciliar church that the excomm's were null (not sure how +F worded it in 2008, but that was supposed to be what they were asking for way back when),
#3 (2009??) for the Pope to consecrate Russia to the IHM in union with the bishops, and there sort of seemed to be a
#4, which is the one that ended around Pentecost, 2012 if I remember right, and the intentions of that one were never clear to me. I would read what they said it was for, and think, :confused1: what is it for again? It isn't worth my time to bother looking these up, but that at least is my best recollection.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #9 on:** November 01, 2013, 11:24:46 AM »

B from A:

Quote

I would read what they said it was for, and think, what is it for again? It isn't worth my time to bother looking these up, but that at least is my best

Yes, exactly! That was my experience, as well- never being quite sure what the RC was all about, but having some general idea. Rosary Crusades are, IMO, one method the SG uses to keep all the troops on the same page and moving ahead together. He doesn't really believe in their efficacy, witness what he said after the conclusion of the the 3rd RC. But they serve a useful purpose by somewhat unifying all the disparate sspx chapels throughout the world, and pointing them towards and immediate goal over which he assumes the visible leadership. Then when their stated purposes are never really quite achieved, well, he and his clever minions can always resort to weasel wording.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** November 01, 2013, 01:02:05 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx
Whatever may have been the intentions of Bishop Fellay in giving the recent talk at the KC conference, I think the immediate effects I'm noticing is that the old-school-minded SSPX priests who have been effectively barred from criticizing Vatican II and Pope Francis now seem to feel at greater liberty to do so.

I agree, this is still not the "ideal" solution--FAR FROM IT--as many of us here would rightly object, but I think it's a good thing that these priests now seem to feel less pressured to just stick to "safe" subjects in their sermons. Time will tell, of course. This may just get them to reconsider/rethink what the resistance priests have been saying all along. At least, that is my hope.

But, as it is said that it is the superior that molds his subjects, no institution-wide change in SSPX policy can or should be expected short of Bishop Fellay's VERY public recantation of his compromise with Rome; the complete, public vindication of the resistance priests, religious, . . . and bishop; the resignation of Bishop Fellay himself; and complete "regime change" in Menzingen.

This Superior has molded far to many subjects to accomodationist ideas for an administration change to make any difference. The old SSPX cannot be reclaimed. There are far too many progressive minded priests in it now.

On the contrary:

If they are all as blindly obedient as they have been accused of being, they should immediately be able to turn towards integral tradition if their Superior General wills it, eh?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2013, 02:49:33 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: J.Paul
This Superior has molded far to many subjects to accomodationist ideas for an administration change to make any difference. The old SSPX cannot be reclaimed. There are far too many progressive minded priests in it now.

On the contrary:

If they are all as blindly obedient as they have been accused of being, they should immediately be able to turn towards integral tradition if their Superior General wills it, eh?

:scratchchin:
That thought, sadly, leaves me just a bit more optomistic about the mid-term future of the Society.

Machabees · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2013, 03:22:23 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: J.Paul
This Superior has molded far to many subjects to accomodationist ideas for an administration change to make any difference. The old SSPX cannot be reclaimed. There are far too many progressive minded priests in it now.

On the contrary:

If they are all as blindly obedient as they have been accused of being, they should immediately be able to turn towards integral tradition if their Superior General wills it, eh?

:scratchchin:
That thought, sadly, leaves me just a bit more optomistic about the mid-term future of the Society.

Yes, and back again; like a leaf blowing in the wind.

In that scenario, their "obedience" is only ACCIDENTAL; NO SUBSTANCE.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2013, 05:52:40 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx
Whatever may have been the intentions of Bishop Fellay in giving the recent talk at the KC conference, I think the immediate effects I'm noticing is that the old-school-minded SSPX priests who have been effectively barred from criticizing Vatican II and Pope Francis now seem to feel at greater liberty to do so.

