Bishop Fellay: A Summary of Recent Events [Rome-SSPX], Dec-28-2012

Get AQ Email Updates

19 comments on “Bishop Fellay: A Summary of Recent Events [Rome-SSPX], Dec-28-2012

  1. This is, as usual, an excellent talk by Bp. Fellay. Don’t be discouraged by the length. It’s almost required listening to understand the situation in which the SSPX finds itself.

    For those who have questioned Bp. Fellay in the past, this talk reveals the nearly impossible situation in which he was put by the contradictory messages coming from Rome and the willingness of certain members of the Vatican to deny in public what they had told him in private. Listen, and ask yourself if you could have seriously improved on his reactions under the circumstances he was in.

    Bp. Fellay also explains how false reports circulated on the web which were entirely false. We must always remember that the Internet is a tool which may be used for good or ill. useful as it may be, it has its dangers.

    Regardless, listen for yourselves.

    God bless the SSPX and Bp. Fellay.

    May the coming year be full of blessings for us all.
    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,

    • Charlotte NC Bill on said:

      Yeah, all those false reports about his Jew lawyer harassing Bp Williamson….and all those false reports about Gutman family Euros buying influence in Menzingen…

  2. Happy New Year, Lucas!

  3. A Happy and Holy New Year to all.

    I listened to the first 30 minutes and I agree.

  4. Thank God for Bp Fellay and the SSPX.
    I revive, during the blessed calm of the limbo week between Christmas and New Year, my favourite daydream: the new conclave starts; the white smoke emanates from the Sistine chimney; the word goes round the internet that Bp Fellay has been called to Rome – urgently!

  5. Charlotte NC Bill on said:

    The Sup Gen is pretty busy slapping lipstick on a pig….he’s changing the SSPX and throwing out as many people who are uncompromisingly loyal to the ArchBp as possible as he sets us up for his eventual sell-out…He made ” mistake”…he was being ” deceived..” which is why he had to ( and must continue to ) persecute priests who were telling him he was making a mistake…Incredible…Here’s a Sup Gen who takes major funding fm crypto Jews ( Gutman family’s Jaidhofer Foundation, Max Krah trustee and a “tourist” at Israeli Maglan Special Forces bases…and, by the way, Bp Fellay’s Dello Sarto Ag investment partner and lawyer and Chief Counsel in charge of harrassing Bp williamson ) but we’re not allowed to be the least suspicious…incredible..

  6. Charlotte NC Bill on said:

    Emotionally and financially I’ve already moved away fm the SSPX and it’s cowardice and compromising….and it’s corruption fm neo-con financing…What the Koch bros are to the Tea Party the Gutmans and Krah are to the SSPX….The SSPX is being made more and more suitable to a Kosher audience and, needless to say, more acceptable to the Americanists ( like B. Pryor on LI who actually heckled Williamson one time in my presence )…and American exceptionalist, no salvation-outside-the Republican Party types who live on bells and incense but loathe the Social Reign of Christ the King as they leave sunday Mass with the Romney stickers on their cars….When you’ve had enough Fellay/Krah butt kissing go to or or or any homily on YouTube by one of the good priests expelled by this Superior General..

  7. Sheesh! I have absolutely no interest in visiting those websites, but I think you should go and stay there until you come to your senses.
    Actually, that wouldn’t be a very nice thing to wish on your Holy Angel, so
    Hail to your Angel and I will pray for you.
    God bless Bishop Fellay and the SSPX.

