Bishop Fellay Repeats False Message from our Lady
#51
What doctrinal revolution, John? After all, the Archbishop is simply asserting claims without first proving them...
Reply
#52
(11-15-2012, 04:40 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Bishop Fellay said:
Quote:Well, then, we will continue, while waiting for the happy day... it will come, but when? We know nothing about it. Certainly we will see. That is the Good Lord’s secret. The day will come when the cockle [weeds] will be uprooted, this evil that makes the Church suffer. The crisis that we are going through is probably the most horrible that the Church has ever endured.

Looks like the bishop is in it for the long run. The cockle does not get uprooted until the end of time. I thought everyone knew that the tares, the cockle, the weeds, whatever you want to call them, are everywhere, and yes even in the Church until the end of time.

Our Lord said:
Quote:The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field.

[25] But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.

[26] And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.

[27] And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle?

[28] And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?

[29] And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.

[30] Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

Bishop Fellay said:
Quote:This council tried to harmonize itself with the world. It brought the world into the Church, and so now we have disaster. And all these reforms that were made on the basis of the council, were made by the authorities for this purpose. Today, they talk to us about continuity, but where is it? In Assisi? In the kissing of the Koran? In the suppression of the Catholic States?

Notably missing is visits to Synagogues. Kissing the Koran bad, kissing the "Fathers in the Faith" collective ass good? Maybe the idea that there is Rothschild money funding the SSPX is accurate.

But its all good. All we have to do is use, and yes I mean use, the Mother of God as a wedge to fight with one another.

Notice who is not picked on here in this sermon. Then ask yourself who benefits from these apparitions? Or should I say the twisting of them.

Yes, I agree that this is not a sermon that bodes well for the eventual homecoming of the SSPX. But, I think that there are other things that are of much greater concern here.

Dear Bishop Fellay, if you are going to speak like this, why not name some names? Who is cockle and who is wheat and why? You have set your schedule for reunification of Rome at the end of time. So why not stick out your neck a little and talk in specifics? It would appear you think we've got plenty of time to talk about this. Make it count.

Adam, you call out Bishop Fellay for not naming names and yet you repeatedly refuse to do so yourself.  Reading your postings is like the ultimate tease.  You dance around and around but when the rubber meets the road you refuse to complete the act.  Why is this Adam? Cui bono indeed. 

You were presented a golden opportunity to participate in the Agent Provocateur thread where you could have very specifically pinned down some nefarious elements both here and globally, but you let it pass by like a summer breeze.  What is your game, Adam?  Which side are you on?  Let your yes be yes and your no be no. 

Who is cockle and who is wheat and why?  If you can forthrightly answer that one, Adam, we will truly have your measure.  But dancing is much more fun, no?
Reply
#53
(11-17-2012, 08:48 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: What doctrinal revolution, John? After all, the Archbishop is simply asserting claims without first proving them...

He is forming his thoughts based on a false message attributed to our Lady, and the absurd claims that Pope Leo XIII penned a prayer which "foretold" that "the See of Peter would become the seat of iniquity"? Wouldn't it be amazing if the Vatican published that prayer meaning what they say it means? Where is that publication? You see, though, how this vision based on false data can affect your line of action? It creates a skewed view of reality. Apparitions and prophecies have been squeezed and twisted to such an extent to "prove" that they predict our time, and our vision of it, to justify actions which Church officials did not sanction. Whether it is La Salette, Fatima, Quito, Emmerick, etc. While Abp. Lefebvre may have been acting out of good intentions, and based on false data which he did not recognize as so, Fellay should be wiser. now He can come on to Fish Eaters and know that the statement is false, and has been rejected. Do a search on the Internet, for goodness sake. The narrative has to change. There is no Church teaching that Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist! This is a type of statement extreme Protestants use.
Reply
#54
(11-17-2012, 09:01 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(11-15-2012, 04:40 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Bishop Fellay said:
Quote:Well, then, we will continue, while waiting for the happy day... it will come, but when? We know nothing about it. Certainly we will see. That is the Good Lord’s secret. The day will come when the cockle [weeds] will be uprooted, this evil that makes the Church suffer. The crisis that we are going through is probably the most horrible that the Church has ever endured.