I agree, this is still not the "ideal" solution--FAR FROM IT--as many of us here would rightly object, but I think it's a good thing that these priests now seem to feel less pressured to just stick to "safe" subjects in their sermons. Time will tell, of course. This may just get them to reconsider/rethink what the resistance priests have been saying all along. At least, that is my hope.

But, as it is said that it is the superior that molds his subjects, no institution-wide change in SSPX policy can or should be expected short of Bishop Fellay's VERY public recantation of his compromise with Rome; the complete, public vindication of the resistance priests, religious, . . . and bishop; the resignation of Bishop Fellay himself; and complete "regime change" in Menzingen.

This Superior has molded far to many subjects to accomodationist ideas for an administration change to make any difference. The old SSPX cannot be reclaimed. There are far too many progressive minded priests in it now.

Dear J.Paul,

That is a rather strong conclusion you make. I am not sure there is enough evidence to support it, though. You may be right. I don't think there is any real way of knowing at this point. Whatever the ultimate outcome, however, I intend to continue praying for Bishop Fellay and for the restoration of the "old SSPX." I am of the mindset to fix rather than to start over and re-invent the wheel, so to speak.

On this note, I am going to stop "dictating terms" as to who should go and who should stay in the SSPX. It's not my place to arrogate such judgments. I have not been at peace doing so. I take it back and repent of my gross lack of humility.

I'm just a simple layman concerned, as we all are, about fighting modernism and Vatican II. God and those in the right places can dish out whatever it is that needs to be "dished out" to these men. I choose to stick to the issues, stand up for Catholic tradition, and commit myself to praying for our SSPX leaders. As saddened as I am with the courses of action some have taken, I do care about them and respect them as men of God.

Call me what they may here, I believe we are all entitled to make mistakes. I also happen to believe in a thing called mercy . . . forgiving and forgetting. Whatever the "crime" of Bishop Fellay and those in charge, I ask for God's mercy on them and for special graces to come down upon them so that they may steer the SSPX in the right direction.

In short, I am not giving up on the SSPX. That I would be proven right or wrong is unimportant. It is not about me, after all, and it is certainly not about "winning" an argument or getting in that precious "last word." I couldn't care less about silly little minutia like that. No, it is about fighting on, regardless, and daring to ask God each day for the "humanly" impossible--whatever the odds.

God bless you, my friend. God bless us all here!!!

JPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2013, 10:00:30 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx
Whatever may have been the intentions of Bishop Fellay in giving the recent talk at the KC conference, I think the immediate effects I'm noticing is that the old-school-minded SSPX priests who have been effectively barred from criticizing Vatican II and Pope Francis now seem to feel at greater liberty to do so.

I agree, this is still not the "ideal" solution--FAR FROM IT--as many of us here would rightly object, but I think it's a good thing that these priests now seem to feel less pressured to just stick to "safe" subjects in their sermons. Time will tell, of course. This may just get them to reconsider/rethink what the resistance priests have been saying all along. At least, that is my hope.

But, as it is said that it is the superior that molds his subjects, no institution-wide change in SSPX policy can or should be expected short of Bishop Fellay's VERY public recantation of his compromise with Rome; the complete, public vindication of the resistance priests, religious, . . . and bishop; the resignation of Bishop Fellay himself; and complete "regime change" in Menzingen.

This Superior has molded far to many subjects to accomodationist ideas for an administration change to make any difference. The old SSPX cannot be reclaimed. There are far too many progressive minded priests in it now.

On the contrary:

If they are all as blindly obedient as they have been accused of being, they should immediately be able to turn towards integral tradition if their Superior General wills it, eh?

That is a pleasant thought however, it is not reasonable to assume that they can simply turn to thinking and understanding in a way in which they were not trained to do without undoing their formation and re-educating them to be true Traditional priests. For that matter do you entertain the idea that the Superior General could have a like conversion and simply step out of his liberal and modernist thinking?