  8. Charlotte NC Bill, you really have to stop the unfounded accusations. To my mind, both Bp. Fellay and Max Krah have sufficiently explained themselves and their actions in their recent conferences and interviews. You speak of a future sell-out, but Bp. Fellay’s statements have basically closed the door to any agreement in the near future, at least until the next pontificate (unless Benedict XVI decides to give the SSPX everything that has been requested, which is extremely unlikely). Max Krah’s interview (which was posted on this site) explained and countered all the accusations which you have insinuated against him. (See interview at: ) To my knowledge, you have not produced any hard evidence to counter these explanations or to support your own accusations. You have simply continued to repeat the same old empty accusations and hearsay, without any established supporting facts or documented evidence. In every book on Confession and every examination of conscience I have ever read, that adds up to slander, calumny, and detraction. So either post the hard evidence, or stop this smear campaign before I start a petition to have you banned from this site for the good of all our souls.

    God bless Bp. Fellay and the SSPX.
    God bless Bp. Williamson.
    May God bless you with his light, Bill.

    • Lucas,

      This site has never seemed to me to be run in a democratic fashion. Whether you agree or disagree with NC Bill, his is a point of view, and until or unless the owners of the site decide to shut him down threats of the kind you have made display a similar lack of charity of which you are accusing Bill.

      I do not agree with Bill’s point of view, in fact reading some of his posts have confirmed and edified my trust in Bishop Fellay’s decisions.

      You write pretty well, and you do provide support for your opinions. You contribute well to the conversations. I for one wish you would remained focused in that way. I mean no disrespect, and hope you accept the sincere compliment I have wished to pay you.

      • Quomodo,

        Thank you for your kind words. Your ability to so charitably correct me for what might be seen as a fault demonstrates a very fair and generous mind. Again, thanks.
        However, I don’t believe that I was at fault in my comment addressed to Charlotte NC Bill, nor do I believe that my comment lacked in true Charity. If it caused undue offense, I sincerely apologise. But let me explain myself and my earlier comment.

        The first comment I made was that Bill’s accusations against Bp. Fellay and Max Krah have been unfounded. I just read two whole pages of his comments (a quick search of AQ’s comments page) and I didn’t find any supporting documents, but only links to anti-SSPX websites. Without providing any supporting documentation or third-party references, he continues to repeat the same accusations over and over — essentially saying that Bp. Fellay is a modernist who has sold us out to the Jews, that Mossad and the Jews control the Society, that Max Krah is a Mossad agent, etc. Again, he provides no evidence that would stand up to logical scrutiny, seeming to prefer to keep pounding the same lines hoping that something will stick. All of this has the feeling of the cyber-gossip which Fr. Rostand spoke of in his Nov.-Dec. Letter to Friends and Benefactors: (NB: it is an excellent letter and deserves some thought). Let me say right now that I do not wish in any way to judge Bill’s intentions, much less his moral status. My motivation in writing my comment was as much to make him think about what he was writing and to put the brakes on, so to speak. It must also be noted that at any given time, there are far more non-members on this site than there are members. As I write this there are 27 guests and only 3 members on Angelqueen. The conversations which we have are not the same as those we might have in our own living-rooms, in our own families, or even among our traditional friends. The possibility of causing scandal is very real, and it is the duty of the Administrators and of all of us as members to do our best to minimize the risk of scandal as much as is in our power. Therefore, out of true Charity for those non-members who visit this site, I would be quite prepared to ask the Administration to block specific offensive and potentially scandalous comments and even to ban a member who has a history of making such comments. After all, that is the proper job of the Administrators. But again, I would not do this out of any animosity toward a member, but only out of a concern for the real scandal and spiritual damage such comments could cause, and which I hope is entirely unintended by the member in question. And, yes, I would hope that my own comments would be held to the same standard and would be disallowed if any fault were found in them.

        Quomodo, you said that this site does not run in a democratic fashion. May God be praised for that. It should be noted that Catholic Doctrine states that truth and error do not have an equal right to exist, and that error, in fact, has no right to exist. Therefore, a “point of view” which is in error has no strict right in justice to be expressed. The stark lack of evidence in Bill’s comments and his insistence on his own “party line” in the face of explanations and interviews which contradict his statements, together with a lack of interest in providing a counter-argument, all result in many of his statements being highly questionable as to their factual content.

