Bishop Fellay Repeats False Message from our Lady

[Scriptorium]

I wonder what any of the armchair people have been doing lately for the cause. Any letter writing? Any protests? Or will you not attend because the crowds just a bunch of Novus Ordo libs?

[Meg]

  [re. ]


And your man of great intelligence would no doubt say in reference to the picture you posted..."Look! There's the Anti-Christ himself shaking the hand of Obama! 

No, I say there is a picture of a Pope failing his flock.  Who now have to pay the price.  And that is what +Fellay is addressing when he blames Rome.

Yeah, the Holy Father should have spit in Obama's eye, right? Get real, man. Pope Pius XII wouldn't have done such a thing even though he wrote Mit Brennender Sorge:

That was Pius XI who wrote that.

No he didn't need to spit in his eye but, to use your example, he could have signed a treaty with BO saying that Catholic institutions would not be forced to sell contraception or perform abortions. Kinda like Pius did with the Nazis regarding the Nazi state not harassing the Church. But then again Benedict is NO Pius.

And you really think that Obama would have signed a 'treaty' saying that Catholic institutions would not be forced to sell contraception or to perform abortions? Ha! Obama said once at a speech he gave at Notre Dame that there would be a 'conscience clause,' whereby Catholic institutions would be exempt from offering these services. But of course he reneged on this. And perhaps you remember when, a few years ago, Obama and his wife visited the Pope. The Pope had a little talk with Obama regarding the importance of standing up for the right-to-life, and being against abortion. He even gave Obama reading material about this, and Obama said that he would read it. Of course Obama could care less, and it hasn't affected his pro-abortion views at all.

Our Pope Benedict may not be a Pius, but that does not mean that we can disrespect him (see the current thread on the writing of St. Pius X). I think that some trads have a view that all of the Popes prior to the Council (or Bl. John XXlll) were perfect or nearly perfect Popes. But there have been terrible Popes throughout the Church's nearly 2000 year old history. And they did not justify disobedience or disrepect in any manner.

Okay, I said I wouldn't post again on the thread, but I couldn't let this one go. Sorry.

[The Dying Flutchman]

But there have been terrible Popes throughout the Church's nearly 2000 year old history. And they did not justify disobedience or disrepect in any manner.

REALLY? Ever hear of Pope Stephen, Pope Fromosus and the Cadaver trial? Sorry but, no, I dont respect that. And when they teach against the faith not only may we disobey them it is our duty to do so. You don't need to tell me that there were bad Popes in the past. I am well aware of that. In fact from a reading of Medieval history its the majority that were "bad." A good Saintly Pope has always been a rarity. That's one of the reasons I think a lot of trads find this mania of canonizing every Pope since the council a little odd.

[Meg]

A good Saintly Pope has always been a rarity.

All the more reason to pay attention to the wise words of the saintly Pope Pius X regarding having love, respect, and obedience toward the Pope. If a fraternity of priests is going to name themselves after Pope Pius X, they might at least consider what St. Pius X would have done in this situation. Would he have condoned a Catholic bishop citing an unapproved (more likely condemned) quote from a apparition to back up the belief that Rome has lost the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ?

[John Lane]

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

Yes, absolutely.

[John Lane]

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.

He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, because the key operatives who are attacking him actually have a different agenda than they admit.  They're not really against a deal with Rome, they're against Bishop Fellay.  They'd rather that he had "sold out" because then they might have had a nice big split in the Fraternity, and they could have their Society of St. David Irving in which the only topic of public discussion would be how naughty the Joos are, and the life of prayer and sacrifice could be left where they like it - in the books, gathering dust.

Harsh, but sadly, too true.

[The Dying Flutchman]

A good Saintly Pope has always been a rarity.

All the more reason to pay attention to the wise words of the saintly Pope Pius X regarding having love, respect, and obedience toward the Pope. If a fraternity of priests is going to name themselves after Pope Pius X, they might at least consider what St. Pius X would have done in this situation. Would he have condoned a Catholic bishop citing an unapproved (more likely condemned) quote from a apparition to back up the belief that Rome has lost the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ?

This line of thought is grabbing at straws. No Pope with the exception of Pius XII who was warned about the danger(thats why he was smart enough not to call a council as he had planned) would have assumed that one day we would have the Roman shenanigans we do now. Do you think Pius X would have foreseen a Pope giving his Pectoral Cross to the Archheretic of Canterbury or Asking St John the Baptist to Bless Islam or saying Voodoo is one of the worlds great religions or a Pope name a prelate who doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth or the bodily Resurrection to head  the CDF?

Things are very different now. As + Fellay quoted Our Lady "Rome has lost the faith."  (No I am not a Sedevacantist I believe there is a Pope)

[Whitey]

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.

He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, because the key operatives who are attacking him actually have a different agenda than they admit.  They're not really against a deal with Rome, they're against Bishop Fellay.  They'd rather that he had "sold out" because then they might have had a nice big split in the Fraternity, and they could have their Society of St. David Irving in which the only topic of public discussion would be how naughty the Joos are, and the life of prayer and sacrifice could be left where they like it - in the books, gathering dust.

Harsh, but sadly, too true.

I don't doubt it is true John.

[The Dying Flutchman]

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.

He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, because the key operatives who are attacking him actually have a different agenda than they admit.  They're not really against a deal with Rome, they're against Bishop Fellay.  They'd rather that he had "sold out" because then they might have had a nice big split in the Fraternity, and they could have their Society of St. David Irving in which the only topic of public discussion would be how naughty the Joos are, and the life of prayer and sacrifice could be left where they like it - in the books, gathering dust.

Harsh, but sadly, too true.

Speak for yourself. I am a member of the SSPV. I used to be NO then Diocesan TLM and have been at the SSPV Masses for over 4 years. I don't want to see the SSPX split they are the largest group of trads there are and the best hope for restoring the faith to Rome. That said I think Fellay did attempt a sell out and just backed off after the backlash. David Irving? Since he is the Englishman who started the investigation into the exaggeration and exploitation of the  Holocaust can we assume this subject has ran its course since you have crossed over Godwins Law. (inevitably in any internet conversation Hitler or Nazism will be mentioned. This ends the argument for it shows that rational thought has ran it's course)

[Phillipus Iacobus]

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.

He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, because the key operatives who are attacking him actually have a different agenda than they admit.  They're not really against a deal with Rome, they're against Bishop Fellay.  They'd rather that he had "sold out" because then they might have had a nice big split in the Fraternity, and they could have their Society of St. David Irving in which the only topic of public discussion would be how naughty the Joos are, and the life of prayer and sacrifice could be left where they like it - in the books, gathering dust.

Harsh, but sadly, too true.

It is sad, and I've seen the anti-Fellay vitriol on other forums, but not so much here. I think it's unfortunate that the Jewish holocaust thig had to get intertwined in it all, but that's just how it happened.

Seeing such things on traditional Catholic forums show is that we sometimes need to take a break and need to spend more time with our beads and prayer books.