Looks like the bishop is in it for the long run. The cockle does not get uprooted until the end of time. I thought everyone knew that the tares, the cockle, the weeds, whatever you want to call them, are everywhere, and yes even in the Church until the end of time.

Our Lord said:
Quote:The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field.

[25] But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.

[26] And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.

[27] And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle?

[28] And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?

[29] And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.

[30] Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

Bishop Fellay said:
Quote:This council tried to harmonize itself with the world. It brought the world into the Church, and so now we have disaster. And all these reforms that were made on the basis of the council, were made by the authorities for this purpose. Today, they talk to us about continuity, but where is it? In Assisi? In the kissing of the Koran? In the suppression of the Catholic States?

Notably missing is visits to Synagogues. Kissing the Koran bad, kissing the "Fathers in the Faith" collective ass good? Maybe the idea that there is Rothschild money funding the SSPX is accurate.

But its all good. All we have to do is use, and yes I mean use, the Mother of God as a wedge to fight with one another.

Notice who is not picked on here in this sermon. Then ask yourself who benefits from these apparitions? Or should I say the twisting of them.

Yes, I agree that this is not a sermon that bodes well for the eventual homecoming of the SSPX. But, I think that there are other things that are of much greater concern here.

Dear Bishop Fellay, if you are going to speak like this, why not name some names? Who is cockle and who is wheat and why? You have set your schedule for reunification of Rome at the end of time. So why not stick out your neck a little and talk in specifics? It would appear you think we've got plenty of time to talk about this. Make it count.

Adam, you call out Bishop Fellay for not naming names and yet you repeatedly refuse to do so yourself.  Reading your postings is like the ultimate tease.  You dance around and around but when the rubber meets the road you refuse to complete the act.  Why is this Adam? Cui bono indeed. 

You were presented a golden opportunity to participate in the Agent Provocateur thread where you could have very specifically pinned down some nefarious elements both here and globally, but you let it pass by like a summer breeze.  What is your game, Adam?  Which side are you on?  Let your yes be yes and your no be no. 

Who is cockle and who is wheat and why?  If you can forthrightly answer that one, Adam, we will truly have your measure.  But dancing is much more fun, no?

Please direct me to the thread in question. I take it I participated and did not make it back.

As far as Bishop Fellay naming names I refer to identifying those who he deems cockle in the Church. How can we know what he means when he doesn't name them. Which Cardinals or Bishops are causing the problem. He said it, I did not. I am just responding to him.

He seems to be talking about it as if it were a War on Terror or something. A bunch of phantoms that do not seem to have names. It was he who wanted to dance with these phantoms.

As I said, we know that the Church will have the Tares, Cockle, etc, in the pews and in the Sanctuary from the beginning until the end of time. Doesn't he know this? It would appear from his sermon that he temporarily forgot and he is waiting for the Church to purify itself before he finds it fit to become a part of it.

I think some may call it a Messiah complex. Certainly this position is very similar to the classic SSPX position which is very similar to the Donatists. 

So name the enemy, so we can fight it. This sermon is cowardly. To the max, in fact.

Assisi is on JPII. So is the Koran kissing. So he is so careful not to go anywhere near what our current Holy Father is up to. But he following in JPII footsteps has had Assisi II or III. I lost count. He has visited more synagogues then JPII. And he has even visited Mosques.

In short, he talks like a man with a paper ass in this sermon.

Sorry if that is disrespectful. But that is the way it is.

Reply
#55
(11-18-2012, 11:07 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(11-17-2012, 08:48 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: What doctrinal revolution, John? After all, the Archbishop is simply asserting claims without first proving them...

