Author Topic: Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPXs future (Read 10566 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2012, 05:57:29 PM »

Quote from: Nickolas

Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Good point Nikolas!

The SSPX obviously recruits lawyers to run their counter-attacks for them.

They have to do this because Bp. Fellay "talks in circles" and Father Rostand isn't a gifted speaker or writer.

The SSPX "hired gun lawyer" MO has a precedence: The Dresden lawyer Max Krah, the retired lawyer John Mcfarland and now McCall. There are probably others.

The SSPX's amateur political tactics can be read like a book.

Columba · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2012, 07:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Nickolas
Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Good point Nikolas!

The SSPX obviously recruits lawyers to run their counter-attacks for them.

They have to do this because Bp. Fellay "talks in circles" and Father Rostand isn't a gifted speaker or writer.

The SSPX "hired gun lawyer" MO has a precedence: The Dresden lawyer Max Krah, the retired lawyer John Mcfarland and now McCall. There are probably others.

The SSPX's amateur political tactics can be read like a book.

Bp. Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal, et al are more than a match for +Fellay's hired-gun shysters.

Menzingen should disclose to contributors the budget it has allotted for lawyer-theologians in its bizarre, ongoing campaign against hardliner shepherds and pastors.

Incredulous · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:18:39 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: Nickolas
Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Good point Nikolas!

The SSPX obviously recruits lawyers to run their counter-attacks for them.

They have to do this because Bp. Fellay "talks in circles" and Father Rostand isn't a gifted speaker or writer.

The SSPX "hired gun lawyer" MO has a precedence: The Dresden lawyer Max Krah, the retired lawyer John Mcfarland and now McCall. There are probably others.

The SSPX's amateur political tactics can be read like a book.

Bp. Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal, et al are more than a match for +Fellay's hired-gun shysters.

Menzingen should disclose to contributors the budget it has allotted for lawyer-theologians in its bizarre, ongoing campaign against hardliner shepherds and pastors.

Ethelred described Menzingen's behavior as "Stalinist tactics".
With that in mind, Stalin never reported Russia's financials.

With the latest neoSSPX propaganda and chapel "pacification" program,
I doubt in the future, there will be much financial activity to report?

Either through incompetence or by design, Bp. Fellay is destroying the SSPX.

poche · « **Reply #23 on:** October 04, 2012, 05:37:12 AM »

I think we should pray for all concerned

John Grace · « **Reply #24 on:** October 04, 2012, 04:18:38 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

two priests are pro agreement.... that would mean half n half, evens..... who'd bet on that..... :stare:

Are you based in Belfast? It's just that in conversation with a few people from the various chapels/Mass centre's, the view is the chapels/Mass centre's in Ireland are overwhelming anti-agreement and pro-Bishop Williamson. The bulk of the priests and laity wish to remain faithful to the apostolate of Archbishop Lefebvre.