Sunday, November 8, 2015

Response to Bishop Fellay | "...not the truth" | About the SSPX Rosary Crusades

Updated: November 9th, 2015:

RESPONSE TO BISHOP FELLAY and SSPX Fathers

View original document 

Original Doc

For more information about Our Lady's message to Bishop Fellay about the Rosary Crusades, please visit: Eleison Comments and read the Five Part Series titled, "Inside Story"

RESPONSE TO BISHOP FELLAY AND FATHERS CONCERNING THE LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 12 2014.


In response to the letter sent out by Bp. Fellay to the priests of the SSPX dated November 12 th 2014.

_________________

It was with sorrow that I learned the contents of this letter, mostly because it reflected not the truth, but a sad science of playing at words.

The letter begins with an unsubstantiated accusation that I am a “self-styled American visionary”.

The definition of self-styled is self-styled---- self-styled- using a description or title that one has given oneself.

Such a description is anything but accurate.  I do not give myself the title of an American visionary.  The Church has made no decision on this matter; therefore one cannot by rights make any such claim.  
The problem with this is, if one, in these times of mass apostasy, both in the world and within the Church itself finds oneself in the uncomfortable position of having to act upon that which seems to be coming from Heaven one finds oneself in most difficult circumstances.  The only option a person has is to find a spiritual director who can look into the matter and decide whether or not such a message is coming from Heaven, Hell or the person themselves, either by that person being a liar or by being delusional.
Having no other recourse and being quite skeptical or perhaps quite unwilling to think these messages were in fact coming from Our Lady as one can be so easily deceived I did seek out a spiritual director who remained so for the next 9 years of my life.  I did nothing and acted upon none of these messages without first disclosing them to my spiritual director and then obtaining his permission and guidance as to whether or not they should be acted upon at all.
It took a long time for me to accept that this was not some delusion on my part or some diabolical vision.  What I wanted was for my director to find proof that it was not from God so that I may be free to pay no heed to this call.  But as much as this was what I hoped would happen it is not the decision the director took.  According to his knowledge and judgement both of my person and the messages themselves he could only conclude that to his ability to judge them insofar as the Church allows they were from Heaven.  This was not a decision he made in a year or two or three but after many years.
That which was given my person to relay to His Excellency Bp. Fellay was not a message one wishes to carry.  Too often the message is not well received and the messenger takes the hits, the rejection, and the suffering which accompany it.  In this case the message in particular would not sit well with either His Excellency or with Rome, because the message did not coincide with the plans laid out by either party in dealing with either the crisis in Rome or the reconciliation process laid out by His Excellency Bp. Fellay for the Society of Saint Pius the X; a plan which at that time I knew nothing of and would not learn of in particular until many years later.

At first I gave only a half-hearted response in doing what Our Lady was asking of me but Heaven would not permit that I give only some, it was apparent that I was being asked to pick up the cross and carry it.  I did so only after an incident which happened that caused me to act without hesitation or complaint.  This incident can be found in the documents which are in Bp. Williamson’s care.

The next part of the letter states “Bp. Williamson attempts to show, first, that the initiatives for the crusades come from the Blessed Virgin through the agency of this woman, and secondly, Bp. Fellay preferred to alter Heavens request for personal ends".

Bp. Williamson does not attempt to show anything of what is implied by the above mentioned quote from the letter, he simply states the facts as they occurred; he does not attempt to show anything other than what happened.  What happened, happened, such facts cannot be altered no matter what kind of reflection they may give.  If the facts as they occurred give the impression that Bp. Fellay was seeking to alter Heavens request by following his own course which was laid out, it is not the fault of the author of the EC’s. that is simply put-the way it unfolded.
I must concur with the letter that the crusades launched by His Excellency Bp. Fellay in no way came from the Blessed Virgin Mary because Bp. Fellay never did what she requested.  The only crusade which she said she would bless in spite of the fact that Bp. Fellay was launching a crusade which was not what she asked for was the first one dated July 16th 2006.
That she was going to bless this effort surprised even me because it was not what she requested, but that is what she said she would do.  
The second crusade was certainly also not from Our Lady as she expressly warned that she did not wish His Excellency to use the crusade of the rosary for the purpose of the lifting of the (false) excommunications to which she followed with a warning as to what would happen if he did; a warning which several years later has objectively come to fruition.
The next part of the letter states “ Bp. Williamson supports his story with a certain number of allegations, Cardinal […]Hoyos never asked Bp. Fellay to travel directly to Rome from Hawaii (or from any other place); the Cardinal never threatened Bp. Fellay, nor did he demand that he stop the rosary crusades for the consecration of Russia;”

