This thread was poorly titled (so I fixed it for you).
It was a good post about the SSPX-Rome crisis, but you failed to illustrate the point you were apparently trying to make.
You didn't even make CLAIMS (let alone proof) of defects or misdirection in the Resistance movement, etc. which is what I expected when I clicked on it.
You are simply musing about the current true state of the SSPX-Rome Crisis.
I was thinking the same thing when I read it. I'm glad you changed the title.
I also have a question for Neil. You said, "It comes from a reliable source,
which I am not at liberty to divulge." Does this mean that everything from
+Fellay is smart.
to The longer this goes on, the more of this is
happening. +Fellay knows this, and he is able to use it to his advantage.
The priests are being lulled to sleep, pretty much.
is from that source? If not, which parts are, and which are from you directly?
Thanks.
Well, I didn't want to plagiarize, so I changed a lot of it. But I tried to keep it
more factually accurate, while I introduced points from my own experience
and from the talks of Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko and +Williamson.
If you have any specific questions I'd be glad to answer them if I can.
I have left out some very pithy content that was rather shocking to me and
I can't verify it, so it's best left out for now. The point is I'm posting this to be
of benefit to the movement, not to stir up controversy. The Faithful who attend
Mass are going to Canonized Traditional Latin Mass centers because they want
to protect their faith, and they are AVOIDING the local parish, where normally
they SHOULD be going, but they can't because it endangers their faith.
Then we have this STINKY situation now where even SSPX chapels are either
YELLOW LIGHT or
RED LIGHT meaning you might endanger your faith by going
there, or you are LIKELY to endanger your faith by going there. And how
are you to know which is which? Well, I guess you'll have to call someone you
can trust. Hint: Do not call Fr. Rostand, or Fr. Couture, or Fr. Pfluger, etc. The
Menzingen-denizens are not credible in this matter. They are the ones that
are responsible for the
YELLOW and the
RED lights, when they should be
GREENlights.
I could go through it and put in
bold everything that comes from the source....
If that would help.
But I'm not making this up. I am not "spreading Internet rumors."
Now, I'd like to say something about that topic.
+Fellay et. al., aka the Menzingen-denizens, have been treating us like idiots
for a long time, LYING to us straight faced, trying to make us think that anything
that we read on the Internet is not believable unless it comes from the
SSPX propaganda, I mean, "news" websites like DICI and sspx.org and the like.
Are they planning this dishonesty campaign or does it just come naturally for
them? Sorry if that sounds harsh. No, actually, I'm not sorry.
I know intelligent people that this crapola is working on. And if it were not for
CI and Fr. Pfeiffer and the good resistance priests, I would be lost, dazed and
confused, like my friends are. Because they don't go to CI, etc.
It seems to me that the term, Internet rumors, is one that needs to be defined.
Now, +Fellay, that is, IF he was true to his training (actually, I don't know if he
perhaps underwent some other training than the Society - like Bella Dodd's
or the AA-1029 sort of thing) he would know and use the word, rumors, with
a certain limit and connotation. But it seems he has broken ranks with his
erstwhile training ground and has introduced a Teihardian Clandestines
evolution of meaning to the word.
For the way he uses it, something is a rumor if it is in conflict with the
Accordista agenda. Now, it makes no difference if the thing in itself is
objectively true or not. All that matters to him in his lifetime is if the SSPX
can be subsumed back into Rome, the goal of his lifetime, bar none.
There should be a cafe in Rome by that name, just for him: Bar-Jonah, Bar-
Tholomew, Bar-Mitzvah, and Bar-None. But I digress......
It means nothing to +Fellay and the Menzingen-denizens if this thing that
they call a "rumor" is based in fact or not. All that matters is if THEY DON'T
LIKE IT. It's an awful lot like anti-Semitism or political correctness: a thing
is anti-Semitic if it's something the Jєωs don't like, and it's politically incorrect
if it's something the liberals don't like.
Now, evidence the overt treatment of one particularly outspoken bishop in
Germany, for something he did not say IN Germany, and was promised that
it would not be repeated IN Germany. The German court said that the
historical facts of what he had said have nothing to do with the charges. All
that matters is, SOMEONE WAS OFFENDED by what he had said. And therefore
he was "inciting racial unrest."
What about that ALL MANNER of offensiveness against Catholics is uttered
all the time -- and would there be any punishment to be found for those who
perpetrate that? N-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O!
So "Internet rumors" are defined as anything that offends the
Menzingen-denizens. If they don't like it, you can't say it. OKAY?
Well, actually, no, it's not 'okay.'
Using the Internet for information is turning into a crime,
according to
Accordistas. It's a bit too much like how
all the capitulants capitulated. The truth of what you find on the Internet has nothing to do with it.
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to find out what the Menzingen-denizens
would LIKE you to think FIRST, and THEN you can better judge whether what
you read elsewhere is, well, virtuous or sinful.
Like picking petals on a daisy and saying "he loves me, he loves me not..."
only you're saying
"Internet truth, Internet rumor..."
What really gets me is that
this new doctrine is ITSELF an Internet rumor for me, because it's
only on the Internet that I have seen +Fellay or Fr.
Rostand or anyone else dish out this new doctrine!!