        Again, I apologise if any of my comments cause offense.
        I’m also sorry if this one isn’t too polished, but it’s past my bed-time :)

        May God bless and keep you all,

        • Actually Lucas, I was only referring to your threat of having him banned. Not something I thought it wise for you to dwell on when you have other such good things to say!!

          • Fair enough. I don’t have the power or authority to have anyone banned, so my threat was probably imprudent. I really only wanted to state that there were possible consequences for certain behaviors — consequences which could be implemented by the Administrators. As I said, the only action which I could take would be to ask the Administrators to consider such an action for the avoidance of scandal and the good of souls. This site is not a democracy, but even as St. Paul could confront and even correct St. Peter (his superior) when the first pontiff’s actions ran the risk of causing scandal and of harming the Church, so a member of this site may respectfully present a perceived problem to the authorities (the Administrators) who have responsibility for the site. The member will then have done his duty before God, and the authorities may deal with the issue as they see fit.


            We now return you to your scheduled programing.


    New link to video….the other was pulled because it was incompatible with mobile devices.

  10. Watching this would take up too many GBs for my internet plan, so I’ll have to rely on what people are writing about it. It does appear to be the same video that John Vennari at has a link posted to. His comments sound as though Bishop Fellay is criticizing the Jews among others. Is he backpedaling? From the talk Bishop Tissier gave here Oct. 31, I’d say yes and is wasn’t being hushed. He openly said, if I remember, that he hopes the deal is not made public as it was quite a bad deal for the SSPX. No one asked about Bishop Williamson’s departure even though he mentioned it. Just in the past couple of weeks, though, one of our priests during his sermon quoted Bishop Williamson as it related to the topic discussed in the sermon. Our pastor said just a few months ago that VII was indirectly heretical. We certainly must watch and pray, but there hasn’t been a perfect human on earth in nearly two thousand years, so we’re all going to screw up fairly often. We are following eternal Rome yes, but we also do still have a visible Church with a visible head that we have to communicate with. (I oftentimes pray that our vicar will have a Saul becoming St. Paul event along with the rest of the hierarchy.)
    Even the saints made mistakes such as during the Great Schism when the likes of St. Catherine of Siena sided with Urban VI as Pope while the likes of St. Vincent Ferrer sided with Clement VII as Pope.
    I won’t get into specifics, but a former SSPX priest left many years ago because of Bishop Williamson and his associations (not 9/11 or gas chambers ones). While in Phoenix, Fr. Joe Pfeiffer was awesome as a speaker, and still is, but there’s a certain area he had trouble with.
    Some people have problems with Bishop Fellay. None of them is perfect is the point. I’m more inclined to say we need all our priests to balance or complement one another.
    How long will it be until the Zionists infiltrate the SO? Is this part of their divide and conquer plan or a diversion?
    We know from what’s been said that the bad guys got to Benedict and he ended up writing the personal note in his own handwriting about accepting VII. Should we be surprised by this? No. These types of things have been going on since Holy Church was founded and will continue until Christ comes again. The wheat and the chaff are mixed. Nothing new there either.
    We aren’t meant to be a bunch of robots or clones all the same or there wouldn’t be the vast array of saints we have nor the different yet equally Catholic Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, etc.
    We are to think as the Church thinks, but right now many of Her members have amnesia, brain damage, or never learned the Faith to begin with. They need our help. Let’s help each of them as best we can since every soul is priceless to God and sanctify ourselves while doing it. Leave the rest to God and the Church Triumphant as they know better than we do how to help.
    I’m not trying to say I’m right, know everything, or am preaching to anyone in particular. I’m saying we all say we’re Catholics, so let us be the members of Our Lord’s Mystical Body that He wants us to be and save souls as best we can starting with our own.

  11. God bless Bishop Fellay. I have never met a more saintly man and it appears that he is following the exact path that ABP Lefebvre followed concerning relations with Rome.

Leave a Reply