This part is a play at words.  According to no heavenly revelation, but simply according to the priests who were discussing this matter at the time, it was stated that Bp. Fellay was ordered to Rome by Cardinal Hoyos supposedly while he was in Hawaii preparing to give the Sacrament of Confirmations.  It was said that he had to delay or possibly postpone the ceremony citing to those who had scheduled this event that he had to return home as it was an emergency because his mother was ill.  When I questioned why or how Bp. Fellay could give an obvious lie to the people I was told that he could use a certain “mental reservation” because in fact his Mother-Holy Mother Church-was ill.  He simply didn’t say which mother.
If Bp. Fellay wishes to refute that Cardinal Hoyos ordered him back to Rome he can as it suits him.  We relay this event as it was understood within the SSPX at the time it happened.  If now he says it did not happen exactly in this manner, then he does.

He was ordered back to Rome by Cardinal Hoyos who demanded that he sign the “mysterious 5 ultimatums” which at the time seemed to leave everyone baffled.

I cite the sermon given by His Excellency Bp. Fellay August 15th 2008.
---Concerning the Ultimatum from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos

I would like to take advantage of the occasion to give you some news about what is going on presently in Rome with regard to the Society. You probably heard that there was a question of an ultimatum? Where do we stand now? First of all, this ultimatum is strange, because, usually when this type of action is taken, there is an object. In our case, we really wonder what the point was. At the beginning of the month of June, I was summoned by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos because the latest Letters to Friends and Benefactors of the Society of Saint Pius X was reviewing the situation and clearly stated that we were not ready to swallow the poison found in the Council. The Roman authorities did not like this. What displeased them was the fact that we said that we would not change; that we would resist, and that we would not drink the poison. Consequently, I was summoned to Rome, and there, I was handed a typed sheet. The meeting took place in the offices of the Ecclesia Dei Commission — as a side note, it was the first and only time I went to these offices. So, in the room were present the Cardinal, the vice-president of the Commission, Bishop Perl, the secretary Msgr Marini, and the Cardinal’s private secretary. I was accompanied by Father Nély.

We were handed a written note, and the cardinal asked me to read it aloud in front of everybody. In this letter which really sounded like an ultimatum, it basically said: “Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so. Today, you must accept the clear conditions which we are going to impose upon you.” After having read it, I asked the cardinal what were the clear conditions, since they were not written. The cardinal answered nothing at all. So I asked the question again, saying: “What do you expect of me?”; at that moment, almost under his breath, he answered: “If, in conscience, you think you must tell this to your faithful, do so! But you must respect the person of the pope.” To this I retorted that I had no problem with this. And the meeting ended upon this. How can I affirm that the reason for the meeting was truly the latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors? Because I asked him, since he was referring to it. I said: “Could you tell me what is wrong in this letter?” He read it over in front of me, and the only reproach he could come up with was the fact that I had written that convents and seminaries were empty. He told me: “This is not true.” That was the one and only reproach.

So, what is the point of the ultimatum? What is its object? After the meeting, I told Father Nély that I felt very much frustrated, because I had witnessed a stage rehearsal. They had put on a very emotional show with the cardinal declaring: “That is the end of it! I call a press conference. I give it all up!” As to what they were really expecting of me, I had not the faintest idea. Consequently, I sent Father Nély back the next day to ask the question once again: “What do you want?” That is when they had him wait for half an hour, enough time for them to write the famous five points which were broadcasted on the Internet. End of quote----


The fact of the matter was a letter was sent by me to Rome seeking the blessing of the Holy Father upon a Crusade of Rosaries for the consecration of Russia.  Bp. Fellay was aware of this letter and its contents before it had been sent.  
His Excellency was unwilling to risk launching such a crusade at that time because he feared it would be taken as an act not in accordance with the will of Pope Benedict and that it might cause anger with Rome and consequently cause them to, in their anger, shut the door on the plans that had been already laid out for a reconciliation.
The letter was written at the request of Our Lady with some words coming directly from her and the rest having been given in their essence without it being directly worded to me but rather written as I understood her on what she wished to be addressed.

