Author Topic: Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014 (Read 40339 times)

Adolphus · « **Reply #245 on:** October 31, 2014, 09:17:53 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I see His Lordship's opening EC remarks as somewhat defensive of Bp. Fellay, arguing that the latter did not have full knowledge, thereby justifying, at least somewhat, his actions in 2006. If the SSPX has fallen apart, it is certainly not primarily over +Fellay's refusing to comply with Our Lady's demands.

I see the last ECs as a defense of Bp. Fellay. I don't know if in the future issues this will change, but as it is now, Bp. Williamson is defending Bp. Fellay. He is even repeating the superior general's errors:

* The Most Blessed Virgin Mary is behind the deplorable motu proprio Summorum pontificuм.

* The first Rosary Crusade was a success.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #246 on:** October 31, 2014, 10:46:58 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Quote from: Militia Jesu
Quote from: Ladislaus
So what exactly does Dawn Marie hope to gain from this besides publicity?

I don't know for sure but someone already mentioned she has a "Donate Button" on her website.

This CANNOT get anymore bizarre!!! Or can?

The donations are for Mass stipends for the Crusader's masses for the consecration of Russia. Why are you deliberately trying to make it sound like she is soliciting donations for her personal use? That is underhanded behavior.

I just checked and it also says: "...contributions also go toward having Masses said and toward the support of the Monastery of the Holy Cross of the Benedictine Monks of Brazil."

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #247 on:** October 31, 2014, 10:47:34 PM »

"DM Motives is just speculation".

This is a thread to no where and the bottomless pit.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #248 on:** November 01, 2014, 09:49:18 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Mary had a genuine communication, or communications, form Our Lady, or she didn't. Bp. X has confirmed that she did, apparently, although he may have wavered in the past. Whatever the present ulterior motives of the two may be in fine, subtle shades of gray, I'll leave to chat forum experts like yourself.

Obviously, on the objective level, you are quite correct. Either she had a genuine vision or she did not. I am in the camp of having adopted the default position of Catholics, which is that of skepticism. Unless I see evidence or proof to the contrary, something which would overcome that default stance, then I remain in the default stance. In other words, the burden of proof is on the visionary and on Bishop Williamson. What I was addressing was the fact that OTHERS are making this about motivations. So, for instance, even if we can rightly conclude that the visions are false, we cannot know where in the spectrum of falsehood it lies, from the one end of outright fabrication to the other of being convinced that she was indeed receiving a vision but it was her mind playing tricks on her, or anywhere in between; only God knows the truth really.