Author Topic: Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPXs future (Read 10568 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:38:58 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote
Although I have great respect for His Excellency and have benefited greatly from listening to his doctrinal conferences (which are a model of learning, clarity and wit), I believe his judgment on these practical matters is unjust and inaccurate.

This is revealing in itself. The I have great respect but,but,but,but emerges.It's a bit like ignoring the evidence that Mossad were behind 9/11/September 11th.

Out of interest has McCall an opinion of the sacred six million.

There are many people who support people and idea etc etc but then develop a but,but,but,but stammer

I saw a few heads shake in England when His Lordship mentioned September 11th. It was not as presented to be.

I don't accept this "I support or agree with the Bishop type argument" and then adopt a but,but,but approach.

Agreed.
I was about to post the same concern.

BTW, far as I remember, this article is the lengthiest one SSPX.org has put out in a long time that doesn't really say a thing.

At least we know SSPX hierarchy are not deaf to the concerns of the people and +Williamson - if nothing else, this article proves that.

Francisco · « **Reply #6 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:43:11 AM »

This is from a post that appeared elsewhere on this Forum some days ago ( Would sspx.org print an article like this?):

.....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 circustances changed his commitments but, in that case, he OWES us an explanation. None has been forthcoming.......

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:46:19 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: John Grace
Quote
Although I have great respect for His Excellency and have benefited greatly from listening to his doctrinal conferences (which are a model of learning, clarity and wit), I believe his judgment on these practical matters is unjust and inaccurate.

This is revealing in itself. The I have great respect but,but,but,but emerges.It's a bit like ignoring the evidence that Mossad were behind 9/11/September 11th.

Out of interest has McCall an opinion of the sacred six million.

There are many people who support people and idea etc etc but then develop a but,but,but,but stammer

I saw a few heads shake in England when His Lordship mentioned September 11th. It was not as presented to be.

I don't accept this "I support or agree with the Bishop type argument" and then adopt a but,but,but approach.

Agreed.
I was about to post the same concern.

BTW, far as I remember, this article is the lengthiest one SSPX.org has put out in a long time that doesn't really say a thing.

At least we know SSPX hierarchy are not deaf to the concerns of the people and +Williamson - if nothing else, this article proves that.

The reality though is the vast bulk of the priests and faithful support Bishop Williamson.An example is when he visited Ireland people travelled long distances to greet him. He certainly didn't receive a hostile reception. Look at the photographs from Brazil.They speak for themselves. Bishop Williamson is popular.Whilst it is not about popularity the point is this Bishop is faithful to the mindset and mission of the late Archbishop.He has never deviated nor will he abandon that mission nor will the other two Bishops.I can't say the same for the current Superior General.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:48:30 AM »

Quote from: Francisco

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

Yes, this is an excellent refutation of the semitrads. Perhaps Berengaria (from Ignis Ardens) has quotes apropos to demonstrate the flagrant violation of his past promises.

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:53:12 AM »

Quote

So Bishop Fellay has turned out to be a liar and a deceiver and a traitor. Either that or circustances changed his commitments but, in that case, he OWES us an explanation. None has been forthcoming.......

Did Dumb Ox or somebody else post a snippet about Fr Nely from a few months ago? It would suggest Bishop Fellay was indeed telling lies. I have always believed Bishop Fellay is keeping the door open regarding Rome.

Berengaria, who posts on IA has a great selection of quotations.