This letter to the Holy Father which is also in Bp. Williamson’s possession landed not in the Holy Father’s hands but rather on the desk of Cardinal Hoyos who misunderstood the letter completely.
It was his understanding, an incorrect understanding; that Bp. Fellay was behind the letter and the possible launching of a crusade for the consecration of Russia. 
 His incorrect understanding that this letter was sent with the news of this possible crusade was in order to strong arm the Holy Father into lifting the false excommunications and using one of Bp. Fellay’s mindless followers to send it.  Cardinal Hoyos saw this possible launching of a crusade for the consecration of Russia as an act of arrogance and as a sign of going against the authority of Rome on the matter who had declared Fatima a dead issue.  i.e. no longer of significance.  To the Cardinal it reeked of an act which would have caused the Pontiff humiliation and looked to him rather like a threat instead of what it was actually saying which was of course in no way the way the Cardinal misunderstood it.

The letter then states “The supposed letter dated October 26th does not exist etc. ---to mention only the most important examples”

To this I have no answer because none of us know what is being referred to here.  We see no citing of any letter dated October 26th.
This part remains a mystery----perhaps a clarification would be helpful.  We can think of nothing pertaining to a letter of October 26th.  The only significance for that date was the launching of the second crusade for the lifting of the excommunications.   I assume the author may be confused or meant to say something else?

The letter then states “Bp. Fellay has been informed of these so called private revelations and, after analyzing the facts, the person, and the messages he concluded that there was nothing supernatural about the supposed visions of that seer”.

Once again, whether intentional or otherwise this statement could give the impression that the messages relayed to His Excellency were somehow distant or aloof from his person; as if he had been given them second or third hand possibly.  Naturally it does not say this but one can be left with that impression.
In any event this is not the case.
His Excellency had been informed over the course of time, by me, via email, letters, phone conversations and meetings in person beginning in January of 2006 and communications not concluding until many years later.
At one point we had planned a meeting in which I would fly to Switzerland in order to meet with his Excellency Bp. Fellay.
During the course of this meeting which lasted several hours His Excellency had disclosed that the talks had failed.  He was visibly frustrated by this.  He then asked me if Our Lady had given me anything further to relay to him which he could do to accomplish his goal.  My response was of course no, she had not.  He had not as of yet even done what she had asked from the beginning.  
I then told him that Bp. Williamson had been interviewing me, asking many questions and looking into the matter with Our Lady.  His Excellency responded favorably.
I asked him “Do you, in your heart and soul believe them?”  He answered, “Yes I do”.
I then asked him why he did what he did in not heeding Our Lady’s warning to not launch a crusade for the lifting of the false excommunications.  
He said “It was a matter of justice (with a clenched fist) and a determined look.  I could only answer “ Your will does not work the justice of God”. (at least as I understood what was shown to me).
He then asked me what else he could do.  At that point I realized he was not comprehending me at all, because his sight had been clouded over by his incredible will to make things work with Rome even if he had to force it and clearly I could see he wanted to accomplish this goal of breaking through with Rome at any cost.  He wanted in, and that was it.
I answered “The only thing you can do at this point is to perhaps make reparation (for what he had already done which was not in accordance with the will of God as it had been revealed).
To this he gave no answer.
The letter then states “For a long time now this woman has been trying to take credit for initiating the Society’s Rosary Crusades.  In one crusade after another, this same visionary keeps coming back”.