He is forming his thoughts based on a false message attributed to our Lady, and the absurd claims that Pope Leo XIII penned a prayer which "foretold" that "the See of Peter would become the seat of iniquity"? Wouldn't it be amazing if the Vatican published that prayer meaning what they say it means? Where is that publication? You see, though, how this vision based on false data can affect your line of action? It creates a skewed view of reality. Apparitions and prophecies have been squeezed and twisted to such an extent to "prove" that they predict our time, and our vision of it, to justify actions which Church officials did not sanction. Whether it is La Salette, Fatima, Quito, Emmerick, etc. While Abp. Lefebvre may have been acting out of good intentions, and based on false data which he did not recognize as so, Fellay should be wiser. now He can come on to Fish Eaters and know that the statement is false, and has been rejected. Do a search on the Internet, for goodness sake. The narrative has to change. There is no Church teaching that Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist! This is a type of statement extreme Protestants use.

I do not think these controversial parts of La Salette are authentic, though I admit that I have not studied the issue in depth. However, I certainly agree with Archbishop Lefebvre when he says:
Quote:This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organise on our own the defence of our Catholic Faith. The fact of sitting in the seats of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of the orthodoxy of the faith of those who occupy them. The Pope himself now ceaselessly spreads the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy.
Reply
#56
(11-18-2012, 12:07 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Please direct me to the thread in question. I take it I participated and did not make it back.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...828.0.html

I don't think you participated. It's in the Cornfield now, which is probably why you missed it.  It started with questionable motives and quickly degenerated, finally ending up in the fever swamp of Cath Info.  It's not pretty, but demonstrative of a number of things I believe.
Reply
#57
(11-15-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote:
(11-15-2012, 01:28 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: He always seems to blame Rome when when things don't work out.
Are you saying Rome deserves no blame for these last 50 years??

No.

But Bishop Fellay is a dork. There. I said it.

No, worse than a dork.

I've sat at table and eaten with Bishop Fellay. I've served his low Mass. The man is the consummate gentleman. To call him a dork, and then to deflect blame for the current shambles of the Church from the entity responsible(the Holy See) is not only ignorant,but it completely lacks charity.  Every Pope from John XXIII to Benedict  XVI is directly responsible for the crisis of civilization we find ourselves in. The SSPX has done its own small part to repair that crisis, and for that reason alone deserves our acclaim, not derision.
Reply
#58
Again, proof of what myself and a few others have said for the last few years. +Fellay is damned if he does or doesn't.

He's accused of selling out. He didn't. And what he is quoted as saying here should make it clear why he didn't sell out, but no matter. Reasons to bash him are a dime a dozen. Just pick one.

The SSPX dominated forums are torn to pieces. Pro and Anti-Fellay members going at it nonstop. The (bleeps) are there stirring the pot, proselytizing if the truth be known.

I'd guess the modernists who despise the Society are enjoying it. Surely the devil digs it.

Then there are the guests to these forums who happen upon them and lurk around. They sure are seeing a different picture of trads than I did in 2006 when I started looking around.


Reply
#59
(11-18-2012, 02:43 PM)Larry Wrote:
(11-15-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote:
(11-15-2012, 01:28 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: He always seems to blame Rome when when things don't work out.
Are you saying Rome deserves no blame for these last 50 years??

No.

But Bishop Fellay is a dork. There. I said it.

No, worse than a dork.

I've sat at table and eaten with Bishop Fellay. I've served his low Mass. The man is the consummate gentleman. To call him a dork, and then to deflect blame for the current shambles of the Church from the entity responsible(the Holy See) is not only ignorant,but it completely lacks charity.  Every Pope from John XXIII to Benedict  XVI is directly responsible for the crisis of civilization we find ourselves in. The SSPX has done its own small part to repair that crisis, and for that reason alone deserves our acclaim, not derision.

Well said
Reply
#60
(11-18-2012, 01:49 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(11-18-2012, 12:07 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Please direct me to the thread in question. I take it I participated and did not make it back.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...828.0.html

I don't think you participated. It's in the Cornfield now, which is probably why you missed it.  It started with questionable motives and quickly degenerated, finally ending up in the fever swamp of Cath Info.  It's not pretty, but demonstrative of a number of things I believe.

It is pretty obvious that it was a Rickroll.  I don't see what is so questionable about that.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)