I am not sure why His Excellency would say this as the only one who can take any credit for initiating the Society’s Rosary Crusades would be His Excellency.  If he had done what Our Lady asked then one could say they originated with Our Lady, but not with me.
What credit can be given to any individual who simply does what is their duty?  
If I was seeking recognition or wishing to “take credit” why then was nothing ever said by me privately or publicly from 2006 when His Excellency launched the first crusade?  
In 2006 Louis Toffarri wanted to write an article in the Regina Coeli Report wishing to say that the idea of the crusade had originated with me.  Menzingen strongly opposed this idea as did I.  There was no way I wanted my name to be involved publicly with this endeavor.  I had nothing in it except to relay what had been given me.  There was no rightful credit to be given for any of it to me because the crusade of the rosary did not belong to me in any way whatsoever.  It belonged to Our Lady.  If any credit should ever be given (at any point) she is the one to whom all credit must go.  One does not give credit to the paper or pen which writes a beautiful poem, for example, that is tantamount to insanity.  One gives credit to the author who writes the poem, not the instrument they use. In fact no one in their right minds would even think twice of the pen that is used or the paper it is written on as if it had any significance or importance at all.  Again this would be insane.  Likewise do I feel about my part in any of this.
I repeatedly came back to His Excellency Bishop Fellay at the behest of Our Lady continually asking him to do what she asked.  This part is correct.
In 2012 I found out that all which I had struggled so hard to keep silent concerning myself and these messages had gotten out to many of the faithful and others.  One cannot possibly imagine the horror I felt at this news.
When it became clear that the SSPX ship was about to split in two and be damaged forever in sheer desperation and lacking any decent spiritual guidance at the time I agreed to allow a gentlemen who I had not known personally to write an article giving some of the details all in the hope that somehow people would understand and maybe things would be clear and perhaps in knowing, it might help abate the disaster about to befall the SSPX at the time.
I was very wrong.  Because it was all clear to me, I wrongly assumed it would be clear to others and they would somehow pray, once seeing the problem, and perhaps this might help the situation.  I had no desire to say anything publicly or to allow anything to be said publicly but I loved the Society a great deal and did not want to see her destroyed.  I put my neck on the line and did allow for the article to be written.  But it was met with rejection, lies, cruelty, contempt, calumny against my person and every other manner of evil.  In no way did it help, it only served to cause me (more) suffering and Our Lady’s message seemed lost in all the wickedness being thrown at it.
I was wrong to allow any lay person to write anything in its regard, but I did so with hope of seeing the Society saved from its perilous circumstance.
It was not meant for any show of self as some have claimed, I tried desperately to be sure my name was not involved with the article. Unfortunately I did not realize how cruel people could be and it was not long before my name was attached to it, no matter how hard I tried that it not be.
I didn’t want to see any harm come to Bp. Fellay nor Bp. Williamson but that was what the course of events unfolding in the SSPX at that time was doing.
Somehow in the naiveté of my mind I thought it would help, because I understood Our Lady’s warning, I just assumed others would as well.  Again I was wrong.

The letter then states “In reality during the years 2002-2006, several people had asked the Society to hold a rosary crusade.  At the initiative of one of the members of the General Chapter of 2006, this idea was finally ratified by the entire chapter.

I’m sure this is all true.  But again I lay no claim to any of the crusades that were done by the SSPX because none of them were done as was requested by Our Lady even though she did bless the first one.

With her request came her instruction and her warning.

She was clear, concise and never changed her message.  It amounted essentially to this:
To launch a crusade of rosaries for the consecration of Russia
To NOT use the crusade of the rosary for the lifting of the (false) excommunications.
What would happen to the Society if the rosary crusade WAS used for this intention.
And lastly the order or instruction to not move any closer to Rome then His Excellency already was. 

To conclude I would only like to add that I have never stood to gain nor have I ever gained anything in taking up this cross which are these messages.  The hard reality is I have lost all that was dear to me and things which I never even considered.  The most important loss was being denied the Sacraments of Confession, Holy Mass, Communion and visits to the Blessed Sacrament by His Excellency Bp. Fellay  at the hands of Fr. Markus Heggenberger.  Temporally I lost my home, my job, my treasured Catholic friends, the parish I belonged to.  And lastly I have had to endure much humiliation, the loss of my good name due to lies and calumnies and the loss of my good reputation for the same.

I make this point not in any measure of complaint but simply to show that I have never gained anything from all of this, I have only lost.  But nevertheless I stay and fight for Our Lady every day and in every way that I can.

Mrs. Anderson

September 5th, 2015

Translate this page